The NASA ranking task and similar ranking activities used to demonstrate
the superiority of group thinking are examined both analytically and by
means of a computer simulation for fairness of the scoring algorithm. It is
argued that the current scores cannot be used to prove the superiority of
group-consensus decision making in either training or research settings.
Recommendations are given for an improved modified scoring format and
a discussion is presented concerning situations in which group consensus
may not be desirable, based on the individual resources of the group
members.
Lorge, I., & Solomon, H.Two models of group behavior in the solution of Eureka-type problems . Psychometrika, 1955, 20, 139-148.
3.
Pfeiffer, J. W., & Jones, J. E., (Eds.). A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training (Vol. II). La Jolla, CA: University Associates, 1974.
4.
Pfeiffer, J. W., & Jones, J. E., (Eds.). A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training (Vol. IV). La Jolla, CA: University Associates, 1973.
5.
Pfeiffer, J. W., & Jones, J. E., (Eds.). The 1978 annual handbook for group facilitators . La Jolla, CA: University Associates , 1978.
