The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Group Matters: A Review of the Effects of Group Interaction on Processes and Outcomes in Analytic Teams: (647252010-001)
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?
The different processes used by a group to generate, critique and refine an idea set can lead to excessively convergent thinking and be excessively reliant on common knowledge, and hence not on the knowledge provided by unique individual perspectives present in the group.
“the different processes used by a group to generate, critique and refine an idea set can lead to excessively convergent thinking and be excessively reliant on common knowledge (and hence not on the knowledge provided by the unique individual perspectives that are present in the group)”
From Algorithmic governance: Developing a research agenda through the power of collective intelligence (2017) · cites this paper as Straus et al., 2009
Groupwork methodologies have problems.
“Groupwork methodologies have their problems.”
From Algorithmic governance: Developing a research agenda through the power of collective intelligence (2017) · cites this paper as Straus et al., 2009
The IM techniques they used (NGT, ideawriting, field representations) have been designed to overcome some of the common pitfalls of groupwork.
“the IM techniques we used (NGT, ideawriting, field representations) have been designed to overcome some of the common pitfalls of groupwork”
From Algorithmic governance: Developing a research agenda through the power of collective intelligence (2017) · cites this paper as Straus et al., 2009
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Algorithmic governance: Developing a research agenda through the power of collective intelligence
Danaher, J., Hogan, M. J., Noone, C., Kennedy, R., Behan, A., De Paor, A., Felzmann, H., Haklay, M., Khoo, S.-M., Morison, J., et al. (2017) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951717726554 · Cited by 369
Metadata
- Authors
- Straus, S. G., Parker, A. M., Bruce, J. B., & Dembosky, J. W.
- Venue
- PsycEXTRA Dataset
- Published
- 2009
- OpenAlex
- W3037534025
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
- Type
- dataset
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- PsycEXTRA Dataset (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- group interaction, group dynamics, team processes, team outcomes, group decision making
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
