New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Are Three Guesses Better Than One?

Averaging your guesses is better than trying only once

The U.S. houses what percentage of the world’s airports? If you asked several people this question and averaged their guesses, you would probably end up closer to the right answer (30.5 percent) than if you asked just one person. This “wisdom of the crowd” effect has long been recognized, but scientists have recently gone a step further by showing that the strategy works even when the “crowd” consists of only one person.

Psychologists Edward Vul of the Massachusetts Institute of Tech­nol­ogy and Harold Pashler of the Uni­versity of California, San Diego, asked 428 participants various trivia ques­tions and then, without warning, asked them to guess again later. On average, a person’s combined responses were more accurate than either of his or her guesses alone, the authors reported in Psychological Science in July.

The findings support the notion that cognition may be described as statistical inference, meaning that people base their thoughts and judgments about the world on statistical probabilities, Vul says. When trying to answer a trivia question, people construct a range of possible values based on their knowledge. Each guess then represents one sample from that distribution, he says. For example, people might approach the question about the percentage of airports by imagining a world map showing the distribution of airports, Vul explains, “but because their knowledge is probabilistic the map they construct will be different for each guess.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Note: This story was originally printed with the title, "Go Ahead, Change Your Mind".

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe