Patrick R Laughlin
Biographic Data
| ID | 4230308 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Patrick R Laughlin |
| GIVEN NAMES | Patrick R |
| FAMILY NAME | Laughlin |
| SIGNATURE | LAUGHLIN P R |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 28 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 195 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 28 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1966 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2011 |
| H-INDEX | 7 |
Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of induced strategies
This paper reports an experiment that demonstrates the superiority of groups over the best individuals using various instructions for strategies to solve letters-to-numbers problems. Simulations provide baseline statistics to compare performances. Letters-to-numbers problems require identification of the random coding of the ten letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J to the ten numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 by (a) proposing an expression in …
Social choice theory, social decision scheme theory, and group decision-making
Social choice theory and social decision scheme theory address the fundamental issue: How does a society or small group combine or aggregate a distribution of member preferences in a collective decision by known or possible voting rules and parliamentary procedures? However, research in each area has proceeded in relative independence of the other. This article (a) summarizes the major concepts of social choice theory, (b) summarizes the major co…
Group-to-Individual Problem-Solving Transfer
Many scientific, educational, business, military, and political groups assume that people who solve problems in groups and teams will solve subsequent problems better as individuals than people without previous group problem-solving experience. In order to assess such group-to-individual transfer, sets of three people solved four letters-to-numbers decoding problems as groups (G) or individuals (I) in five conditions: GGGG, GGGI, GGII, GIII, or I…
Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size
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 equ…
Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Informative equations and effective strategies
One-hundred 3-person groups and 300 individuals solved 2 letters-to-numbers problems, requiring identification of 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 hypothesis on each trial. There were 5 instruction conditions: (a). standard, (b). use at least 3 letters on all equations, (c). use at least 4 letters on all equations, (d)…
Collective induction: Effects of multiple hypotheses and multiple evidence in two problem domains
This article proposes that collective induction is improved more by multiple evidence than by multiple hypotheses. In Experiment 1, 4-person cooperative groups solved rule induction problems. In 9 conditions, they proposed 1, 2, or 4 hypotheses and selected evidence on 1, 2, or 4 arrays, on each trial. Correct hypotheses increased with multiple evidence but not with multiple hypotheses. Conversely, nonplausible hypotheses increased with multiple …
Collective versus individual induction with single versus multiple hypotheses
Four-person cooperative groups and 4 independent individuals solved rule induction problems by proposing 1, 2, or 4 hypotheses per trial while selecting the same amount of evidence per trial. Groups performed at the level of the best individuals and better than the 2nd-best, 3rd-best, and 4th-best individuals for both correct hypotheses and nonplausible hypotheses. Increasing the number of proposed hypotheses from 1 to 2 to 4 did not increase cor…
Collective versus individual induction: Recognition of truth, rejection of error, and collective information processing
Four-person groups and 4 independent individuals solved rule induction problems under 4 levels of potential information. Groups performed at the level of the 2nd-best individuals for correct hypotheses (recognition of truth) and at the level of the best individuals for nonplausible hypotheses (rejection of error)
Collective induction: Group performance, social combination processes, and mutual majority and minority influence
Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks
Collective induction: Mutual group and individual influence by exchange of hypotheses and evidence
Collective induction: Social combination and sequential transition
Collective induction
Social combination models, persuasive arguments theory, social comparison theory, and choice shift
Group-to-individual and individual-to-group problem-solving transfer
Social combination processes and individual learning for six-person cooperative groups on an intellective task
Social decision schemes of the same four-person groups on two different intellective tasks
501 female high school students took the Remote Associates Test (RAT) and the Otis Quick-Scoring Mental Ability Test first as individuals and then were assigned to cooperative groups or control individual conditions for a 2nd test administration. 10 social decision scheme models were tested at each of 3 ability levels for each task as theories of the underlying group process. As predicted, the best-fitting social decision scheme on the RAT repres…
Individual versus dyadic performance on a disjunctive task as a function of initial ability level
Social inhibition as a function of observation and recording of performance
Group size, member ability, and social decision schemes on an intellective task
510 college students first took Part 1 of the difficult Terman Concept Mastery Test as individuals and then retook the same test as control individuals or in cooperative high-ability or low-ability groups containing 2-5 Ss. 9 a priori social decision scheme models were tested as theories of the underlying group process. An a posteriori social decision scheme was also induced from a comparative previous study with 240 4-person groups and then test…
