ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2025
A recipe for dyadic collective intelligence for well-structured tasks: mix equal parts cognitive ability and confidence plus a pinch of social sensitivity.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Confidence judgments, feelings of knowing and judgments of learning: Towards a common framework.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Non-Cognitive Predictors: Evidence and Implications for Academic Achievement and Cognitive Processing.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A collective intelligence factor (CI) was introduced by prior research to characterise the cognitive ability of groups. Surprisingly, individual intelligence did not predict CI. Instead, it correlated with individual social sensitivity, the equality of conversational turn-taking, and the proportion of females in a group. However, these findings may depend on the type of tasks completed by groups. Our study re-examined these relationships by (1) testing the robustness of the CI factor in dyads using well-structured tasks guided by the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of intelligence; (2) exploring the relationship between dyadic CI and metacognitive confidence, which is known to influence group processes and outcomes; and (3) identifying the psychological characteristics of distinct dyad types using latent profile analysis. We measured CI in 105 undergraduate dyads using three group tasks aligned with the broad abilities of the CHC model. Individual intelligence was assessed using Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices. We also measured social sensitivity, proportion of females, equality of turn-taking, working memory, and personality. Results indicated that individual intelligence and confidence were the strongest predictors of dyadic CI for well-structured tasks, contrasting with previous findings emphasising social factors. While we replicated the relationship with social sensitivity, we did not replicate the findings for equality of turn-taking or gender composition. Latent profile analysis identified three psychological profiles: dyads performing consistently high individually and collectively, those performing consistently low, and those performing better collectively than individually. Our "smarter" dyads consisted of intelligent and confident individuals with higher social sensitivity. These findings suggest that, in dyads performing well-structured tasks, individual cognitive abilities and confidence play significant roles in CI. This challenges the emphasis on social factors and underscores the importance of task selection.
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.