ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

We review recent research on collective intelligence, which we define as the ability of a group to perform a wide variety of tasks. We focus on two influences on a group’s collective intelligence: (a) group composition (e.g., the members’ skills, diversity, and intelligence) and (b) group interaction (e.g., structures, processes, and norms). We also call for more research to investigate how social interventions and technological tools can be used to enhance collective intelligence.
Current Directions in Psychological
Science
2015, Vol. 24(6) 420 –424
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0963721415599543
cdps.sagepub.com
Why do some groups perform better than others? One
clearly important factor is the skills of the group mem-
bers. But even groups with comparably skilled members
can have radically different levels of performance.
Considerable work in fields such as social psychology,
organizational behavior, and industrial psychology has
focused on the various factors that predict group perfor-
mance (Hackman, 1987; Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, &
Jundt, 2005; Larson, 2010). In almost all cases, however,
these studies have focused on a specific task and tried to
characterize what leads most groups to perform well on
that kind of task. In these studies, the differences among
groups within an experimental condition have usually
been treated as undesirable error.
Here, we focus instead on the general ability of a par-
ticular group to perform well across a wide range of dif-
ferent tasks. We call this ability the collective intelligence
of the group, since it is precisely analogous to intelli-
gence at the individual level. When individuals perform a
wide variety of different cognitive tasks, psychologists
have repeatedly found that a single statistical factor pre-
dicts much of the variance in their performance (e.g.,
Deary, 2012; Spearman, 1904). This factor is often called
general intelligence, or g. But, perhaps surprisingly, until
recently none of the research on group performance had
systematically examined whether a similar kind of
“collective intelligence” exists for groups of people. Our
recent research sought to address this gap.
In our initial studies, we found converging evidence of
a general collective-intelligence factor that predicts a
group’s performance on a wide variety of tasks (Woolley,
Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi, & Malone, 2010). The groups
in our studies ranged in size from two to five members
and spent approximately 5 hours together in our labora-
tory, working on a series of tasks that required a range of
qualitatively different collaboration processes (McGrath,
1984). The tasks included creative brainstorming prob-
lems, puzzles involving verbal or mathematical reason-
ing, negotiation tasks, and moral-reasoning problems. A
factor analysis of the groups’ scores on all of these tasks
revealed a single dominant factor explaining 43% of the
variance in performance. This is consistent with the 30%
to 50% of variance typically explained by the first factor
derived from the scores of individuals doing many differ-
ent cognitive tasks (Chabris, 2007). In individuals, this
factor is called intelligence. For groups, we call this factor
599543CDPXXX10.1177/0963721415599543Woolley et al.Collective Intelligence and Group Performance
research-article2015
Corresponding Author:
Anita Williams Woolley, Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon
University, 5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15217
E-mail: awoolley@cmu.edu
Collective Intelligence and
Group Performance
Anita Williams Woolley1, Ishani Aggarwal2, and
Thomas W. Malone3,4
1Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University; 2Brazilian School of Public and Business Administration,
Fundação Getulio Vargas; 3Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and 4Center for
Collective Intelligence, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Abstract
We review recent research on collective intelligence, which we define as the ability of a group to perform a wide
variety of tasks. We focus on two influences on a group’s collective intelligence: (a) group composition (e.g., the
members’ skills, diversity, and intelligence) and (b) group interaction (e.g., structures, processes, and norms). We also
call for more research to investigate how social interventions and technological tools can be used to enhance collective
intelligence.
Keywords
collective intelligence, group performance, group composition, group, process
by guest on December 10, 2015cdp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Collective Intelligence and Group Performance 421
collective intelligence, or c, and it is a measure of the
general effectiveness of a group on a wide range of tasks.
In addition to the tasks used to calculate c, we gave
each group a more complex criterion task, which
required a combination of several of the different col-
laboration processes measured by the other tasks. In the
first study, groups played checkers as a team against a
computer opponent. In the second study, groups com-
pleted an architectural design problem. As expected, we
found that c was a significant predictor of group perfor-
mance on both of these criterion tasks, and—surpris-
ingly—the average individual intelligence of group
members was not. At least twice as much variance in
performance was predicted by c as by individual
intelligence.
More recent work has replicated these basic findings
in both face-to-face and online groups (Engel, Woolley,
Jing, Chabris, & Malone, 2014), in groups of MBA stu-
dents working together over the course of a semester
(Aggarwal & Woolley, 2014), in online gaming groups
(Kim etal., 2015), and in groups from multiple cultures
(Engel etal., 2015). Taken together, these results provide
strong support for the existence of a general collective-
intelligence factor that predicts the performance of a
group on a wide range of tasks.
What Predicts Collective Intelligence?
