Assembly bonus effect

Last updated

First proposed in 1964 [1] , an assembly bonus effect requires a demonstration of group performance which exceeds the most capable group member or the combined contributions of individual group members. [2] There is evidence for both task-specific assembly bonus effects, [3] and a general effect of collective intelligence, [4] analogous to that of general intelligence.

Contents

Theories and studies

After Collins and Guetzkow proposed the assembly bonus effect in a theoretical piece in 1964, Michaelsen and colleagues (1989) provided the first empirical support by comparing the group's performance to the performance of the best individual group member in the same course examination under a realistic context. [5] During the testing process, participants initially complete the tests individually and immediately retake the same test as groups, where both individual and group tests were accounted for the course grade. There were a series of multiple-choice and true/false questions for each individual/group, and their cumulative scores were calculated and compared. Results showed that most groups outperformed their best members (215/222), which confirmed the assembly bonus effect.

However, Tindale and Larson (1992) argued that the level of analysis should be focused on simple items comprising the test rather than the overall scores. [6] Specifically, when looking at a particular question, a group might collectively generate the correct answer where no individual group members did correct in the pretest, demonstrating a clear assembly bonus effect. Based on Michaelsen and colleagues' findings, Tindale and Larson analyzed the data by looking at how well each person performed on individual questions. They applied the truth wins model as the baseline model of group interaction, predicting that if at least one group member answered correctly to a specific test item, the entire group would be considered to have answered correctly. They then combined the best scores for each person and compared this total to the group's overall score. Results found that, according to item-by-item analysis, the group's performance never reached the expectation of the truth wins model.

These findings were further supported by Stasson and Bradshaw, who concluded that the assembly bonus effect could be observed at an aggregate score level of analysis but not when analyzing at the level of individual items. [7]

Another study on collective intelligence underlined the assembly bonus effect, where a general collective intelligence factor (c) has been found within groups through a diverse set of complex tasks (e.g. solving visual puzzles and making collective moral judgments). [4] Collective intelligence could predict the group performance on different tasks rather than the individual group members' average and maximum intelligence scores. By leveraging the synergies and interactions among group members, collective intelligence enables groups to tap into shared knowledge, diverse perspectives, and effective collaboration, leading to enhanced performance that goes beyond what would be expected based on individual capabilities alone.   

Conditions favoring finding assembly bonus effect

Differentiated expertise between group members

In group settings, members possess non-overlapping areas of knowledge that complement each other's weaknesses. [7] Aligned with Michaelsen et al.'s findings, the assembly bonus effect would be observed when considering the overall performance, as certain members in the group may compensate for the lack of expertise of the top performer.

Outcomes are designed to reward differentiation

Several studies have mentioned the importance of external motivators in reaching the assembly bonus effect in groups, [2] [5] especially the differentiated incentives. There is a specific example of group performance in terms of information recall. Hollingshead has pointed out four types of incentives to motivate group members to both learn their unique expertise and coordinate with members to integrate in order to achieve better overall information recall. [8]

Equal conversational dynamics

Groups with an equal distribution of conversational turn-taking were more likely to have high collective intelligence. In group work, findings suggested that people should avoid the condition where a few group members dominate the conversation. [4]

High social sensitivity

According to the 'Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test, researchers found the average social sensitivity of group members is positively correlated to collective intelligence. [4] The group composition of a high proportion of females also contributes to higher collective intelligence, while females score higher on social sensitivity.

Criticism and future directions

In previous studies, researchers have often utilized traditional baseline models, such as the truth wins model, to calculate the combination of individual performance and compare it with group performance to ascertain whether the groups achieved an assembly bonus effect. However, this model restricted the studies to intellective tasks that involved definite answers (e.g., multiple choice) to calculate accurate scores. The more complex tasks (e.g. judgmental tasks) that require a further integration of member’s knowledge to form new information cannot be explored. [2]

Since the publication of the original study, many studies have opposed the assembly bonus effect by providing evidence of process loss during group work instead of process gain. [9] [10] Until now, it is still a controversial topic whether groups outperformed the combinations of individuals. Future studies on the assembly bonus effect can focus on group performance in more complex tasks that are more common in real-life situations to see if the assembly bonus effect could be identified on either item-by-item or aggregate levels and corresponding reasons.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intelligence quotient</span> Score from a test designed to assess intelligence

An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from a set of standardised tests or subtests designed to assess human intelligence. The abbreviation "IQ" was coined by the psychologist William Stern for the German term Intelligenzquotient, his term for a scoring method for intelligence tests at University of Breslau he advocated in a 1912 book.

