Teams make you smarter: How exposure to teams improves individual decisions in probability and reasoning tasks

Management Science

Volumn 59, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1255-1270

  Maciejovsky, Boris ^a   Sutter, Matthias ^b,c   V Budescu, David ^d   Bernau, Patrick ^b,e  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^d FORDHAM UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Group decision making; Markets; Monty Hall dilemma; Team decision making; Wason selection task

Indexed keywords

GROUP DECISION MAKING; INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE; KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER; MARKETS; MONTY HALL DILEMMA; PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK; POSITIVE SPILLOVERS; WASON SELECTION TASK;

COMMERCE; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 84878987815     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: 15265501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1668     Document Type: Article

References (45)

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