Existing research suggests that group collective intelli-
gence is likely to be an emergent property that results
from both bottom-up and top-down processes. Bottom-up
processes involve the aggregation of group-member
characteristics that contribute to and enhance group col-
laboration. Top-down processes include group struc-
tures, norms, and routines that regulate collective
behavior in ways that enhance (or detract from) the qual-
ity of coordination and collaboration. These bottom-up
and top-down aspects of groups both interact and com-
bine to produce collective intelligence. We now discuss
each in turn.
Bottom-up compositional features
enabling collective intelligence
Previously, when intelligence was examined at all in
groups, it was analyzed as a function of the individual
intelligence of the group members. Research found that
groups whose members had higher average individual
intelligence were generally better able to adapt to a
changing environment and to learn new information
(e.g., Ellis etal., 2003; LePine, 2005), but this effect was
not consistently strong in the laboratory, and it was even
weaker in field settings (Devine & Philips, 2001).
In the studies of collective intelligence described
above, it was also found that the average and maximum
intelligence of individual group members was correlated
with c, but only moderately so. So, having a group of
smart people is not enough, alone, to make a smart
group. But if having smart people is not enough to make
a group smart, what is?
A much stronger predictor of c was the average social
perceptiveness of group members, as measured by the
Reading the Mind in the Eyes (RME) Test (Baron-Cohen,
Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, & Plumb, 2001). This test mea-
sures people’s ability to judge others’ emotions from
looking only at pictures of their eyes. Groups with a high
average score on this test were more collectively intelli-
gent than other groups.
We also found that the proportion of women in the
group was a significant predictor of c. However, this
result was largely explained statistically by the fact that
women, on average, score higher on tests like the RME
than men. So, it may be that what is needed for a group
to be collectively intelligent is a number of people who
are high in social perceptiveness. And if a group is made
up of highly socially perceptive people, then it may not
matter much whether they are men or women. When we
tried to predict collective intelligence from a group’s
average social perceptiveness, the percentage of women
in the group, and the distribution of speaking turns (dis-
cussed further below), we found that all three factors had
similar predictive power for c, but only the predictive
power of social perceptiveness was statistically signifi-
cant (Woolley etal., 2010).
In a study of online groups (Engel etal., 2014), we
found that social perceptiveness and proportion of
women were just as highly correlated with c as they
were in face-to-face groups. This is particularly remark-
able in light of the fact that the online groups were com-
municating only via text chat and could not even see
each other’s nonverbal expressions. This suggests that
even though the RME test is based on visual cues in
faces, it must also be predictive of a broader range of
interpersonal skills that are useful even when people
cannot see each other’s faces. Since members of the
online groups did not know who else was in their group,
it is unlikely that knowledge of team members’ gender
changed participants’ behavior.
Another aspect of group composition that has been
related to c is the level of diversity in the group. In gen-
eral, groups performing creative or innovative tasks often
benefit from diversity, while groups performing tasks for
which efficiency is important are often impaired by diver-
sity (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Cognitive diversity,
including thinking styles and perspectives (Kozhevnikov,
Evans, & Kosslyn, 2014), is of particular relevance to
by guest on December 10, 2015cdp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
422 Woolley et al.
collective intelligence, as it relates directly to group mem-
bers’ ability to communicate with each another.
In a recent study (Aggarwal, Woolley, Chabris, &
Malone, 2015), we found a curvilinear, inverted U-shaped
relationship between cognitive-style diversity and collec-
tive intelligence. In other words, groups that were mod-
erately diverse in cognitive styles did better than those
that were very similar in cognitive styles and also those
that were very different. This suggests that groups whose
members are too similar to each other lack the variety of
perspectives and skills needed to perform well on a vari-
ety of tasks. But at the same time, groups whose mem-
bers are too different have difficulties communicating
and coordinating effectively (Aggarwal & Woolley,
2013a). So, an intermediate level of cognitive diversity
appears to be best for enhancing collective intelligence
(Aggarwal & Woolley, 2013b).
Taken together, these findings suggest that the indi-
vidual skills most critical for collective intelligence are
those that enhance the ability of group members to col-
laborate effectively or that enrich the collaboration by
bringing a sufficient diversity of perspectives.
Top-down interaction processes
In addition to the basic ingredients of member skills, col-
lective intelligence is enabled by the group interactions
that combine those skills to good effect. But we know
less, so far, about these interaction processes than about
the skills that go into them. In fact, there is an interesting
analogy between individual and collective intelligence in
this regard. Psychologists discovered the statistical factor
(g) for individual intelligence long before they knew
what actual processes in the brain were associated with
this factor, and even today, we still have only a limited
understanding of the neural processes that allow some
people to be more intelligent than others (Gray, Chabris,
& Braver, 2003). Similarly, with collective intelligence, we
know some things about the group processes of collec-
tively intelligent groups, but we are still far from a com-
plete process theory that explains why some groups are
more intelligent than others.
