↓ Skip to main content

Decisions from experience: How groups and individuals adapt to change

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Decisions from experience: How groups and individuals adapt to change
Published in
Memory & Cognition, August 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13421-014-0445-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomás Lejarraga, José Lejarraga, Cleotilde Gonzalez

Abstract

Whether groups make better judgments and decisions than individuals has been studied extensively, but most of this research has focused on static tasks. How do groups and individuals compare in settings where the decision environment changes unexpectedly and without notification? This article examines group and individual behavior in decisions from experience where the underlying probabilities change after some trials. Consistent with the previous literature, the results showed that groups performed better than the average individual while the decision task was stable. However, group performance was no longer superior after a change in the decision environment. Group performance was closer to the benchmark of Bayesian updating, which assumed perfect memory. Findings suggest that groups did not adopt decision routines that might have delayed their adaption to change in the environment. Rather, they seem to have coordinated their responses, which led them to behave as if they had better memory and subsequently delayed adaptation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 62 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 28%
Student > Master 12 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 34%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 16%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 11 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 September 2016.
All research outputs
#5,693,072
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#327
of 1,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,156
of 232,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#4
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,568 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 232,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.