370
个编辑
更改
跳到导航
跳到搜索
第210行：
第210行： − + + 第218行：
第219行： − 此外，这一科学思想还旨在探讨影响集体智能的原因，例如小组规模，协作工具或小组成员的人际交往能力。例如，麻省理工学院的集体智能中心宣布检测“集体智能的基因组”是其主要目标之一，旨在建立一种分类法，可以组织构建模块或基因组，并对其进行重组，以利用群体的智力。+ 第228行：
第229行： − 个体智力受到遗传与环境影响。类似地，集体智力的研究目的是探索为什么某些群体比其他群体表现地更聪明，假设因子c与群体中单个成员的智力适度相关。根据Woolley等人的结果，团队凝聚力，动机或满意度都与因子c无关。但是，他们声称发现了三个非常重要的相关因素：成员发表意见的次数，成员社会敏感度平均值和女性比例。这三者对因子c具有相似的预测能力，但目前只有社会敏感度具有统计学意义（b = 0.33，P = 0.05）。+ 第236行：
第237行： − 成员发表意见的次数表明“由少数人主导的群体，其集体智力不及那些对话轮流分配更为平均的群体。”因此，为多个团队成员提供发言的机会可以让团队更加聪明。+ 第244行：
第245行： − + 第252行：
第253行： − + 第259行：
第260行： − + 第273行：
第274行： − 自上而下的处理包括团队交互分析，涉及例如结构，程序和规范。这种自上而下的过程的一个例子是话轮转换机制。研究进一步表明，集体智慧的群体大体上能进行平等地交流。此过程同样适用于参与形式的沟通，类似面对面以及通过书面形式进行的在线小组交流。+ 第283行：
第284行： − 自下而上的处理包括小组组成分析，即小组成员的特征，这些特征汇总直接影响到团队级别。例子之一包括社会敏感度平均值或小组成员的平均和最大智力得分。此外，人们发现集体智能与一个群体的认知多样性有关，包括思维方式和观点。认知风格适度的群体，相比较认知风格非常相似或非常不同的群体，具有更高的集体智能。因为成员彼此之间过于相似会造成该群体缺乏不同的观点（往往团队任务表现好的具有各种观点）和技能。另一方面，成员差异太大的团体可能会难以有效地沟通和协调。+ 第293行：
第294行： − 在大多数人类历史中，集体智能都局限于少数部落群体，它们通过成员之间的实时并行互动来收集意见。而现代，因为大众传播，媒体和网络技术的发展使集体智能可以跨越各大洲和时区，这是一个极其庞大的群体。为了适应规模上的这种变化，大规模集体智能被序列化投票过程所控制，例如随着时间的推移去汇总投票，赞赏和评级。在工程领域中，汇总各种工程决策可以识别分析优秀的经典设计。尽管现代系统受益于更大的群规模，但事实上发现串行化处理过程会引入大量噪声，从而使群组的集体输出失真。在一项有关序列化集体智能的重要研究中发现，对序列化投票系统做出贡献的第一票可能使最终结果失真34％。+ 第301行：
第302行： − + 第309行：
第310行： − + 第321行：
第322行： − 伍利，察布里斯，彭特兰，哈什米（2010）是集体智能这一科学概念的创始人，他们在192个群体的研究中发现了集体智能的单一统计因子，这192个群体的成员均是从公众中随机招募的。研究中，每个组群都是基于<font color="#ff8000"> 麦格拉思任务环McGrath Task Circumplex</font>（一种完善的小组任务分类法）进行合作。这些任务是从四个象限中选择的，包括视觉难题，头脑风暴，集体道德判断以及就有限的资源进行谈判。将这些任务中的结果用于因子分析。两项研究均显示出了综合集群智力因子c的特征，并且根据群体的不同表现出了一定的差异，其初始特征值约占这些差异的43％（研究2中为44％），而另一个因子仅占18％（20％）。该数据与综合个体智力因子g的范围相符，通常在认知测验中占个体间性能差异的40％至50％。+ 第329行：
第330行： − + 第337行：
第338行： − 恩格尔等人的研究（2014）在重复了伍利组员之前的研究发现，将加速任务组合与因子分析中的第一因素结合在一起，可以解释组间表现差异的49％，而其他因素解释占该比例一半以下。此外，他们在仅通过文本进行在线交流的小组中发现了相似的结果，并证实了女性比例和社会敏感性在两种情况下引起集体智能的作用。他们还模仿伍利小组使用RME来衡量社会敏感度，为了衡测试者感受他人眼中心理状态的能力。但是，在线合作参与者根本不认识也不见面。作者得出的结论是，RME的分数必须与更广泛的社会推理能力相关，而不仅仅是从其他人的眼神表情中得出推论。+ 第345行：
第346行： − 伍利他们进一步在MBA学生群体中（时间跨度为一学期），在线游戏玩家群体中以及来自不同文化和不同背景的其他群体中（时间跨度分别为短期和长期组）发现了集体智力因子c。这些调查均未将团队成员的个人智力得分视为控制变量。+ 第353行：
第354行： − 注意的是，集体智能研究领域仍处在初始阶段，而且公开的经验证据还很少。各种提议和文章正在进行或已经完成，但（据说）仍处于学术同行评审出版过程中。+ 第361行：
第362行： − 集体智力因子c除了能预测团队在判据任务（初始实验中相对较复杂任务）上的表现外，还能够预测持续数月的MBA课程中各种任务的团队绩效。因此，尽管组员在其他单独执行任务上没有做得很好，但具有高度集体智能的小组在团队任务上得分明显更高。此外，具有高度集体智能的团队会随着时间推移逐渐提高能力，这表明团队智力的集合性越高，其本身的学习能力约好。这类似于个人智力的性质，即聪明人越多，团队可以更快地获取新材料。+ 第369行：
第370行： − 个体智力可以用来预测从学业事业的成功到健康甚至死亡的大量生活场景。除了在智力任务上的表现外，集体智能是否能够预测其他结果尚待研究。+ 第379行：
第380行： − 格拉德威尔Gladwell（2008）指出，个人智商与成功之间的关系仅在一定程度上起作用，而且智商超过120以上的其他智力点并不能转化为现实生活中的优势。是否Group-IQ存在相似的边界？或者优势是线性的和无限的？这仍然有待探索。同样，对个人智力和集体智力之间的联系也需要进一步探究，是否存在个人智力其他潜在因素可以转移到集体智力中？例如随着时间的推移自我进化或智力提高。尽管目前对于是否能通过培训来增强人类智力这一论点存在争议，但一个团队的集体智力是可以潜在性地通过交换组员或实施结构和技术上的提升来改进的。此外，人们发现阅读文学小说以及看戏曲电影至少可以暂时改善社会敏感性。但是社会敏感性培训最终是否能提高集体智力以及在多大程度上提高集体智力，这仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。+ 第387行：
第388行： − 还有更多更高级的概念和因子模型试图解释个体的认知能力，包括流体智力和晶体智力或智力差异的分层模型。但是，除了通用的“c因子”外，目前并没有对集体智力基因组的因子结构采取进一步补充说明和概念化。+ 第397行：
第398行： − 有的学者通过将团队成员的综合智力进行汇总到团队级别来解释团队能力，而不是建立团队自身的集群智力指标。迪瓦恩Devine和飞利浦Philips（2001）在一项Meta综合分析中表明，认知能力可以预测团队在实验室环境（.37）和现场环境（.14）中的表现，但是请注意，这只是很小的影响。其他学者认为这相当依赖于不同的相关任务，他们表示那些需要高度沟通与合作的任务其实受认知能力最低组员的影响最大。因此选择最佳组员是成功的关键策略，这些任务受认知能力最高的成员影响最大。+ 第405行：
第406行： − 由于伍利等人的结果并未显示出团队满意度，团队凝聚力或动机的任何影响，因此他们仅隐含地挑战了这些观点，并表示了其总体上对团队绩效的重要性。通过Meta综合分析，他们证明了团队凝聚力，动机和满意度对团队绩效的积极影响。+ 第413行：
第414行： − +
→Collective intelligence factor c 集体智力因子c
从数学上讲，c和g都是变量，假设不同团队或个人在不同任务（但相似）中的表现具有可比性,这两个变量均描述了该团队或个人在不同任务之间的正相关性。<font color=“#32CD32”>因此，c表示的是团队之间的差异，在给定相关人口设置的其他组相比，它仅被视为该组在c因子上的设置结果。g</font><font color=“#32CD32”>需要注意的是，该概念与竞争假设（包括其他可以解释群体智能的相关结构）形成对比，例如由个体人格研究中发现的一些同样重要但相互独立的因素组合。g</font>
从数学上讲，c和g都是变量，假设不同团队或个人在不同任务（但相似）中的表现具有可比性,这两个变量均描述了该团队或个人在不同任务之间的正相关性<ref name=":5">{{Cite book|title=A history of intelligence test interpretation. In D.P. Flanagan and P.L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd Ed.)|author1=Kamphaus, R.W. |author2=Winsor, A.P. |author3=Rowe, E.W. |author4= Kim, S. |name-list-style=amp |publisher=Guilford|year=2005|location=New York, NY|pages=23–38}}</ref>。<font color="“#32CD32”">因此，c表示的是团队之间的差异，在给定相关人口设置的其他组相比，它仅被视为该组在c因子上的设置结果<ref name=":23">{{Cite book|title=The g factor: The science of mental ability.|last=Jensen|first=Arthur, R.|publisher=Praeger|year=1998|location=Westport, CT}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=van der Maas|first1=Han L. J.|last2=Dolan|first2=Conor V.|last3=Grasman|first3=Raoul P. P. P.|last4=Wicherts|first4=Jelte M.|last5=Huizenga|first5=Hilde M.|last6=Raijmakers|first6=Maartje E. J.|date=2006-10-01|title=A dynamical model of general intelligence: the positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism|journal=Psychological Review|volume=113|issue=4|pages=842–861|doi=10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.842|pmid=17014305}}</ref>。g</font><font color="“#32CD32”">需要注意的是，该概念与竞争假设（包括其他可以解释群体智能的相关结构）形成对比<ref name=":05">{{Cite journal|last1=Woolley|first1=Anita Williams|last2=Chabris|first2=Christopher F.|last3=Pentland|first3=Alex|last4=Hashmi|first4=Nada|last5=Malone|first5=Thomas W.|s2cid=74579|date=2010-10-29|title=Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups|journal=Science|volume=330|issue=6004|pages=686–688|doi=10.1126/science.1193147|pmid=20929725|bibcode=2010Sci...330..686W}}</ref>，例如由个体人格研究中发现的一些同样重要但相互独立的因素组合<ref>{{Cite journal|author1=McCrae, R. R.|author2=Costa Jr., P. T.|date=1987|title=Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Instruments and Observers|url=http://webs.wofford.edu/steinmetzkr/teaching/Psy150/Lecture%20PDFs/FiveFactorModel.pdf|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=52|issue=1|pages=81–90|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81|pmid=3820081|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190421014207/https://webs.wofford.edu/steinmetzkr/teaching/Psy150/Lecture%20PDFs/FiveFactorModel.pdf|archive-date=21 April 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>。</font>
Besides, this scientific idea also aims to explore the causes affecting collective intelligence, such as group size, collaboration tools or group members' interpersonal skills. The MIT Center for Collective Intelligence, for instance, announced the detection of The Genome of Collective Intelligence as one of its main goals aiming to develop a taxonomy of organizational building blocks, or genes, that can be combined and recombined to harness the intelligence of crowds.
