Effects of Communication Between Judges on Consensus and Accuracy in Judgments of People’s Intelligence

Abstract

We investigated how consensus and accuracy in judgments of people’s intelligence are affected by different procedures for obtaining group judgments. Watching videos of previously unacquainted targets reading a brief text, 65 triads of 3 judges judged the intelligence of 54 targets. The targets’ actual intelligence was assessed via tests of verbal and nonverbal cognitive abilities. In Condition 1, each triad member judged each target’s intelligence independently, and then the individual judgments were averaged. In Condition 2, two members of a triad revealed their judgments, and the third member then heralded the group’s judgment. In Condition 3, the judges discussed their impressions with one another, and then jointly announced a judgment they had agreed upon. Judgments became less accurate over time across conditions (fatigue effect), and more favorable in Condition 3. Communication between judges resulted in higher consensus, and judges assumed that discussion-based judgments were more accurate. However, accuracy did not really differ systematically between conditions. We discuss the implications of these results for applied contexts.