Concept attainment by individuals versus cooperative pairs as a function of memory, sex, and concept rule.

Abstract

The performance of individuals and cooperative pairs was compared on 3 successive concept-altainmenl problems. A2X2X2X8X3 repeated-measures factorial design was employed with the variables: number of persons (individual or cooperative pair), memory (paper and pencil for recording allowed or not allowed), sex (male or female), concept rule (concepts defined by 8 different symbolic logic operators), and problems (3 per S or Ss). Major results were: (a) for cooperative pairs fewer card choices to solution, more use of the attribute-testing focusing strategy, and a lower percentage of untenable hypotheses than individuals; (b) no main effects of memory or sex for card choices, focusing strategy, or untenable hypotheses; (c) fewer card choices for females than males when paper was allowed, with no difference between females and males when paper was not allowed; (d) more focusing strategy for male than female pairs, while male and female individuals did not differ; (e) improvement from Problem 1 to 2 on all 3 measures, with no differences between Problems 2 and 3; (f) low interproblem correlations within treatment conditions on all 3 measures.

Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads better than one?

“…In a study of recall in information processing, there was less improvement for women than for men as individuals (I) but more improvement for women than for men in groups (CG5; Morrissette et al, 1964r). In concept attainment (Laughlin, McGlynn et al, 1968r), male groups (CG2) made more use of focusing strategies than did either female groups (CG2) or male/female individuals (I), suggesting that men benefited more than women from working with a partner. Significant higher order interactions were found for Sex X Number of Persons X Problem Type and for Sex X Memory Aids X Number of Persons.…”

“…In one case (Terman Concept Mastery Test), however, a high-ability individual was superior to dyads and quads (e.g., H > MMMM and H > HLLL). In concept attainment, member ability was inconsistent across trials (Laughlin, McGlynn et al, 1968r). Only two studies (Laughlin et al, 1976r;Lemke et al, 1969r), however, reported tests of significant differences among high, medium, and low scorers.…”

Concept attainment by pairs and individuals as a function of vocalization.

“…Earlier studies have produced equivocal findings concerning the improvement in all conditions over problems. Results indicated no improvement (Laughlin, 1966;Laughlin & Jordon, 1967;McGlynn, 1972; Anderson, Note 1), improvement for cooperative, vocalizing pairs but not for competing pairs or cooperative, nonvocalizing pairs (McGlynn & Schick, 1973a), or improvement regardless of conditions (Laughlin & McGlynn, 1967;Laughlin et al, 1968;McGlynn & Schick, 1973b;Schick & McGlynn, in press). Only two of these studies (McGlynn & Schick, 1973b;Schick & McGlynn, in press) used both the empirically superior memory manipulation of physically moving cards to spaces designated "example" or "non-example" and the reduced information feedback technique, which provides more behavioral data without affecting development of problem-solving processes and eliminates confounding that occurs when subjects guess the correct concept rather than solving the problem.…”

“…Experimental evidence (e.g., Barnlund, 1959;Duncan, 1959;Gurnee, 1962;Hoffman, 1965;Lorge, Fox, Davitz, & Brenner, 1958) has indicated that groups may be superior to individuals on problem-solving tasks and concept attainment paradigms are problem-solving tasks particularly suited to programmatic study (Bruner, Goodnow, & Austin, 1956). In order to investigate the group-individual variable, a series of concept attainment studies contrasted silent individuals with groups who were given either a cooperative or competitive set and were either allowed or forbidden to converse (Laughlin, 1965;Laughlin & Doherty, 1967;Laughlin & Mc-Glynn, 1967;Laughlin, McGlynn, Anderson, & Jacobsen, 1968;McGlynn, 1972;McGlynn & Schick, 1973a). In all cases, individuals were inferior to groups, but the group results were less conclusive.…”

Development and yearning: Cognitive aspects of spiritual development

“…Studies of cooperative cognition and multiperson problem solving are fairly rare in standard cognitive experimental settings where variables can be controlled in ways that are not practical in organizational or educational settings. Yet they are recommended (e.g., Meacham & Emont, 1989) and sometimes are done (e.g., Laughlin, 1965;Laughlin & Bitz, 1975;Laughlin, McGlynn, Anderson, & Jacobson, 1968;Rogers, Sinnott, & Van Dusen, 1991).…”