Experts and laymen grossly underestimate the benefits of argumentation for reasoning
Experts and laymen grossly underestimate the benefits of argumentation for reasoning
复制标题
专家和外行都严重低估了论证对推理的好处
DOI：
10.1080/13546783.2014.981582
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
V. Girotto
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Mercier;Emmanuel Trouche;Hiroshi Yama;C. Heintz;V. Girotto
许多研究领域已经表明，小组讨论通常可以提高各种任务的推理性能。这篇文章表明，大多数人，包括专家，并不期望小组讨论是有益的，因为它是。有六项研究要求参与者解决一个标准的推理问题--瓦松选择任务--并评估个人单独工作和在小组中工作的表现。我们测试了美国，印度，日本的参与者，欧洲的管理者，和心理学家的推理。每个样本都低估了小组讨论带来的改善。他们甚至在被解释了正确答案之后，或者在他们不得不在小组中解决问题之后，仍然这样做。这些错误的直觉可能会阻止个人充分利用依赖于小组讨论的机构，从协作学习和工作团队到审议大会。
Many fields of study have shown that group discussion generally improves reasoning performance for a wide range of tasks. This article shows that most of the population, including specialists, does not expect group discussion to be as beneficial as it is. Six studies asked participants to solve a standard reasoning problem—the Wason selection task—and to estimate the performance of individuals working alone and in groups. We tested samples of U.S., Indian, and Japanese participants, European managers, and psychologists of reasoning. Every sample underestimated the improvement yielded by group discussion. They did so even after they had been explained the correct answer, or after they had had to solve the problem in groups. These mistaken intuitions could prevent individuals from making the best of institutions that rely on group discussion, from collaborative learning and work teams to deliberative assemblies.
影响因子：
5
作者：
R. Descartes;J. Cottingham;R. Stoothoff;D. Murdoch
通讯作者：
R. Descartes;J. Cottingham;R. Stoothoff;D. Murdoch