Enhancing the Wisdom of the Crowd With Cognitive-Process Diversity: The Benefits of Aggregating Intuitive and Analytical Judgments.

Drawing on dual-process theory, we suggest that the benefits that arise from combining several quantitative individual judgments will be heightened when these judgments are based on different cognitive processes. We tested this hypothesis in three experimental studies in which participants provided estimates for the dates of different historical events (Study 1,N= 152), made probabilistic forecasts for the outcomes of soccer games (Study 2,N= 98), and estimated the weight of individuals on the basis of a photograph (Study 3,N= 3,695). For each of these tasks, participants were prompted to make judgments relying on an analytical process, on their intuition, or (in a control condition) on no specific instructions. Across all three studies, our results show that an aggregation of intuitive and analytical judgments provides more accurate estimates than any other aggregation procedure and that this advantage increases with the number of aggregated judgments.