Social facilitation and observational learning of individuals and cooperative pairs
Individual versus triadic performance on a unidimensional complementary task as a function of initial ability level
The hier2rchical model proposed by Laughlin, Branch, and Johnson for predicting group performance on a unidimensional complementary task by an explicit consideration of the differential relevant resources of the group me~bers was tested in a multidimensional complementary task situation with group size of three. The explicit ~enents of the unidimensional model are: {a) The unique or unshared resources of the group members of equal ability levels …
Concept attainment by individuals versus cooperative pairs as a function of memory, sex, and concept rule
Intentional and incidental concept formation as a function of motivation, creativity, intelligence, and sex
Dogmatism and concept-attainment strategies
Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks
Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size
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 equ…
Social combination processes and individual learning for six-person cooperative groups on an intellective task
Collective versus individual induction: Recognition of truth, rejection of error, and collective information processing
Four-person groups and 4 independent individuals solved rule induction problems under 4 levels of potential information. Groups performed at the level of the 2nd-best individuals for correct hypotheses (recognition of truth) and at the level of the best individuals for nonplausible hypotheses (rejection of error)
Collective induction: Group performance, social combination processes, and mutual majority and minority influence
Social combination models, persuasive arguments theory, social comparison theory, and choice shift
Individual versus triadic performance on a unidimensional complementary task as a function of initial ability level
The hier2rchical model proposed by Laughlin, Branch, and Johnson for predicting group performance on a unidimensional complementary task by an explicit consideration of the differential relevant resources of the group me~bers was tested in a multidimensional complementary task situation with group size of three. The explicit ~enents of the unidimensional model are: {a) The unique or unshared resources of the group members of equal ability levels …
Collective versus individual induction with single versus multiple hypotheses
Four-person cooperative groups and 4 independent individuals solved rule induction problems by proposing 1, 2, or 4 hypotheses per trial while selecting the same amount of evidence per trial. Groups performed at the level of the best individuals and better than the 2nd-best, 3rd-best, and 4th-best individuals for both correct hypotheses and nonplausible hypotheses. Increasing the number of proposed hypotheses from 1 to 2 to 4 did not increase cor…
Group and individual performance on a complementary task as a function of initial ability level
Collective induction: Mutual group and individual influence by exchange of hypotheses and evidence
Group size, member ability, and social decision schemes on an intellective task
510 college students first took Part 1 of the difficult Terman Concept Mastery Test as individuals and then retook the same test as control individuals or in cooperative high-ability or low-ability groups containing 2-5 Ss. 9 a priori social decision scheme models were tested as theories of the underlying group process. An a posteriori social decision scheme was also induced from a comparative previous study with 240 4-person groups and then test…
Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Informative equations and effective strategies
One-hundred 3-person groups and 300 individuals solved 2 letters-to-numbers problems, requiring identification of 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 hypothesis on each trial. There were 5 instruction conditions: (a). standard, (b). use at least 3 letters on all equations, (c). use at least 4 letters on all equations, (d)…
Social decision schemes of the same four-person groups on two different intellective tasks
501 female high school students took the Remote Associates Test (RAT) and the Otis Quick-Scoring Mental Ability Test first as individuals and then were assigned to cooperative groups or control individual conditions for a 2nd test administration. 10 social decision scheme models were tested at each of 3 ability levels for each task as theories of the underlying group process. As predicted, the best-fitting social decision scheme on the RAT repres…
Collective induction
Individual versus dyadic performance on a disjunctive task as a function of initial ability level
Social facilitation and observational learning of individuals and cooperative pairs
Cooperative versus competitive concept attainment as a function of sex and stimulus display
Social choice theory, social decision scheme theory, and group decision-making
Social choice theory and social decision scheme theory address the fundamental issue: How does a society or small group combine or aggregate a distribution of member preferences in a collective decision by known or possible voting rules and parliamentary procedures? However, research in each area has proceeded in relative independence of the other. This article (a) summarizes the major concepts of social choice theory, (b) summarizes the major co…
Collective induction: Social combination and sequential transition
Concept attainment by individuals versus cooperative pairs as a function of memory, sex, and concept rule
Group-to-Individual Problem-Solving Transfer
