Group personality judgments at zero acquaintance: Communication among judges versus aggregation of independent evaluations

The current study (N = 264) compared the validity of personality judgments made by groups of 2, 3, or 4 people to the validity of personality judgments from 2, 3, or 4 aggregated individual reports. I replicated the general increase in validity that accompanies the aggregation of independent judgments. However, group judgments did not follow this pattern. Small groups outperformed the average single rater, but increasing group size did not lead to similar increases in validity. In short, two heads are better than one across both judgment scenarios, but the point of diminishing returns on additional group members occurs more quickly when judgments are made interactively.