The most important things we have observed so far
are that more collectively intelligent groups communi-
cate more and participate more equally than other
groups. For instance, we have found that collective intel-
ligence was significantly predicted by the total amounts
of spoken communication in face-to-face groups and of
written communication in online groups (Engel et al.,
2014). We also found that collective intelligence was pre-
dicted by how equally communication and work contri-
bution were distributed among group members in both
face-to-face and online groups (Engel etal., 2014; Kim
etal., 2015; Woolley etal., 2010). In other words, groups
in which one or two people dominated the activity were,
in general, less collectively intelligent than those in
which the activity was more equally spread among
group members.
Conceptually, these findings seem reasonable, since
groups in which people communicate more and partici-
pate more equally are more likely to be able to take
advantage of the full knowledge and skills of all their
members. But, in contradiction to the mainstream litera-
ture on team performance, we have also found (Engel
etal., 2014; Kim etal., 2015; Woolley etal., 2010) that
collective intelligence is not predicted by several other
factors that previous research suggested might be predic-
tive of well-functioning groups, including group satisfac-
tion (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003), social cohesiveness
(Stokes, 1983), and psychological safety (i.e., the shared
belief that it is safe for the team to take interpersonal
risks; Edmondson, 1999). This suggests that collective
intelligence is something distinct from a metric of rela-
tionship quality in groups.
Taken together, the existing studies of collective intel-
ligence suggest that bottom-up, compositional features of
a group combine with top-down interactional processes
to affect the emergence of collective intelligence. But
more research is needed to understand these interac-
tional processes in more detail, creating a ripe area for
future work.
What Does Collective Intelligence
Predict?
As we saw above, collective intelligence predicts a
group’s performance on other—more complex—tasks
that were not used in calculating the original collective-
intelligence score (Woolley et al., 2010). Perhaps even
more interestingly, there is a striking parallel between
how intelligence is related to learning in individuals and
groups. It is well established that more intelligent indi-
viduals learn new material more quickly (Jensen, 1989).
Recent studies have suggested a similar relationship
between collective intelligence and learning for groups
as well.
In one study (Aggarwal & Woolley, 2014), collective
intelligence was measured in teams of students in a man-
agement course, and then their performance on a series
of group tests was tracked over the next 2 months. The
teams that were highly collectively intelligent earned sig-
nificantly higher scores on their group assignments even
though their members did not do any better on the indi-
vidual assignments. Furthermore, the highly collectively
intelligent teams exhibited steady improvement in perfor-
mance across the series of tests, suggesting that the teams
got better at retaining information collectively and apply-
ing it to their assignments over time.
by guest on December 10, 2015cdp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Collective Intelligence and Group Performance 423
In a second study, we measured groups’ collective
intelligence and then asked them to play a behavioral-
economics game called the minimum-effort tacit coordi-
nation game (Aggarwal et al., 2015). In this game, the
group members each chose from among a set of options.
They could not communicate about which options they
were choosing, but their payoff was determined by a
combination of what they individually chose and what
the other group members chose. Groups that did well at
anticipating what other members in their group would
choose, and tacitly coordinated their choices accordingly,
earned more. We found that a group’s collective intelli-
gence was highly predictive of its improvement over the
10 rounds of the game and its earnings overall.
Conclusions
Taken together, the research described here demonstrates
the existence of a measurable collective intelligence in
groups that is analogous to general intelligence in indi-
viduals. This collective intelligence emerges from a com-
bination of bottom-up and top-down processes within
groups and predicts future performance and learning in
a wide range of environments.
Just as the concept of individual intelligence gave us
tools for better understanding education, job perfor-
mance, and many other aspects of life, we suspect that
the concept of collective intelligence may be helpful for
understanding many aspects of group performance. It
may, for instance, help researchers study group phenom-
ena by providing better ways of controlling for the differ-
ences among teams when studying the effects of
particular treatments.
But much remains to be understood about collective
intelligence. For instance, what are the basic processes of
group interaction that lead some groups to be more col-
lectively intelligent than others? How stable is collective
intelligence over time?
One particularly important area for future research that
is related to the stability of collective intelligence is whether
we can increase the collective intelligence of groups.
While it is generally very hard to increase the intelligence
of an individual (at least beyond early childhood), it seems
eminently possible to do this for groups. This raises sev-
eral questions for future research—for instance, how can
changes in group structure or group norms increase the
collective intelligence of a group? How can new kinds of
electronic collaboration and communication tools enhance
collective intelligence? Can forcing the members of groups
to engage in equal communication raise their collective
intelligence? Would amplifying social cues level the play-
ing field and render social perceptiveness less important?
