Critical Review: Are Two Heads Are Better Than One? Psychology

 

Introduction

It is popularly assumed globally, that ‘’two heads operate better than a one’’ in areas of reasoning, social cognition and decision making. With the popularity of the two system models, an increased emphasis on the effectiveness of teamwork in the professional landscape has continued to be experienced over the last two or so decades. Based on the Saying ‘’Two heads are better than one’’ it is evident that people work more perceptively as a team rather than individually. New psychological research proposes that the level of intelligence within a group normally outweighs that of individual members as long as the right criteria have been met. The ability to think critically and made decisions based on evaluation leads to better reasoning and decision making within a group. Thus, psychologically speaking two heads are better than one with respect to reasoning as well as perceptual decision making only if the right circumstances are met.

The proverb ‘’ two heads are better than one’’ reflects the perception that individuals working within a group are highly likely to come to the most correct decision contrary to what they would achieve while working individually. According to Barr & Gold, (2014) the case might be because the person with the correct idea or answer can convince the other since his or her argument appears sounder. However, it is worth recognizing that accuracy is in most cases associated with confidence and it might emerge that the most assertive and confident person in the group presents influence over the other person irrespective of whether their opinion is wrong or right (Branson, Steele & Sung, 2010). In this context, it might emerge that the most self-assured person tends to be right always which affects the effectiveness of two heads (Sperber & Mercier, 2012).

When two individuals combine their sensory judgments, the resulting finding is in most cases better contrary to the one that each of them would make individually (Brennan & Enns, 2015).  The case was particularly true in the case that both of them participate in open discussion and express their opinions freely based on reasonable arguments. In this situation, each person gets to assess not just the strengths of the other person’s argument but also the weaknesses that affect the accuracy of the answer (Sutter, 2005). It is therefore unlikely that both of them will settle for the wrong answer. After an extensive evaluation, the two individuals will choose the answer that is more reliable and outweighs all the existing weaknesses (Chappell, 2011). Collective decision making can exceed one of each member as when the two works together they enhance collaborative wisdom due to the existence of diversity that is characterized by varying personalities and cognitive strategies. The premise is that people work better and make sensible choices together than when working in isolation.

In most intellectual activities groups tend to outdo individuals. One of the contributing forces is that the person with the correct answer relies on sound argumentation to convince others that he or she is right (Simon, 1987). However, the most confident individual might impose his or her answer even though it is not correct. While reviewing deductive reasoning forces, Barber, Harris & Rajaram, (2015) held that logical performance is very poor when it comes to abstract reasoning. The intellectual individual performance is also poor in cognitive reflection. However, the performance of a group in similar tasks is rather different. The findings support the popular notion that the members of a group have the opportunity to share their arguments and evaluate their validity (Cooper & Kagel, 2005). The argument presented by the member who has best understood the test ends up being the most convincing and readily accepted.

A study by Trouche, Sander, and Mercier (2014) focused on confidence and argumentation to establish the factors that influence group reasoning as well as decision making. All the participants were presented with a cognitive reflection problem to solve and they were required to provide their answers, highlight their confidence level and also justification for each response. For each of the presented arguments, they were required to reflect and also change their initial responses if needed (Dutcher & Rodet, 2018). The results indicated that convincing arguments encourage people to alter their responses where confidence cues are missing. In a group setting it was determined that the members embraced the correct answer only at least a single member had successfully solved the test individually (Csanadi, Kollar & Fischer, 2016). The case was the same even in instances where the person with the correct response was not the most confident within the group. Hence, the quality of the argument outplays confidence within a group reasoning and decision-making activities.

The perceptual judgment also helps a group in better reasoning and decision making than while working individually (Puncochar & Fox, 2004). From a real-world perspective, all persons are exposed to perceptual information and perceptual decisions in a group might be better in the case that the information was distributed to all the members which allows every person to commit utmost focus to a subsection of the details. The theory was tested by Barr and Gold (2014) where the respondents were required to establish the absence or presence of luminance signal within a visual noise. Each made an individual decision before discussing it with the rest of the group members to reach a harmonious agreement. The groups made better choices while working collaboratively than individually (Fender & Stickney, 2017). Thus, this indicates that the discussions within groups help in sharing useful information which in return supports better decision making. Individuals working in isolated wee outperformed by those working in groups. Social motivation may also result in major improvements with regard to individual overall performance.

Two people will settle for sensible choices mostly if they thoroughly discuss their differing perspectives of a given argument. If an individual works individually and fails to recognize a flaw in an argument, it means that the outcome is undesirable but it might be overcome by introducing a different perspective (Haberyan & Barnett, 2010). The most important factor in successful collaboration entails the capability to report and accurately estimate an individual’s competence. However, for an incompetent person, the case is not always easy. With reference to psychology, the theory of cognitive fallacy which is known as Dunning –Kruger effect can be used to justify the expression (Mullins, Rummel & Spada, 2011). According to the model the most incompetent persons normally overrate their thoughts and skills by believing that there are above the average standard even though, it might be impossible logically (Kanai & Banissy, 2010). In this case, having such a person within a team would intensely damage the overall performance. In simple terms, the success of two heads depends on the capability to recognize and acknowledge the incompetent of the other person to enhance performance. The overconfident effect is an additional cognitive fallacy that normally affects the performance of a person while working individually. To a larger extent, it affects the objective accuracy in terms of reasoning and decision making (Wiley & Jolly, 2003). Overconfidence leads to social pressure meaning that one person can impose his opinions on the other by proving to be more confident even though the reasoning is faulty.

