Are two naïve and distributed heads better than one? Factors influencing the performance of teams in a challenging real-time task

Matthew D Blanchard; Sabina Kleitman; Eugene Aidman

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1042710

Are two naïve and distributed heads better than one? Factors influencing the performance of teams in a challenging real-time task

Front Psychol. 2023 May 12:14:1042710. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1042710. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Matthew D Blanchard¹, Sabina Kleitman¹, Eugene Aidman^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Darlington, NSW, Australia.
² Defence Science and Technology Group, Land Division, Edinburgh, SA, Australia.

Abstract

Introduction: Collective decisions in dynamic tasks can be influenced by multiple factors, including the operational conditions, quality and quantity of communication, and individual differences. These factors may influence whether two heads perform better than one. This study examined the "two heads are better than one" effect (2HBT1) in distributed two-person driver-navigator teams with asymmetrical roles performing a challenging simulated driving task. We also examined the influence of communication quality and quantity on team performance under different operational conditions. In addition to traditional measures of communication volume (duration and speaking turns), patterns of communication quality (optimality of timing and accuracy of instructions) were captured.

Methods: Participants completed a simulated driving task under two operational conditions (normal and fog) either as individual drivers (N = 134; 87 females, mean age = 19.80, SD = 3.35) or two-person teams (driver and navigator; N = 80; 109 females, mean age = 19.70, SD = 4.69). The normal condition was characterized by high visibility for both driver and navigator. The fog condition was characterized by reduced visibility for the driver but not for the navigator. Participants were also measured on a range of cognitive and personality constructs.

Results: Teams had fewer collisions than individuals during normal conditions but not during fog conditions when teams had an informational advantage over individuals. Furthermore, teams drove slower than individuals during fog conditions but not during normal conditions. Communication that was poorly timed and/or inaccurate was a positive predictor of accuracy (i.e., collisions) during the normal condition and communication that was well timed and accurate was a negative predictor of speed during the fog condition. Our novel measure of communication quality (i.e., content of communication) was a stronger predictor of accuracy, but volume of communication was a stronger predictor of time (i.e., speed).

Discussion: Results indicate when team performance thrives and succumbs compared with individual performance and informs theory about the 2HBT1 effect and team communication.

Keywords: collective decisions; communication quality; driving simulation; dyads; team performance; two heads better than one.

Grants and funding

This research was supported by the Defence Science and Technology Group, Australia, Research Agreements 5861 and 8050; and PhD top-up scholarships ID8052 and ID7276.