We see no shortage of possibilities for how social systems
might be structured to support higher levels of collective
intelligence, providing many fertile areas for ongoing
research.
Recommended Reading
Bear, J. B., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). The role of gender in team
collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science
Reviews, 36, 146–53. A brief review of the effects of gender
composition on team processes.
Larson, J. R. (2010). (See References). A more extensive review
of the conditions that elicit synergistic gains in teams.
Woolley, A. W., Aggarwal, I., & Malone, T. W. (2015). Collective
intelligence in teams and organizations. In T. W. Malone &
M. S. Bernstein (Eds.), Collective intelligence. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press. A comprehensive but accessible overview
of the features of teams and organizations that affect col-
lective intelligence.
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., &
Malone, T. W. (2010). (See References). Provides more
information on the original study of collective intelligence
in teams.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank our collaborators, including David Engel,
Christopher Chabris, Lisa Jing, and Nada Hashmi, along with
many research assistants at Carnegie Mellon University and MIT
for their efforts and contributions to the work described.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The MIT Center for Collective Intelligence has received spon-
sorship funding from Cisco Systems, Inc.
Funding
The work described in this article was made possible by finan-
cial support from the National Science Foundation (Grants IIS-
0963285, ACI-1322254, and IIS-0963451), the U.S. Army
Research Office (Grants 56692-MA and 64079-NS), and Cisco
Systems, Inc., through their sponsorship of the MIT Center for
Collective Intelligence.
References
Aggarwal, I., & Woolley, A. W. (2013a). Do you see what I see?
The effect of members’ cognitive styles on team processes
and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 122, 92–99.
Aggarwal, I., & Woolley, A. W. (2013b). Two perspectives on
intellectual capital and innovation in teams: Collective
intelligence and cognitive diversity. In C. Mukhopadhyay
et al. (Eds.), Driving the economy through innovation
and entrepreneurship (pp. 453–460). New Delhi, India:
Springer.
Aggarwal, I., & Woolley, A.W. (2014, October). The effects
of cognitive diversity on collective intelligence and team
learning. Symposium presented at the 50th Meeting of the
Society of Experimental Social Psychology, Columbus, OH.
Aggarwal, I., Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., & Malone, T. W.
(2015, May). Cognitive diversity, collective intelligence, and
by guest on December 10, 2015cdp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
424 Woolley et al.
learning in teams. Paper presented at the 2015 Collective
Intelligence Conference, Santa Clara, CA.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb,
I. (2001). The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test Revised
Version: A study with normal adults, and adults with
Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 42,
241–251.
Chabris, C. F. (2007). Cognitive and neurobiological mecha-
nisms of the law of general intelligence. In M. J. Roberts
(Ed.), Integrating the mind: Domain general versus domain
specific processes in higher cognition (pp. 449–491). Hove,
UK: Psychology Press.
Deary, I. J. (2012). Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology,
63, 453–482.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus rela-
tionship conflict, team performance, and team member sat-
isfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 741–749.
Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. L. (2001). Do smarter teams do bet-
ter? A meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team perfor-
mance. Small Group Research, 32, 507–532.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning
behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44, 350–383.
Ellis, A. P., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C. O., West, B.
J., & Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: Collectively connect-
ing the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 821–835.
Engel, D., Woolley, A. W., Aggarwal, I., Chabris, C. F.,
Takahashi, M., Nemoto, K., . . . Malone, T. W. (2015).
Collective intelligence in online collaboration emerges in
different contexts and cultures. In Proceedings of the 33rd
Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI '15) (pp. 3769–3778). New York, NY: ACM.
doi:10.1145/2702123.2702259.
Engel, D., Woolley, A. W., Jing, L., Chabris, C. F., & Malone,
T. W. (2014). Reading the mind in the eyes or read-
ing between the lines? Theory of mind predicts collec-
tive intelligence equally well online and face-to-face.
PLoS ONE, 9(12), Article e115212. Retrieved from http://
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal
.pone.0115212
Gray, J. R., Chabris, C. F., & Braver, T. S. (2003). Neural mecha-
nisms of general fluid intelligence. Nature Neuroscience, 6,
316–322.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W.
Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp.
315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005).
Teams in organizations: From Input-Process-Output models
to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.
Jensen, A. R. (1989). The relationship between learning and
intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences, 1, 37–62.
Kim, Y. J., Engel, D., Woolley, A. W., Lin, J., McArthur, N.,
& Malone, T. W. (2015, May). Work together, play smart:
Collective intelligence in League of Legends teams. Paper
presented at the 2015 Collective Intelligence Conference,
Santa Clara, CA.