Besides, this scientific idea also aims to explore the causes affecting collective intelligence, such as group size, collaboration tools or group members' interpersonal skills. The MIT Center for Collective Intelligence, for instance, announced the detection of The Genome of Collective Intelligence as one of its main goals aiming to develop a taxonomy of organizational building blocks, or genes, that can be combined and recombined to harness the intelligence of crowds.
此外，这一科学思想还旨在探讨影响集体智能的原因，例如小组规模，协作工具或小组成员的人际交往能力。例如，麻省理工学院的集体智能中心宣布检测“集体智能的基因组”是其主要目标之一，旨在建立一种分类法，可以组织构建模块或基因组，并对其进行重组，以利用群体的智力<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=http://cci.mit.edu/research_developing.html|title=MIT Center for Collective Intelligence|website=cci.mit.edu|access-date=2016-04-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160330091237/http://cci.mit.edu/research_developing.html|archive-date=30 March 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>。
Individual intelligence is shown to be genetically and environmentally influenced. Analogously, collective intelligence research aims to explore reasons why certain groups perform more intelligent than other groups given that c is just moderately correlated with the intelligence of individual group members. According to Woolley et al.'s results, neither team cohesion nor motivation or satisfaction is correlated with c. However, they claim that three factors were found as significant correlates: the variance in the number of speaking turns, group members' average social sensitivity and the proportion of females. All three had similar predictive power for c, but only social sensitivity was statistically significant (b=0.33, P=0.05).
Individual intelligence is shown to be genetically and environmentally influenced. Analogously, collective intelligence research aims to explore reasons why certain groups perform more intelligent than other groups given that c is just moderately correlated with the intelligence of individual group members. According to Woolley et al.'s results, neither team cohesion nor motivation or satisfaction is correlated with c. However, they claim that three factors were found as significant correlates: the variance in the number of speaking turns, group members' average social sensitivity and the proportion of females. All three had similar predictive power for c, but only social sensitivity was statistically significant (b=0.33, P=0.05).
个体智力受到遗传与环境影响<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Briley|first1=Daniel A.|last2=Tucker-Drob|first2=Elliot M.|date=2014-09-01|title=Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: a meta-analysis|journal=Psychological Bulletin|volume=140|issue=5|pages=1303–1331|doi=10.1037/a0037091|pmc=4152379|pmid=24956122}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Deary|first1=Ian J.|last2=Spinath|first2=Frank M.|last3=Bates|first3=Timothy C.|date=2006-01-01|title=Genetics of intelligence|journal=European Journal of Human Genetics|volume=14|issue=6|pages=690–700|doi=10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201588|pmid=16721405|doi-access=free}}</ref>。类似地，集体智力的研究目的是探索为什么某些群体比其他群体表现地更聪明，假设因子c与群体中单个成员的智力适度相关<ref name=":06">{{Cite journal|last1=Woolley|first1=Anita Williams|last2=Chabris|first2=Christopher F.|last3=Pentland|first3=Alex|last4=Hashmi|first4=Nada|last5=Malone|first5=Thomas W.|s2cid=74579|date=2010-10-29|title=Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups|journal=Science|volume=330|issue=6004|pages=686–688|doi=10.1126/science.1193147|pmid=20929725|bibcode=2010Sci...330..686W}}</ref>。根据Woolley等人的结果，团队凝聚力，动机或满意度都与因子c无关。但是，他们声称发现了三个非常重要的相关因素：成员发表意见的次数，成员社会敏感度平均值和女性比例。这三者对因子c具有相似的预测能力，但目前只有社会敏感度具有统计学意义（b = 0.33，P = 0.05）<ref name=":07">{{Cite journal|last1=Woolley|first1=Anita Williams|last2=Chabris|first2=Christopher F.|last3=Pentland|first3=Alex|last4=Hashmi|first4=Nada|last5=Malone|first5=Thomas W.|s2cid=74579|date=2010-10-29|title=Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups|journal=Science|volume=330|issue=6004|pages=686–688|doi=10.1126/science.1193147|pmid=20929725|bibcode=2010Sci...330..686W}}</ref>。
The number speaking turns indicates that "groups where a few people dominated the conversation were less collectively intelligent than those with a more equal distribution of conversational turn-taking". Hence, providing multiple team members the chance to speak up made a group more intelligent.
The number speaking turns indicates that "groups where a few people dominated the conversation were less collectively intelligent than those with a more equal distribution of conversational turn-taking". Hence, providing multiple team members the chance to speak up made a group more intelligent.
成员发表意见的次数表明“由少数人主导的群体，其集体智力不及那些对话轮流分配更为平均的群体。”<ref name=":42">{{Cite journal|author1=Engel, D. |author2=Woolley, A. W. |author3=Jing, L. X. |author4=Chabris, C. F. |author5= Malone, T. W. |name-list-style=amp |date=2014|title=Reading the Mind in the Eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of Mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face|journal=PLOS ONE |volume=9 |issue=12 |pages=e115212|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0115212|pmid=25514387 |pmc=4267836|bibcode=2014PLoSO...9k5212E }}</ref>因此，为多个团队成员提供发言的机会可以让团队更加聪明<ref name=":07" />。
Group members' social sensitivity was measured via the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RME) and correlated .26 with c. or 'mind reading', which refers to the ability to attribute mental states, such as beliefs, desires or intents, to other people and in how far people understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions or perspectives different from their own ones. and constantly differentiates control groups from individuals with functional autism or Asperger Syndrome. ToM can be regarded as an associated subset of skills and abilities within the broader concept of emotional intelligence.
Group members' social sensitivity was measured via the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RME) and correlated .26 with c. or 'mind reading', which refers to the ability to attribute mental states, such as beliefs, desires or intents, to other people and in how far people understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions or perspectives different from their own ones. and constantly differentiates control groups from individuals with functional autism or Asperger Syndrome. ToM can be regarded as an associated subset of skills and abilities within the broader concept of emotional intelligence.
