Teams Make You Smarter: How Exposure to Teams Improves Individual Decisions in Probability and Reasoning Tasks

References

• Allwood CM, Granhag PA. Realism in confidence judgments as a function of working in dyads or alone. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Performance (1996) 76:277–289Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argote L, Ingram P, Levine JM, Moreland RL. Introduction: Knowledge transfer in organizations: Learning from the experience of others. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2000) 82:1–8Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bloomfield R, Libby R, Nelson MW. Communication of confidence as a determinant of group judgment accuracy. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1996) 68:287–300Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonner BL, Baumann MR, Dalal RS. The effects of member expertise on group decision making and performance. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2002) 88:719–736Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bornstein G, Yaniv I. Individual and group behavior in the ultimatum game: Are groups more “rational” players? Experiment. Econom. (1998) 1:101–108Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bornstein G, Kugler T, Ziegelmeyer A. Individual and group decisions in the centipede game: Are groups more rational players? J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (2004) 40:599–605Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bornstein G, Kugler T, Budescu DV, Selten R. Repeated price competition between teams. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (2008) 66:808–821Crossref, Google Scholar
• Budescu DV, Maciejovsky B. The effect of monetary feedback and information spillover on cognitive errors: Evidence from competitive markets. Management Sci. (2005) 51:1829–1843Link, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF. Do biases in probability judgments matter in markets? Experimental evidence. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1987) 77:981–997Google Scholar
• Charness G, Sutter M. Groups make better self-interested decisions. J. Econom. Perspect. (2012) 26:157–176Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooper DJ, Kagel JH. Are two heads better than one? Team versus individual play in signaling games. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2005) 95:477–509Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis JH. Group decisions and social interactions: A theory of social decision schemes. Psych. Rev. (1973) 80:97–125Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis JH. Some compelling intuitions about group consensus decisions, theoretical and empirical research, and interpersonal aggregation phenomena: Selected examples, 1950–1990. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1992) 52:3–38Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evans JSBT, Ball LJ. Do people reason on the Wason selection task? A new look at the data of Ball et al. (2003). Quart. J. Experiment. Psych. (2010) 63:434–441Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evans JSBT, Over DE. Rationality in the selection task: Epistemic utility versus uncertainty reduction. Psych. Rev. (1996) 103:356–363Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evans JSBT, Over DE. If (2004) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feri F, Irlenbusch B, Sutter M. Efficiency gains from team-based coordination: Large-scale experimental evidence. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2010) 100:1892–1912Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U. Z-tree. Zurich toolbox for readymade economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. (2007) 10:171–178Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox CR, Levav J. Partition-edit-count: Naïve extensional reasoning in judgment of conditional probability. J. Experiment. Psych.: General (2004) 133:626–642Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedman D. Monty Hall's three doors: Construction and deconstruction of a choice anomaly. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1998) 88:933–946Google Scholar
• Greiner B, Kremer K, Macho V. An online recruitment system for economic experiments. Forschung und Wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003 (2004) 63(Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung, Göttingen, Germany) 79–93GWDG BerichtGoogle Scholar
• Griggs RA, Cox JR. The effects of problem content and negation on Wason's selection task. Quart. J. Experiment. Psych. (1983) 35A:519–533Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kluger BD, Wyatt SB. Are judgment errors reflected in market prices and allocations? Experimental evidence based on the Monty Hall problem. J. Finance (2004) 59:969–996Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kocher M, Sutter M. The decision maker matters: Individual versus team behavior in experimental beauty-contest games. Econom. J. (2005) 115:200–223Google Scholar
• Kugler T, Kausel E, Kocher M. Are groups more rational than individuals? A review of interactive decision making in groups. Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev.: Cognitive Sci. (2012) 3:471–482Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laughlin PR, Fishbein M. Social combination processes of cooperative, problem-solving groups on verbal intellective tasks. Progress in Social Psychology (1980) 1(Lawrence-Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ) 127–155Google Scholar
• Laughlin PR, Bonner BL, Altermatt TW. Collective versus individual induction with single versus multiple hypotheses. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1998) 78:1481–1489Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laughlin PR, Bonner BL, Miner AG. Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2002) 88:605–620Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laughlin PR, Hatch EC, Silver JS, Boh L. Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2006) 90:644–651Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laughlin PR, Zander ML, Knievel EM, Tan TS. Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Informative equations and effective reasoning. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2003) 85:684–694Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maciejovsky B, Budescu DV. Collective induction without cooperation? Learning and knowledge transfer in cooperative groups and competitive auctions. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2007) 92:854–870Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maciejovsky B, Budescu DV. Markets as a structural solution to knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2013) 120:154–167Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meloso D, Copic J, Bossaerts P. Promoting intellectual discovery: Patents versus markets. Science (2009) 323(5919):1335–1139Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moshman D, Geil M. Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for collective rationality. Thinking Reasoning (1998) 4:231–248Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pekeč A, Rothkopf MH. Combinatorial auction design. Management Sci. (2003) 49:1485–1503Link, Google Scholar
• Robert C, Carnevale PJ. Group choice in ultimatum bargaining. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1997) 72:256–279Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salas E, Cooke NJ, Rosen MA. On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors (2008) 50:540–547Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salas E, Stagl KC, Burke CS, Goodwin GF, Dienstbier RA, Shuart JW, Spaulding W, Poland J. Fostering team effectiveness in organizations: Toward an integrative theoretical framework of team performance. Modeling Complex Systems: Motivation, Cognition and Social Processes: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (2007) 51(University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln) 185–243Google Scholar
• Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. Status-quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncertainty (1988) 1:7–59Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sandholm T. Algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions. Artificial Intelligence (2002) 135:1–54Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slembeck T, Tyran JR. Do institutions promote rationality? An experimental study on the three-door anomaly. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (2004) 54:337–350Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tindale RS, Kameda T, Hinsz VB, Hogg MA, Cooper J. Group decision making. The SAGE Handbook of Social Psychology (2003) (Sage, London) 381–403Google Scholar
• Wason PC, Foss B. Reasoning. New Horizons in Psychology (1966) (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK) 135–151Google Scholar
• Wellins RS, Byham WC, Dixon GR. Inside Teams: How 20 World-Class Organizations are Winning Through Teamwork (1994) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco) Google Scholar
• Wildschut T, Pinter B, Vevea JL, Insko CA, Schopler J. Beyond the group mind: A quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psych. Bull. (2003) 129:698–722Crossref, Google Scholar