The Letters of D. H. Lawrence. 3: October 1916-June 1921

Nuclear Neutron Haloes as Seen by Antiprotons

“…This paper discusses the neutron density distributions tested by recent antiprotonic CERN experiments, [3]. The latter are of the second kind and follow previous antiprotonic [4] and kaonic [5] studies. Now, however, the separation ofpp andpn annihilation modes is done in a different way.…”

The effects of experience, expertise, reward power, and decision power in groups.

“…We examine five theoretical models, each quantifying a different assumption with respect to who would have more influence given the distribution of member qualities (e.g., experience or power) within the group. These models are tested alongside comparison models that predict that group decision-making would be governed by a drive to make decisions based on the central tendencies of member preferences, a typical default of groups working on tasks without demonstrably correct answers (Bonner et al, 2002; Davis, 1996).…”

“…A key question that we examine in the present research is how groups reach consensus decisions and how that process is affected by a member with more experience, expertise, or power than others. This research question can be addressed most effectively through the lens of the social combination approach (Davis, 1973; Lorge & Solomon, 1955; Smoke & Zajonc, 1962; Thomas & Fink, 1961), along with a few extensions incorporated into this methodology over the years (Bonner et al, 2004; Davis, 1996; Hinsz, 1999). The social combination approach frames the processes of group decision-making in the form of social combination models (Davis, 1973).…”

“…Decision models are drawn from theoretical expectations as to what would occur given specific assumptions about the processes underlying group decision-making (e.g., “if there is a majority, the group will choose the option preferred by the majority”) and then tested against obtained group decisions (e.g., Laughlin & Ellis, 1986). These models make point predictions as to what a group will decide given known individual preferences in the context of different assumptions about influence (Davis, 1996). The fit of models to actual group decisions determines the models’ adequacy, and thus the adequacy of the fit of the theories upon which they are based.…”

“…Notably, in the absence of influence cues, the decisions of groups often map to an aggregation of member preferences that does not account for accuracy. As such, models predicting influence as a function of centrality (i.e., preferences closer to the center of the distribution of preferences within the group are more influential than those further from the center, Black, 1948; Davis, 1996) may serve as an effective foil to predictions of differential influence within groups.…”