Which of the following statements best describes the phenomenon called “the wisdom of crowds”?

• Baldassarri, D., & Bearman, P. (2007). Dynamics of political polarization. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 784–811.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Banisch, S. (2014). From Microscopic heterogeneity to macroscopic complexity in the contrarian voter model. Advances in Complex Systems, 17(5), 1450025.

  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

• Banisch, S., & Olbrich, E. (2019). Opinion polarization by learning from social feedback. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 43(2), 76–103.

  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bornschier, S. (2015). The new cultural conflict, polarization, and representation in the swiss party system, 1975–2011. Swiss Political Science Review, 21(4), 680–701.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bose, T., Reina, A., & Marshall, J. A. (2017). Collective decision-making. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 16, 30–34.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Castellano, C., Fortunato, S., & Loreto, V. (2009). Statistical physics of social dynamics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(2), 591.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Deffuant, G., Neau, D., Amblard, F., & Weisbuch, G. (2000). Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. ACS - Advances in Complex Systems, 3, 87–98.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Degroot, M. H. (1974). Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(345), 118–121.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Dornic, I., Chaté, H., Chave, J., & Hinrichsen, H. (2001). Critical coarsening without surface tension: The universality class of the voter model. Physical Review Letters, 87(4), 045701.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Fernández-Gracia, J., Suchecki, K., Ramasco, J. J., San Miguel, M., & Eguíluz, V. M. (2014). Is the voter model a model for voters? Physical Review Letters, 112(15), 158701.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Flache, A., Mäs, M., Feliciani, T., Chattoe-Brown, E., Deffuant, G., Huet, S., et al. (2017). Models of social influence: Towards the next frontiers. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20(4), 2.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Galton, F. (1907). Vox Populi. Nature, 75(1949), 450–451.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ganser, C., & Keuschnigg, M. (2018). Social influence strengthens crowd wisdom under voting. Advances in Complex Systems, 21(06n07):1850013.

• Garcia, D., Mendez, F., Serdult, U., & Schweitzer, F. (2012). Political polarization and popularity in online participatory media : An integrated approach. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Politics, Elections and Data - PLEAD ’12, pp. 3–10.

• Groeber, P., Schweitzer, F., & Press, K. (2009). How groups can foster consensus: The case of local cultures. Journal of Aritificial Societies and Social Simulation, 12(2):4 (1–22).

• Hegselmann, R., & Krause, U. (2002). Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5, 3.

  Google Scholar 

• Hogarth, R. M. (1978). A note on aggregating opinions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21(1), 40–46.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Holyst, J., Kacperski, K., & Schweitzer, F. (2001). Social impact models of opinion dynamics. Annual Reviews of Computational Physics, 9, 253–273.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kao, A. B., Berdahl, A. M., Hartnett, A. T., Lutz, M. J., Bak-Coleman, J. B., Ioannou, C. C., et al. (2018). Counteracting estimation bias and social influence to improve the wisdom of crowds. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 15, 20180130.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kittur, A. & Kraut, R.E. (2008). Harnessing the wisdom of crowds in wikipedia: quality through coordination. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, CSCW ’08, pp 37–46, New York, NY, USA. ACM.

• Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343–356.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lewenstein, M., Nowak, A., & Latané, B. (1992). Statistical mechanics of social impact. Physical Review A, 45, 703–716.

  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

• Lorenz, J. (2007). Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence: A survey. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 18(12), 1819–1838.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lorenz, J., Rauhut, H., Schweitzer, F., & Helbing, D. (2011). How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(22), 9020–9025.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mannes, A. E. (2009). Are we wise about the wisdom of crowds? The use of group judgments in belief revision. Management Science, 55(8), 1267–1279.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mäs, M., & Flache, A. (2013). Differentiation without distancing explaining bi-polarization of opinions without negative influence. PloS ONE, 8(11), e74516.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mavrodiev, P., & Schweitzer, F. (2021). The ambiguous role of social influence on the wisdom of crowds: An analytic approach. Physica A, 567, 125624.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mavrodiev, P., Tessone, C.J., & Schweitzer, F. (2012). Effects of social influence on the wisdom of crowds. In Proceedings of the Conference on Collective Intelligence CI-2012. arXiv:1204.2991.

• Mavrodiev, P., Tessone, C. J., & Schweitzer, F. (2013). Quantifying the effects of social influence. Scientific Reports, 3, 1360.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Meng, X. F., Van Gorder, R. A., & Porter, M. A. (2018). Opinion formation and distribution in a bounded-confidence model on various networks. Physical Review E, 97(2), 022312.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Min, B., & San Miguel, M. (2017). Fragmentation transitions in a coevolving nonlinear voter model. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–9.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latané, B. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97, 362–376.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Perony, N., Pfitzner, R., Scholtes, I., Tessone, C. J., & Schweitzer, F. (2013). Enhancing consensus under opinion bias by means of hierarchical decision making. Advances in Complex Systems, 16(06), 1350020.

  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ray, R. (2006). Prediction markets and the financial “wisdom of crowds”. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 7(1), 2–4.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schweighofer, S., Garcia, D., & Schweitzer, F. (2020a). An agent-based model of multi-dimensional opinion dynamics and opinion alignment. Chaos, 30(9), 093139.

  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schweighofer, S., Schweitzer, F., & Garcia, D. (2020b). A weighted balance model of opinion hyperpolarization. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 23(3), 5.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schweitzer, F. (2003). Brownian Agents and Active Particles. Collective Dynamics in the Natural and Social Sciences. Berlin: Springer.

  MATH  Google Scholar 

• Schweitzer, F. (2018). Sociophysics. Physics Today, 71(2), 40–46.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schweitzer, F. (2019). An agent-based framework of active matter with applications in biological and social systems. European Journal of Physics, 40(1), 014003.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schweitzer, F. (2020). The law of proportionate growth and its siblings: Applications in agent-based modeling of socio-economic systems. In H. Aoyama, Y. Aruka, & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Complexity, Heterogeneity, and the Methods of Statistical Physics in Economics, chapter 8 (pp. 145–176). Tokyo: Springer.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Schweitzer, F., & Behera, L. (2009). Nonlinear voter models: The transition from invasion to coexistence. The European Physical Journal B, 67(3), 301–318.

  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schweitzer, F., Krivachy, T., & Garcia, D. (2020). An agent-based model of opinion polarization driven by emotions. Complexity, 2020, 5282035.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Stark, H. U., Tessone, C. J., & Schweitzer, F. (2008). Slower is faster: Fostering consensus formation by heterogeneous inertia. Advances in Complex Systems, 11(04), 551–563.

  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

• Suchecki, K., Eguíluz, V., & San Miguel, M. (2005). Voter model dynamics in complex networks: Role of dimensionality, disorder, and degree distribution. Physical Review E, 72(3), 36132.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Surowiecki, J. (2005). The Wisdom of Crowds. Anchor.

Page 2

Histograms of initial opinions, \(x_{i}(0)\), sampled from two different log-normal distributions. The blue lines indicate the different mean values \(\mu ^{(1)}_{\ln x}=-2.9\) (left) and \(\mu ^{(2)}_{\ln x}=-3.0\) (right), the variance \(\sigma ^{2}_{\ln x}=0.72\) is the same. Note the logarithmic values of the x-axis (Color figure online)