<font color="#32CD32">小组成员的社交敏感度通过“<font color="#ff8000"> 眼神阅读测试Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test</font>”（RME）并与c关联（0.26）或<font color=“#ff8000”> 读心术</font>进行测量。这里要求参与者检测图片中呈现的其他人眼中表达的思维或感觉，并以选择题形式进行评估。该测试旨在衡量人们的<font color="#ff8000"> 心智理论Theory of mind（ToM）</font>，也称为“心理化”或“思想阅读”，指的是感受他人心理状态的能力（例如信念，欲望或意图），当他们的信念，欲望，意图或观点与自己有所不同时，能在多大程度上理解他人。RME是针对成人的ToM测试，显示出足够的重测信度，并不断将对照组与患有功能性自闭症或阿斯伯格综合症的个体区分开来。它是成人ToM最广泛接受和验证良好的测试之一。在更宽泛的情商概念中，ToM可被视为技能的相关子集。</font>
<font color="#32CD32">小组成员的社交敏感度通过“<font color="#ff8000"> 眼神阅读测试Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test</font>”<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal|vauthors=Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Hill J, Raste Y, Plumb I |date=2001|title=The ''Reading the Mind in the Eyes'' Test revised version: a study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism|journal=Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry |volume=42 |issue=2|pages=241–251|doi=10.1017/s0021963001006643|pmid=11280420}}</ref>（RME）并与c关联（0.26）<ref name=":08">{{Cite journal|last1=Woolley|first1=Anita Williams|last2=Chabris|first2=Christopher F.|last3=Pentland|first3=Alex|last4=Hashmi|first4=Nada|last5=Malone|first5=Thomas W.|s2cid=74579|date=2010-10-29|title=Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups|journal=Science|volume=330|issue=6004|pages=686–688|doi=10.1126/science.1193147|pmid=20929725|bibcode=2010Sci...330..686W}}</ref>或<font color=“#ff8000”> 读心术</font>进行测量。这里要求参与者检测图片中呈现的其他人眼中表达的思维或感觉，并以选择题形式进行评估。该测试旨在衡量人们的<font color="#ff8000"> 心智理论Theory of mind（ToM）</font>，也称为“心理化”<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Apperly|first=Ian A.|date=2012-05-01|title=What is "theory of mind"? Concepts, cognitive processes and individual differences|journal=The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology|volume=65|issue=5|pages=825–839|doi=10.1080/17470218.2012.676055|pmid=22533318|s2cid=7212563}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Baron-Cohen | first1 = Simon | last2 = Leslie | first2 = Alan M. | last3 = Frith | first3 = Uta | title = Does the autistic child have a "theory of mind"? | journal = [[Cognition (journal)|Cognition]] | volume = 21 | issue = 1 | pages = 37–46 | doi = 10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8 | pmid = 2934210 | date = October 1985 | s2cid = 14955234}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20170928145836/http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-alan-leslie/publications/Baron-Cohen%20Leslie%20%26%20Frith%201985.pdf Pdf.]</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Flavell|first=J. H.|date=1999-01-01|title=Cognitive development: children's knowledge about the mind|journal=Annual Review of Psychology|volume=50|pages=21–45|doi=10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.21|pmid=10074674}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Premack|first1=David|last2=Woodruff|first2=Guy|date=1978-12-01|title=Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?|url=http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0140525X00076512|journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences|volume=1|issue=4|pages=515–526|doi=10.1017/S0140525X00076512|doi-access=free}}</ref>或“思想阅读”<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Heyes|first1=Cecilia M.|last2=Frith|first2=Chris D.|date=2014-06-20|title=The cultural evolution of mind reading|journal=Science|volume=344|issue=6190|pages=1243091|doi=10.1126/science.1243091|pmid=24948740|s2cid=3139981}}</ref>，指的是感受他人心理状态的能力（例如信念，欲望或意图），当他们的信念，欲望，意图或观点与自己有所不同时，能在多大程度上理解他人。RME是针对成人的ToM测试，显示出足够的重测信度，并不断将对照组与患有功能性自闭症或阿斯伯格综合症<ref name=":62">{{Cite journal|vauthors=Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Hill J, Raste Y, Plumb I |date=2001|title=The ''Reading the Mind in the Eyes'' Test revised version: a study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism|journal=Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry |volume=42 |issue=2|pages=241–251|doi=10.1017/s0021963001006643|pmid=11280420}}</ref>的个体区分开来。它是成人ToM最广泛接受和验证良好的测试之一<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Pinkham|first1=Amy E.|last2=Penn|first2=David L.|last3=Green|first3=Michael F.|last4=Buck|first4=Benjamin|last5=Healey|first5=Kristin|last6=Harvey|first6=Philip D.|date=2014-07-01|title=The Social Cognition Psychometric Evaluation Study: Results of the Expert Survey and RAND Panel|url= |journal=Schizophrenia Bulletin|volume=40|issue=4|pages=813–823|doi=10.1093/schbul/sbt081|pmc=4059426|pmid=23728248|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161101212140/http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/4/813|archive-date=1 November 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>。在更宽泛的情商概念中，ToM可被视为技能的相关子集<ref name=":43">{{Cite journal|author1=Engel, D. |author2=Woolley, A. W. |author3=Jing, L. X. |author4=Chabris, C. F. |author5= Malone, T. W. |name-list-style=amp |date=2014|title=Reading the Mind in the Eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of Mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face|journal=PLOS ONE |volume=9 |issue=12 |pages=e115212|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0115212|pmid=25514387 |pmc=4267836|bibcode=2014PLoSO...9k5212E }}</ref><ref name="Yip 48–55">{{Cite journal|last1=Yip|first1=Jeremy A.|last2=Côté|first2=Stéphane|date=2013-01-01|title=The Emotionally Intelligent Decision Maker Emotion-Understanding Ability Reduces the Effect of Incidental Anxiety on Risk Taking|journal=Psychological Science|volume=24|issue=1|pages=48–55|doi=10.1177/0956797612450031|pmid=23221020|s2cid=33438475}}</ref>。</font>
The proportion of females as a predictor of c was largely mediated by social sensitivity (Sobel z = 1.93, P= 0.03) Wolley agreed in an interview with the Harvard Business Review that these findings are saying that groups of women are smarter than groups of men. However, she relativizes this stating that the actual important thing is the high social sensitivity of group members.
The proportion of females as a predictor of c was largely mediated by social sensitivity (Sobel z = 1.93, P= 0.03) Wolley agreed in an interview with the Harvard Business Review that these findings are saying that groups of women are smarter than groups of men. However, she relativizes this stating that the actual important thing is the high social sensitivity of group members.
女性占比作为因子c的预测因素主要是通过社会敏感性<font color=“#32CD32”>介导</font>（Sobel z = 1.93，P = 0.03），这与之前的研究结果相符，即女性在社会敏感性测试中得分更高。从统计学上讲，<font color=“#32CD32”>介导</font>，从统计学上讲，澄清了因变量和自变量之间关系的基本机制。伍利在接受《哈佛商业评论》采访时曾表示这个发现说明了女性群体比男性群体更聪明。但是，她也就这个结论<font color=“#32CD32”>做了相对化的陈述</font>，实际上重要的是团体成员的高度社会敏感性。
女性占比作为因子c的预测因素主要是通过社会敏感性<font color=“#32CD32”>介导</font>（Sobel z = 1.93，P = 0.03）<ref name=":09">{{Cite journal|last1=Woolley|first1=Anita Williams|last2=Chabris|first2=Christopher F.|last3=Pentland|first3=Alex|last4=Hashmi|first4=Nada|last5=Malone|first5=Thomas W.|s2cid=74579|date=2010-10-29|title=Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups|journal=Science|volume=330|issue=6004|pages=686–688|doi=10.1126/science.1193147|pmid=20929725|bibcode=2010Sci...330..686W}}</ref>，这与之前的研究结果相符，即女性在社会敏感性测试中得分更高<ref name=":63">{{Cite journal|vauthors=Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Hill J, Raste Y, Plumb I |date=2001|title=The ''Reading the Mind in the Eyes'' Test revised version: a study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism|journal=Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry |volume=42 |issue=2|pages=241–251|doi=10.1017/s0021963001006643|pmid=11280420}}</ref>。从统计学上讲，<font color=“#32CD32”>介导</font>，从统计学上讲，澄清了因变量和自变量之间关系的基本机制<ref>{{Cite book|title=Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis|last=MacKinnon, D. P.|publisher=Erlbaum|year=2008|location=New York, NY}}</ref>。伍利在接受《哈佛商业评论》采访时曾表示这个发现说明了女性群体比男性群体更聪明。但是，她也就这个结论<font color=“#32CD32”>做了相对化的陈述</font>，实际上重要的是团体成员的高度社会敏感性<ref name=":72">{{Cite journal|author1=Woolley, A. |author2= Malone, T. |name-list-style=amp |date=June 2011|title=Defend your research: What makes a team smarter? More women|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51453001|journal=Harvard Business Review |volume=89 |issue=6 |pages=32–33}}</ref>。
It is theorized that the collective intelligence factor c is an emergent property resulting from bottom-up as well as top-down processes. Hereby, bottom-up processes cover aggregated group-member characteristics. Top-down processes cover group structures and norms that influence a group's way of collaborating and coordinating.
It is theorized that the collective intelligence factor c is an emergent property resulting from bottom-up as well as top-down processes. Hereby, bottom-up processes cover aggregated group-member characteristics. Top-down processes cover group structures and norms that influence a group's way of collaborating and coordinating.
从理论上讲，集体智力因子c是由自下而上和自上而下共同产生的<font color=“#ff8000”> 涌现特性</font>。因此，自下而上的过程涉及聚合组成员的特征，自上而下的过程涉及团队结构，以及协作协调方式对团队风格的影响。
从理论上讲，集体智力因子c是由自下而上和自上而下共同产生的<font color=“#ff8000”> 涌现特性</font>。因此，自下而上的过程涉及聚合组成员的特征，自上而下的过程涉及团队结构，以及协作协调方式对团队风格的影响<ref name=":113">{{Cite journal|last1=Woolley|first1=Anita Williams|last2=Aggarwal|first2=Ishani|last3=Malone|first3=Thomas W.|date=2015-12-01|title=Collective Intelligence and Group Performance|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|volume=24|issue=6|pages=420–424|doi=10.1177/0963721415599543|s2cid=146673541}}</ref>。
Top-down processes cover group interaction, such as structures, processes, and norms. An example of such top-down processes is conversational turn-taking. Research further suggest that collectively intelligent groups communicate more in general as well as more equally; same applies for participation and is shown for face-to-face as well as online groups communicating only via writing.
Top-down processes cover group interaction, such as structures, processes, and norms. An example of such top-down processes is conversational turn-taking. Research further suggest that collectively intelligent groups communicate more in general as well as more equally; same applies for participation and is shown for face-to-face as well as online groups communicating only via writing.
