The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Group Performance and Decision Making
Abstract
Theory and research on small group performance and decision making is reviewed. Recent trends in group performance research have found that process gains as well as losses are possible, and both are frequently explained by situational and procedural contexts that differentially affect motivation and resource coordination. Research has continued on classic topics (e.g., brainstorming, group goal setting, stress, and group performance) and relatively new areas (e.g., collective induction). Group decision making research has focused on preference combination for continuous response distributions and group information processing. New approaches (e.g., group-level signal detection) and traditional topics (e.g., groupthink) are discussed. New directions, such as nonlinear dynamic systems, evolutionary adaptation, and technological advances, should keep small group research vigorous well into the future.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158 · Cited by 46,835
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 18,497
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 · Cited by 6,001
Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind
Wegner, D. M. (1987) · Theories of Group Behavior · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_9 · Cited by 2,700
Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing”
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.2.263 · Cited by 2,379 · cited 1×
“Second, especially in hidden profile situations, premature closure may also play a role (Karau & Kelly 1992, Kelly & Karau 1998, Kruglanski & Webster 1996).”
BackgroundSocial loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681 · Cited by 2,196
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467 · Cited by 1,850
The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43 · Cited by 1,428 · cited 5×
“Such work illustrates a broader shift of attention away from the suboptimality of performance groups and toward a distinctive and novel brand of “social cognition”—viz. the effects of group contexts upon cognition (Levine et al. 1993, Hinsz et al. 1997, Larson & Christensen 1993).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationThe relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210 · Cited by 1,398
The group polarization phenomenon.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602 · Cited by 1,102
Cited by
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x · Cited by 2,623
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
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
van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546 · Cited by 2,200
Brain-to-brain coupling: a mechanism for creating and sharing a social world
Hasson, U., Ghazanfar, A. A., Galantucci, B., Garrod, S., & Keysers, C. (2012) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007 · Cited by 1,140
Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001 · Cited by 1,011
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
Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Latham, P. E., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., & Frith, C. D. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1185718 · Cited by 738
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
A framework for mapping and comparing behavioural theories in models of social-ecological systems
Schlüter, M., Baeza, A., Dressler, G., Frank, K., Groeneveld, J., Jager, W., Janssen, M. A., McAllister, R. R. J., Müller, B., Orach, K., et al. (2017) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.008 · Cited by 475
Fitzsimons, G. M., Finkel, E. J., & vanDellen, M. R. (2015) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0039654 · Cited by 448
Schwarz, N., Sanna, L. J., Skurnik, I., & Yoon, C. (2007) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)39003-x · Cited by 441
The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy
Anderson, C., & Brown, C. E. (2010) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2010.08.002 · Cited by 395
Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.644 · Cited by 390
Psychological Strategies for Winning a Geopolitical Forecasting Tournament
Mellers, B., Ungar, L., Baron, J., Ramos, J., Gurcay, B., Fincher, K., Scott, S. E., Moore, D., Atanasov, P., Swift, S. A., et al. (2014) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797614524255 · Cited by 312
When Is It Better to Learn Together? Insights from Research on Collaborative Learning
Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8 · Cited by 308
The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis
Hannay, J. E., Dybå, T., Arisholm, E., & Sjøberg, D. I. K. (2009) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2009.02.001 · Cited by 268
So Right It's Wrong: Groupthink and the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making
Baron, R. S. (2005) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(05)37004-3 · Cited by 212
Self-Other Mergence in the Frontal Cortex during Cooperation and Competition
Wittmann, M. K., Kolling, N., Faber, N. S., Scholl, J., Nelissen, N., & Rushworth, M. F. S. (2016) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.06.022 · Cited by 168
What failure in collective decision-making tells us about metacognition
Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Bang, D., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., & Frith, C. (2012) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0420 · Cited by 118
Tapping into the wisdom of the crowd—with confidence
Hertwig, R. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1221403 · Cited by 89
A longitudinal examination of the relationship between team leadership and performance
Gupta, V. K., Huang, R., & Niranjan, S. (2010) · Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies · doi:10.1177/1548051809359184 · Cited by 82
Collaborative problem solving: a study of MathOverflow
Tausczik, Y. R., Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E. (2014) · Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing · doi:10.1145/2531602.2531690 · Cited by 78
Unfamiliar face matching: Pairs out-perform individuals and provide a route to training
Dowsett, A. J., & Burton, A. M. (2015) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.12103 · Cited by 77
chapter 3 Evidence in Practice: A Framing of the Terrain
Spillane, J. P., & Miele, D. B. (2007) · Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education · doi:10.1111/j.1744-7984.2007.00097.x · Cited by 64
Collective choice, collaboration, and communication
Stasser, G., & Abele, S. (2020) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103211 · Cited by 60
Computing Arm Movements with a Monkey Brainet
Ramakrishnan, A., Ifft, P. J., Pais-Vieira, M., Byun, Y. W., Zhuang, K. Z., Lebedev, M. A., & Nicolelis, M. A. L. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep10767 · Cited by 54
Crowd effects in unfamiliar face matching
White, D., Burton, A. M., Kemp, R. I., & Jenkins, R. (2013) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.2971 · Cited by 48
Team members’ emotional displays as indicators of team functioning
Homan, A. C., Van Kleef, G. A., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2016) · Cognition and Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2015.1039494 · Cited by 31
Multimodal modeling of collaborative problem-solving facets in triads
Stewart, A. E. B., Keirn, Z., & D’Mello, S. K. (2021) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1007/s11257-021-09290-y · Cited by 30
D’Mello, S. K., Duran, N., Michaels, A., & Stewart, A. E. B. (2024) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1007/s11257-023-09387-6 · Cited by 14
The importance of energetics in archaeological least cost analysis
Field, S., Glowacki, D. M., & Gettler, L. T. (2023) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-022-09564-8 · Cited by 13
Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and Diversity
Zhu, X., Zhang, C., Chi, Y., Stafford, T., Collier, N., & Vlachos, A. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1694 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Psychology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2004-02-01
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 623-655
- ISSN
- 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2085
- OpenAlex
- W2170016732
- Cited by
- 1,331
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 5.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
