Adolescent's Collective Intelligence: Empirical Evidence in Real and Online Classmates Groups

Humans create teams to be more successful in a large variety of tasks. Groups are characterized by an emergent property called collective intelligence, which leads them to be smarter than single individuals. Previous studies proved that collective intelligence characterizes both real and online environments, focusing on adults’ performances. In this work, we explored which factors promote group success in an offline and online logical task with adolescents. Five hundred and fifty high school students participated in the experiment and faced Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices, first by themselves using the computer, then in a group. Groups interactions could have been computer-mediated or face-to-face, and the participants were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions. Results suggest that groups perform better than singles, regardless of the experimental condition. Among adolescents, online groups performance was negatively affected by participants’ average perception of group cohesion, the difficulty of the problem, and the number of communicative exchanges that occur in the interaction. On the contrary, the factors that improve their performances were the average intelligence of the teammates, their levels of neuroticism, and the group heterogeneity in terms of social abilities. This work contributes to the literature with a comprehensive model of collective intelligence among young people.

[1]  Alvaro J. Arce-Ferrer,et al.  Studying the Equivalence of Computer-Delivered and Paper-Based Administrations of the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices Test , 2009 .

[2]  C. Chabris,et al.  Reading the Mind in the Eyes or Reading between the Lines? Theory of Mind Predicts Collective Intelligence Equally Well Online and Face-To-Face , 2014, PloS one.

[3]  Fons J. R. Vijver,et al.  Variation in Raven's Progressive Matrices scores across time and place , 2009 .

[4]  M. Credé,et al.  The Structure of Group Task Performance—A Second Look at “Collective Intelligence”: Comment on Woolley et al. (2010) , 2017, The Journal of applied psychology.

[5]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  The Functional Perspective as a Lens for Understanding Groups , 2004 .

[6]  Bryan L. Bonner,et al.  Collective induction: Effects of multiple hypotheses and multiple evidence in two problem domains. , 1999 .

[7]  M. Goldfried,et al.  Problem solving and behavior modification. , 1971, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[8]  Fernando Olivera,et al.  Knowledge acquisition in virtual teams , 2000 .

[9]  Simon Baron-Cohen,et al.  The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test: Systematic review of psychometric properties and a validation study in Italy , 2013, Cognitive neuropsychiatry.

[10]  D. Chavis,et al.  Sense of community: A definition and theory , 1986 .

[11]  A. Woolley,et al.  Collective Intelligence and Group Performance , 2015 .

[12]  Herbert Solomon,et al.  Two models of group behavior in the solution of eureka-type problems , 1955 .

[13]  A. Ingham,et al.  The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance , 1974 .

[14]  Tadeusz Szuba,et al.  A formal definition of the phenomenon of collective intelligence and its IQ measure , 1999, Future generations computer systems.

[15]  Franco Bagnoli,et al.  Humans best judge how much to cooperate when facing hard problems in large groups , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[16]  Alfred P. Rovai,et al.  The Classroom and School Community Inventory: Development, refinement, and validation of a self-report measure for educational research , 2004, Internet High. Educ..

[17]  David Engel,et al.  Collective Intelligence in Computer-Mediated Collaboration Emerges in Different Contexts and Cultures , 2015, CHI.

[18]  Glenn E. Littlepage Effects of Group Size and Task Characteristics on Group Performance: A Test of Steiner's Model , 1991 .

[19]  Francis Heylighen,et al.  Collective Intelligence and its Implementation on the Web: Algorithms to Develop a Collective Mental Map , 1999, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[20]  Attila Szolnoki,et al.  Statistical Physics of Human Cooperation , 2017, ArXiv.

[21]  P. R. Laughlin,et al.  Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. , 1986 .

[22]  D. Meyer,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Som Text Figs. S1 to S6 References Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups , 2022 .

[23]  N. Kerr,et al.  Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. , 1996 .

[24]  M. E. Shaw A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of complex problems. , 1932 .

[25]  Timothy C. Bates,et al.  Smart groups of smart people: Evidence for IQ as the origin of collective intelligence in the performance of human groups , 2017 .

[26]  Jessica L. Wildman,et al.  Task Types and Team-Level Attributes , 2012 .

[27]  Franco Bagnoli,et al.  Humans make best use of social heuristics when confronting hard problems in large groups , 2018, ArXiv.

[28]  J. Raven The Raven's Progressive Matrices: Change and Stability over Culture and Time , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[29]  Leslie A. DeChurch,et al.  Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. , 2009, The Journal of applied psychology.

[30]  Fabrizio Bracco,et al.  Psychometric Properties of a Revised Version of the Ten Item Personality Inventory , 2015 .

[31]  P. Costa,et al.  Normal Personality Assessment in Clinical Practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. , 1992 .

[32]  J. P. Rushton,et al.  Construct Validity of Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices for African and Non-African Engineering Students in South Africa , 2004 .

[33]  K. Williams,et al.  Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing , 1979 .

[34]  C. Chabris,et al.  The Impact of Cognitive Style Diversity on Implicit Learning in Teams , 2019, Front. Psychol..

[35]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Not As Smart As We Think: A Study of Collective Intelligence in Virtual Groups , 2016, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[36]  P. R. Laughlin,et al.  Collective Induction: Twelve Postulates. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[37]  Stephen J. Zaccaro,et al.  Cohesiveness and Performance on an Additive Task: Evidence for Multidimensionality. , 1988 .

[38]  Simon S. K. Lam,et al.  The Effects of Group Decision Support Systems and Task Structures on Group Communication and Decision Quality , 1997, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..