ArticlePloS one2024
High-performing teams: Is collective intelligence the answer?
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A recipe for dyadic collective intelligence for well-structured tasks: mix equal parts cognitive ability and confidence plus a pinch of social sensitivity.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe concept of a general factor of collective intelligence, proposed by Woolley et al. in 2010, has spurred interest in understanding collective intelligence within small groups. This study aims to extend this investigation by examining the validity of a general collective intelligence factor, assessing its underlying factor structure, and evaluating its utility in predicting performance on future group problem-solving tasks and academic outcomes.
methodsEmploying a correlational study design, we engaged 85 university students in a series of complex cognitive tasks designed to measure collective intelligence through individual, group, and predictive phases.
resultsContrary to the hypothesized single-factor model, our findings favor a two-factor model influenced by Cattell's theory of crystalized and fluid intelligence. These two factors accounted for substantial variance in group performance outcomes, challenging the prevailing single-factor model. Notably, the predictive validity of these factors on group assignments was statistically significant, with both individual and collective intelligence measures correlating moderately with group assignment scores (rs = .40 to .47, p < .05).
conclusionsOur research suggests that collective intelligence in small group settings may not be uniformly governed by a single factor but rather by multiple dimensions that reflect established theories of individual intelligence. This nuanced understanding of collective intelligence could have significant implications for enhancing group performance in both educational and organizational contexts. Future research should explore these dimensions and their independent contributions to group dynamics and outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.