Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups

Abstract

Psychologists have repeatedly shown that a single statistical factor--often called "general intelligence"--emerges from the correlations among people's performance on a wide variety of cognitive tasks. But no one has systematically examined whether a similar kind of "collective intelligence" exists for groups of people. In two studies with 699 people, working in groups of two to five, we find converging evidence of a general collective intelligence factor that explains a group's performance on a wide variety of tasks. This "c factor" is not strongly correlated with the average or maximum individual intelligence of group members but is correlated with the average social sensitivity of group members, the equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking, and the proportion of females in the group.

Teamwork in Health Care: Maximizing Collective Intelligence via Inclusive Collaboration and Open Communication

“…Following methods used in psychology to study individual intelligence, Woolley et al [8] investigated the possibility of a collective intelligence factor: a latent factor describing a team's general ability to perform on a wide variety of tasks. They brought teams into the laboratory, had them perform a wide variety of tasks [6,9], and found that a team's performance on one type of task was closely related to its performance on all types.…”

“…They brought teams into the laboratory, had them perform a wide variety of tasks [6,9], and found that a team's performance on one type of task was closely related to its performance on all types. When they calculated a collective intelligence score based on the team's performance on the set of tasks, they found that it was only moderately related to the individual members' intelligence scores and was more predictive of future team performance than was individual members' average intelligence score [8] A series of studies have revealed factors related to collective intelligence, providing some insight into how to more reliably cultivate smart teams. First is the social perceptiveness of team members, or their ability to infer others' mental states, such as beliefs or feelings based on subtle cues [10].…”

“…The average social perceptiveness of the team members is predictive of collective intelligence [11]. Second, in both laboratory and field studies, researchers have found that greater amounts of participation and more equal participation are associated with higher collective intelligence [8,11].…”

“…First, we highlight what it means to have a collectively intelligent team: one with the capability to perform well consistently across a range of tasks [8]. In doing so, we draw a distinction between having smart people on a team and having smart teams.…”

Fitness landscapes among many options under social influence

“…Small groups can outperform even the most skilled/knowledgeable individual on complex tasks (Woolley et al, 2010) and in remembering information . In traditional societies, social learning is usually transparent, as experts in different essential categories of adaptive knowledge (medicinal plants, hunting, fishing, cultivation) are well known to the group members .…”