The fundamental factor that assists two people in outperforming one person on decision-making activities is because of interdependence (Zawisza & Beckerman, 2005). Positive interdependent which entails cooperation leads to better choices than when individuals work separately as this encourages competition between the parties (Keren & Schul, 2009). The better performance of two heads or a group originates from the ability to interact leading to the generation of new ideas and more enhanced solutions that the individuals would not arrive individually. While working together it is easier to recognize and correct individual flaws that have the potential of hurting sound decisions (Koriat, 2012). Also, collaboration increases collective memory which implies that the minds will produce relevant information that takes place through major interactions. Moreover, when the members share specific information that is exceptional to them this increases the number of ideas in which the group can borrow from in making decisions. With an extensive ground to support the decisions, this means that the group will make rational choices than when an individual is working alone (Koriat, 2015).

Social conformity has negative effects on a group in general. The performance of a group depends on the ability to exchange information in general (Mann et al., 2013). However, some members might feel the need to conform to pressures and not willing to air their ideas when their arguments do not conform to the set standards by the group. However, it is worth recognizing that social conformity is powerful even when an individual is working alone. For some reason that involves wanting to fit in, individuals normally make decisions by contrasting their ideas with what is known as a norm (Megreya & Burton, 2006). However, information sharing within a group normally boosts the confidence of the members which helps in opposing conformity. The comprehensive analysis of a problem in a cooperative group helps in eliminating any flaws that are likely to affect the overall performance of the group as a whole leading to better performance. Collaborative thinking helps in making more rational choices that are supported by facts rather than assumptions thus outdoing individual-based performance (Mercier & Sperber, 2012).

Conclusion

In summing up, all the above studies confirm the saying that psychologically ‘’two heads are better than one.’’ The findings reassure the fact that the better performance of a group is mainly influenced by social motivation, social cognition and sound argumentation rather than the confident and assertive personalities within the group. People tend to make more accurate reasoning and perceptual judgment while working together than in isolation. The person with the correct answer does not have to necessarily influence others through control or personality influence but by proving that his or her answer is sounder than all the rest. Group thinking normally influence both behaviors and reasoning. People tend to think more logically when they are within a group than when isolated. Two heads create a better platform to analyze the problem fully and come up with new ideas that would have not been produced while working alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Barber, S. J., Harris, C. B., & Rajaram, S. (2015). Why two heads apart are better than two heads together: Multiple mechanisms underlie the collaborative inhibition effect in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 559.

Barr, S., & Gold, J. M. (2014). Redundant visual information enhances group decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(6), 2124.

Branson, L., Steele, N. L., & Sung, C. H. (2010). When two heads are worse than one: Impact of group style and information type on performance evaluation. Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 22(1), 75-84.

Brennan, A. A., & Enns, J. T. (2015). When two heads are better than one: Interactive versus independent benefits of collaborative cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 1076-1082.

Chappell, Z. (2011). Justifying deliberative democracy: Are two heads always wiser than one?. Contemporary Political Theory, 10(1), 78-101.

Cooper, D. J., & Kagel, J. H. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Team versus individual play in signaling games. American Economic Review, 95(3), 477-509.

Csanadi, A., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2016). Scientific reasoning and problem solving in a practical domain: Are two heads better than one?. Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Dutcher, E. G., & Rodet, C. S. (2018). Which Two Heads Are Better Than One?: Uncovering the Positive Effects of Diversity in Creative Teams. Uncovering the Positive Effects of Diversity in Creative Teams (November 12, 2018).

Fender, C. M., & Stickney, L. T. (2017). When Two Heads Aren’t Better Than One: Conformity in a Group Activity. Management Teaching Review, 2(1), 35-46.

Haberyan, A., & Barnett, J. (2010). Collaborative testing and achievement: are two heads really better than one?. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(1).

Kanai, R. & Banissy, M. (2010). Are Two Heads Better Than One? It Depends. Retrieved from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-two-heads-better-than/

Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on psychological science, 4(6), 533-550.

Koriat, A. (2012). When are two heads better than one and why?. Science, 336(6079), 360-362.

Koriat, A. (2015). When two heads are better than one and when they can be worse: The amplification hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 934.

Mann, S., Vrij, A., Shaw, D. J., Leal, S., Ewens, S., Hillman, J., ... & Fisher, R. P. (2013). Two heads are better than one? How to effectively use two interviewers to elicit cues to deception. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(2), 324-340.

Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Recognising faces seen alone or with others: When two heads are worse than one. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(7), 957-972.

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2012). “Two heads are better” stands to reason. Science, 336(6084), 979-979.

Mullins, D., Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2011). Are two heads always better than one? Differential effects of collaboration on students’ computer-supported learning in mathematics. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 421-443.

Puncochar, J. M., & Fox, P. W. (2004). Confidence in Individual and Group Decision Making: When" Two Heads" Are Worse Than One. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 582.

Simon, H. A. (1987). Two heads are better than one: the collaboration between AI and OR. Interfaces, 17(4), 8-15.

Sperber, D., & Mercier, H. (2012). Reasoning as a social competence. Collective wisdom: Principles and mechanisms, 368-392.

Sutter, M. (2005). Are four heads better than two? An experimental beauty-contest game with teams of different size. Economics letters, 88(1), 41-46.

Trouche, E., Sander, E., & Mercier, H. (2014). Arguments, more than confidence, explain the good performance of reasoning groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 1958.

Wiley, J., & Jolly, C. (2003). When two heads are better than one expert. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 25, No. 25).

Zawisza, C. A., & Beckerman, A. (2005). Two Heads Are Better Than One: The Case-Based Rationale for Dual Disciplinary Teaching in Child Advocacy Clinics. Fla. Coastal L. Rev., 7, 631.