{"id":{"repo_id":"cornell","oai_identifier":"oai:ecommons.cornell.edu:1813/117493"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/cornell/oai:ecommons.cornell.edu:1813/117493","repository":{"repo_id":"cornell","name":"Cornell University","base_url":"https://ecommons.cornell.edu/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"THE MORE, THE BETTER? MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN ACTUAL AND PERCEIVED EFFICACY OF A DISAGGREGATE APPROACH TO MULTIPLE-CUE EVALUATIONS","abstract":"When performing an evaluation involves assessing multiple items of information about a target, evaluators can choose between two opposing strategies: reviewing all target information at once and forming an overall evaluation (a holistic approach) or reviewing each item of information independently and combining these independent reviews into an overall evaluation (a disaggregate approach). In four incentivized, pre-registered, online studies (N = 1,708), we compared the accuracy of these opposing approaches and people’s beliefs about which approach yields more accurate estimates. Across two experiments using different evaluative domains, we demonstrated that people make more accurate estimates using a disaggregate (vs. holistic) approach. However, a survey revealed that people anticipate greater accuracy with a holistic approach. Critically, we found that a brief training on the “wisdom of crowds” increases people’s preference for a disaggregate approach. We contribute to research on the wisdom of crowds and intuitive preferences for information and averaging.","abstract_html":"When performing an evaluation involves assessing multiple items of information about a target, evaluators can choose between two opposing strategies: reviewing all target information at once and forming an overall evaluation (a holistic approach) or reviewing each item of information independently and combining these independent reviews into an overall evaluation (a disaggregate approach). In four incentivized, pre-registered, online studies (N = 1,708), we compared the accuracy of these opposing approaches and people’s beliefs about which approach yields more accurate estimates. Across two experiments using different evaluative domains, we demonstrated that people make more accurate estimates using a disaggregate (vs. holistic) approach. However, a survey revealed that people anticipate greater accuracy with a holistic approach. Critically, we found that a brief training on the “wisdom of crowds” increases people’s preference for a disaggregate approach. We contribute to research on the wisdom of crowds and intuitive preferences for information and averaging.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Zhang, Xingruo"],"institution":"Cornell University","degree_name":"M.S., Industrial and Labor Relations","degree_level":"Master of Science","degree_discipline":"Industrial and Labor Relations","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":["Lucas, Brian","Proudfoot, Devon"],"year":2025,"date_issued":"2025-05","date_published":"2025-05","updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:49:04Z","subjects":["averaging","blinding","estimates","wisdom of crowds"],"languages":["en"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.doi","label":"DOI","values":["https://doi.org/10.7298/2zh4-ya16"],"render_values":[{"text":"https://doi.org/10.7298/2zh4-ya16","href":"https://doi.org/10.7298/2zh4-ya16","code":true}]},{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["ProQuest Submission ID: 12447","ProQuest Publication ID: 32040884"],"render_values":[{"text":"ProQuest Submission ID: 12447","href":null,"code":true},{"text":"ProQuest Publication ID: 32040884","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/1813/117493","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Lucas, Brian","Proudfoot, Devon"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Zhang, Xingruo"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2025-08-20T21:36:12Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2025-08-20T21:36:12Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2025-05"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["dissertation or thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Industrial and Labor Relations"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["M.S., Industrial and Labor Relations"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Cornell University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["averaging","blinding","estimates","wisdom of crowds"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.doi","label":"DOI","values":["https://doi.org/10.7298/2zh4-ya16"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["ProQuest Submission ID: 12447","ProQuest Publication ID: 32040884"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/1813/117493"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["40 pages"]},{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["When performing an evaluation involves assessing multiple items of information about a target, evaluators can choose between two opposing strategies: reviewing all target information at once and forming an overall evaluation (a holistic approach) or reviewing each item of information independently and combining these independent reviews into an overall evaluation (a disaggregate approach). In four incentivized, pre-registered, online studies (N = 1,708), we compared the accuracy of these opposing approaches and people’s beliefs about which approach yields more accurate estimates. Across two experiments using different evaluative domains, we demonstrated that people make more accurate estimates using a disaggregate (vs. holistic) approach. However, a survey revealed that people anticipate greater accuracy with a holistic approach. Critically, we found that a brief training on the “wisdom of crowds” increases people’s preference for a disaggregate approach. We contribute to research on the wisdom of crowds and intuitive preferences for information and averaging."]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["THE MORE, THE BETTER? MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN ACTUAL AND PERCEIVED EFFICACY OF A DISAGGREGATE APPROACH TO MULTIPLE-CUE EVALUATIONS"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Lucas, Brian","Proudfoot, Devon"],"dc:creator":["Zhang, Xingruo"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2025-08-20T21:36:12Z"],"dc:date.available":["2025-08-20T21:36:12Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2025-05"],"dc:description":["40 pages"],"dc:description.abstract":["When performing an evaluation involves assessing multiple items of information about a target, evaluators can choose between two opposing strategies: reviewing all target information at once and forming an overall evaluation (a holistic approach) or reviewing each item of information independently and combining these independent reviews into an overall evaluation (a disaggregate approach). In four incentivized, pre-registered, online studies (N = 1,708), we compared the accuracy of these opposing approaches and people’s beliefs about which approach yields more accurate estimates. Across two experiments using different evaluative domains, we demonstrated that people make more accurate estimates using a disaggregate (vs. holistic) approach. However, a survey revealed that people anticipate greater accuracy with a holistic approach. Critically, we found that a brief training on the “wisdom of crowds” increases people’s preference for a disaggregate approach. We contribute to research on the wisdom of crowds and intuitive preferences for information and averaging."],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.doi":["https://doi.org/10.7298/2zh4-ya16"],"dc:identifier.other":["ProQuest Submission ID: 12447","ProQuest Publication ID: 32040884"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/1813/117493"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:subject":["averaging","blinding","estimates","wisdom of crowds"],"dc:title":["THE MORE, THE BETTER? MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN ACTUAL AND PERCEIVED EFFICACY OF A DISAGGREGATE APPROACH TO MULTIPLE-CUE EVALUATIONS"],"dc:type":["dissertation or thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Industrial and Labor Relations"],"thesis:degree_level":["Master of Science"],"thesis:degree_name":["M.S., Industrial and Labor Relations"],"thesis:institution_name":["Cornell University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:49:04Z"}