↓ Skip to main content

Team reasoning: Solving the puzzle of coordination

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Team reasoning: Solving the puzzle of coordination
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, November 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13423-017-1399-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew M. Colman, Natalie Gold

Abstract

In many everyday activities, individuals have a common interest in coordinating their actions. Orthodox game theory cannot explain such intuitively obvious forms of coordination as the selection of an outcome that is best for all in a common-interest game. Theories of team reasoning provide a convincing solution by proposing that people are sometimes motivated to maximize the collective payoff of a group and that they adopt a distinctive mode of reasoning from preferences to decisions. This also offers a compelling explanation of cooperation in social dilemmas. A review of team reasoning and related theories suggests how team reasoning could be incorporated into psychological theories of group identification and social value orientation theory to provide a deeper understanding of these phenomena.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 23%
Student > Master 10 21%
Lecturer 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Professor 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 21%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 10%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Philosophy 3 6%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 12 25%