Kozhevnikov, M., Evans, C., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2014). Cognitive
style as environmentally sensitive individual differences in
cognition: A modern synthesis and applications in educa-
tion, business, and management. Psychological Science in
the Public Interest, 15, 3–33.
Larson, J. R. (2010). In search of synergy in small group perfor-
mance. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
LePine, J. A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unfore-
seen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team compo-
sition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1153–1167.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence, objectively determined
and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.
Stokes, J. P. (1983). Components of group cohesion:
Intermember attraction, instrumental value, and risk taking.
Small Group Research, 14, 163–173.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. I. (1998). Demography and
diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research.
In L. L. Cummings (Ed.), Research in organizational behav-
ior (Vol. 20, pp. 77–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., &
Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence
factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330,
686–688.
by guest on December 10, 2015cdp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
... Another stream of research defines CI as an ability that ''can be designed to solve a wide range of problems over time in the face of complex and changing environmental conditions.'' 6 Converging evidence suggests the presence of a general CI factor (c-factor) that serves as a predictor for a group's performance across a wide range of tasks, 15,16 similar to the individual's general intelligence (g-factor) but extended to groups. Research has found that this c-factor is not strongly correlated with the average or maximum individual intelligence of the group members, suggesting that CI is more than just the sum of the individual intelligence present in the group. ...
... It emerges through complex nonlinear relationships between the agents and is likely a result of bottom-up and top-down processes. 16 The former encompasses the aggregation of group-member characteristics that foster collaboration. The latter includes structures, norms, and routines that govern collective behavior, thereby influencing the efficacy of coordination and collaboration. ...
... The latter includes structures, norms, and routines that govern collective behavior, thereby influencing the efficacy of coordination and collaboration. 16 The modeling of the emergence of CI has leveraged analogies from a diverse array of fields, 63 ranging from statistical physics 64 to neuroscience, 65 both within and beyond. ...
... Effective dialogue frameworks in organizations encourage the exchange of diverse perspectives, thereby fostering analysis from different angles and identifying potential biases. Evidence in human groups shows that diversity of viewpoints facilitates groups' performance across variable tasks [18], [19]. Therefore, compared with individuals, such collective intelligence and diverse thoughts provide a robust foundation unique to organizations for decision-making process. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Cognitive biases are inherited in human's cognition as well as natural language, which further contributes to the biased performance on decision making of large language models whose training datasets are just human's language. Insights from group psychology as well as behavioral economics indicate that some strategies such as nudge and the devil advocate are effective in mitigating cognitive biases in human society. Besides, thought diversity also promotes decision quality in an association. Inspired by those findings, we design a multi-agent system, NudgeCoR, merging both nudge and multiple agents' collaboration. Results show that NudgeCoR is rather effective in solving cognitive biases in both simple and complicated decision-making scenarios. Therefore, it shows great promise to integrate the mature experiences from other disciplines such as psychology to multi-agent systems in the near future.
... Furthermore, decades of psychological research suggest that when groups contain diverse viewpoints, they perform better in a wide range of creative, problem-solving, predictive, and discovery-based tasks than do individuals and homogenous groups. (See, for example, Moscovini and Personnaz 1980;Hastie 1986;Laughlin and Ellis 1986;Nemeth 1986;Nemeth 1995;Gigone and Hastie 1997;Kuhn et al. 1997;Mosheman and Geil 1998;Jehn et al. 1999;Brodbeck et al. 2002;Greitemeyer et al. 2006;Schulz-Hardt et al. 2006;van Knippenberg and Schippers 2007;Crisp and Turner 2011;Krause et al. 2011;Trouche et al. 2014;Duarte et al. 2015;and Woolley et al. 2015.) 8 Since groups with robust viewpoint diversity typically perform better in a wide range of intellectual tasks than do individuals or homogenous groups, it would not be surprising if scientific inquiry attempted to harness this fact. And indeed, this is just what philosophers of science have postulated. ...
