IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/pup/chapts/9339-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Basic Concepts In Group Problem Solving

In: Group Problem Solving

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick R. Laughlin

Abstract

Experimental research by social and cognitive psychologists has established that cooperative groups solve a wide range of problems better than individuals. Cooperative problem solving groups of scientific researchers, auditors, financial analysts, air crash investigators, and forensic art experts are increasingly important in our complex and interdependent society. This comprehensive textbook--the first of its kind in decades--presents important theories and experimental research about group problem solving. The book focuses on tasks that have demonstrably correct solutions within mathematical, logical, scientific, or verbal systems, including algebra problems, analogies, vocabulary, and logical reasoning problems. The book explores basic concepts in group problem solving, social combination models, group memory, group ability and world knowledge tasks, rule induction problems, letters-to-numbers problems, evidence for positive group-to-individual transfer, and social choice theory. The conclusion proposes ten generalizations that are supported by the theory and research on group problem solving. Group Problem Solving is an essential resource for decision-making research in social and cognitive psychology, but also extremely relevant to multidisciplinary and multicultural problem-solving teams in organizational behavior, business administration, management, and behavioral economics.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick R. Laughlin, 2011. "Basic Concepts In Group Problem Solving," Introductory Chapters, in: Group Problem Solving, Princeton University Press.
    • Handle: RePEc:pup:chapts:9339-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9339.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hoffmann, Robert & Chesney, Thomas & Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Kock, Florian & Larner, Jeremy, 2020. "Demonstrability, difficulty and persuasion: An experimental study of advice taking," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    2. Enrico Imbimbo & Federica Stefanelli & Andrea Guazzini, 2020. "Adolescent’s Collective Intelligence: Empirical Evidence in Real and Online Classmates Groups," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Felipe A. Csaszar & J. P. Eggers, 2013. "Organizational Decision Making: An Information Aggregation View," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2257-2277, October.
    4. Steffen Keck & Wenjie Tang, 2021. "Elaborating or Aggregating? The Joint Effects of Group Decision-Making Structure and Systematic Errors on the Value of Group Interactions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4287-4309, July.
    5. Boris Maciejovsky & David V. Budescu, 2020. "Too Much Trust in Group Decisions: Uncovering Hidden Profiles by Groups and Markets," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 1497-1514, November.
    6. Richter, Nicole Franziska & Martin, Jonathan & Hansen, Sofie V. & Taras, Vasyl & Alon, Ilan, 2021. "Motivational configurations of cultural intelligence, social integration, and performance in global virtual teams," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 351-367.
    7. van Dijk, Frans & Sonnemans, Joep & Bauw, Eddy, 2014. "Judicial error by groups and individuals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 224-235.
    8. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2017. "The impact of communication regimes and cognitive abilities on group rationality: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 229-238.
    9. Sacha Altay & Marlène Schwartz & Anne-Sophie Hacquin & Aurélien Allard & Stefaan Blancke & Hugo Mercier, 2022. "Scaling up interactive argumentation by providing counterarguments with a chatbot," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(4), pages 579-592, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pup:chapts:9339-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://press.princeton.edu .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.