IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0191179.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance similarities predict collective benefits in dyadic and triadic joint visual search

Author

Listed:
  • Basil Wahn
  • Artur Czeszumski
  • Peter König

Abstract

When humans perform tasks together, they may reach a higher performance in comparison to the best member of a group (i.e., a collective benefit). Earlier research showed that interindividual performance similarities predict collective benefits for several joint tasks. Yet, researchers did not test whether this is the case for joint visuospatial tasks. Also, researchers did not investigate whether dyads and triads reach a collective benefit when they are forbidden to exchange any information while performing a visuospatial task. In this study, participants performed a joint visual search task either alone, in dyads, or in triads, and were not allowed to exchange any information while doing the task. We found that dyads reached a collective benefit. Triads did outperform their best individual member and dyads—yet, they did not outperform the best dyad pairing within the triad. In addition, similarities in performance significantly predicted the collective benefit for dyads and triads. Furthermore, we find that the dyads’ and triads’ search performances closely match a simulated performance based on the individual search performances, which assumed that members of a group act independently. Overall, the present study supports the view that performance similarities predict collective benefits in joint tasks. Moreover, it provides a basis for future studies to investigate the benefits of exchanging information between co-actors in joint visual search tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Basil Wahn & Artur Czeszumski & Peter König, 2018. "Performance similarities predict collective benefits in dyadic and triadic joint visual search," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0191179
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191179
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191179
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191179&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0191179?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laughlin, Patrick R. & Bonner, Bryan L. & Miner, Andrew G., 2002. "Groups perform better than the best individuals on Letters-to-Numbers problems," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 605-620, July.
    2. Dan Bang & Laurence Aitchison & Rani Moran & Santiago Herce Castanon & Banafsheh Rafiee & Ali Mahmoodi & Jennifer Y. F. Lau & Peter E. Latham & Bahador Bahrami & Christopher Summerfield, 2017. "Confidence matching in group decision-making," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(6), pages 1-7, June.
    3. Atsushi Takagi & Gowrishankar Ganesh & Toshinori Yoshioka & Mitsuo Kawato & Etienne Burdet, 2017. "Physically interacting individuals estimate the partner’s goal to enhance their movements," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(3), pages 1-6, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Besedes, Tibor & Deck, Cary & Quintanar, Sarah & Sarangi, Sudipta & Shor, Mikhael, 2011. "Free-Riding and Performance in Collaborative and Non-Collaborative Groups," MPRA Paper 33948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Vinil T Chackochan & Vittorio Sanguineti, 2019. "Incomplete information about the partner affects the development of collaborative strategies in joint action," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-23, December.
    3. Cason, Timothy N. & Mui, Vai-Lam, 2019. "Individual versus group choices of repeated game strategies: A strategy method approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 128-145.
    4. Jonathan Eden & Mario Bräcklein & Jaime Ibáñez & Deren Yusuf Barsakcioglu & Giovanni Di Pino & Dario Farina & Etienne Burdet & Carsten Mehring, 2022. "Principles of human movement augmentation and the challenges in making it a reality," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Lukas Meub & Till Proeger, 2018. "Are groups ‘less behavioral’? The case of anchoring," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 117-150, August.
    6. Lejarraga, Tomás & Lejarraga, José, 2020. "Confidence and the description–experience distinction," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 201-212.
    7. Ashesh Vasalya & Gowrishankar Ganesh & Abderrahmane Kheddar, 2018. "More than just co-workers: Presence of humanoid robot co-worker influences human performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, November.
    8. Ben Weidmann & David J. Deming, 2020. "Team Players: How Social Skills Improve Group Performance," NBER Working Papers 27071, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Riccardo Poli & Davide Valeriani & Caterina Cinel, 2014. "Collaborative Brain-Computer Interface for Aiding Decision-Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-22, July.
    10. Marco Casari & Jingjing Zhang & Christine Jackson, 2016. "Same process, different outcomes: group performance in an acquiring a company experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 764-791, December.
    11. Bourke, Jane & Roper, Stephen & Love, James H., 2020. "Innovation in legal services: The practices that influence ideation and codification activities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 132-147.
    12. Patton, Charles & Balakrishnan, P.V. (Sundar), 2012. "Negotiating when outnumbered: Agenda strategies for bargaining with buying teams," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 280-291.
    13. Florent Meyniel, 2020. "Brain dynamics for confidence-weighted learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-27, June.
    14. Charness, Gary & Cooper, David & Grossman, Zachary, 2015. "Silence is Golden: Communication Costs and Team Problem Solving," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt3n25b620, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    15. Axel Franzen & Sonja Pointner, 2013. "Giving according to preferences: Decision-making in the group dictator game," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 2, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences, revised 24 Jan 2014.
    16. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Heinrich, Timo & Helbach, Christoph, 2014. "Does truth win when teams reason strategically?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 86-89.
    17. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till, 2014. "The impact of communication regimes on group rationality: Experimental evidence," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 185, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    18. Marco Casari & Christine Jackson & Jingjing Zhang, 2009. "Do Groups Fall Prey to the Winner's Curse?," Department of Economics Working Papers 2009-18, McMaster University.
    19. Kim, Peter H. & Cooper, Cecily D. & Dirks, Kurt T. & Ferrin, Donald L., 2013. "Repairing trust with individuals vs. groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 1-14.
    20. Quentin Cavalan & Vincent De Gardelle & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2020. "Overestimate yourself or underestimate others? Two sources of bias in bargaining with joint production," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 20003, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0191179. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.