This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 21 November 2014, At: 16:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

Cooperative versus SolitaryProblem SolutionRichard Wellington Husband aa Department of Psychology , University ofWisconsin , USAPublished online: 01 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Richard Wellington Husband (1940) Cooperative versusSolitary Problem Solution, The Journal of Social Psychology, 11:2, 405-409, DOI:10.1080/00224545.1940.9918759

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1940.9918759

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

13 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

SHORT ARTICLES AND NOTES

T h e Journal of Social Psychology, 1940, 11, 405-409.

COOPERATIVE VERSUS SOLITARY PROBLEM SOLUTION*

Department of Psycholcgy, Universi ty o f Wisconsin

RICHARD WELLINGTON HUSBAND

T h e effect of groups or crowds upon individual behavior has been studied in many ways. One phase of social psychology, however, has had far more speculation than actual experimentation. T h a t is the comparative efficiency of people working together versus alone. This is one of the many psychological topics which have possibly taken their origin in a proverb. For we have the old saying, “TWO heads are better than one.” Yet interestingly enough we have also the contradictory adage, “Too many cooks spoil the broth.”

I n business and political circles it is customary to use the combined judgments of several men, or at least to have a check upon the leader. Presidents of large companies take up new plans with boards of directors ; presidents, premiers, and governors have their cabinets and legislatures. W e note that it is accepted that a large assemblage is unwieldy ; our Congress for instance has its preliminary work prepared and reported by sub-committees, as too much time would be consumed and too little accomplished if all the action were under- taken by an assemblage of several hundred men. Often groups meet possibly not so much for efficiency as to check the prejudices and sudden enthusiasms of the leader.

W e may mention briefly two previous studies which bear most closely upon our present problem. Bursch ( 1 ) tested pairs of per- sons working in collaboration, choosing tests which should demand higher mental processes : fertility of suggestion, abstract thinking, and organized planning. H e used a cross-word puzzle, a problem to solve, and a mental test. Constructive planning was tested by

*Received in the Editorial Office on September 30, 1938.

405

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

13 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

406 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

means of a proposed high school survey (this would be closest to the business conference situation). Pairs did better than single indi- viduals in these tests, and the differences became more pronounced in the more abstract and difficult tests. Bursch’s quantitative figures are not available to the reviewer.

Larger groups of people have been tested by Gurnee (2) in col- lective maze learning. Groups of approximately a dozen voted upon each choice in the maze, with plurality determining the direction of choice. T h e learning curve dropped more rapidly for the groups than for individual learners. By the sixth trial, for example, errors on the part of the voting group were fewer than for individuals by the end of twelve trials.

One critical point might be brought out. In terms of strict effi- ciency we should consider the total time expended in the completion of a task. If one person requires five hours to solve a problem, and a group of five does it in three, that does not necessarily suggest greater efficiency, as fifteen hours as contrasted with five have gone into its solution. Thus, two persons, if it is to be said that two heads are better than one, should do a task not merely faster than one person, but in less than one-half the time; three in less than one-third the time; four in less than a quarter of the time, etc. There is, however, one additional variable. T h a t is quality. T h e end product may be better. For instance a suggestion for reorgan- izing a business might be acted upon by one man briefly; a council might turn out to be very time-consuming but wind up with a sounder plan.

PROCEDURE W e decided to limit our problem to a comparison of the time

consumed in solving various problems on the part of a single worker as compared with pairs working together. W e chose three situations: a word puzzle, a jigsaw puzzle, and a series of five arithmetical problems. T h e word puzzle was a list of 10 coded words, with each word representing a rank of nobility. T h e first on the list happened to be “Y Z J J X ” which one might identify as Queen by the fact that the third and fourth letters were duplicates. Four letters are now known ; these could be substituted in other words and then solution could be continued much as one works out a cross- word puzzle. T h e jigsaw puzzle was of familiar nature, and of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

13 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

RICHARD WELLINGTON HUSBAND 407

medium difficulty, requiring about 10 minutes for completion. T h e arithmetical problems were mostly chosen from standard sixth and seventh grade arithmetic texts. They were chosen to require some insight and reasoning more than only mathematical calculation.

