Groups perform better than the best individuals on Letters-to-Numbers problems
Groups perform better than the best individuals on Letters-to-Numbers problems
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0749-5978(02)00003-1
复制
发表时间：
2002-07-01
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Miner, AG
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Laughlin, PR;Bonner, BL;Miner, AG
82个四人合作小组和328个独立个体解决了字母A-J到数字0-9的随机编码。在每次试验中，小组或个人提出一个字母方程（例如，A+D=？），收到信件中的答复（例如，A+D=B），提出了一个特定的映射（例如，A=3），接收到答案（例如，True，A=3），并提出了10个字母到10个数字的完整映射。正如预测的那样，这些小组需要解决的试验次数更少，提出的方程更复杂，每个方程识别的字母比最好的、第二好的、第三好的和第四好的每个人都多。我们解释的群体优势，由于高度的识别性质的字母到数字的问题，这需要明显的识别正确的答案，明显的拒绝错误的答案，和多种见解有效的集体信息处理策略。(C)2002 Elsevier Science（美国）。All rights reserved.
Eighty-two four-person cooperative groups and 328 independent individuals solved a random coding of the letters A-J to the numbers 0-9. On each trial the group or individual proposed an equation in letters (e.g., A+D=?), received the answer in letters (e.g., A+D=B), proposed one specific mapping (e.g., A=3), received the answer (e.g., True, A=3), and proposed the full mapping of the 10 letters to the 10 numbers. As predicted, the groups had fewer trials to solution, proposed more complex equations, and identified more letters per equation than each of the best, second-best, third-best, and fourth-best individuals. We interpret the group superiority as due to the highly intellective nature of Letters-to-Numbers problems, which entail demonstrable recognition of correct answers, demonstrable rejection of erroneous answers, and multiple insights into effective collective information processing strategies. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.