自上而下的处理包括团队交互分析，涉及例如结构，程序和规范<ref name="Woolley 420–424">{{Cite journal|last1=Woolley|first1=A. W.|last2=Aggarwal|first2=I.|last3=Malone|first3=T. W.|date=2015-12-01|title=Collective Intelligence and Group Performance|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286512331|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|volume=24|issue=6|pages=420–424|doi=10.1177/0963721415599543|s2cid=146673541}}</ref>。这种自上而下的过程的一个例子是话轮转换机制。研究进一步表明，集体智慧的群体大体上能进行平等地交流。此过程同样适用于参与形式的沟通，类似面对面以及通过书面形式进行的在线小组交流<ref name=":44">{{Cite journal|author1=Engel, D. |author2=Woolley, A. W. |author3=Jing, L. X. |author4=Chabris, C. F. |author5= Malone, T. W. |name-list-style=amp |date=2014|title=Reading the Mind in the Eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of Mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face|journal=PLOS ONE |volume=9 |issue=12 |pages=e115212|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0115212|pmid=25514387 |pmc=4267836|bibcode=2014PLoSO...9k5212E }}</ref><ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|author1=Kim, Y. J. |author2=Engel, D. |author3=Woolley, A. W. |author4=Lin, J. |author5=McArthur, N. |author6= Malone, T. W. |name-list-style=amp |date=2015|title=Work together, play smart: Collective intelligence in League of Legends teams|journal=Paper Presented at the 2015 Collective Intelligence Conference, Santa Clara, CA.}}</ref>。
Bottom-up processes include group composition, including thinking styles and perspectives. Groups that are moderately diverse in cognitive style have higher collective intelligence than those who are very similar in cognitive style or very different. Consequently, groups where members are too similar to each other lack the variety of perspectives and skills needed to perform well. On the other hand, groups whose members are too different seem to have difficulties to communicate and coordinate effectively.
Bottom-up processes include group composition, including thinking styles and perspectives. Groups that are moderately diverse in cognitive style have higher collective intelligence than those who are very similar in cognitive style or very different. Consequently, groups where members are too similar to each other lack the variety of perspectives and skills needed to perform well. On the other hand, groups whose members are too different seem to have difficulties to communicate and coordinate effectively.
自下而上的处理包括小组组成分析，即小组成员的特征，这些特征汇总直接影响到团队级别<ref name=":114">{{Cite journal|last1=Woolley|first1=Anita Williams|last2=Aggarwal|first2=Ishani|last3=Malone|first3=Thomas W.|date=2015-12-01|title=Collective Intelligence and Group Performance|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|volume=24|issue=6|pages=420–424|doi=10.1177/0963721415599543|s2cid=146673541}}</ref>。例子之一包括社会敏感度平均值或小组成员的平均和最大智力得分。此外，人们发现集体智能与一个群体的认知多样性有关，包括思维方式和观点<ref>{{Cite journal|author1=Kozhevnikov, M. |author2=Evans, C. |author3= Kosslyn, S. M. |name-list-style=amp|date=2014|title=Cognitive style as environmentally sensitive individual differences in cognition: A modern synthesis and applications in education, business, and management|journal=Psychological Science in the Public Interest |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=3–33|doi=10.1177/1529100614525555|pmid=26171827|s2cid=20559112 }}</ref>。认知风格适度的群体，相比较认知风格非常相似或非常不同的群体，具有更高的集体智能。因为成员彼此之间过于相似会造成该群体缺乏不同的观点（往往团队任务表现好的具有各种观点）和技能。另一方面，成员差异太大的团体可能会难以有效地沟通和协调<ref name=":122">{{Cite journal|author1=Aggarwal, I. |author2=Woolley, A. W. |author3=Chabris, C. F. |author4= Malone, T. W. |name-list-style=amp |date=2015|title=Cognitive diversity, collective intelligence, and learning in teams.|journal=Paper Presented at the 2015 Collective Intelligence Conference, Santa Clara, CA.}}</ref>。
For most of human history, collective intelligence was confined to small tribal groups in which opinions were aggregated through real-time parallel interactions among members. In modern times, mass communication, mass media, and networking technologies have enabled collective intelligence to span massive groups, distributed across continents and time-zones. To accommodate this shift in scale, collective intelligence in large-scale groups been dominated by serialized polling processes such as aggregating up-votes, likes, and ratings over time. While modern systems benefit from larger group size, the serialized process has been found to introduce substantial noise that distorts the collective output of the group. In one significant study of serialized collective intelligence, it was found that the first vote contributed to a serialized voting system can distort the final result by 34%.
For most of human history, collective intelligence was confined to small tribal groups in which opinions were aggregated through real-time parallel interactions among members. In modern times, mass communication, mass media, and networking technologies have enabled collective intelligence to span massive groups, distributed across continents and time-zones. To accommodate this shift in scale, collective intelligence in large-scale groups been dominated by serialized polling processes such as aggregating up-votes, likes, and ratings over time. While modern systems benefit from larger group size, the serialized process has been found to introduce substantial noise that distorts the collective output of the group. In one significant study of serialized collective intelligence, it was found that the first vote contributed to a serialized voting system can distort the final result by 34%.
在大多数人类历史中，集体智能都局限于少数部落群体，它们通过成员之间的实时并行互动来收集意见。而现代，因为大众传播，媒体和网络技术的发展使集体智能可以跨越各大洲和时区，这是一个极其庞大的群体。为了适应规模上的这种变化，大规模集体智能被序列化投票过程所控制，例如随着时间的推移去汇总投票，赞赏和评级。在工程领域中，汇总各种工程决策可以识别分析优秀的经典设计<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bruch|first1=Marcel|last2=Bodden|first2=Eric|last3=Monperrus|first3=Martin|last4=Mezini|first4=Mira|date=2010|title=IDE 2.0: collective intelligence in software development|url=https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01575346/file/bbmm10ide.pdf|journal=Proceedings of the FSE/SDP Workshop on Future of Software Engineering Research - FoSER '10|doi=10.1145/1882362.1882374|s2cid=7637561}}</ref>。尽管现代系统受益于更大的群规模，但事实上发现串行化处理过程会引入大量噪声，从而使群组的集体输出失真。在一项有关序列化集体智能的重要研究中发现，对序列化投票系统做出贡献的第一票可能使最终结果失真34％<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Muchnik|first1=Lev|last2=Aral|first2=Sinan|last3=Taylor|first3=Sean J.|date=2013-08-09|title=Social Influence Bias: A Randomized Experiment|journal=Science|volume=341|issue=6146|pages=647–651|doi=10.1126/science.1240466|issn=0036-8075|pmid=23929980|bibcode=2013Sci...341..647M|s2cid=15775672}}</ref>。
To address the problems of serialized aggregation of input among large-scale groups, recent advancements collective intelligence have worked to replace serialized votes, polls, and markets, with parallel systems such as "human swarms" modeled after synchronous swarms in nature. Based on natural process of Swarm Intelligence, these artificial swarms of networked humans enable participants to work together in parallel to answer questions and make predictions as an emergent collective intelligence. In one high-profile example, a human swarm challenge by CBS Interactive to predict the Kentucky Derby. The swarm correctly predicted the first four horses, in order, defying 542–1 odds and turning a $20 bet into $10,800.
To address the problems of serialized aggregation of input among large-scale groups, recent advancements collective intelligence have worked to replace serialized votes, polls, and markets, with parallel systems such as "human swarms" modeled after synchronous swarms in nature. Based on natural process of Swarm Intelligence, these artificial swarms of networked humans enable participants to work together in parallel to answer questions and make predictions as an emergent collective intelligence. In one high-profile example, a human swarm challenge by CBS Interactive to predict the Kentucky Derby. The swarm correctly predicted the first four horses, in order, defying 542–1 odds and turning a $20 bet into $10,800.