Preprint
p>In recent years, epistemologists have devoted enormous attention to this question: what should happen when two epistemic peers disagree about the truth-value of some proposition? Some have argued that that in all such cases, both parties are rationally required to revise their position in some way. Others have maintained that, in at least some cases, neither party is rationally required to revise her position. In this paper, I examine a provocative and under-appreciated argument for the latter view due to Catherine Z. Elgin (2010, 2012, 2017, and 2018). I defend it against a series of objections, and I then identify some fruitful ways in which her view could be developed further.</p
... It is well established in the field of Collective Intelligence (CI) that human groups can make collaborative estimations, decisions and forecasts that with accuracy that beats individual participants [1,16,17]. Common techniques involve collecting and aggregating data from individual members. This is often described as harnessing the "Wisdom of Crowds" (WoC) Such methods can enhance decision-making but are often limited to narrow tasks such as numerical estimations and fixed-choice selections [2]. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Conversational Swarm Intelligence (CSI) is an AI-powered communication and collaboration technology that allows large, networked groups (of potentially unlimited size) to hold thoughtful conversational deliberations in real-time. Inspired by the efficient decision-making dynamics of fish schools, CSI divides a human population into a set of small subgroups connected by AI agents. This enables the full group to hold a unified conversation. In this study, groups of 25 participants were tasked with selecting a roster of players in a real Fantasy Baseball contest. A total of 10 trials were run using CSI. In half the trials, each subgroup was augmented with a fact-providing AI agent referred to herein as an Infobot. The Infobot was loaded with a wide range of MLB statistics. The human participants could query the Infobot the same way they would query other persons in their subgroup. Results show that when using CSI, the 25-person groups outperformed 72% of individually surveyed participants and showed significant intelligence amplification versus the mean score (p=0.016). The CSI-enabled groups also significantly outperformed the most popular picks across the collected surveys for each daily contest (p<0.001). The CSI sessions that used Infobots scored slightly higher than those that did not, but it was not statistically significant in this study. That said, 85% of participants agreed with the statement 'Our decisions were stronger because of information provided by the Infobot' and only 4% disagreed. In addition, deliberations that used Infobots showed significantly less variance (p=0.039) in conversational content across members. This suggests that Infobots promoted more balanced discussions in which fewer members dominated the dialog. This may be because the infobot enabled participants to confidently express opinions with the support of factual data
... Cultivating demographic diversity in teams can bring different traits, points of view, and experiences [97,119]. Some examples are gender diversity, which promotes productivity in software development teams [120], teams' collective intelligence [125], and innovation in R&D groups [30]. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
In this study, we examined the impact of recommendation systems' algorithms on individuals' collaborator choices when forming teams. Different algorithmic designs can lead individuals to select one collaborator over another, thereby shaping their teams' composition, dynamics, and performance. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a 2 x 2 between-subject laboratory experiment with 332 participants who assembled teams using a recommendation system. We tested four algorithms that controlled the participants' agency to choose collaborators and the inclusion of fairness criteria. Our results show that participants assigned by an algorithm to work in highly diverse teams struggled to work with different and unfamiliar individuals, while participants enabled by an algorithm to choose collaborators without fairness criteria formed homogenous teams without the necessary skills. In contrast, combining users' agency and fairness criteria in an algorithm enhanced teams' performance and composition. This study breaks new ground by providing insights into how algorithms can augment team formation.
... enhanced collective performance through knowledge exchange. Studies in the area of collective intelligence(Woolley et al., 2015) illustrate how aspects such as the level of diversity in a group can enhance or diminish collective performance. The authors note how diversity contributes to creative or innovative tasks while decreasing overall task effectiveness when efficiency is the primary goal(Williams & O'Reilly, 1998). ...
Article
Full-text available
In all organizations, human resource management occupies a significant and special place, to the extent that it has been referred to as the main concern of managers. The necessity of human resource management is evident, as the productivity of human resources can be equated with the productivity of the organization, which is the very essence of an organization. In the last decade, the role of the human approach in development has received great attention from researchers. The importance of this topic can be seen in the role this factor plays in the development process. The greatest competitive advantage of countries is having a capable workforce. The aim of the present study is to provide a framework for aligning human resource practices with knowledge management strategy in the context of organizational restructuring. The research method is descriptive-correlational. The results of the research, using structural equation modeling software, showed that increasing global interactions and developing the level of companies’ engagement with their environment encourage organizations to undertake activities that lead to gaining competitive advantage and adapting to complex and dynamic environmental conditions, thus meeting current and future needs. Many companies claim that the pressures from competitive forces due to globalization are increasing, and an organization’s ability to cope with these pressures depends on their superior use of human resources. With the growth of industries and knowledge workers, the pressure on the human resources sector has intensified, posing serious challenges to organizational structure.
