Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:20:23.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

But is it social? How to tell when groups are more than the sum of their members

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2016

Allison A. Brennan  and
James T. Enns
Allison A. Brennan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, [email protected]
James T. Enns
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Failure to distinguish between statistical effects and genuine social interaction may lead to unwarranted conclusions about the role of self-differentiation in group function. We offer an introduction to these issues from the perspective of recent research on collaborative cognition.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e142
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Latham, P. E., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G. & Frith, C. D. (2010) Optimally interacting minds. Science 329:1081–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Böckler, A., Knoblich, G. & Sebanz, N. (2012) Effects of co-actor's focus of attention on task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 38(6):1404–15.Google Scholar
Brennan, A. A., & Enns, J. T. (2015a) What's in a friendship? Partner visibility supports cognitive collaboration between friends. PloS one 10(11): e0143469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, A. A. & Enns, J. T. (2015b) When two heads are better than one: Interactive versus independent benefits of collaborative cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 22:1076–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brennan, S. E., Chen, X., Dickinson, C. A., Neider, M. B. & Zelinsky, G. J. (2008) Coordinating cognition: The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition 106:1465–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galton, F. (1907) Vox populi. Nature 75:450–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, S. M. & Hertwig, R. (2009) The wisdom of many in one mind: Improving individual judgments with dialectical bootstrapping. Psychological Science 20(2):231–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koriat, A. (2012) When are two heads better than one and why? Science 336:360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewandowsky, S., Griffiths, T. L. & Kalish, M. L. (2009) The wisdom of individuals: Exploring people's knowledge about everyday events using iterated learning. Cognitive Science 33(6):969–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lorge, I. & Solomon, H. (1955) Two models of group behavior in the solution of eureka-type problems. Psychometrika 20(2):139–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. (1982) Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology 14:247–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ringelmann, M. (1913b) Research on animate sources of power: The work of man. Annales de l'Institut National Agronomique, 2e serie-tome XII:1–40.Google Scholar
Samson, D., Apperly, I. A., Braithwaite, J. J., Andrews, B. J. & Scott, S. E. B. (2010) Seeing it their way: Evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 36(5):1255–66.Google ScholarPubMed
Soll, J. B. (1999) Intuitive theories of information: Beliefs about the value of redundancy. Cognitive Psychology 38:317–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Surowiecki, J. (2004) The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations. Anchor.Google Scholar
Tylén, K., Weed, E., Wallentin, M., Roepstorff, A. & Frith, C. D. (2010) Language as a tool for interacting minds. Mind and Language 25(1):3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, R., Miller, J. & Schröter, H. (2007) Testing the race model inequality: An algorithm and computer programs. Behavior Research Methods 39(2):291–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weldon, M. S. & Bellinger, K. D. (1997) Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23(5):1160–75.Google ScholarPubMed
West, A. (1999) The flute factory: An empirical measurement of the effect of division of labor on productivity and production. American Economist 43:82–87. 10.1177/056943459904300109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar