collective intelligence

Group settings hurt expressions of intelligence, especially in women

March, 2012

Comparing performance on an IQ test when it is given under normal conditions and when it is given in a group situation reveals that IQ drops in a group setting, and for some (mostly women) it drops dramatically.

This is another demonstration of stereotype threat, which is also a nice demonstration of the contextual nature of intelligence. The study involved 70 volunteers (average age 25; range 18-49), who were put in groups of 5. Participants were given a baseline IQ test, on which they were given no feedback. The group then participated in a group IQ test, in which 92 multi-choice questions were presented on a monitor (both individual and group tests were taken from Cattell’s culture fair intelligence test). Each question appeared to each person at the same time, for a pre-determined time. After each question, they were provided with feedback in the form of their own relative rank within the group, and the rank of one other group member. Ranking was based on performance on the last 10 questions. Two of each group had their brain activity monitored.

Here’s the remarkable thing. If you gather together individuals on the basis of similar baseline IQ, then you can watch their IQ diverge over the course of the group IQ task, with some dropping dramatically (e.g., 17 points from a mean IQ of 126). Moreover, even those little affected still dropped some (8 points from a mean IQ of 126).

Data from the 27 brain scans (one had to be omitted for technical reasons) suggest that everyone was initially hindered by the group setting, but ‘high performers’ (those who ended up scoring above the median) managed to largely recover, while ‘low performers’ (those who ended up scoring below the median) never did.

Personality tests carried out after the group task found no significant personality differences between high and low performers, but gender was a significant variable: 10/13 high performers were male, while 11/14 low performers were female (remember, there was no difference in baseline IQ — this is not a case of men being smarter!).

There were significant differences between the high and low performers in activity in the amygdala and the right lateral prefrontal cortex. Specifically, all participants had an initial increase in amygdala activation and diminished activity in the prefrontal cortex, but by the end of the task, the high-performing group showed decreased amygdala activation and increased prefrontal cortex activation, while the low performers didn’t change. This may reflect the high performers’ greater ability to reduce their anxiety. Activity in the nucleus accumbens was similar in both groups, and consistent with the idea that the students had expectations about the relative ranking they were about to receive.

It should be pointed out that the specific feedback given — the relative ranking — was not a factor. What’s important is that it was being given at all, and the high performers were those who became less anxious as time went on, regardless of their specific ranking.

There are three big lessons here. One is that social pressure significantly depresses talent (meetings make you stupid?), and this seems to be worse when individuals perceive themselves to have a lower social rank. The second is that our ability to regulate our emotions is important, and something we should put more energy into. And the third is that we’ve got to shake ourselves loose from the idea that IQ is something we can measure in isolation. Social context matters.

Reference: 

Source: 

Topics: 

tags: 

tags memworks: 

tags strategies: 

Whether couple’s collaborative dialogue helps spouse's memory

September, 2011

A small study suggests that middle-aged couples are more likely to be effective than older couples in helping fill in each other’s memory gaps, but effective collaboration also depends on conversational style.

In my book on remembering what you’re doing and what you intend to do, I briefly discuss the popular strategy of asking someone to remind you (basically, whether it’s an effective strategy depends on several factors, of which the most important is the reliability of the person doing the reminding). So I was interested to see a pilot study investigating the use of this strategy between couples.

The study confirms earlier findings that the extent to which this strategy is effective depends on how reliable the partner's memory is, but expands on that by tying it to age and conversational style.

The study involved 11 married couples, of whom five were middle-aged (average age 52), and six were older adults (average age 73). Participants completed a range of prospective memory tasks by playing the board game "Virtual Week," which encourages verbal interaction among players about completing real life tasks. For each virtual "day" in the game, participants were asked to perform 10 different prospective memory tasks — four that regularly occur (eg, taking medication with breakfast), four that were different each day (eg, purchasing gasoline for the car), and two being time-check tasks that were not based on the activities of the board game (eg, check lung capacity at two specified times).

Overall, the middle-aged group benefited more from collaboration than the older group. But it was also found that those couples who performed best were those who were more supportive and encouraging of each other.

Collaboration in memory tasks is an interesting activity, because it can be both helpful and hindering. Think about how memory works — by association. You start from some point, and if you’re on a good track, more and more should be revealed as each memory triggers another. If another person keeps interrupting your train, you can be derailed. On the other hand, they might help you fill you in gaps that you need, or even point you to the right track, if you’re on the wrong one.

In this small study, it tended to be the middle-aged couples that filled in the gaps more effectively than the older couples. That probably has a lot to do with memory reliability. So it’s not a big surprise (though useful to be aware of). But what I find more interesting (because it’s less obvious, and more importantly, because it’s more under our control) is this idea that our conversational style affects whether memory collaboration is useful or counterproductive. I look forward to results from a larger study.

Reference: 

[2490] Margrett, J. A., Reese-Melancon C., & Rendell P. G.
(2011).  Examining Collaborative Dialogue Among Couples.
Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology. 219, 100 - 107.

Source: 

Topics: 

tags: 

tags development: 

tags problems: 

Subscribe to RSS - collective intelligence