Article
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine how integrating Foresight 3.0 (FS3.0) and the Critical Design Futures (CDF) framework into higher education can enhance students’ capacity to design preferred futures for the hospitality industry. Specifically, this study hypothesises that (H1) participation in a Digital Media Production module, underpinned by the CDF framework, bolsters students’ capabilities in designing innovative solutions for future‐oriented challenges in a Future of Hospitality-themed project. Additionally, (H2) the strategic integration of Generative AI (GenAI) tools with critical, design, and futures thinking skills within the CDF framework enhances students’ intellectual agility through iterative and dialogic interactions with GenAI tools. The methodology includes online surveys, multimodal and thematic qualitative analyses of students’ digital prototypes and reflections to study the effectiveness of FS3.0 and the CDF framework in cultivating future-ready graduates. Design/methodology/approach This study aims to explore the adoption of innovative tools and methodologies that anticipate future challenges while promoting proactive, solution‐oriented learning within higher education. The research investigates the integration of FS3.0 with the newly developed CDF framework within a Digital Media Production module tailored for the hospitality industry. FS3.0, by merging foresight with collective intelligence, fosters a collaborative, forward‐thinking educational paradigm that enhances students’ capacity to address complex, systemic, real‐world challenges. In this context, students engage in hands‐on activities, participating in intellectual sparring with GenAI tools–prompting, critiquing, and refining AI‐generated outputs–guided by the CDF framework. This approach aims to develop students’ creative confidence, critical competence, and futures flexibility (Patel et al. , 2024). Findings Preliminary findings suggest that integrating FS3.0 and the CDF framework elevates students’ abilities to ideate and innovate effectively, particularly in developing solutions for industry‐specific challenges in the hospitality sector. The iterative, collaborative interaction with GenAI tools appears to enhance students’ intellectual agility, enabling them to flex their problem‐solving and creative thinking skills. Consequently, the study recommends establishing a collaborative learning space involving students, instructors, and industry stakeholders to continuously redesign innovation‐related modules based on the principles of collective intelligence and interdisciplinarity. Additionally, this study proposes a broader implementation of the FS3.0 and CDF approach across various educational disciplines to nurture innovative, forward‐thinking graduates who can navigate and innovate in complex environments. Originality/value This study contributes to higher education by demonstrating the value of integrating Foresight 3.0 and the Critical Design Futures (CDF) framework to equip students for an increasingly uncertain and complex world. The adoption of such innovative tools and methodologies enables students to anticipate and navigate future challenges effectively. Incorporating FS3.0 into educational curricula fosters a holistic perspective among students, encouraging them to think beyond present conditions and consider broader social, economic, and environmental contexts. This approach not only enhances students’ problem‐solving skills but also strengthens their resilience in facing multifaceted, real‐world challenges.
Chapter
Full-text available
Gender-responsive education is a crucial aspect of achieving gender equity and empowering women. However, the journey to creating inclusive and equitable learning environments has faced various barriers, including deep-rooted societal norms, limited access to higher education for women and challenges in incorporating gender analysis into development practices. This article explores the potential of collective intelligence as a transformative tool to address these barriers and advance progress towards gender-responsive education. By harnessing the combined knowledge, skills and perspectives of diverse stakeholders, including educators, students, parents and community members, this study examines how collective intelligence can be leveraged to identify and dismantle gender barriers. The application of collective intelligence aims to create gender-responsive curricula, teaching practices and school environments. Ultimately, this research aims to contribute to the development of inclusive and equitable educational systems that empower all learners to achieve their full potential.
Chapter
Full-text available
In the 2014 Winter Olympic games in Sochi, the Russian men's ice hockey team seemed poised to sweep their competition. With star players from the National Hockey League in North America and the Kontinental Hockey League in Russia, and even with a home field advantage in Russia, fans thought they were sure to win the gold medal. In fact, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin declared that the success of the Olympic games, which cost an estimated $50 billion, hinged on the success of the Russian men's hockey team. Not long into the tournament, however, it became clear that the team might not live up to these high expectations. Players who were high scorers on their professional teams didn't produce a single goal, and despite all of their resources, talent, and drive, the team was eliminated from contention before the medal rounds even began. To make matters even worse, their final defeat was by the Finnish team, a previously undistinguished collection of professional third-and fourth-line players. Everyone was dumbfounded: How could this team have failed so badly? By contrast, over 30 years earlier, another hockey team from a different country had the opposite experience. Dubbed the " Miracle on Ice, " the 1980 US Men's Hockey team, made up of amateurs and collegiate players, rose above all expectations and won the gold medal that year. This distinction between talented individuals and talented teams is consistent with recent research documenting team collective intelligence as a much stronger predictor of team performance than the ability of individual team members (Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi, & Malone, 2010). Collective intelligence includes a group's capability to collaborate and coordinate effectively, and this is often much more important for group performance than individual ability alone. In other words, just having a number of smart individuals may be useful, but it is certainly not sufficient, for creating a smart group or a smart organization. So what are the necessary ingredients for collective intelligence to develop? In this chapter, we review frameworks and findings from the team and organizational performance literatures that may be especially useful to collective intelligence researchers for thinking about this question. To organize our review of the literature, we will use the Star Model of organizational design proposed by Galbraith (2002) This framework identifies five categories of organizational design choices that managers or other system designers can use to influence how an organization works: 1. Strategy, the overall goals and objectives the group or organization is trying to accomplish, 2. Structure, how activities are grouped and who has decision-making power, 3. Processes, the flow of information and activities among people, machines, and parts of the organization.. 4. Rewards, the motivation and incentives for individuals, and 5. People, the selection and development of the individuals and skills needed in the organization.
