Nearly all research on the accuracy of individual versus group decision making has used ad hoc groups, artificial problems, and trivial or nonexistent reward contingencies. These studies have generally concluded that the knowledge base of the most competent group member appears to be the practical upper limit of group performance and that process gains will rarely be achieved. We studied individual versus group decision making by using data from 222 project teams, ranging in size from 3 to 8 members. These teams were engaged in solving contextually relevant and consequential problems and, in direct contrast with previous research, the groups outperformed their most proficient group member 97% of the time. Furthermore, 40% of the process gains could not be explained by either average or most knowledgeable group member scores. Implications for management practice are also discussed.

This article advances two related propositions. One is that virtually all of the commonly reported “problems” with learning groups, such as less content coverage, free‐riders, and students' feeling that instructors are not teaching unless they are talking, are a natural consequence of they way the groups are being used. The other is that the vast majority of the problems can be prevented by avoiding group assignments that retard the development of effective learning teams and limit student learning. This article will a) examine the underlying causes of the most commonly reported problems with learning groups, b) outline some simple, but effective, strategies for preventing their occurrence in the first place and, c) describe a new tool, the Learning Activity Impact Grid (LAI‐Grid), that can be used to ensure that assignments promote both team development and learning.

No abstract

Though not arguing against the practical value of group decision making per se, Tindale and Larson (1992) used data from computer simulations and an eight-group replication study as a basis for questioning the validity of the findings reported by Michaelsen, Watson, and Black (1989). We show that their application of computer simulations is suspect, that their replication-study data is so limited that its significance is questionable, that their operational definition of an assembly bonus effect is restrictive to the point that it has little meaning in real-world settings, and that their claims with respect to the performance of ad hoc laboratory groups are inflated and misleading.We would like to express our appreciation for the extremely helpful comments provided by an anonymous reviewer of earlier versions of this article. His or her thoughtful insights improved both our understanding of the issues and the quality of our finished product.

Background/Aims: The perception of compelling depth is often reported in individuals where no clinically measurable stereoacuity is apparent. We aim to investigate the potential cause of this finding by varying the amount of stereopsis available to the subject, and assessing their perception of depth viewing 3-D video clips and a Nintendo 3DS. Methods: Monocular blur was used to vary interocular VA difference, consequently creating 4 levels of measurable binocular deficit from normal stereoacuity to suppression. Stereoacuity was assessed at each level using the TNO, Preschool Randot®, Frisby, the FD2, and Distance Randot®. Subjects also completed an object depth identification task using the Nintendo 3DS, a static 3DTV stereoacuity test, and a 3-D perception rating task of 6 video clips. Results: As intraocular VA differences increased, stereoacuity of the 57 subjects (aged 16–62 years) decreased (eg, 110”, 280”, 340”, and suppression). The ability to correctly identify depth on the Nintendo 3DS remained at 100% until suppression of one eye occurred. The perception of a compelling 3-D effect when viewing the video clips was rated high until suppression of one eye occurred, where the 3-D effect was still reported as fairly evident. Conclusion: If an individual has any level of measurable stereoacuity, the perception of 3-D when viewing stereoscopic entertainment is present. The presence of motion in stereoscopic video appears to provide cues to depth, where static cues are not sufficient. This suggests there is a need for a dynamic test of stereoacuity to be developed, to allow fully informed patient management decisions to be made.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract