Independent experts outperformed group assessments in tackling complex tasks.

The study was published in the journal Games and Economic Behavior. In real life, decision-makers often face the dilemma of choosing between the opinions of several independent specialists or collective discussion. Individual expert assessments are common in science and medicine. For instance, during the peer review of articles in academic journals, multiple reviewers evaluate the work independently of one another and are unaware of who else is reviewing it. Collective assessments occur in director meetings, think tanks, commissions, and councils where decisions are discussed collaboratively.

To determine when it is better to rely on individual experts' opinions and when to heed collective assessments, researchers developed a model involving two hypothetical experts. They received information about a situation but could interpret it differently. Their task was to convince the decision-maker of their competence, that is, to provide the most accurate forecast possible. The model included two scenarios: independent expertise, where the experts were unaware of each other's participation, and collaborative expertise, where they could discuss the information before presenting a unified conclusion.

In the model, the honesty of the experts' conclusions is influenced by their desire to maintain their reputation. When a certain decision is considered the most likely within a community, an expert may hesitate to contradict this opinion. In groups, employees can share doubts with each other without fear for the group's reputation, allowing them to provide a more accurate answer in such situations. Where individual experts may hesitate to speak up, groups can persuade management to adopt a different viewpoint if they find it more valid.

The results of the study indicated that the effectiveness of either approach depends on the level of certainty in the situation. In conditions of certainty, where the likelihood of success for each option is relatively known, a collective approach allows for the gathering of more data and the issuance of a unified decision. By discussing and processing information together, a group of specialists can arrive at more accurate conclusions and minimize disagreements.

However, when the situation is complex and unpredictable, independent assessments perform better. Due to the lack of consensus, individual experts are not afraid of pressure and can express any viewpoint. This approach also helps avoid the influence of groupthink, where pressure on experts forces them to adopt the majority opinion.

By high uncertainty, scientists refer to situations where there is no clear and widely accepted understanding of the outcome. This can include unconventional economic forecasts, unstable political situations, unfamiliar medical cases, and other examples where evaluation requires flexibility and a non-standard approach.

“The results of the study change our understanding of which advice is better — collective or individual. For the decision-maker, this choice does not depend on the problem at hand or their preferences,” comments Sergey Stepanov, an associate professor at the Faculty of Economic Sciences.

When there is no single correct answer, individual experts are capable of providing a more objective assessment. This is observed, for example, when surveying economists for predictions on inflation or GDP growth, where the complexity of economic processes does not allow for the identification of a "correct" viewpoint in advance. The media, analytical agencies, and government services involve various specialists in such surveys to obtain a well-rounded assessment of the situation.

“In some cases, we can indeed choose whether to consult an individual specialist or seek advice from a group,” says Sergey Stepanov. “For instance, when diagnosing a complex condition, one can consult several doctors individually or organize a medical council. Each of these approaches will be effective.” Thus, according to scientists, the choice between individual and collective assessment depends on the specific situation, its complexity, and the available data.