Intelligence

Volume 33, Issue 1, January–February 2005, Pages 39-65

Ability-based pairing strategies in the team-based training of a complex skill: Does the intelligence of your training partner matter?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.200409002 Get rights and content

Abstract

Intelligence researchers traditionally focus their attention on the individual level and overlook the role of intelligence at the interindividual level. This research investigated the interplay of the effects of intelligence at the individual and interindividual levels by manipulating the intelligence-based composition of dyadic training teams. Using a sample of 176 young adult males and a complex computer-based criterion task, homogeneous and heterogeneous dyadic training teams were created based on intelligence scores, and both team and individual performance were assessed throughout 10 h of training. Results indicated a strong additive influence of intelligence on team performance and a slightly positive nonadditive effect in uniformly high (HH)-ability teams. Trainees' individual skill acquisition was strongly correlated with the performance of their teams. However, nonadditive partner effects were observed such that high-ability trainees acquired significantly more skill when paired with high-ability partners instead of low- ability partners, but low-ability trainees benefited very little from being paired with high-ability partners.

Introduction

It is well established that intelligence is not only a robust predictor of scholastic achievement (Jensen, 1993) and job performance (Ree & Earles, 1992, Schmidt & Hunter, 1998) but also a critical variable associated with behavior across the majority of everyday life events (Barrett & Depinet, 1991, Gordon, 1997, Gottfredson, 1997). Although the evidence regarding the ubiquity of the importance of intelligence is substantial, researchers traditionally have focused their attention on the individual level of analysis and frequently have overlooked the role of intelligence in interindividual contexts (Gordon, 1997), which involve two or more individuals interacting with each other. In particular, researchers have neglected to study the interplay of the effects of intelligence at the individual and team or group levels. Within interindividual contexts, the intelligence of individuals is associated with a confluence of group and individual effects. However, a surprisingly limited amount of research has explored this confluence of effects. This is not to say that previous researchers have ignored how team members' intelligence is related to team functioning. Indeed, enough research has been conducted to allow researchers to meta-analytically examine the relationship between member ability and team performance (e.g., Devine & Philips, 2001). However, studies investigating how intelligence as a team composition variable simultaneously affects team and individual outcomes are lacking.
Accordingly, the objective of the present study was to investigate the relationship between intelligence and the effectiveness of dyadic training teams. Specifically, we systematically created high (HH)-, low (LL)-, and mixed (HL)-ability dyadic teams on the basis of intelligence scores to examine how team composition affects the learning and performance of a complex skill at both team and individual levels. We examined the potential nonadditive effects of homogeneous high-ability teams and the extent to which individual trainees' skill acquisition was influenced by their team performance and the ability of their partners. Given that much of human learning takes place in a social context and coupled with the dearth of empirical investigations examining intelligence at the interindividual level, we believe that the present study makes an important contribution to the existing literature on intelligence. Considering the rapid pace at which technology is advancing, many work tasks now consist of physical and cognitive demands that are too diverse and complicated for most individuals to successfully accomplish single-handedly. Consequently, reliance on teams is now a pervasive reality in many military and civilian settings. Therefore, in the present study, we chose to examine the role of intelligence in the context of learning and performing a complex task comprised of multiple interdependent components. Effective performance on this task requires successfully coordinating the interchange between these task components.

Section snippets

Learning and intelligence in interindividual contexts

In addition to the important roles that family members, teachers, trainers, mentors, and coaches play in human learning, there is a strong social context to learning with children and adults frequently acquiring knowledge and skills in team and group settings. Children learn to play musical instruments by performing in bands and orchestras. Similarly, children learn to play sports by joining local area and school teams. It is common for students to be assigned partners for class projects and

Ability-based team composition effects

Investigating the relationship between team members' intelligence and team performance is a starting point for understanding the interindividual nature of intelligence. Most of the research relating team composition to team performance comes from the social and industrial and organizational psychology literatures. Within these literatures, substantial empirical evidence has indicated that, under a variety of conditions, team members' ability is predictive of team performance. However, the

Ability-based pairing strategies and individual learning

Although the performance of teams and groups may be an important criterion of interest to researchers, limiting the study of the ability composition of teams to team-based criteria provides an incomplete view of the dynamic nature of intelligence and the interplay between interindividual and individual phenomena. A more comprehensive approach to studying the dynamic nature of intelligence is to also examine the consequences of intelligence-based composition strategies on individual learning.

Study overview and hypotheses

Continued research that relates team composition manipulations of intelligence to team performance and individual learning is needed to better understand how the effects of intelligence at the interindividual level influence individual behavior. The existing literature is limited in two respects. Researchers have not manipulated the intelligence composition of teams and simultaneously examined team and individual performance where the same participants performed in teams and as individuals.

