The influence of personal performance of partners on the integrated results of cognitive activity in dyads with different cooperation strategies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33910/2687-1270-2026-7-1-228-240Keywords:
integrated result of cooperation, joint cognitive activity, strategy, personal performance, intradyadic error differenceAbstract
Identifying predictive factors for the effectiveness of team intellectual activity is a key issue in social psychophysiology. The study aims to analyze how the personal success of participants affects the integrated results of joint cognitive activity in dyads with different cooperation strategies. Fifty-two male pairs and fifty female pairs (age 19 years, 7 ± 3 months) were examined. Participants completed the ‘Pattern Identification’ task: they had to match the positions of digits in numbers with letter combinations in reference words across 12 matrix rows. The test was performed in three settings: individually, competitively, and cooperatively. The analysis focused on participants’ performance in individual and competitive contexts of activity and the integrated result of collaboration (as a dependent variable of linear regression). Independent factors were identified from among the indicators of individual and competitive performance of the best and worst participants in each dyad, and their intradiadic differences. Correlation-regression analysis was carried out separately in pairs with different cooperation strategies: joint (partners solved all rows of the task together) and separate (participants independently solved part of the rows). It was found that the integrated results of cooperation exceeded the personal performance of the participants and correlated positively with it, but negatively with intradyadic differences in their errors. For pairs with a joint cooperation strategy, the integrated results were determined by the performance of the best participants. For pairs with a separate strategy, the results depended on the performance of the worst participants and the difference in error rates during competition. Thus, individual competence factors and relationship between participants’ error rates play a leading role in team cognitive performance, depending on the cooperation strategy.
References
ЛИТЕРАТУРА
Воронин, А. Н. (2017) Эффективность совместной интеллектуальной деятельности в зависимости от социальных ролей участников группового решения задач. Вестник Государственного университета просвещения, Серия: Психологические науки, № 3, статья 3. https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-7235-2017-3-29-37
Костригин, А. А., Журавлев, А. Л. (2025) Актуальные проблемы исследования человека в организации в современной Российской психологии. Методология современной психологии, № 26, с. 238–248.
Лепехин, Н. Н. (2024). Индивидуальные, командные и лидерские ресурсы развития устойчивости команд в организации. Петербургский психологический журнал, № 46, с. 44–78.
Литвинов, Е. О., Еськов, К. Н., Ясенецкая, М. В. и др. (2023) Факторы эффективной комплектации профессиональных составов на примере судейского корпуса континентальной хоккейной лиги. Психология и педагогика спортивной деятельности, № 2 (65), с. 10–18.
Логутова, Е. В. (2021) Диагностика познавательного развития. Оренбург: Изд-во Оренбургского государственного университета, 142 с.
Масленникова, Н. П., Масленников, И. А. (2018) Организация динамичного социального взаимодействия в процессе инновационной деятельности. Управление персоналом и интеллектуальными ресурсами в России, т. 7, № 1, с. 17–22. https://doi.org/10.12737/article_5a9ced830f61b1.81801539
Муртазина, Е. П. (2026) Персональные прогностические критерии интегрального результата совместной сенсомоторной деятельности испытуемых в диадах. Интегративная физиология, т. 7, № 1, с. 134–145. https://doi.org/10.33910/2687-1270-2026-7-1-134-145
Муртазина, Е. П., Ермакова, О. И., Перцов, С. С. (2025а) Стратегии совместной когнитивной деятельности в диадах испытуемых с разными индивидуально-типологическими характеристиками. Экология человека, т. 32, № 1. с. 20–31. https://doi.org/10.17816/humeco655823
Муртазина, Е. П., Галушка, Е. С., Ермакова, О. И. (2025b) Комплекс для эмпирического изучения нейрофизиологических механизмов социальных взаимодействий испытуемых в диадах. Биомедицина, т. 21, № 4, с. 153–156. https://doi.org/10.33647/2074-5982-21-4-153-156
Смирнов, А. Н. (2010) Взаимосвязь стиля межличностного взаимодействия с интерактивным статусом личности. Молодой ученый, № 7 (18), с. 232–235.
Adams, T., Gibson, A. (2024) Followership: An undervalued concept in effective teams within the military and NHS. BMJ Military Health, vol. 170, no. 1, pp. 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmilitary-2021-002039
Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Bang, D. et al. (2012) Together, slowly but surely: The role of social interaction and feedback on the build-up of benefit in collective decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025708
Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Latham, P. E. et al. (2010) Optimally interacting minds. Science (New York), vol. 329, no. 5995, pp. 1081–1085. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185718
Baumeister, R. F., Ainsworth, S. E., Vohs, K. D. (2016) Are groups more or less than the sum of their members? The moderating role of individual identification. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 39, article e137.