T h e subjects were all taken from the writer’s class in Psychology I : 120 totally were used, 40 working alone, and 40 pairs working to- gether. Of these 40 pairs some were friends who volunteered to take the experiment at the same hour, and others were comparative strangers who chanced to be assigned to work together at that par- ticular hour. Times for each problem were recorded by means of a stop watch. T h e subjects were required to complete each problem before going on to the next, even if they became discouraged and felt like giving up.’

RESULTS In Table 1 we give the means and critical ratios for the two

groups. T h e critical ratios are placed beside the group which made the better time score.

It will be seen that in the code and puzzle situations there was decided advantage in working in pairs. In the jigsaw puzzle the critical ratio is well beyond that demanded for a certain difference, while in the code solution test it was nearly the required 3.00. But in the five arithmetic problems the differences were so slight as to be negligible. Actually three out of the five were in favor of working alone, but the margins were so small that any direction is not to be taken seriously.

Watching the behavior of the subjects as they worked at their tasks gave a suggestion as to the reason for the failure of our results to show any consistent trend. In the code and jigsaw tests the con- versation of the subjects who were working in pairs indicated that they were definitely coijperating. Each individual might study in silence for a few seconds, then communicate an “insight” to his part- ner. But in the arithmetic tests there was a tendency for one person to do all the work, while the other who possibl$ felt himself less gifted mathematically tended to sit back and relax. So such a group situation would be no better than working alone; in fact it might even furnish distractions and be poorer than if the better individual

‘The writer wishes to acknowledge the efforts of Miss Herma Maling, who put the majority of subjects through the tests.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

13 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

408 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 1 MEANS A N D CRITICAL RATIOS OF THE SCORES

Test

Mean (Minutes and

seconds) Critical Ratio

Code solution Alone Pair

12.00 9.06 2.54

Jigsaw puzzle Alone Pair

17.08 12.36 4.32

Arithmetic Alone Prohlern 1 Pair

4.24 4.45 .2 1

Prohlern 2 Alone Pair

3.05 2.55 .10

Prohlern 3 Alone Pair

5.05 4.44 .34

Prohlern 4 Alone 2.24 Pair 2.48 .24

Pair 8.02 .49 Prohlern 5 Alone 7.11

Average of Arithmetic 4.26

4.39

worked without a partner. Sometimes in the jigsaw puzzle test there was not any definite cooperation ; rather each person operated independently and fitted in a piece as he saw it without consulting with his partner. T h i s would tend to produce a better score without indicating genuine cooperative behavior.

T h e scores of the pairs were divided into two groups, those of good friends and those of people who were previously unacquainted but were asked to work together in this particular experiment. We see, from T a b l e 2, that in every case but one friends did better than strangers. As was the case in the whole experiment, differences are less in the arithmetic problems than in either the code or jigsaw tests, but there are even here more differences between friends and strangers than between single individuals and cooperating pairs.

SUMMARY 1 . Forty subjects were tested solving three tvpes of problems

alone and their performances were compared with those of 40 pairs

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

13 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

RICHARD WELLINGTON HUSBAND 409

TABLE 2 SCORES OF FRIENDS COMPARED TO THOSE OF STRANGERS

Test Times, in minutes and seconds

Friends Strangers

Code solution Jigsaw puzzle Arithmetic problem 1 Arithmetic problem 2 Arithmetic problem 3 Arithmetic problem 4 Arithmetic problem 5 Average of arithmetic

8.07 10.36 6.02 2.26 4.13 2.38 6.16

(4.19)

10.40 13.48 3.58 3.12 5.02 3.04 9.06

(4.50)

of subjects doing the same tasks cooperatively. T h e tests were code solution, jigsaw puzzle, and five arithmetic problems.

2. T h e pairs did distinctly better in the code and jigsaw tests, but in the arithmetic problems there were practically no differences between single individuals and groups.

3. Close friends did much better than people who had been strangers previously and were asked to work together for purposes. of the experiment. 4. As far as we can generalize, it appears that the benefit of

group participation is greatest in problems requiring definite orig- inality and insight, and least in routine tasks.

A t the most, however, the saving in time is never more than a third-far from the saving of half or more which would be neces- sary to make the total expenditure of time less than that for a single person.

5.

REFERENCES 1. BURSCH, J. F. A study of mental work done by consulting pairs. Stan-

2. GURNEE, H. Maze learning in the collective situation. 1. of PJyrhol.,

Department of Psychology University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin

ford Univ., Ph.D. Thesis, 1927.

1937, S, 437-443.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

13 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014