David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Groups do better at reasoning tasks than individuals, and, in some cases, do even better than any of their individual members. Here is an illustration. In the standard version of Wason selection task (Wason, 1966), the most commonly studied problem in the psychology of reasoning, only about 10% of participants give the correct solution, even though it can be arrived at by elementary deductive reasoning.1 Such poor performance begs for an explanation, and a great many have been offered. What makes the selection task relevant here is that the difference between individual and group performance is striking. Moshman & Geil for instance (1998, see also Maciejovsky & Budescu, 2007) had participants try and resolve the task either individually or in groups of five or six participants. While, unsurprisingly, only 9% of the participants working on their own found the correct solution, an astonishing 70% of the groups did. Moreover, when groups were formed with participants who had first tried to solve the task individually, 80% of the groups succeeded, including 30% of the groups in which none of the members had succeeded on his or her own. How are such differences between individual and group performance to be explained?
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gary L. Brase (2001). Markers of Social Group Membership as Probabilistic Cues in Reasoning Tasks. Thinking and Reasoning 7 (4):313 – 346.
Mike Oaksford, Nick Chater & Becki Grainger (1999). Probabilistic Effects in Data Selection. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (3):193 – 243.
Pam Marek, Richard A. Griggs & Cynthia S. Koenig (2000). Reducing Cognitive Complexity in a Hypothetico-Deductive Reasoning Task. Thinking and Reasoning 6 (3):253 – 265.
Barbara A. Spellman (1999). Hypothesis Testing: Strategy Selection for Generalising Versus Limiting Hypotheses. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (1):67 – 92.
Cynthia Koenig & Richard Griggs (2004). Facilitation and Analogical Transfer in the THOG Task. Thinking and Reasoning 10 (4):355 – 370.
Keith E. Stanovich Richard & F. West (1998). Cognitive Ability and Variation in Selection Task Performance. Thinking and Reasoning 4 (3):193 – 230.
Pascal Wagner-Egger (2007). Conditional Reasoning and the Wason Selection Task: Biconditional Interpretation Instead of Reasoning Bias. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (4):484 – 505.
Dan Sperber (2002). Use or Misuse of the Selection Task? Rejoinder to Fiddick, Cosmides, and Tooby. Cognition 85 (3):277-290.
David Moshman Molly Geil (1998). Collaborative Reasoning: Evidence for Collective Rationality. Thinking and Reasoning 4 (3):231 – 248.
Added to index2009-10-07
Total downloads28 ( #66,415 of 1,101,814 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #306,516 of 1,101,814 )
How can I increase my downloads?