Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Reason and Intuition01:37

Reason and Intuition

The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: an intuitive system and a rational system (Epstein, 1994; popularized by Kahneman, 2011 as System 1 and System 2, respectively). The intuitive system is quick, impulsive, and operates with minimal effort, relying on emotions or habits to provide cues for what to do next, while the rational system is logical, analytical, deliberate, and methodical. Research in neuropsychology suggests that the brain can only use...
Deindividuation00:57

Deindividuation

Deindividuation is a form of social influence on an individual’s behavior such that the individual engages in unusual or non-normal behavior while in a group setting. Why? Because in these group settings, the individual no longer sees themselves as an individual anymore, disinhibiting their behavior and personal restraint.
Social Proof00:52

Social Proof

Social proof is a form of persuasion based on comparison and conformity. People compare their behavior and actions to what others are doing and will change to conform to do what their peers do.
The Representativeness Heuristic02:13

The Representativeness Heuristic

The representative heuristic describes a biased way of thinking, in which you unintentionally stereotype someone or something. For example, you may assume that your professors spend their free time reading books and engaging in intellectual conversation, because the idea of them spending their time playing volleyball or visiting an amusement park does not fit in with your stereotypes of professors.
Group Polarization01:01

Group Polarization

Group polarization is the strengthening of an original group attitude following the discussion of views within a group (Teger & Pruitt, 1967). That is, if a group initially favors a viewpoint, after discussion the group consensus is likely a stronger endorsement of the viewpoint. Conversely, if the group was initially opposed to a viewpoint, group discussion would likely lead to stronger opposition.
Robbers Cave04:49

Robbers Cave

During the 1950s, the landmark Robbers Cave experiment demonstrated that when groups must compete with one another, intergroup conflict, hostility, and even violence may result. At the Oklahoman summer camp, two troops of boys—termed the Rattlers and the Eagles—took part in a week-long tournament. During this time, their negativity culminated in derogatory name-calling, fistfights, and even vandalism and destruction of property. However, this work also revealed that such tension could be...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Understanding gender differences across relationship stages requires integrating evolutionary, ontological, and proximate mechanisms.

The Behavioral and brain sciences·2026
Same author

Interdependence explains how and when crises impact social cohesion.

Communications psychology·2026
Same author

Mindful minds: How group identity shapes brain and behavior in social decision-making.

Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience·2026
Same author

Wherefore art thou competitors? How situational affordances help differentiate among prosociality, individualism, and competition.

European journal of personality·2026
Same author

The belief in a decline in cooperation in the USA and China.

Communications psychology·2026
Same author

The ecological origins of collectivism and individualism.

Psychological review·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 7, 2026

The Collective Trust Game: An Online Group Adaptation of the Trust Game Based on the HoneyComb Paradigm
06:18

The Collective Trust Game: An Online Group Adaptation of the Trust Game Based on the HoneyComb Paradigm

Published on: October 20, 2022

Collective rationality: the integrative model explains it (as) well.

Paul A M Van Lange1

  • 1VU University, Amsterdam, Department of Social Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. pam.van.lange@psy.vu.nl

Acta Psychologica
|March 5, 2008
PubMed
Summary

People often use team reasoning, considering collective goals and individual actions to achieve them. This aligns with social utility models that value shared outcomes and equality.

More Related Videos

The HoneyComb Paradigm for Research on Collective Human Behavior
06:48

The HoneyComb Paradigm for Research on Collective Human Behavior

Published on: January 19, 2019

Using the Race Model Inequality to Quantify Behavioral Multisensory Integration Effects
08:13

Using the Race Model Inequality to Quantify Behavioral Multisensory Integration Effects

Published on: May 10, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 7, 2026

The Collective Trust Game: An Online Group Adaptation of the Trust Game Based on the HoneyComb Paradigm
06:18

The Collective Trust Game: An Online Group Adaptation of the Trust Game Based on the HoneyComb Paradigm

Published on: October 20, 2022

The HoneyComb Paradigm for Research on Collective Human Behavior
06:48

The HoneyComb Paradigm for Research on Collective Human Behavior

Published on: January 19, 2019

Using the Race Model Inequality to Quantify Behavioral Multisensory Integration Effects
08:13

Using the Race Model Inequality to Quantify Behavioral Multisensory Integration Effects

Published on: May 10, 2019

Area of Science:

  • Social Psychology
  • Behavioral Economics
  • Decision Sciences

Background:

  • Evidence suggests individuals engage in 'team reasoning,' evaluating collective goals and their role in achieving them.
  • This commentary explores the consistency of team reasoning with social utility models.

Discussion:

  • Team reasoning involves thinking, feeling, and acting with collective rationality.
  • Social utility models incorporate preferences for self-outcomes, other-outcomes, and outcome equality.

Key Insights:

  • Team reasoning is supported by evidence of individuals considering group perspectives.
  • An integrative social value orientation model effectively explains findings related to team reasoning.

Outlook:

  • Further research can explore the nuances of collective rationality in diverse decision-making contexts.
  • Understanding team reasoning can inform interventions promoting cooperation and social welfare.