Article
Full-text available
Collective intelligence (CI) is a property of groups that emerges from the coordination and collaboration of members and predicts group performance on a wide range of tasks. Previous studies of CI have been conducted with lab-based groups in the USA. We introduce a new standardized online battery to measure CI and demonstrate consistent emergence of a CI factor across three different studies despite broad differences in (a) communication media (face-to-face vs online), (b) group contexts (short-term ad hoc groups vs long-term groups) and (c) cultural settings (US, Germany, and Japan). In two of the studies, we also show that CI is correlated with a group's performance on more complex tasks. Consequently, the CI metric provides a generalizable performance measure for groups that is robust to broad changes in media, context, and culture, making it useful for testing the effects of general-purpose collaboration technologies intended to improve group performance.
Article
Full-text available
The key aims of this article are to relate the construct of cognitive style to current theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience and to outline a framework that integrates the findings on individual differences in cognition across different disciplines. First, we characterize cognitive style as patterns of adaptation to the external world that develop on the basis of innate predispositions, the interactions among which are shaped by changing environmental demands. Second, we show that research on cognitive style in psychology and cross-cultural neuroscience, on learning styles in education, and on decision-making styles in business and management all address the same phenomena. Third, we review cognitive-psychology and neuroscience research that supports the validity of the concept of cognitive style. Fourth, we show that various styles from disparate disciplines can be organized into a single taxonomy. This taxonomy allows us to integrate all the well-documented cognitive, learning, and decision-making styles; all of these style types correspond to adaptive systems that draw on different levels of information processing. Finally, we discuss how the proposed approach might promote greater coherence in research and application in education, in business and management, and in other disciplines. © The Author(s) 2014.
Article
Full-text available
Recent research with face-to-face groups found that a measure of general group effectiveness (called "collective intelligence") predicted a group's performance on a wide range of different tasks. The same research also found that collective intelligence was correlated with the individual group members' ability to reason about the mental states of others (an ability called "Theory of Mind" or "ToM"). Since ToM was measured in this work by a test that requires participants to "read" the mental states of others from looking at their eyes (the "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test), it is uncertain whether the same results would emerge in online groups where these visual cues are not available. Here we find that: (1) a collective intelligence factor characterizes group performance approximately as well for online groups as for face-to-face groups; and (2) surprisingly, the ToM measure is equally predictive of collective intelligence in both face-to-face and online groups, even though the online groups communicate only via text and never see each other at all. This provides strong evidence that ToM abilities are just as important to group performance in online environments with limited nonverbal cues as they are face-to-face. It also suggests that the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test measures a deeper, domain-independent aspect of social reasoning, not merely the ability to recognize facial expressions of mental states.
Article
Full-text available
This study reports the results of several meta-analyses examining the relationship between four operational definitions of cognitive ability within teams (highest member score, lowest member score, mean score, standard deviation of scores) and team performance. The three indices associated with level yielded moderate and positive sample-weighted estimates of the population relationship (.21 to .29), but sampling error failed to account for enough variation to rule out moderator variables. In contrast, the index associated with dispersion (i.e., standard deviation of member scores) was essentially unrelated to team performance (-.03), and sampling error provided a plausible explanation for the observed variation across studies. A subgroup analysis revealed that mean cognitive ability was a much better predictor of team performance in laboratory settings (.37) than in field settings (.14). Study limitations, practical implications, and future research directions are discussed.
Article
This volume critically evaluates more than a century of empirical research on the effectiveness of small, task-performing groups, and offers a fresh look at the costs and benefits of collaborative work arrangements. The central question taken up by this book is whether -- and under what conditions -- interaction among group members leads to better performance than would otherwise be achieved simply by combining the separate efforts of an equal number of people who work independently. This question is considered with respect to a range of tasks (idea-generation, problem solving, judgment, and decision-making) and from several different process perspectives (learning and memory, motivation, and member diversity).
Chapter
Teams are increasingly the locus of creativity and innovation in organizational settings, and understanding what affects their performance is critical to organizational performance. We draw on research from two different perspectives on intellectual capital to theorize about the enablers and disablers of innovation in teams. The first perspective draws on collective intelligence in human groups, and the second is related to team composition, specifically cognitive diversity. Borrowing from these two perspectives, we generate theory to integrate our understanding of how collective intelligence and cognitive diversity contribute toward (or detract from) the team’s potential to produce innovative solutions and products.