Participants

An initial sample of 1266 male volunteers from Texas A&M University was recruited using advertisements in the university newspaper, announcements in classrooms, and posted notices around campus. Participants were required to be at least 18 years of age. Furthermore, due to hardware constraints, only right-handed volunteers could participate in the study. Of 1266 individuals screened, 194 were selected on the basis of their intelligence scores. Eighteen of the selected participants did not

APM scores

The mean APM score for the entire sample of trainees was 24.16 (S.D.=6.43). As previously mentioned, we used cut-off scores of not higher than 21 for the low-ability grouping and not lower than 27 for the high-ability grouping. The mean APM score of low-ability trainees was 18.14 (S.D.=2.78), and the mean APM score of high-ability trainees was 29.91 (S.D.=2.32.). Comparing these values to previously established norms should be done with caution considering the APM normative data for the United

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the interplay of the effects of intelligence across individual and interinterindividual levels by manipulating the intelligence-based composition of dyadic training teams and by examining both team performance and individual skill acquisition. At the dyadic-team level, we replicated the strong additive effects of ability demonstrated previously in the literature (e.g., Tziner & Eden, 1985). Uniformly high-ability teams outperformed

Acknowledgments

This research was sponsored under contract number F41624-95-C-5007 awarded to Winfred Arthur, Jr. from the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Warfighter Training Research Division, Mesa, AZ. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or opinion of their respective organizations. Suzanne Bell is now at DePaul University. Bryan Edwards is now at Tulane University. Travis Tubré is now at the University

References (77)

  • G.V. Barrett et al.

    A reconsideration of testing for competence rather than for intelligence

    American Psychologist

    (1991)
  • M.R. Barrick et al.

    Relating member ability and personality to work–team processes and team effectiveness

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1998)
  • B. Barry et al.

    Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1997)
  • W. Beane et al.

    Group variables influencing the transfer of conceptual behavior

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (1971)
  • F.R. Brooks et al.

    Influence of academic ability on partners' mastery of a stressful motor task

    Journal of Instructional Psychology

    (1985)
  • S. Chaiklin

    The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky's analysis of learning and instruction

  • Y. Dar et al.

    Classroom intellectual composition and academic achievement

    American Educational Research Journal

    (1986)
  • D.J. Devine et al.

    Do smarter teams do better? A meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance

    Small Group Research

    (2001)
  • D.L. Dossett et al.

    Increasing technical training efficiency: Peer training via computer-assisted instruction

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1983)
  • E.A. Fleishman et al.

    Individual attributes and training performance

  • J. French et al.

    The bases of social power

  • L.S. Fuchs et al.

    High-achieving students' interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings

    American Educational Research Journal

    (1998)
  • M. Goldman

    A comparison of individual and group performance for varying combinations of initial ability

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1965)
  • D. Gopher

    The skill of attention control: Acquisition and execution of attention strategies

  • D. Gopher et al.

    The transfer of skill from a computer game trainer to actual flight

    Human Factors

    (1994)
  • W.K. Graham et al.

    Creative supergroups: Groups performance as a function of individual performance on brainstorming tasks

    Journal of Social Psychology

    (1974)
  • S.G. Hart et al.

    Field test of a video game trainer

  • D.M. Hogan et al.

    Implications of Vygotsky's theory for peer learning

  • S. Hooper

    Cooperative learning and computer-based instruction

    Educational Technology Research and Development

    (1992)
  • S. Hooper et al.

    Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts

    Journal of Educational Computing Research

    (1988)
  • S. Hooper et al.

    The effects of cooperative learning and learner control on high- and average-ability students

    Educational Technology Research and Development

    (1993)
  • A.R. Jensen

    Psychometric g and achievement

  • D.W. Johnson et al.

    Joining together: Group therapy and group skills

    (2000)
  • A. King

    Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning

  • C.O. Larson et al.

    Verbal ability and cooperative learning: Transfer of effects

    Journal of Reading Behavior

    (1984)
  • J. LePine

    Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members' cognitive ability and personality

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2003)
  • Y. Lou et al.

    Effects of within-class grouping on student achievement: An exploratory model

    Journal of Educational Research

    (2000)
  • Y. Lou et al.

    Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis

    Review of Educational Research

    (1996)

    • Cited by (29)

    • Raven's is not a pure measure of general intelligence: Implications for g factor theory and the brief measurement of g

      2015, Intelligence
      Citation Excerpt :

      Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM; Raven, 1940; Raven & Court, 1998) have been contended in the intelligence literature to be a pure (or nearly so) indicator of Spearman's (1927) general intelligence (g; Deary & Smith, 2004; Eysenck, 1998; Jensen, 1998; Llabre, 1984; Neisser, 1998; Thorndike, 1986; Vernon, 1947). Correspondingly, researchers across various disciplines within psychology commonly include a single measure of intelligence in their design, Raven's, and interpret their results (or lack thereof) under the pretence that they have measured g (e.g., Basso, De Renzi, Faglioni, Scotti, & Spinnler, 1973; Corben et al., 2006; Day et al., 2005; Schellenberg & Moreno, 2010; Walker, Pierre, Christie, & Chang, 2013). The purpose of this investigation was to review critically the literature upon which claims of "pure g" have been made.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text
    Copyright © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.