961
个编辑
更改
→Controversies
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。
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。
=== Controversies ===
=== Controversies 争议 ===
Other scholars explain team performance by aggregating team members' general intelligence to the team level<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|last=Tziner|first=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> instead of building an own overall collective intelligence measure. Devine and Philips<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Devine|first=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}}</ref> (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.<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|url=|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology |volume=53 |issue=6|pages=525–530|doi=10.1037/h0028659|pmid=}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Yip 48–55"/>
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.
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。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。
Since Woolley et al.'s<ref name=":0" /> 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 cohesiveness|group cohesion]],<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Evans|first=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}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Gully|first=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}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Beal|first=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> motivation<ref>{{Cite journal|last=O'leary-kelly|first=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|last=Kleingeld|first=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> and satisfaction<ref>{{Cite journal|author1=Duffy, M. K. |author2=Shaw, J. D. |author3= Stark, E. M. |last-author-amp=yes |date=2000|title=Performance and satisfaction in conflicted interdependent groups: When and how does selfesteem make a difference?|url=|journal=Academy of Management Journal |volume=43 |issue=4 |pages=772–782|doi=10.2307/1556367|pmid=|jstor=1556367 }}</ref> on group performance.
Since Woolley et al.'s 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 cohesiveness|group cohesion]], motivation and satisfaction on group performance.
Since Woolley et al.'s motivation and satisfaction 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，动机和满意度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.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":11"/><ref name=":11" /><ref name=":4" /><ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" />
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.
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，以及与参与有关安妮塔·伍利Anita Woolley最初第一项研究的作者之间也存在广泛的重叠。
== Alternative mathematical techniques ==
== Alternative mathematical techniques ==