Brennan, A. A., Enns, J. T. (2015a) What’s in a friendship? Partner visibility supports cognitive collaboration between friends. PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 11, article e0143469. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143469
Brennan, A. A., Enns, J. T. (2015b) When two heads are better than one: Interactive versus independent benefits of collaborative cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1076–1082. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0765-4
Coronado-Maldonado, I., Benítez-Márquez, M.-D. (2023) Emotional intelligence, leadership, and work teams: A hybrid literature review. Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 10, article e20356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20356
Dreyer, T., Haluts, A., Korman, A. et al. (2025) Comparing cooperative geometric puzzle solving in ants versus humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 122, no. 1, article e2414274121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414274121
Gordon, J., Knoblich, G., Pezzulo, G. (2023) Strategic task decomposition in joint action. Cognitive Science, vol. 47, no. 7, article e13316. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13316
Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., Zhelyazkov, P. (2012) The two facets of collaboration: Cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. Academy of Management Annals, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 531–583. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.691646
Hagemann, V., Rieth, M., Klasmeier, K. N. (2024) The analysis of collective orientation and process feedback in relation to coordination and performance in interdependently working teams. PLOS One, vol. 19, no. 3, article e0297565. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297565
Hertel, G., Nohe, C., Wessolowski, K. et al. (2018) Effort gains in occupational teams — the effects of social competition and social indispensability. Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, article 769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00769
Karau, S. J. (2020) Individual motivation within groups: Social loafing and motivation gains in work, academic, and sports teams. San Diego: Academic Press, 368 p.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2024) A multilevel, emergent journey to unpack team process dynamics. Small Group Research, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 487–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964241281347
Larson, J. R. Jr. (2010) In search of synergy in small group performance. London: Psychology Press, 442 p.
Leung, C., Lucas, A., Brindley, P. et al. (2018) Followership: A review of the literature in healthcare and beyond. Journal of Critical Care, vol. 46, pp. 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.05.001
Mantilla, C., Murad, Z. (2022) Ego-relevance in team production. PLOS One, vol. 17, no. 12, article e0279391. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279391
Matz, S. C., Hyon, R., Baek, E. C. et al. (2022) Personality similarity predicts synchronous neural responses in fMRI and EEG data. Scientific Reports, vol. 12, article 14325. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18237-1
Mojtahedi, K., Fu, Q., Santello, M. (2017) On the role of physical interaction on performance of object manipulation by dyads. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 11, article 533. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00533
Schilbach, L., Redcay, E. (2025) Synchrony across brains. Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 883–911. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-080123-101149
Strough, J., McFall, J. P., Flinn, J. A., Schuller, K. L. (2008) Collaborative everyday problem solving among same-gender friends in early and later adulthood. Psychology and Aging, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012830
Varfolomeeva, A. V., Tishchenko, A. G., Alexandrov, Y. I. (2024) Variants of mutual coordination of individuals with similar and different psychological characteristics. Experimental Psychology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 84–97. https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2024170205
Wahn, B., Kingstone, A., König, P. (2018) Group benefits in joint perceptual tasks — A review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1426, no. 1, pp. 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13843
Wheatley, T., Thornton, M. A., Stolk, A., Chang, L. J. (2024). The emerging science of interacting minds. Perspectives on psychological science: A journal of the Association for Psychological Science, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 355–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231200177
Xiang, Y., Vélez, N., Gershman, S. J. (2023). Collaborative decision making is grounded in representations of other people’s competence and effort. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 152, no. 6, pp. 1565–1579. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001336
REFERENCES
Adams, T., Gibson, A. (2024) Followership: An undervalued concept in effective teams within the military and NHS. BMJ Military Health, vol. 170, no. 1, pp. 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmilitary-2021-002039 (In English)
Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Bang, D. et al. (2012) Together, slowly but surely: The role of social interaction and feedback on the build-up of benefit in collective decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025708 (In English)
Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Latham, P. E. et al. (2010) Optimally interacting minds. Science (New York), vol. 329, no. 5995, pp. 1081–1085. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185718 (In English)
