Reliable Methods of Judgment Aggregation

Hartmann, Stephan and Pigozzi, Gabriella and Sprenger, Jan (2009) Reliable Methods of Judgment Aggregation.

This is the latest version of this eprint.

Abstract

The aggregation of consistent individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective judgment on the same propositions has recently drawn much attention. Seemingly reasonable aggregation procedures, such as propositionwise majority voting, cannot ensure an equally consistent collective conclusion. The literature on judgment aggregation refers to such a problem as the discursive dilemma. In this paper we assume that the decision which the group is trying to reach is factually right or wrong. Hence, we address the question of how good the various approaches are at selecting the right conclusion. We focus on two approaches: distance-based procedures and a Bayesian analysis. They correspond to group-internal and group-external decision-making, respectively. We compare those methods in a probabilistic model, demonstrate the robustness of our results over various generalizations and discuss their applicability in different situations. The findings vindicate (i) that in judgment aggregation problems, reasons should carry higher weight than conclusions and (ii) that considering members of an advisory board to be highly competent is a better strategy than to underestimate their advice.

Available Versions of this Item

• Reliable Methods of Judgment Aggregation (deposited 17 October 2007)
  • Reliable Methods of Judgment Aggregation (deposited 10 May 2009) [Currently Displayed]