Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T12:16:18.535Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Redundancy in Task Assignments and Group Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Robert B. Zajonc  and
William H. Smoke
Robert B. Zajonc
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
William H. Smoke
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The problem of combining abilities of group members to maximize the performance of the group as a whole is examined in terms of redundancy in task assignments. In particular, ways of distributing a given number of items of information among a given number of individuals to obtain the maximum probability of each item being recalled by at least one individual are studied. It is shown that there exists an optimal distribution scheme which is independent of the amount of material originally given, the size of the group, and individual differences in ability.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , December 1959 , pp. 361 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © 1959 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This work was done under the sponsorship of the Behavioral Sciences Division, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Contract AF 49(630)-33.

References

Allport, F. H. The influence of the group upon association and thought. J. exp. Psychol., 1920, 3, 152–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dashiell, J. F. An experimental analysis of some group effects. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1930, 25, 190–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, D. G. and Bush, R. R. A study of group action. Amer. sociol. Rev., 1954, 19, 693–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorge, I. and Solomon, H. Two models of group behavior in the solution of Eurekatype problems. Psychometrika, 1955, 20, 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, N. R. F. The quality of group decisions as influenced by the discussion leader. Hum. Relat., 1950, 3, 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, E. F. and Shannon, C. E. Reliable circuits using less reliable relays. Part I. J. Franklin Inst., 1956, 262, 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberly, H. S. A comparison of the spans of “attention” and memory. Amer. J. Psychol., 1928, 40, 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, S., Ellertson, N. and Gregory, D. An experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity. Hum. Relat., 1951, 4, 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Neumann, J. Probabilistic logic, Pasadena: California Inst. Technol., 1952.Google Scholar
Woodworth, R. S. Experimental psychology, New York: Holt, 1938.Google Scholar