Experiments exploring the effects of group discussion on attitudes, jury decisions, ethical decisions, judgments, person perceptions, negotiations, and risk taking (other than the choice-dilemmas task) are generally consistent with a "group polarization" hypothesis, derived from the risky-shift literature. Recent attempts to explain the phenomenon fall mostly into one of three theoretical approaches: (a) group decision rules, especially majority rule (which is contradicted by available data), (b) interpersonal comparisons (for which there is mixed support), and (c) informational influence (for which there is strong support). A conceptual scheme is presented which integrates the latter two viewpoints and suggests how attitudes develop in a social context.

A bstractIn the experiments reviewed in this article the subjects are asked to produce ideas that are relevant to a given task request (e.g., possible consequences of a hypothetical event). After describing the specific task material and the performance measures used in the relevant research studies, some analytic background is given by outlining the cognitive resources required in this kind of experimental task and by listing the various factors that may come into play when subjects perform in groups (with discussion) instead of individually. We then review the studies comparing individual and group performance. In all of these experiments the subjects were asked to work according to the rules of brainstorming, which prescribe that participants refrain from evaluating their ideas. This procedure purportedly results in superior group, relative to individual, performance. However, the empirical evidence clearly indicates that subjects brainstorming in small groups produce fewer ideas than the same number of subjects brainstorming individually. Less clear evidence is available on measures of quality, uniqueness and variety. The discussion considers factors that may be responsible for this inferiority of groups. The role of social inhibition receives particular attention also in terms of suggestions for research. A part from the group-individual comparison we review the existing research concerning factors that may influence group performance on idea-generation tasks. * This paper was written at the Sonderforschungsbereich fiir Sozial-und Wirtschaftspsy chologische Entscheidungsforschung, Uni-versitiit Mannheim, with financial aid from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Eur. J . SOC. Psychol. 3 (4), p p . 361-388 Group versus individual performance 363 is to think of possible causes for a given state of affairs (e.g., for the action shown in a given picture). Questions: The task here is to ask any questionsto request pieces of informationrelevant to understanding a given event or state of affairs.Most of the relevant studies (about eighty percent), following the lead of Taylor, Block. and Berry (1958), have used the first two kinds of tasks named above.Additional taskswhich have not yet been used in studies of group performancecan be found in Wallach and Kogan (1965).The 'Riguet's Tree' task used by Moscovici, Faucheux and their associates in studies of group creativity, though similar in many ways to the kind of task here considered, is not included since only a fixed number of correct answers are possible (see, e.g., Abric, 1971). Performance meusuresQuantity. This measure refers simply to the number of (different) task-appropriate ideas produced. (We thus use the term 'idea' to denote any instance of the product type called for in the task statement.) Whether any one idea is in fact different from another one has to be judged by the investigators (e.g., two independent judges).Quality ratings. Since we are dealing here with 'open' problems with no fixed solutions criteria, the products (ideas) cannot be object...

No abstract

Hypotheses concerning the effects of sex and class On future orientation were tested on 100 boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16. Future orientation was measured in various domains of life, constituting either private or public areas of concern (e.g., family, environment), on the dimensions of density (number oi hopes and fears voiced by the subject), extension, and optimismpessimism. As predicted, middle-class adolescents, as compared with lowerclass adolescents, voiced more hopes and fears relating to public life and fewer in the private sphere, and they manifested a more extended future orientation in the private as well as the public spheres. They also judged the distant future more optimistically in two out of three public areas of concern. The lower-class girls were more optimistic than the middle-class girls in the occupational domain. As predicted, ,the lower-class boys voiced more hopes and fears in the occupa{ional domain and manifested a more extended future orientation than the lower-class girls. On the other hand, the girls of both classes voiced more hopes and fears in the private sphere than ,the boys of either class. The results are interpreted through theories of socialization and role behavior. This research was carried out at tbe Sonderforschungsbereich 24 (Sozial-und wirtschaftspsychologische Entscheidungsforschung, Universitat Mannheim) with funds from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The data were collected and in part analyzed by Henning Eckel, who reported about them in his diplom (master's) thesis at the Universitat Mannheim. The three authors have contributed equally to this article. We thank Henning Eckel for his collaboration and his discussion contributions in the earlier phases of this study. Further, we are grateful to W. A. Scott and to an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments. Requests for reprints should be sent to Helmut Lamm, SFB 24, Universitiit, 68 Mannheim, 'West Germany.

No abstract