Many scientific, educational, business, military, and political groups assume that people who solve problems in groups and teams will solve subsequent problems better as individuals than people without previous group problem-solving experience. In order to assess such group-to-individual transfer, sets of three people solved four letters-to-numbers decoding problems as groups (G) or individuals (I) in five conditions: GGGG, GGGI, GGII, GIII, or I…
Incidental concept formation as a function of creativity and intelligence
Group and individual performance on a complementary task as a function of initial ability level
Cooperative versus competitive concept attainment as a function of sex and stimulus display
Incidental concept formation as a function of creativity and intelligence
Concept attainment by individuals versus cooperative pairs as a function of memory, sex, and concept rule
Intentional and incidental concept formation as a function of motivation, creativity, intelligence, and sex
Dogmatism and concept-attainment strategies
Individual versus triadic performance on a unidimensional complementary task as a function of initial ability level
The hier2rchical model proposed by Laughlin, Branch, and Johnson for predicting group performance on a unidimensional complementary task by an explicit consideration of the differential relevant resources of the group me~bers was tested in a multidimensional complementary task situation with group size of three. The explicit ~enents of the unidimensional model are: {a) The unique or unshared resources of the group members of equal ability levels …
Individual versus dyadic performance on a disjunctive task as a function of initial ability level
Social inhibition as a function of observation and recording of performance
Group size, member ability, and social decision schemes on an intellective task
510 college students first took Part 1 of the difficult Terman Concept Mastery Test as individuals and then retook the same test as control individuals or in cooperative high-ability or low-ability groups containing 2-5 Ss. 9 a priori social decision scheme models were tested as theories of the underlying group process. An a posteriori social decision scheme was also induced from a comparative previous study with 240 4-person groups and then test…
Social facilitation and observational learning of individuals and cooperative pairs
Social decision schemes of the same four-person groups on two different intellective tasks
501 female high school students took the Remote Associates Test (RAT) and the Otis Quick-Scoring Mental Ability Test first as individuals and then were assigned to cooperative groups or control individual conditions for a 2nd test administration. 10 social decision scheme models were tested at each of 3 ability levels for each task as theories of the underlying group process. As predicted, the best-fitting social decision scheme on the RAT repres…
Social combination processes and individual learning for six-person cooperative groups on an intellective task
Group-to-individual and individual-to-group problem-solving transfer
Social combination models, persuasive arguments theory, social comparison theory, and choice shift
Collective induction
Collective induction: Social combination and sequential transition
Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks
Collective induction: Mutual group and individual influence by exchange of hypotheses and evidence
Collective induction: Group performance, social combination processes, and mutual majority and minority influence
Collective versus individual induction: Recognition of truth, rejection of error, and collective information processing
Four-person groups and 4 independent individuals solved rule induction problems under 4 levels of potential information. Groups performed at the level of the 2nd-best individuals for correct hypotheses (recognition of truth) and at the level of the best individuals for nonplausible hypotheses (rejection of error)
Collective versus individual induction with single versus multiple hypotheses
Four-person cooperative groups and 4 independent individuals solved rule induction problems by proposing 1, 2, or 4 hypotheses per trial while selecting the same amount of evidence per trial. Groups performed at the level of the best individuals and better than the 2nd-best, 3rd-best, and 4th-best individuals for both correct hypotheses and nonplausible hypotheses. Increasing the number of proposed hypotheses from 1 to 2 to 4 did not increase cor…
Collective induction: Effects of multiple hypotheses and multiple evidence in two problem domains
This article proposes that collective induction is improved more by multiple evidence than by multiple hypotheses. In Experiment 1, 4-person cooperative groups solved rule induction problems. In 9 conditions, they proposed 1, 2, or 4 hypotheses and selected evidence on 1, 2, or 4 arrays, on each trial. Correct hypotheses increased with multiple evidence but not with multiple hypotheses. Conversely, nonplausible hypotheses increased with multiple …
Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Informative equations and effective strategies
One-hundred 3-person groups and 300 individuals solved 2 letters-to-numbers problems, requiring identification of 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 hypothesis on each trial. There were 5 instruction conditions: (a). standard, (b). use at least 3 letters on all equations, (c). use at least 4 letters on all equations, (d)…
Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size
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 equ…
Psychology (28 works) · Social Psychology (28 works) · Social Psychology (26 works) · Cognitive psychology (14 works) · Developmental psychology (10 works) · Group (periodic table (8 works) · Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence (8 works) · Team Dynamics and Performance (8 works) · Function (biology (6 works) · Mathematics (6 works)