Emotional intelligence (EI) is defined as the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions. People with high emotional intelligence can recognize their own emotions and those of others, use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior, discern between different feelings and label them appropriately, and adjust emotions to adapt to environments.

Group dynamics is a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group, or between social groups. The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behaviour, tracking the spread of diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies. These applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work, leadership studies, business and managerial studies, as well as communication studies.

Human intelligence is the intellectual capability of humans, which is marked by complex cognitive feats and high levels of motivation and self-awareness. Using their intelligence, humans are able to learn, form concepts, understand, and apply logic and reason. Human intelligence is also thought to encompass our capacities to recognize patterns, plan, innovate, solve problems, make decisions, retain information, and use language to communicate.

Psychological testing refers to the administration of psychological tests. Psychological tests are administered or scored by trained evaluators. A person's responses are evaluated according to carefully prescribed guidelines. Scores are thought to reflect individual or group differences in the construct the test purports to measure. The science behind psychological testing is psychometrics.

The g factor is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities and human intelligence. It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual's performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person's performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks. The g factor typically accounts for 40 to 50 percent of the between-individual performance differences on a given cognitive test, and composite scores based on many tests are frequently regarded as estimates of individuals' standing on the g factor. The terms IQ, general intelligence, general cognitive ability, general mental ability, and simply intelligence are often used interchangeably to refer to this common core shared by cognitive tests. However, the g factor itself is a mathematical construct indicating the level of observed correlation between cognitive tasks. The measured value of this construct depends on the cognitive tasks that are used, and little is known about the underlying causes of the observed correlations.

A self-serving bias is any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem, or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner. It is the belief that individuals tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors. When individuals reject the validity of negative feedback, focus on their strengths and achievements but overlook their faults and failures, or take more credit for their group's work than they give to other members, they are protecting their self-esteem from threat and injury. These cognitive and perceptual tendencies perpetuate illusions and error, but they also serve the self's need for esteem. For example, a student who attributes earning a good grade on an exam to their own intelligence and preparation but attributes earning a poor grade to the teacher's poor teaching ability or unfair test questions might be exhibiting a self-serving bias. Studies have shown that similar attributions are made in various situations, such as the workplace, interpersonal relationships, sports, and consumer decisions.

Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being responsible, careful or diligent. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly. They tend to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; they display planned rather than spontaneous behavior; and they are generally dependable. Conscientiousness manifests in characteristic behaviors such as being neat, systematic, careful, thorough, and deliberate.

The anchoring effect is a psychological phenomenon in which an individual's judgements or decisions are influenced by a reference point or "anchor" which can be completely irrelevant. Both numeric and non-numeric anchoring have been reported in research. In numeric anchoring, once the value of the anchor is set, subsequent arguments, estimates, etc. made by an individual may change from what they would have otherwise been without the anchor. For example, an individual may be more likely to purchase a car if it is placed alongside a more expensive model. Prices discussed in negotiations that are lower than the anchor may seem reasonable, perhaps even cheap to the buyer, even if said prices are still relatively higher than the actual market value of the car. Another example may be when estimating the orbit of Mars, one might start with the Earth's orbit and then adjust upward until they reach a value that seems reasonable.

In social psychology, social loafing is the phenomenon of a person exerting less effort to achieve a goal when they work in a group than when working alone. It is seen as one of the main reasons groups are sometimes less productive than the combined performance of their members working as individuals.

The implicit-association test (IAT) is an assessment intended to detect subconscious associations between mental representations of objects (concepts) in memory. Its best-known application is the assessment of implicit stereotypes held by test subjects, such as associations between particular racial categories and stereotypes about those groups. The test has been applied to a variety of belief associations, such as those involving racial groups, gender, sexuality, age, and religion but also the self-esteem, political views, and predictions of the test taker. The implicit-association test is the subject of significant academic and popular debate regarding its validity, reliability, and usefulness in assessing implicit bias.

Stereotype threat is a situational predicament in which people are or feel themselves to be at risk of conforming to stereotypes about their social group. It is theorized to be a contributing factor to long-standing racial and gender gaps in academic performance. Since its introduction into the academic literature, stereotype threat has become one of the most widely studied topics in the field of social psychology.

The overconfidence effect is a well-established bias in which a person's subjective confidence in their judgments is reliably greater than the objective accuracy of those judgments, especially when confidence is relatively high. Overconfidence is one example of a miscalibration of subjective probabilities. Throughout the research literature, overconfidence has been defined in three distinct ways: (1) overestimation of one's actual performance; (2) overplacement of one's performance relative to others; and (3) overprecision in expressing unwarranted certainty in the accuracy of one's beliefs.