为了解决大规模群体之间因为输入序列化汇总的问题，目前的进展是，集体智能已经淘汰了序列化的选票，民意测验和市场，进而采用了以自然群体为蓝本的并行系统，例如“人类集群Human swarms”。基于<font color="#ff8000"> 群体智能Swarm Intelligence</font>（注意区分Collective intelligence）的自然执行过程，这些由人类联网组成的人工集群使参与者可以并行工作来解决问题，并为涌现集体智能做出预测。在一个引人注目的示例中，CBS Interactive（美国著名媒体公司）进行了人类集群的挑战以预测肯塔基德比（美国著名跑马赛）。这群人正确地预测了前四匹马，顺次击败了542-1的赔率，将20美元的赌注变成了10,800美元。
为了解决大规模群体之间因为输入序列化汇总的问题，目前的进展是，集体智能已经淘汰了序列化的选票，民意测验和市场，进而采用了以自然群体为蓝本的并行系统，例如“人类集群Human swarms”<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161215-why-bees-could-be-the-secret-to-superhuman-intelligence|title=Why bees could be the secret to superhuman intelligence|last=Oxenham|first=Simon|access-date=2017-05-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525175211/http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161215-why-bees-could-be-the-secret-to-superhuman-intelligence|archive-date=25 May 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last1=Rosenberg|first1=L.|last2=Baltaxe|first2=D.|last3=Pescetelli|first3=N.|date=2016-10-01|title=Crowds vs swarms, a comparison of intelligence|journal=2016 Swarm/Human Blended Intelligence Workshop (SHBI)|pages=1–4|doi=10.1109/SHBI.2016.7780278|isbn=978-1-5090-3502-1|s2cid=12725324}}</ref>。基于<font color="#ff8000"> 群体智能Swarm Intelligence</font>（注意区分Collective intelligence）的自然执行过程，这些由人类联网组成的人工集群使参与者可以并行工作来解决问题，并为涌现集体智能做出预测<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Metcalf|first1=Lynn|last2=Askay|first2=David A.|last3=Rosenberg|first3=Louis B.|date=2019|title=Keeping Humans in the Loop: Pooling Knowledge through Artificial Swarm Intelligence to Improve Business Decision Making|journal=California Management Review|language=en|volume=61|issue=4|pages=84–109|doi=10.1177/0008125619862256|s2cid=202323483|issn=0008-1256}}</ref>。在一个引人注目的示例中，CBS Interactive（美国著名媒体公司）进行了人类集群的挑战以预测肯塔基德比（美国著名跑马赛）。这群人正确地预测了前四匹马，顺次击败了542-1的赔率，将20美元的赌注变成了10,800美元<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.newsweek.com/artificial-intelligence-turns-20-11000-kentucky-derby-bet-457783|title=Artificial intelligence turns $20 into $11,000 in Kentucky Derby bet|date=2016-05-10|work=Newsweek|access-date=2017-05-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160604063846/http://www.newsweek.com/artificial-intelligence-turns-20-11000-kentucky-derby-bet-457783|archive-date=4 June 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>。
The value of parallel collective intelligence was demonstrated in medical applications by researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine and Unanimous AI in a set of published studies wherein groups of human doctors were connected by real-time swarming algorithms and tasked with diagnosing chest x-rays for the presence of pneumonia. When working together as "human swarms," the groups of experienced radiologists demonstrated a 33% reduction in diagnostic errors as compared to traditional methods.
The value of parallel collective intelligence was demonstrated in medical applications by researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine and Unanimous AI in a set of published studies wherein groups of human doctors were connected by real-time swarming algorithms and tasked with diagnosing chest x-rays for the presence of pneumonia. When working together as "human swarms," the groups of experienced radiologists demonstrated a 33% reduction in diagnostic errors as compared to traditional methods.
斯坦福大学医学院和Unanimous A.I.的研究人员证明了在医学应用中并行集体智能的价值，在已发表的研究中，它们采用了实时集群算法将一组人类医生联系在一起，运用胸部X射线来诊断肺炎的存在。当作为“人类集群”一起工作时，经验丰富的放射科医生小组相比较传统方法，诊断错误减少了33％。
斯坦福大学医学院和Unanimous A.I.的研究人员证明了在医学应用中并行集体智能的价值，在已发表的研究中，它们采用了实时集群算法将一组人类医生联系在一起，运用胸部X射线来诊断肺炎的存在<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/diagnostics/ai-human-hive-mind-diagnoses-pneumonia|title=AI-Human "Hive Mind" Diagnoses Pneumonia|last=Scudellari|first=Megan|date=2018-09-13|website=IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News|access-date=2019-07-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190720160349/https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/diagnostics/ai-human-hive-mind-diagnoses-pneumonia|archive-date=20 July 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/09/27/artificial-swarm-intelligence-diagnoses-pneumonia-better-than-individual-computer-or-doctor/|title=Artificial swarm intelligence diagnoses pneumonia better than individual computer or doctor|last=Liu|first=Fan|date=2018-09-27|website=The Stanford Daily|access-date=2019-07-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190720160348/https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/09/27/artificial-swarm-intelligence-diagnoses-pneumonia-better-than-individual-computer-or-doctor/|archive-date=20 July 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>。当作为“人类集群”一起工作时，经验丰富的放射科医生小组相比较传统方法，诊断错误减少了33％.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.radiologytoday.net/archive/rt0119p12.shtml|title=A Swarm of Insight - Radiology Today Magazine|website=www.radiologytoday.net|access-date=2019-07-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190720160350/https://www.radiologytoday.net/archive/rt0119p12.shtml|archive-date=20 July 2019|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Rosenberg|first1=Louis|last2=Lungren|first2=Matthew|last3=Halabi|first3=Safwan|last4=Willcox|first4=Gregg|last5=Baltaxe|first5=David|last6=Lyons|first6=Mimi|date=November 2018|title=Artificial Swarm Intelligence employed to Amplify Diagnostic Accuracy in Radiology|journal=2018 IEEE 9th Annual Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (IEMCON)|location=Vancouver, BC|publisher=IEEE|pages=1186–1191|doi=10.1109/IEMCON.2018.8614883|isbn=9781538672662|s2cid=58675679}}</ref>。
Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi, & Malone (2010), a well-established taxonomy of group tasks. Tasks were chosen from all four quadrants of the circumplex and included visual puzzles, brainstorming, making collective moral judgments, and negotiating over limited resources. The results in these tasks were taken to conduct a factor analysis. Both studies showed support for a general collective intelligence factor c underlying differences in group performance with an initial eigenvalue accounting for 43% (44% in study 2) of the variance, whereas the next factor accounted for only 18% (20%). That fits the range normally found in research regarding a general individual intelligence factor g typically accounting for 40% to 50% percent of between-individual performance differences on cognitive tests.
Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi, & Malone (2010), a well-established taxonomy of group tasks. Tasks were chosen from all four quadrants of the circumplex and included visual puzzles, brainstorming, making collective moral judgments, and negotiating over limited resources. The results in these tasks were taken to conduct a factor analysis. Both studies showed support for a general collective intelligence factor c underlying differences in group performance with an initial eigenvalue accounting for 43% (44% in study 2) of the variance, whereas the next factor accounted for only 18% (20%). That fits the range normally found in research regarding a general individual intelligence factor g typically accounting for 40% to 50% percent of between-individual performance differences on cognitive tests.
伍利，察布里斯，彭特兰，哈什米（2010）是集体智能这一科学概念的创始人<ref name=":010">{{Cite journal|last1=Woolley|first1=Anita Williams|last2=Chabris|first2=Christopher F.|last3=Pentland|first3=Alex|last4=Hashmi|first4=Nada|last5=Malone|first5=Thomas W.|s2cid=74579|date=2010-10-29|title=Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups|journal=Science|volume=330|issue=6004|pages=686–688|doi=10.1126/science.1193147|pmid=20929725|bibcode=2010Sci...330..686W}}</ref>。他们在192个群体的研究中发现了集体智能的单一统计因子，这192个群体的成员均是从公众中随机招募的。研究中，每个组群都是基于<font color="#ff8000"> 麦格拉思任务环McGrath Task Circumplex</font>（一种完善的小组任务分类法）<ref>{{Cite book|title=Groups: Interaction and Performance|last=McGrath, J. E.|publisher=Prentice-Hall|year=1984|location=Englewood Cliffs, NJ}}</ref>进行合作。这些任务是从四个象限中选择的，包括视觉难题，头脑风暴，集体道德判断以及就有限的资源进行谈判。将这些任务中的结果用于因子分析。两项研究均显示出了综合集群智力因子c的特征，并且根据群体的不同表现出了一定的差异，其初始特征值约占这些差异的43％（研究2中为44％），而另一个因子仅占18％（20％）。该数据与综合个体智力因子g的范围相符，通常在认知测验中占个体间性能差异的40％至50％<ref name=":52">{{Cite book|title=A history of intelligence test interpretation. In D.P. Flanagan and P.L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd Ed.)|author1=Kamphaus, R.W. |author2=Winsor, A.P. |author3=Rowe, E.W. |author4= Kim, S. |name-list-style=amp |publisher=Guilford|year=2005|location=New York, NY|pages=23–38}}</ref>。
Afterwards, a more complex criterion task was absolved by each group measuring whether the extracted c factor had predictive power for performance outside the original task batteries. Criterion tasks were playing checkers (draughts) against a standardized computer in the first and a complex architectural design task in the second study. In a regression analysis using both individual intelligence of group members and c to predict performance on the criterion tasks, c had a significant effect, but average and maximum individual intelligence had not. While average (r=0.15, P=0.04) and maximum intelligence (r=0.19, P=0.008) of individual group members were moderately correlated with c, c was still a much better predictor of the criterion tasks. According to Woolley et al., this supports the existence of a collective intelligence factor c, because it demonstrates an effect over and beyond group members' individual intelligence and thus that c is more than just the aggregation of the individual IQs or the influence of the group member with the highest IQ.
Afterwards, a more complex criterion task was absolved by each group measuring whether the extracted c factor had predictive power for performance outside the original task batteries. Criterion tasks were playing checkers (draughts) against a standardized computer in the first and a complex architectural design task in the second study. In a regression analysis using both individual intelligence of group members and c to predict performance on the criterion tasks, c had a significant effect, but average and maximum individual intelligence had not. While average (r=0.15, P=0.04) and maximum intelligence (r=0.19, P=0.008) of individual group members were moderately correlated with c, c was still a much better predictor of the criterion tasks. According to Woolley et al., this supports the existence of a collective intelligence factor c, because it demonstrates an effect over and beyond group members' individual intelligence and thus that c is more than just the aggregation of the individual IQs or the influence of the group member with the highest IQ.
