The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size.
Abstract
Individuals and groups of 2, 3, 4, or 5 people solved 2 letters-to-numbers problems that required participants, on each trial, to identify the coding of 10 letters to 10 numbers by proposing an equation in letters, receiving the answer in letters, proposing a hypothesis, and receiving feedback on the correctness of the hypothesis. Groups of 3, 4, and 5 people proposed more complex equations and had fewer trials to solution than the best of an equivalent number of individuals. Groups of 3, 4, and 5 people had fewer trials to solution than 2-person groups but did not differ from each other. These results suggest that 3-person groups are necessary and sufficient to perform better than the best individuals on highly intellective problems.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“These findings are consistent with previous research on group versus individual learning which showed that group learning is superior to individual learning for relatively complex problem-solving tasks (Laughlin et al. 2002;Laughlin et al. 2006) and that individual learning is superior to group learning for relatively simple recall tasks (e.g., Andersson and Rönnberg 1995;Meudell et al. 1992;Weld”
From Making the Black Box of Collaborative Learning Transparent: Combining Process-Oriented and Cognitive Load Approaches (2010) · cites this paper as Laughlin et al. 2006
Citations
Cites
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
The Logic of Collective Action.
Golembiewski, R. T., & Olson, M. (1966) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091298 · Cited by 11,371
DeLamater, J., & Ward, A. (2013) · Handbooks of sociology and social research · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0 · Cited by 7,590
Axten, N., Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1973) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2063712 · Cited by 6,886
Newell, A. (1972) · Cited by 6,222
Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250 · Cited by 2,273
A HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
&NA; (1935) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-193512000-00062 · Cited by 2,269
Group process and productivity
Steiner, I. D. (1972) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,106
Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.2.211 · Cited by 2,094
Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497 · Cited by 1,925
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Hastie, 1986, Review essay: Experimental evidence on group accuracy., 129
- Levine, 1998, Small groups., Vol. 2, 415
- Terman, 1956, Manual for Concept Mastery Test.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10000968 · Cited by 2,254
Motivated Information Processing in Group Judgment and Decision Making
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868307304092 · Cited by 754
A Cognitive Load Approach to Collaborative Learning: United Brains for Complex Tasks
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9095-2 · Cited by 547
“When learners had to work with the information elements relevant for carrying out the task, relate them to each other and by doing so come up with a solution to a problem, groups not only outperformed individuals but also the nominal group (Andersson and Ronnberg 1995; Kirschner et al. 2008; Kramer 1999; Laughlin et a…”
BackgroundInfluentialGroup Size, Group Development, and Group Productivity
Wheelan, S. A. (2009) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496408328703 · Cited by 381
Kirschner, F., PAAS, F. G. W. C., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.008 · Cited by 303
Metadata
- Authors
- Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2006
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 644-651
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2125970110
- Cited by
- 390
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 13.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- group problem solving, group size, hypothesis testing, feedback, group versus individual performance
- MeSH terms
- Analysis of Variance, Cooperative Behavior, Group Processes, Humans, Illinois, Problem Solving
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
