The Adaptive Use of Recognition in Group Decision Making

Kämmer, Juliane E.; Gaissmaier, Wolfgang; Schermuly, Carsten C.

doi:10.1111/cogs.12110

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 152 publications

(177 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, different conditions require different interaction processes for the team to intelligently solve the issues at hand. Collective intelligent behavior is contingent on its environment, as certain team behaviors may not be viable given a particular task or situation ( Kämmer et al, 2014 ). Thus, collective behavior can only be judged as intelligent if we evaluate that behavior against a broader set of environmental needs in which the collaboration takes place.…”

Section: Extensions Of the CI Stream Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective intelligence in teams: Contextualizing collective intelligent behavior over time

Janssens

Meslec²,

Leenders³

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collective intelligence (CI) in organizational teams has been predominantly understood and explained in terms of the quality of the outcomes that the team produces. This manuscript aims to extend the understanding of CI in teams, by disentangling the core of actual collective intelligent team behavior that unfolds over time during a collaboration period. We posit that outcomes do support the presence of CI, but that collective intelligence itself resides in the interaction processes within the team. Teams behave collectively intelligent when the collective behaviors during the collaboration period are in line with the requirements of the (cognitive) tasks the team is assigned to and the (changing) environment. This perspective results in a challenging, but promising research agenda armed with new research questions that call for unraveling longitudinal fine-grained interactional processes over time. We conclude with exploring methodological considerations that assist researchers to align concept and methodology. In sum, this manuscript proposes a more direct, thorough, and nuanced understanding of collective intelligence in teams, by disentangling micro-level team behaviors over the course of a collaboration period. With this in mind, the field of CI will get a more fine-grained understanding of what really happens at what point in time: when teams behave more or less intelligently. Additionally, when we understand collectively intelligent processes in teams, we can organize targeted interventions to improve or maintain collective intelligence in teams.

show abstract

Section: Extensions Of the CI Stream Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective intelligence in teams: Contextualizing collective intelligent behavior over time

Janssens

Meslec²,

Leenders³

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, more naturalistic settings and a broader set of decision domains should be considered in future studies. On the side of the decision maker, further influencing factors worthy of study include intelligence, working memory load (Bröder, 2003), the size of the group, and group composition (Kämmer et al, 2013).…”

Section: Limitations and Open Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The environment matters: Comparing individuals and dyads in their adaptive use of decision strategies

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals have been shown to adaptively select decision strategies depending on the environment structure. Two experiments extended this research to the group level. Subjects (N = 240) worked either individually or in two-person groups, or dyads, on a multi-attribute paired-comparison task. They were randomly assigned to two different environments that favored one of two prototypical decision strategies—weighted additive or take-the-best (between-subjects design in Experiment 1 and within-subject design in Experiment 2). Performance measures revealed that both individuals and dyads learned to adapt over time. A higher starting and overall performance rate in the environment in which weighted additive performed best led to the conclusion that weighted additive served as a default strategy. When this default strategy had to be replaced, because the environment structure favored take-the-best, the superior adaptive capacity of dyads became observable in the form of a steeper learning rate. Analyses of nominal dyads indicate that real dyads performed at the level of the best individuals. Fine-grained analyses of information-search data are presented. Results thus point to the strong moderating role of the environment structure when comparing individual with group performance and are discussed within the framework of adaptive strategy selection.

show abstract

“…According to the RH, if one item is recognized (e.g., Prague) and the other is not (e.g., Erdenet), then the recognized item is inferred to have the higher value on the criterion dimension (on which the objects’ true values are unknown). The RH has been extensively investigated (e.g., Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 2002 ; Hilbig, Michalkiewicz, Castela, Pohl, & Erdfelder, 2015 ; Kämmer, Gaissmaier, Reimer, & Schermuly, 2014 ; McCloy, Beaman, Frosch, & Goddard, 2010 ; Newell & Shanks, 2004 ; Pachur, Bröder, & Marewski, 2008 ) and is a prime example of a frugal heuristic that exploits one good reason (recognition) that leads to surprisingly accurate judgments in many real-world domains because familiar and novel items often differ systematically on relevant dimensions such as quantity or success (e.g., sports teams, brands, stocks, and colleges that are recognized tend to be more successful). Even though people may not always give recognition primacy over other information in strict non-compensatory fashion, as originally specified for the RH (Glöckner, Hilbig, Jekel, 2014 ; Hilbig et al 2015 ; Newell & Shanks, 2004 ), research on how recognition is systematically exploited as a cue remains important (for overviews, see Marewski, Pohl, & Vitouch, 2010 ; Pachur, Todd, Gigerenzer, Schooler, & Goldstein, 2011 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Within-person adaptivity in frugal judgments from memory

Filevich

Horn

Kühn

2017

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans can exploit recognition memory as a simple cue for judgment. The utility of recognition depends on the interplay with the environment, particularly on its predictive power (validity) in a domain. It is, therefore, an important question whether people are sensitive to differences in recognition validity between domains. Strategic, intra-individual changes in the reliance on recognition have not been investigated so far. The present study fills this gap by scrutinizing within-person changes in using a frugal strategy, the recognition heuristic (RH), across two task domains that differed in recognition validity. The results showed adaptive changes in the reliance on recognition between domains. However, these changes were neither associated with the individual recognition validities nor with corresponding changes in these validities. These findings support a domain-adaptivity explanation, suggesting that people have broader intuitions about the usefulness of recognition across different domains that are nonetheless sufficiently robust for adaptive decision making. The analysis of metacognitive confidence reports mirrored and extended these results. Like RH use, confidence ratings covaried with task domain, but not with individual recognition validities. The changes in confidence suggest that people may have metacognitive access to information about global differences between task domains, but not to individual cue validities.

show abstract

The Adaptive Use of Recognition in Group Decision Making

Cited by 7 publications

References 152 publications

Collective intelligence in teams: Contextualizing collective intelligent behavior over time

Collective intelligence in teams: Contextualizing collective intelligent behavior over time

The environment matters: Comparing individuals and dyads in their adaptive use of decision strategies

Within-person adaptivity in frugal judgments from memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About