后来每个小组进行测试，验证提取c因子是否具有预测原始任务以外的能力，进而解决了更为复杂的判据任务。在第一个研究中，判据任务是在标准计算机上玩跳棋（国际跳棋），在第二个研究中则是复杂的建筑设计任务。在使用组员个人智力和c因子来预测判据任务执行情况的回归分析中，c具有显著作用，而平均和最大的个人智力则没有。虽然单个组成员的平均智力（r = 0.15，P = 0.04）和最高智力（r = 0.19，P = 0.008）与c有中等程度的相关性，但是c仍然是判据任务更好的预测指标。根据伍利等人的说法，该结果支持了集群智力因子c的存在，因为它证明了超出小组成员个人智力外的影响，因此c不仅仅是个人智商的累加，或单纯受到智商最高组员的影响。
后来每个小组进行测试，验证提取c因子是否具有预测原始任务以外的能力，进而解决了更为复杂的判据任务。在第一个研究中，判据任务是在标准计算机上玩跳棋（国际跳棋），在第二个研究中则是复杂的建筑设计任务。在使用组员个人智力和c因子来预测判据任务执行情况的回归分析中，c具有显著作用，而平均和最大的个人智力则没有。虽然单个组成员的平均智力（r = 0.15，P = 0.04）和最高智力（r = 0.19，P = 0.008）与c有中等程度的相关性，但是c仍然是判据任务更好的预测指标。根据伍利等人的说法，该结果支持了集群智力因子c的存在，因为它证明了超出小组成员个人智力外的影响，因此c不仅仅是个人智商的累加，或单纯受到智商最高组员的影响<ref name=":011">{{Cite journal|last1=Woolley|first1=Anita Williams|last2=Chabris|first2=Christopher F.|last3=Pentland|first3=Alex|last4=Hashmi|first4=Nada|last5=Malone|first5=Thomas W.|s2cid=74579|date=2010-10-29|title=Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups|journal=Science|volume=330|issue=6004|pages=686–688|doi=10.1126/science.1193147|pmid=20929725|bibcode=2010Sci...330..686W}}</ref>。
Engel et al. (2014) replicated Woolley et al.'s findings applying an accelerated battery of tasks with a first factor in the factor analysis explaining 49% of the between-group variance in performance with the following factors explaining less than half of this amount. Moreover, they found a similar result for groups working together online communicating only via text and confirmed the role of female proportion and social sensitivity in causing collective intelligence in both cases. Similarly to Wolley et al., they also measured social sensitivity with the RME which is actually meant to measure people's ability to detect mental states in other peoples' eyes. The online collaborating participants, however, did neither know nor see each other at all. The authors conclude that scores on the RME must be related to a broader set of abilities of social reasoning than only drawing inferences from other people's eye expressions.
Engel et al. (2014) replicated Woolley et al.'s findings applying an accelerated battery of tasks with a first factor in the factor analysis explaining 49% of the between-group variance in performance with the following factors explaining less than half of this amount. Moreover, they found a similar result for groups working together online communicating only via text and confirmed the role of female proportion and social sensitivity in causing collective intelligence in both cases. Similarly to Wolley et al., they also measured social sensitivity with the RME which is actually meant to measure people's ability to detect mental states in other peoples' eyes. The online collaborating participants, however, did neither know nor see each other at all. The authors conclude that scores on the RME must be related to a broader set of abilities of social reasoning than only drawing inferences from other people's eye expressions.
恩格尔等人的研究（2014）在重复了伍利组员之前的研究发现<ref name=":45">{{Cite journal|author1=Engel, D. |author2=Woolley, A. W. |author3=Jing, L. X. |author4=Chabris, C. F. |author5= Malone, T. W. |name-list-style=amp |date=2014|title=Reading the Mind in the Eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of Mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face|journal=PLOS ONE |volume=9 |issue=12 |pages=e115212|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0115212|pmid=25514387 |pmc=4267836|bibcode=2014PLoSO...9k5212E }}</ref>，将加速任务组合与因子分析中的第一因素结合在一起，可以解释组间表现差异的49％，而其他因素解释占该比例一半以下。此外，他们在仅通过文本进行在线交流的小组中发现了相似的结果，并证实了女性比例和社会敏感性在两种情况下引起集体智能的作用<ref name=":012">{{Cite journal|last1=Woolley|first1=Anita Williams|last2=Chabris|first2=Christopher F.|last3=Pentland|first3=Alex|last4=Hashmi|first4=Nada|last5=Malone|first5=Thomas W.|s2cid=74579|date=2010-10-29|title=Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups|journal=Science|volume=330|issue=6004|pages=686–688|doi=10.1126/science.1193147|pmid=20929725|bibcode=2010Sci...330..686W}}</ref>。他们还模仿伍利小组使用RME来衡量社会敏感度，为了衡测试者感受他人眼中心理状态的能力。但是，在线合作参与者根本不认识也不见面。作者得出的结论是，RME的分数必须与更广泛的社会推理能力相关，而不仅仅是从其他人的眼神表情中得出推论<ref name=":13">{{Cite book|last1=Engel|first1=David|last2=Woolley|first2=Anita Williams|last3=Aggarwal|first3=Ishani|last4=Chabris|first4=Christopher F.|last5=Takahashi|first5=Masamichi|last6=Nemoto|first6=Keiichi|last7=Kaiser|first7=Carolin|last8=Kim|first8=Young Ji|last9=Malone|first9=Thomas W.|date=2015-01-01|title=Collective Intelligence in Computer-Mediated Collaboration Emerges in Different Contexts and Cultures|journal=Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems|series=CHI '15|location=New York, NY, USA|publisher=ACM|pages=3769–3778|doi=10.1145/2702123.2702259|isbn=9781450331456|s2cid=14303201}}</ref>。
A collective intelligence factor c in the sense of Woolley et al. in online gaming groups as well as in groups from different cultures and groups in different contexts in terms of short-term versus long-term groups. None of these investigations considered team members' individual intelligence scores as control variables.
A collective intelligence factor c in the sense of Woolley et al. in online gaming groups as well as in groups from different cultures and groups in different contexts in terms of short-term versus long-term groups. None of these investigations considered team members' individual intelligence scores as control variables.
伍利他们进一步在MBA学生群体中（时间跨度为一学期）<ref name=":013">{{Cite journal|last1=Woolley|first1=Anita Williams|last2=Chabris|first2=Christopher F.|last3=Pentland|first3=Alex|last4=Hashmi|first4=Nada|last5=Malone|first5=Thomas W.|s2cid=74579|date=2010-10-29|title=Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups|journal=Science|volume=330|issue=6004|pages=686–688|doi=10.1126/science.1193147|pmid=20929725|bibcode=2010Sci...330..686W}}</ref>，在线游戏玩家群体中以及来自不同文化和不同背景的其他群体中（时间跨度分别为短期和长期组）发现了集体智力因子c。这些调查均未将团队成员的个人智力得分视为控制变量<ref name=":92">{{Cite journal|author1=Kim, Y. J. |author2=Engel, D. |author3=Woolley, A. W. |author4=Lin, J. |author5=McArthur, N. |author6= Malone, T. W. |name-list-style=amp |date=2015|title=Work together, play smart: Collective intelligence in League of Legends teams|journal=Paper Presented at the 2015 Collective Intelligence Conference, Santa Clara, CA.}}</ref><ref name=":8">{{Cite journal|author1=Aggarwal, I. |author2= Woolley, A.W. |name-list-style=amp |date=2014|title=The effects of cognitive diversity on collective intelligence and team learning.|journal=Symposium Presented at the 50th Meeting of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, Columbus, OH.}}</ref><ref name=":10">{{Cite journal|author1=Engel, D. |author2=Woolley, A. W. |author3=Aggarwal, I. |author4=Chabris, C. F. |author5=Takahashi, M. |author6=Nemoto, K. |author7=Malone, T. W. |date=2015|title=Collective intelligence in computer-mediates collaboration emerges in different contexts and cultures.|url=https://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=2702259&type=pdf|journal=In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15) (Pp. 3769–3778). New York, NY: ACM}}</ref>。
Note as well that the field of collective intelligence research is quite young and published empirical evidence is relatively rare yet. However, various proposals and working papers are in progress or already completed but (supposedly) still in a scholarly peer reviewing publication process.
Note as well that the field of collective intelligence research is quite young and published empirical evidence is relatively rare yet. However, various proposals and working papers are in progress or already completed but (supposedly) still in a scholarly peer reviewing publication process.
注意的是，集体智能研究领域仍处在初始阶段，而且公开的经验证据还很少。各种提议和文章正在进行或已经完成，但（据说）仍处于学术同行评审出版过程中<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sites.google.com/a/stern.nyu.edu/collective-intelligence-conference/|title=Collective Intelligence 2016|website=sites.google.com|access-date=2016-04-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160805043627/https://sites.google.com/a/stern.nyu.edu/collective-intelligence-conference/|archive-date=5 August 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/collectiveintelligence/posters/|title=Posters {{!}} Collective Intelligence 2015|website=sites.lsa.umich.edu|access-date=2016-04-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160731181615/http://sites.lsa.umich.edu/collectiveintelligence/posters/|archive-date=31 July 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://collective.mech.northwestern.edu/?page_id=217|title=Proceedings {{!}} Collective Intelligence 2014|website=collective.mech.northwestern.edu|access-date=2016-04-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160404215108/http://collective.mech.northwestern.edu/?page_id=217|archive-date=4 April 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite arxiv|eprint=1204.2991|last1= Malone|first1= Thomas W.|title= Collective Intelligence 2012: Proceedings|author2= Luis von Ahn|class= cs.SI|year= 2012}}</ref>。
=== Predictive validity 预测有效性 ===
=== Predictive validity 预测有效性 ===
Next to predicting a group's performance on more complex criterion tasks as shown in the original experiments, the collective intelligence factor ''c'' was also found to predict group performance in diverse tasks in MBA classes lasting over several months. Thereby, highly collectively intelligent groups earned significantly higher scores on their group assignments although their members did not do any better on other individually performed assignments. Moreover, highly collective intelligent teams improved performance over time suggesting that more collectively intelligent teams learn better. This is another potential parallel to individual intelligence where more intelligent people are found to acquire new material quicker.
