Limits...
What's in a Friendship? Partner Visibility Supports Cognitive Collaboration between Friends.

Brennan AA, Enns JT - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Not all cognitive collaborations are equally effective.Secondary measures suggested that verbal communication differences, but not psychophysiological arousal, contributed to these effects.Analysis of covariance indicated that females contributed more than males to overall levels of collaboration, but that the interaction of friendship and visibility was independent of that effect.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.

ABSTRACT
Not all cognitive collaborations are equally effective. We tested whether friendship and communication influenced collaborative efficiency by randomly assigning participants to complete a cognitive task with a friend or non-friend, while visible to their partner or separated by a partition. Collaborative efficiency was indexed by comparing each pair's performance to an optimal individual performance model of the same two people. The outcome was a strong interaction between friendship and partner visibility. Friends collaborated more efficiently than non-friends when visible to one another, but a partition that prevented pair members from seeing one another reduced the collaborative efficiency of friends and non-friends to a similar lower level. Secondary measures suggested that verbal communication differences, but not psychophysiological arousal, contributed to these effects. Analysis of covariance indicated that females contributed more than males to overall levels of collaboration, but that the interaction of friendship and visibility was independent of that effect. These findings highlight the critical role of partner visibility in the collaborative success of friends.

Show MeSH
A typical display in the study (top) and the four targets that could appear in each display (bottom).Participants searched displays and indicated whether 0-, 1-, or 2-targets were present. This display contains 2 targets: coffee can and penguin.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4664270&req=5

pone.0143469.g001: A typical display in the study (top) and the four targets that could appear in each display (bottom).Participants searched displays and indicated whether 0-, 1-, or 2-targets were present. This display contains 2 targets: coffee can and penguin.

Mentions: As shown in Fig 1, experimental displays depicted wire shelving containing 82 distractor objects commonly found in a home or office and 0, 1, or 2 of 4 possible targets. The same target never appeared twice in a display and each appeared equally often in each quadrant. Distractor objects appeared in four different configurations. This generated 356 displays: 4 without a target, 64 with one target, and 288 with two targets. Sessions were 60 trials in length: 20 trials each with 0, 1, and 2 targets. Search displays for each session were selected using weighted random sampling of the 356 total search displays. Displays subtended 40° x 32° visual angle on a 24-inch iMac computer (screen resolution 1920 X 1200 pixels). The experiment was controlled by Matlab 2010a software and Psychtoolbox3.


What's in a Friendship? Partner Visibility Supports Cognitive Collaboration between Friends.

Brennan AA, Enns JT - PLoS ONE (2015)

A typical display in the study (top) and the four targets that could appear in each display (bottom).Participants searched displays and indicated whether 0-, 1-, or 2-targets were present. This display contains 2 targets: coffee can and penguin.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4664270&req=5

pone.0143469.g001: A typical display in the study (top) and the four targets that could appear in each display (bottom).Participants searched displays and indicated whether 0-, 1-, or 2-targets were present. This display contains 2 targets: coffee can and penguin.
Mentions: As shown in Fig 1, experimental displays depicted wire shelving containing 82 distractor objects commonly found in a home or office and 0, 1, or 2 of 4 possible targets. The same target never appeared twice in a display and each appeared equally often in each quadrant. Distractor objects appeared in four different configurations. This generated 356 displays: 4 without a target, 64 with one target, and 288 with two targets. Sessions were 60 trials in length: 20 trials each with 0, 1, and 2 targets. Search displays for each session were selected using weighted random sampling of the 356 total search displays. Displays subtended 40° x 32° visual angle on a 24-inch iMac computer (screen resolution 1920 X 1200 pixels). The experiment was controlled by Matlab 2010a software and Psychtoolbox3.

Bottom Line: Not all cognitive collaborations are equally effective.Secondary measures suggested that verbal communication differences, but not psychophysiological arousal, contributed to these effects.Analysis of covariance indicated that females contributed more than males to overall levels of collaboration, but that the interaction of friendship and visibility was independent of that effect.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.

ABSTRACT
Not all cognitive collaborations are equally effective. We tested whether friendship and communication influenced collaborative efficiency by randomly assigning participants to complete a cognitive task with a friend or non-friend, while visible to their partner or separated by a partition. Collaborative efficiency was indexed by comparing each pair's performance to an optimal individual performance model of the same two people. The outcome was a strong interaction between friendship and partner visibility. Friends collaborated more efficiently than non-friends when visible to one another, but a partition that prevented pair members from seeing one another reduced the collaborative efficiency of friends and non-friends to a similar lower level. Secondary measures suggested that verbal communication differences, but not psychophysiological arousal, contributed to these effects. Analysis of covariance indicated that females contributed more than males to overall levels of collaboration, but that the interaction of friendship and visibility was independent of that effect. These findings highlight the critical role of partner visibility in the collaborative success of friends.

Show MeSH