Spatial visualization ability or visual-spatial ability is the ability to mentally manipulate 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional figures. It is typically measured with simple cognitive tests and is predictive of user performance with some kinds of user interfaces.

In psychology and neuroscience, memory span is the longest list of items that a person can repeat back in correct order immediately after presentation on 50% of all trials. Items may include words, numbers, or letters. The task is known as digit span when numbers are used. Memory span is a common measure of working memory and short-term memory. It is also a component of cognitive ability tests such as the WAIS. Backward memory span is a more challenging variation which involves recalling items in reverse order.

In social psychology, illusory superiority is a cognitive bias wherein a person overestimates their own qualities and abilities compared to other people. Illusory superiority is one of many positive illusions, relating to the self, that are evident in the study of intelligence, the effective performance of tasks and tests, and the possession of desirable personal characteristics and personality traits. Overestimation of abilities compared to an objective measure is known as the overconfidence effect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Collective intelligence</span> Group intelligence that emerges from collective efforts

Collective intelligence (CI) is shared or group intelligence (GI) that emerges from the collaboration, collective efforts, and competition of many individuals and appears in consensus decision making. The term appears in sociobiology, political science and in context of mass peer review and crowdsourcing applications. It may involve consensus, social capital and formalisms such as voting systems, social media and other means of quantifying mass activity. Collective IQ is a measure of collective intelligence, although it is often used interchangeably with the term collective intelligence. Collective intelligence has also been attributed to bacteria and animals.

Goal orientation, or achievement orientation, is an "individual disposition towards developing or validating one's ability in achievement settings". In general, an individual can be said to be mastery or performance oriented, based on whether one's goal is to develop one's ability or to demonstrate one's ability, respectively. A mastery orientation is also sometimes referred to as a learning orientation.

Collective induction is a task developed by Steiner and used in research on group problem solving. Broadly, the method entails "the cooperative search for descriptive, predictive, and explanatory generalizations, rules, and principles" among members in a group working on the same task. James Larson further defined collective induction tasks as "[tasks] in which problem solvers work cooperatively to induce a general rule or principle that can account parsimoniously for a given set of facts or observations" This particular process has been used to determine if groups are better problem solvers than individuals.

References

  1. ↑ Collins, Barry E.; Guetzkow, Harold Steere (1964). A social psychology of group processes for decision-making . Wiley. p. 58. ISBN   9780471165811.
  2. 1 2 3 Propp, Kathleen M. (2003). "In Search of the Assembly Bonus Effect". Human Communication Research. 29 (4): 600–606. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00858.x. ISSN   1468-2958.
  3. ↑ Laughlin, Patrick R.; Hatch, Erin C.; Silver, Jonathan S.; Boh, Lee (2006). "Groups Perform Better Than the Best Individuals on Letters-to-Numbers Problems: Effects of Group Size". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 90 (4): 644–651. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.644. ISSN   0022-3514. PMID   16649860.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Woolley, A. W.; Chabris, C. F.; Pentland, A.; Hashmi, N.; Malone, T. W. (2010-10-29). "Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups". Science. 330 (6004): 686–688. Bibcode:2010Sci...330..686W. doi: 10.1126/science.1193147 . ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   20929725. S2CID   74579.
  5. 1 2 Michaelsen, Larry K.; Watson, Warren E.; Black, Robert H. (1989). "A realistic test of individual versus group consensus decision making". Journal of Applied Psychology. 74 (5): 834–839. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.5.834. ISSN   1939-1854.
  6. ↑ Tindale, R. Scott; Larson, James R. (1992). "Assembly bonus effect or typical group performance? A comment on Michaelsen, Watson, and Black (1989)". Journal of Applied Psychology. 77 (1): 102–105. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.102. ISSN   1939-1854.
  7. 1 2 Stasson, Mark F.; Bradshaw, Scott D. (1995). "Explanations of Individual-Group Performance Differences: What Sort of "Bonus" Can Be Gained Through Group Interaction?". Small Group Research. 26 (2): 296–308. doi:10.1177/1046496495262007. ISSN   1046-4964.
  8. ↑ Hollingshead, Andrea B. (2001). "Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (6): 1080–1089. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1080. ISSN   1939-1315.
  9. ↑ Hill, Gayle W. (1982). "Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads better than one?". Psychological Bulletin. 91 (3): 517–539. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.517. ISSN   1939-1455.
  10. ↑ Pavitt, Charles (2003). "Colloquy: Do Interacting Groups Perform Better Than Aggregates of Individuals? Why We Have to Be Reductionists About Group Memory". academic.oup.com. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00857.x . Retrieved 2024-03-20.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.