Next to predicting a group's performance on more complex criterion tasks as shown in the original experiments, the collective intelligence factor ''c'' was also found to predict group performance in diverse tasks in MBA classes lasting over several months. Thereby, highly collectively intelligent groups earned significantly higher scores on their group assignments although their members did not do any better on other individually performed assignments. Moreover, highly collective intelligent teams improved performance over time suggesting that more collectively intelligent teams learn better. This is another potential parallel to individual intelligence where more intelligent people are found to acquire new material quicker.
集体智力因子c除了能预测团队在判据任务（初始实验中相对较复杂任务）上的表现外，还能够预测持续数月的MBA课程中各种任务的团队绩效<ref name=":014">{{Cite journal|last1=Woolley|first1=Anita Williams|last2=Chabris|first2=Christopher F.|last3=Pentland|first3=Alex|last4=Hashmi|first4=Nada|last5=Malone|first5=Thomas W.|s2cid=74579|date=2010-10-29|title=Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups|journal=Science|volume=330|issue=6004|pages=686–688|doi=10.1126/science.1193147|pmid=20929725|bibcode=2010Sci...330..686W}}</ref>。因此，尽管组员在其他单独执行任务上没有做得很好，但具有高度集体智能的小组在团队任务上得分明显更高。此外，具有高度集体智能的团队会随着时间推移逐渐提高能力，这表明团队智力的集合性越高，其本身的学习能力约好。这类似于个人智力的性质，即聪明人越多，团队可以更快地获取新材料<ref name=":24">{{Cite book|title=The g factor: The science of mental ability.|last=Jensen|first=Arthur, R.|publisher=Praeger|year=1998|location=Westport, CT}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|author1=Schmidt, F.L. |author2= Hunter, J.E. |name-list-style=amp |date=1998|title=The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings|journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=124 |issue= 2 |pages=262–274|doi=10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262|citeseerx= 10.1.1.172.1733 }}</ref>。
Individual intelligence can be used to predict plenty of life outcomes from school attainment and career success to health outcomes and even mortality. Whether collective intelligence is able to predict other outcomes besides group performance on mental tasks has still to be investigated.
Individual intelligence can be used to predict plenty of life outcomes from school attainment and career success to health outcomes and even mortality. Whether collective intelligence is able to predict other outcomes besides group performance on mental tasks has still to be investigated.
个体智力可以用来预测从学业事业的成功到健康甚至死亡的大量生活场景<ref name=":14">{{Cite journal |author1=Deary, I.J. |author2=Weiss, A. |author3=Batty, D.G. |name-list-style=amp |date=2010 |title=Intelligence and Personality as Predictors of Illness and Death. How Researchers in Differential Psychology and Chronic Disease Epidemiology Are Collaborating to Understand and Address Health Inequalities |journal=Psychological Science in the Public Interest |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=53–79 |doi=10.1177/1529100610387081 |pmid=26168413 |hdl=20.500.11820/134d66d9-98db-447a-a8b2-5b019b96a7bb |s2cid=13106622 |url=https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/8895401/intelligence_and_personality_as_predictors.pdf |access-date=9 December 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180719215714/https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/8895401/intelligence_and_personality_as_predictors.pdf |archive-date=19 July 2018 |url-status=live }}</ref>。除了在智力任务上的表现外，集体智能是否能够预测其他结果尚待研究。
Gladwell (2008) showed that the relationship between individual IQ and success works only to a certain point and that additional IQ points over an estimate of IQ 120 do not translate into real life advantages. If a similar border exists for Group-IQ or if advantages are linear and infinite, has still to be explored. Similarly, demand for further research on possible connections of individual and collective intelligence exists within plenty of other potentially transferable logics of individual intelligence, such as, for instance, the development over time or the question of improving intelligence. Whereas it is controversial whether human intelligence can be enhanced via training, as well as watching drama movies. In how far such training ultimately improves collective intelligence through social sensitivity remains an open question.
Gladwell (2008) showed that the relationship between individual IQ and success works only to a certain point and that additional IQ points over an estimate of IQ 120 do not translate into real life advantages. If a similar border exists for Group-IQ or if advantages are linear and infinite, has still to be explored. Similarly, demand for further research on possible connections of individual and collective intelligence exists within plenty of other potentially transferable logics of individual intelligence, such as, for instance, the development over time or the question of improving intelligence. Whereas it is controversial whether human intelligence can be enhanced via training, as well as watching drama movies. In how far such training ultimately improves collective intelligence through social sensitivity remains an open question.
格拉德威尔Gladwell（2008）<ref>{{Cite book|title=Outliers. The Story of Success|last=Gladwell, M.|publisher=Little, Brown and Company|year=2008|isbn=978-0-316-01792-3|location=New York, NY|url=https://archive.org/details/outliersstoryofs00glad}}</ref>指出，个人智商与成功之间的关系仅在一定程度上起作用，而且智商超过120以上的其他智力点并不能转化为现实生活中的优势。是否Group-IQ存在相似的边界？或者优势是线性的和无限的？这仍然有待探索。同样，对个人智力和集体智力之间的联系也需要进一步探究，是否存在个人智力其他潜在因素可以转移到集体智力中？例如随着时间的推移自我进化或智力提高<ref name=":15">{{Cite journal|last1=Shipstead|first1=Zach|last2=Redick|first2=Thomas S|last3=Engle|first3=Randall W.|date=2010-10-01|title=Does working memory training generalize?|journal=Psychologica Belgica|volume=50|issue=3–4|doi=10.5334/pb-50-3-4-245|pages=245|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name=":16">{{Cite journal|author1=Buschkuehl, M. |author2=Jaeggi, S.M.|date=2010|title=Improving intelligence a literature review|journal=Swiss Medical Weekly |volume=140 |issue=19 |pages=266–72|pmid=20349365}}</ref>。尽管目前对于是否能通过培训来增强人类智力这一论点存在争议，但一个团队的集体智力是可以潜在性地通过交换组员或实施结构和技术上的提升来改进的。此外，人们发现阅读文学小说<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kidd|first1=David Comer|last2=Castano|first2=Emanuele|date=2013-10-18|title=Reading Literary Fiction Improves Theory of Mind|journal=Science|volume=342|issue=6156|pages=377–380|doi=10.1126/science.1239918|pmid=24091705|bibcode=2013Sci...342..377K|s2cid=5929573}}</ref>以及看戏曲电影<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Black|first1=Jessica|last2=Barnes|first2=Jennifer L.|title=Fiction and social cognition: The effect of viewing award-winning television dramas on theory of mind|journal=Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts|volume=9|issue=4|pages=423–429|doi=10.1037/aca0000031|year=2015}}</ref>至少可以暂时改善社会敏感性。但是社会敏感性培训最终是否能提高集体智力以及在多大程度上提高集体智力，这仍然是一个悬而未决的问题<ref>{{Cite book|title=Handbook of Collective Intelligence|author1=Malone, T. W. |author2= Bernstein, M.S. |name-list-style=amp |publisher=MIT Press|year=2015|location=Cambridge, MA}}</ref>。
There are further more advanced concepts and factor models attempting to explain individual cognitive ability including the categorization of intelligence in fluid and crystallized intelligence or the hierarchical model of intelligence differences. Further supplementing explanations and conceptualizations for the factor structure of the Genomes of collective intelligence besides a general c factor', though, are missing yet.
There are further more advanced concepts and factor models attempting to explain individual cognitive ability including the categorization of intelligence in fluid and crystallized intelligence or the hierarchical model of intelligence differences. Further supplementing explanations and conceptualizations for the factor structure of the Genomes of collective intelligence besides a general c factor', though, are missing yet.
还有更多更高级的概念和因子模型试图解释个体的认知能力，包括流体智力和晶体智力<ref>{{Cite book|title=Models of intelligence. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement, theory, and public policy (pp. 29–73).|last=Horn, J.|publisher=University of Illinois Press.|year=1989|location=Urbana, IL}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action.|last=Cattell, R. B.|publisher=New York, NY|year=1971|location=Houghton Mifflin}}</ref>或智力差异的分层模型.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies.|last=Carroll, J.B.|publisher=Cambridge University Press.|year=1993|isbn=9780521387125|location=Cambridge, England|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jp9dt4_0_cIC}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Johnson|first1=Wendy|last2=Bouchard Jr.|first2=Thomas J.|date=2005-07-01|title=The structure of human intelligence: It is verbal, perceptual, and image rotation (VPR), not fluid and crystallized|journal=Intelligence|volume=33|issue=4|pages=393–416|doi=10.1016/j.intell.2004.12.002}}</ref>。但是，除了通用的“c因子”外，目前并没有对集体智力基因组的因子结构采取进一步补充说明和概念化<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://cci.mit.edu/research_developing.html|title=MIT Center for Collective Intelligence|website=cci.mit.edu|access-date=2016-04-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160330091237/http://cci.mit.edu/research_developing.html|archive-date=30 March 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>。
Other scholars explain team performance by aggregating team members' general intelligence to the team level instead of building an own overall collective intelligence measure. Devine and Philips (2001) showed in a meta-analysis that mean cognitive ability predicts team performance in laboratory settings (.37) as well as field settings (.14) – note that this is only a small effect. Suggesting a strong dependence on the relevant tasks, other scholars showed that tasks requiring a high degree of communication and cooperation are found to be most influenced by the team member with the lowest cognitive ability. Tasks in which selecting the best team member is the most successful strategy, are shown to be most influenced by the member with the highest cognitive ability.
