Neural Correlates of Group Versus Individual Problem Solving Revealed by fMRI.

Ilya Yu. Shpurov,Roza M. Vlasova,Elena A. Mershina,Alena D. Rumshiskaya,Ekaterina V. Pechenkova,Renata I. Rozovskaya,Valentin E. Sinitsyn

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.00290

Abstract

Group problem solving is a prototypical complex collective intellectual activity. Psychological research provides compelling evidence that problem solving in groups is both qualitatively and quantitatively different from doing so alone. However, the question of whether individual and collective problem solving involve the same neural substrate has not yet been addressed, mainly due to methodological limitations. In the current study, functional magnetic resonance imaging was performed to compare brain activation when participants solved Raven-like matrix problems in a small group and individually. In the group condition, the participant in the scanner was able to discuss the problem with other team members using a special communication device. In the individual condition, the participant was required to think aloud while solving the problem in the silent presence of the other team members. Greater activation was found in several brain regions during group problem solving, including the medial prefrontal cortex; lateral parietal, cingulate, precuneus and retrosplenial cortices; frontal and temporal poles. These areas have been identified as potential components of the so-called “social brain” on the basis of research using offline judgments of material related to socializing. Therefore, this study demonstrated the actual involvement of these regions in real-time social interactions, such as group problem solving. However, further connectivity analysis revealed that the social brain components are co-activated, but do not increase their coupling during cooperation as would be suggested for a holistic network. We suggest that the social mode of the brain may be described instead as a re-configuration of connectivity between basic networks, and we found decreased connectivity between the language and salience networks in the group compared to the individual condition. A control experiment showed that the findings from the main experiment cannot be entirely accounted for by discourse comprehension. Thus, the study demonstrates affordances provided by the presented new technique for neuroimaging the “group mind,” implementing the single-brain version of the second-person neuroscience approach.

Highlights

The idea that a group is more than the sum of its members is one of the basic principles of social psychology
Taking the average frequency of errors made by Player 1 in the individual condition as an estimate of F, we found that teams may be considered as accurate as individuals if they give 91.6% correct responses
The present study revealed specific neural substrates of complex cooperative interactions, in this case group versus individual problem solving, illustrating that a group is more than the sum of its members in terms of brain activation

Summary

Introduction

The idea that a group is more than the sum of its members is one of the basic principles of social psychology. A large body of empirical evidence supporting this metaphor comes from the literature on cooperative social interactions, such as group problem solving. The performance of a small group in problem solving may differ from the aggregated individual performances of all group members or the most productive group member working alone (Lorge et al, 1958; Hill, 1982; Laughlin et al, 2006). A seminal study by Woolley et al (2010) suggested that small groups may be treated as collective subjects with their own level of collective intelligence, and that this level does not correlate with either the average or the best individual intelligence of the group members, but may be predicted by gender, average social sensitivity, and in-group discussion style. As the replicability of this phenomenon is still debated (Bates and Gupta, 2017; Credé and Howardson, 2017) the question arises of what conditions are necessary for the collective intelligence to emerge, and whether it can be revealed in computer-directed communication or via face-to-face interaction only (Engel, 2015; Barlow and Dennis, 2016)

Objectives

Results

Discussion

Conclusion