Suchergebnisse

Social choice theory and social decision scheme theory address the fundamental issue: How does a society or small group combine or aggregate a distribution of member preferences in a collective decision by known or possible voting rules and parliamentary procedures? However, research in each area has proceeded in relative independence of the other. This article (a) summarizes the major concepts of social choice theory, (b) summarizes the major concepts of social decision scheme theory, (c) presents illustrative research, (d) considers corresponding and complementary emphases of the two theories, and (e) suggests three interrelated areas of future research on group decision-making: preference for different social choice rules; successive decisions in a hierarchical system with random assignment of members at the initial level; successive decisions in a hierarchical system with nonrandom assignment of members at the initial level (gerrymandering).

This paper reports an experiment that demonstrates the superiority of groups over the best individuals using various instructions for strategies to solve letters-to-numbers problems. Simulations provide baseline statistics to compare performances. Letters-to-numbers problems require identification of the random coding of the ten letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J to the ten numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 by (a) proposing an expression in letters ( A + B ); (b) receiving the value of the expression in letters ( A + B = DG); (c) proposing codings of the numbers for the letters; and (d) receiving feedback on the correctness of the proposed codings, on each trial. Three-person groups and individuals solved the problems under five instruction conditions to use different strategies. As predicted, the groups generally had fewer trials to solution than the best of an equivalent number of individuals, and the best performance was achieved with the most information-rich instruction, to add all ten letters.

Many scientific, educational, business, military, and political groups assume that people who solve problems in groups and teams will solve subsequent problems better as individuals than people without previous group problem-solving experience. In order to assess such group-to-individual transfer, sets of three people solved four letters-to-numbers decoding problems as groups (G) or individuals (I) in five conditions: GGGG, GGGI, GGII, GIII, or IIII. Results supported four hypotheses: (a) groups performed better than individuals, (b) positive group-to-individual transfer occurred, (c) one group experience was sufficient for transfer, (d) transfer was at the level of group performance (complete) on problems 2 and 3 but incomplete on problem 4, due to exceptional performance in the GGGG condition.

International audience ; Many scientific, educational, business, military, and political groups assume that people who solve problems in groups and teams will solve subsequent problems better as individuals than people without previous group problem-solving experience. In order to assess such group-to-individual transfer, sets of three people solved four letters-to-numbers decoding problems as groups (G) or individuals (I) in five conditions: GGGG, GGGI, GGII, GIII, or IIII. Results supported four hypotheses: (a) groups performed better than individuals, (b) positive group-to-individual transfer occurred, (c) one group experience was sufficient for transfer, (d) transfer was at the level of group performance (complete) on problems 2 and 3 but incomplete on problem 4, due to exceptional performance in the GGGG condition.

Many scientific, educational, business, military, and political groups assume that people who solve problems in groups and teams will solve subsequent problems better as individuals than people without previous group problem-solving experience. In order to assess such group-to-individual transfer, sets of three people solved four letters-to-numbers decoding problems as groups (G) or individuals (I) in five conditions: GGGG, GGGI, GGII, GIII, or IIII. Results supported four hypotheses: (a) groups performed better than individuals, (b) positive group-to-individual transfer occurred, (c) one group experience was sufficient for transfer, (d) transfer was at the level of group performance (complete) on problems 2 and 3 but incomplete on problem 4, due to exceptional performance in the GGGG condition.