When individuals become aware of the estimates of others, they may revise their own estimates for various reasons: People may suspect that others have better information ( 11, 12), they may partially follow the wisdom of the crowd ( 13), there may be peer pressure toward conformity ( 14– 17), or the group may engage in a process of deliberation about the facts. As social influence among human group members may trigger individuals to revise their estimates ( 10), it can have a substantial impact on the statistical wisdom of crowd effect in societies. Therefore, social influence can also have an impact on the statistical aggregate and the resulting collective wisdom of the respective crowd. Nevertheless, social influence plays a role in individual decision-making and affects individual estimating. The wisdom of crowd effect is a statistical phenomenon and not a social psychological effect, because it is based on a mathematical aggregation of individual estimates. Examples of the revealed mechanism range from misled elites to the recent global financial crisis. The “confidence effect” boosts individuals’ confidence after convergence of their estimates despite lack of improved accuracy. The “range reduction effect” moves the position of the truth to peripheral regions of the range of estimates so that the crowd becomes less reliable in providing expertise for external observers. The “social influence effect” diminishes the diversity of the crowd without improvements of its collective error. Although groups are initially “wise,” knowledge about estimates of others narrows the diversity of opinions to such an extent that it undermines the wisdom of crowd effect in three different ways. We compare subjects’ convergence of estimates and improvements in accuracy over five consecutive estimation periods with a control condition, in which no information about others’ responses was provided. In the experiment, subjects could reconsider their response to factual questions after having received average or full information of the responses of other subjects. In contrast, we demonstrate by experimental evidence ( N = 144) that even mild social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect in simple estimation tasks. This wisdom of crowd effect was recently supported by examples from stock markets, political elections, and quiz shows. Already Galton found evidence that the median estimate of a group can be more accurate than estimates of experts. The implementation of standardised packaging will prevent small pack sizes and price-marking but further changes in tax policy are needed to minimise the TI’s attempts to prevent sudden price increases.Social groups can be remarkably smart and knowledgeable when their averaged judgements are compared with the judgements of individuals. The TI currently uses a variety of strategies to keep tobacco cheap. Undershifting is most marked for the cheapest segments. Each year, at the point the budget is implemented, the TI drops its revenue by up to 18 pence per pack, absorbing the tax increases (undershifting). Low prices were maintained through reductions in the size of packs and price-marking. Despite regular tax increases, average real prices for the cheapest FM and RYO segments remained steady from 2013 while volumes grew. The literature review and sales data concurred that both RYO and FM cigarettes were segmented by price. Tobacco segmentation monthly prices, sales volumes of and net revenue from roll-your-own (RYO) and factory-made (FM) cigarettes by segment use of price-marking and pack sizes. Review of commercial literature and longitudinal analysis of tobacco sales and price data.Ī high-income country with comprehensive tobacco control policies and high tobacco taxes (UK).Ģ009 to 2015 Nielsen Scantrak electronic point of sale systems data. This study aims to examine contemporary TI pricing strategies in the UK and implications for tobacco tax policy. The tobacco industry (TI) can, however, undermine the public health gains realised from tobacco taxation through its pricing strategies. Taxation equitably reduces smoking, the leading cause of health inequalities.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |