posted on 1993-05-01, 00:00authored byJoseph P. Simmons, Lief D. Nelson, Jeffrey GalakJeffrey Galak, Shane Frederick
Although researchers have documented instances of crowd wisdom, it is important to know
whether some kinds of judgments may lead the crowd astray, whether crowds’ judgments
improve with feedback over time, and whether crowds’ judgments can be improved by changing
the way judgments are elicited. We investigated these hypotheses in a sports gambling context
(predictions against point spreads) believed to elicit crowd wisdom. In a season-long experiment,
fans wagered over $20,000 on NFL football predictions. Contrary to the wisdom-of-crowds
hypothesis, faulty intuitions led the crowd to predict “favorites” more than “underdogs” against
spreads that disadvantaged favorites, even when bettors knew that the spreads disadvantaged
favorites. Moreover, the bias increased over time, a result consistent with attributions for success
and failure that rewarded intuitive choosing. However, when the crowd predicted game outcomes
by estimating point differentials rather than by predicting against point spreads, its predictions
were unbiased and wiser.