Collective Intelligence (CI) is said to manifest in a group’s domain general mental ability and is measured across a battery of group IQ tests and statistically reduced to a latent factor called the ‘c-factor’. Advocates have found that measuring a group’s CI can predict group performance better than individual IQ. We test this claim by meta-analyzing correlations between group IQ scores (or the c-factor) and nine group performance criterion tasks (effects) pertaining to eight independent samples (N = 857 groups). Results indicated a moderate correlation, r, of .26 (95% CI: .10, .40). All but four studies comprising five independent samples (N = 366 groups) failed to control for the intelligence of individual members using individual IQ scores or their statistically reduced equivalent (i.e., the g-factor). A meta-analysis of this subset of studies found the average IQ of the groups’ members had little to no correlation with group performance (r = .06, 95% CI: -.08, .20). Around 80% of studies did not have enough statistical power to reliably detect correlations between the primary predictor variables and the criterion tasks. Though some of our findings are consistent with claims that a collective intelligence factor (i.e., the c-factor) exists and may relate positively to group performance, limitations suggest alternative explanations cannot be dismissed. We caution against prematurely embracing notions of the c-factor unless it can be independently and robustly replicated and demonstrated to be incrementally valid beyond the g-factor in group performance contexts.
Link to project and supplemental materials: https://osf.io/xevkj/?view_only=fecd32a38ca441a0b8238ec861039b34
Get more citations
No components to display.
OSF does not support the use of Internet Explorer. For optimal performance, please switch to another browser.
This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information,
and information on cookie use.