Other scholars explain team performance by aggregating team members' general intelligence to the team level instead of building an own overall collective intelligence measure. Devine and Philips (2001) showed in a meta-analysis that mean cognitive ability predicts team performance in laboratory settings (.37) as well as field settings (.14) – note that this is only a small effect. Suggesting a strong dependence on the relevant tasks, other scholars showed that tasks requiring a high degree of communication and cooperation are found to be most influenced by the team member with the lowest cognitive ability. Tasks in which selecting the best team member is the most successful strategy, are shown to be most influenced by the member with the highest cognitive ability.
有的学者通过将团队成员的综合智力进行汇总到团队级别来解释团队能力，而不是建立团队自身的集群智力指标<ref>{{Cite journal|last=LePine|first=Jeffery A.|title=Adaptation of Teams in Response to Unforeseen Change: Effects of Goal Difficulty and Team Composition in Terms of Cognitive Ability and Goal Orientation|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology|volume=90|issue=6|pages=1153–1167|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1153|year=2005|pmid=16316271}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Tziner|first1=Aharon|last2=Eden|first2=Dov|title=Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does the whole equal the sum of its parts?|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology|volume=70|issue=1|pages=85–93|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.85|year=1985}}</ref>。迪瓦恩Devine和飞利浦Philips（2001）在一项Meta综合分析中表明<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Devine|first1=Dennis J.|last2=Philips|first2=Jennifer L.|date=2001-10-01|title=Do Smarter Teams Do Better A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Ability and Team Performance|journal=Small Group Research|volume=32|issue=5|pages=507–532|doi=10.1177/104649640103200501|s2cid=145635205}}</ref>，认知能力可以预测团队在实验室环境（.37）和现场环境（.14）中的表现，但是请注意，这只是很小的影响。其他学者认为这相当依赖于不同的相关任务，他们表示那些需要高度沟通与合作的任务其实受认知能力最低组员的影响最大<ref>{{Cite journal|author1=O'Brien, G. |author2=Owens, A.|date=1969|title=Effects of organizational structure on correlations between member abilities and group productivity|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology |volume=53 |issue=6|pages=525–530|doi=10.1037/h0028659}}</ref>。因此选择最佳组员是成功的关键策略，这些任务受认知能力最高的成员影响最大<ref name="Yip 48–552">{{Cite journal|last1=Yip|first1=Jeremy A.|last2=Côté|first2=Stéphane|date=2013-01-01|title=The Emotionally Intelligent Decision Maker Emotion-Understanding Ability Reduces the Effect of Incidental Anxiety on Risk Taking|journal=Psychological Science|volume=24|issue=1|pages=48–55|doi=10.1177/0956797612450031|pmid=23221020|s2cid=33438475}}</ref>。
Since Woolley et al.'s[9] results do not show any influence of group satisfaction, group cohesiveness, or motivation, they, at least implicitly, challenge these concepts regarding the importance for group performance in general and thus contrast meta-analytically proven evidence concerning the positive effects of group cohesion,[106][107][108] motivation[109][110] and satisfaction[111] on group performance.
Since Woolley et al.'s[9] results do not show any influence of group satisfaction, group cohesiveness, or motivation, they, at least implicitly, challenge these concepts regarding the importance for group performance in general and thus contrast meta-analytically proven evidence concerning the positive effects of group cohesion,[106][107][108] motivation[109][110] and satisfaction[111] on group performance.
由于伍利等人的结果并未显示出团队满意度，团队凝聚力或动机的任何影响，因此他们仅隐含地挑战了这些观点，并表示了其总体上对团队绩效的重要性。通过Meta综合分析，他们证明了团队凝聚力<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Evans|first1=Charles R.|last2=Dion|first2=Kenneth L.|date=1991-05-01|title=Group Cohesion and Performance A Meta-Analysis|journal=Small Group Research|volume=22|issue=2|pages=175–186|doi=10.1177/1046496491222002|s2cid=145344583}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Gully|first1=Stanley M.|last2=Devine|first2=Dennis J.|last3=Whitney|first3=David J.|date=2012-12-01|title=A Meta-Analysis of Cohesion and Performance Effects of Level of Analysis and Task Interdependence|journal=Small Group Research|volume=43|issue=6|pages=702–725|doi=10.1177/1046496412468069|s2cid=220319732}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Beal|first1=Daniel J.|last2=Cohen|first2=Robin R.|last3=Burke|first3=Michael J.|last4=McLendon|first4=Christy L.|title=Cohesion and Performance in Groups: A Meta-Analytic Clarification of Construct Relations.|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology|volume=88|issue=6|pages=989–1004|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989|pmid=14640811|date=December 2003}}</ref>，动机<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=O'leary-kelly|first1=Anne M.|last2=Martocchio|first2=Joseph J.|last3=Frink|first3=Dwight D.|date=1994-10-01|title=A Review of the Influence of Group Goals on Group Performance|url=http://amj.aom.org/content/37/5/1285|journal=Academy of Management Journal|volume=37|issue=5|pages=1285–1301|doi=10.2307/256673|jstor=256673}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kleingeld|first1=Ad|last2=Mierlo|first2=Heleen van|last3=Arends|first3=Lidia|title=The effect of goal setting on group performance: A meta-analysis|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology|volume=96|issue=6|pages=1289–1304|doi=10.1037/a0024315|pmid=21744940|year=2011}}</ref>和满意度<ref>{{Cite journal|author1=Duffy, M. K. |author2=Shaw, J. D. |author3= Stark, E. M. |name-list-style=amp |date=2000|title=Performance and satisfaction in conflicted interdependent groups: When and how does selfesteem make a difference?|journal=Academy of Management Journal |volume=43 |issue=4 |pages=772–782|doi=10.2307/1556367|jstor=1556367 }}</ref>对团队绩效的积极影响。
Noteworthy is also that the involved researchers among the confirming findings widely overlap with each other and with the authors participating in the original first study around Anita Woolley.
Noteworthy is also that the involved researchers among the confirming findings widely overlap with each other and with the authors participating in the original first study around Anita Woolley.
值得一提的是，确认结果中涉及的研究人员之间，以及与参与有关Anita Woolley最初第一项研究的作者之间也存在广泛的重叠。
值得一提的是，确认结果中涉及的研究人员之间，以及与参与有关Anita Woolley最初第一项研究的作者之间也存在广泛的重叠<ref name=":015">{{Cite journal|last1=Woolley|first1=Anita Williams|last2=Chabris|first2=Christopher F.|last3=Pentland|first3=Alex|last4=Hashmi|first4=Nada|last5=Malone|first5=Thomas W.|s2cid=74579|date=2010-10-29|title=Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups|journal=Science|volume=330|issue=6004|pages=686–688|doi=10.1126/science.1193147|pmid=20929725|bibcode=2010Sci...330..686W}}</ref><ref name=":115">{{Cite journal|last1=Woolley|first1=Anita Williams|last2=Aggarwal|first2=Ishani|last3=Malone|first3=Thomas W.|date=2015-12-01|title=Collective Intelligence and Group Performance|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|volume=24|issue=6|pages=420–424|doi=10.1177/0963721415599543|s2cid=146673541}}</ref><ref name=":46">{{Cite journal|author1=Engel, D. |author2=Woolley, A. W. |author3=Jing, L. X. |author4=Chabris, C. F. |author5= Malone, T. W. |name-list-style=amp |date=2014|title=Reading the Mind in the Eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of Mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face|journal=PLOS ONE |volume=9 |issue=12 |pages=e115212|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0115212|pmid=25514387 |pmc=4267836|bibcode=2014PLoSO...9k5212E }}</ref><ref name=":123">{{Cite journal|author1=Aggarwal, I. |author2=Woolley, A. W. |author3=Chabris, C. F. |author4= Malone, T. W. |name-list-style=amp |date=2015|title=Cognitive diversity, collective intelligence, and learning in teams.|journal=Paper Presented at the 2015 Collective Intelligence Conference, Santa Clara, CA.}}</ref><ref name=":132">{{Cite book|last1=Engel|first1=David|last2=Woolley|first2=Anita Williams|last3=Aggarwal|first3=Ishani|last4=Chabris|first4=Christopher F.|last5=Takahashi|first5=Masamichi|last6=Nemoto|first6=Keiichi|last7=Kaiser|first7=Carolin|last8=Kim|first8=Young Ji|last9=Malone|first9=Thomas W.|date=2015-01-01|title=Collective Intelligence in Computer-Mediated Collaboration Emerges in Different Contexts and Cultures|journal=Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems|series=CHI '15|location=New York, NY, USA|publisher=ACM|pages=3769–3778|doi=10.1145/2702123.2702259|isbn=9781450331456|s2cid=14303201}}</ref>。