Baumeister, R. F., Ainsworth, S. E., Vohs, K. D. (2016) Are groups more or less than the sum of their members? The moderating role of individual identification. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 39, article e137. (In English)
Brennan, A. A., Enns, J. T. (2015a) What’s in a friendship? Partner visibility supports cognitive collaboration between friends. PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 11, article e0143469. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143469 (In English)
Brennan, A. A., Enns, J. T. (2015b) When two heads are better than one: Interactive versus independent benefits of collaborative cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1076–1082. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0765-4 (In English)
Coronado-Maldonado, I., Benítez-Márquez, M.-D. (2023) Emotional intelligence, leadership, and work teams: A hybrid literature review. Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 10, article e20356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20356 (In English)
Dreyer, T., Haluts, A., Korman, A. et al. (2025) Comparing cooperative geometric puzzle solving in ants versus humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 122, no. 1, article e2414274121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414274121 (In English)
Gordon, J., Knoblich, G., Pezzulo, G. (2023) Strategic task decomposition in joint action. Cognitive Science, vol. 47, no. 7, article e13316. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13316 (In English)
Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., Zhelyazkov, P. (2012) The two facets of collaboration: Cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. Academy of Management Annals, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 531–583. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.691646 (In English)
Hagemann, V., Rieth, M., Klasmeier, K. N. (2024) The analysis of collective orientation and process feedback in relation to coordination and performance in interdependently working teams. PLOS One, vol. 19, no. 3, article e0297565. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297565 (In English)
Hertel, G., Nohe, C., Wessolowski, K. et al. (2018) Effort gains in occupational teams — the effects of social competition and social indispensability. Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, article 769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00769 (In English)
Karau, S. J. (2020) Individual motivation within groups: Social loafing and motivation gains in work, academic, and sports teams. San Diego: Academic Press, 368 p. (In English)
Kostrigin, A. A., Zhuravlev, A. L. (2025) Current issues of human research in organizations in modern Russian psychology. Methodology of Modern Psychology, no. 26, pp. 238–248. (In Russian)
Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2024) A multilevel, emergent journey to unpack team process dynamics. Small Group Research, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 487–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964241281347 (In English)
Larson, J. R. Jr. (2010) In search of synergy in small group performance. London: Psychology Press, 442 p. (In English)
Lepekhin, N. N. (2024) Individual, team and leadership resources of team resilience development in organizations. Saint Petersburg Psychological Journal, no. 46, pp. 44–78. (In Russian)
Leung, C., Lucas, A., Brindley, P. et al. (2018) Followership: A review of the literature in healthcare and beyond. Journal of Critical Care, vol. 46, pp. 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.05.001 (In English)
Litvinov, E. O., Es’kov, K. N., Yasenetskaya, M. V. et al. (2023) Factors of efficient configuration of professional compositions on the example of the judicial corps of the continental hockey league. Psychology and Pedagogy of Sports Activity, no. 2 (65), pp. 10–18. (In Russian)
Logutova, E. V. (2021) Diagnostics of cognitive development. Orenburg: Orenburg State University Publ., 142 p. (In Russian)
Mantilla, C., Murad, Z. (2022) Ego-relevance in team production. PLOS One, vol. 17, no. 12, article e0279391. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279391 (In English)
Maslennikova, N. P., Maslennikov, I. A. (2018) Organization of dynamic social interaction in the process of innovative activity. Management of the Personnel and Intellectual Resources in Russia, vol. 7, no. 1. pp. 17–22. (In Russian)
Matz, S. C., Hyon, R., Baek, E. C. et al. (2022) Personality similarity predicts synchronous neural responses in fMRI and EEG data. Scientific Reports, vol. 12, article 14325. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18237-1 (In English)
Mojtahedi, K., Fu, Q., Santello, M. (2017) On the role of physical interaction on performance of object manipulation by dyads. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 11, article 533. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00533 (In English)
Murtazina, E. P. (2026) Personal predictive criteria for the integral result of cooperative sensorimotor activity in dyads. Integrative Physiology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 134–145. https://doi.org/10.33910/2687-1270-2026-7-1-134-145 (In Russian)
Murtazina, E. P, Ermakova, O. I., Pertsov, S. S. (2025a) Joint cognitive task strategies in participant dyads with different personality profiles. Human Ecology, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 20–31. https://doi.org/10.17816/humeco655823 (In Russian)
Murtazina, E. P., Galushka, E. S., Ermakova, O. I. (2025b) Facility for empirical study of neurophysiological mechanisms of social interactions between subjects in dyads. Biomed, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 153–156. https://doi.org/10.33647/2074-5982-21-4-153-156 (In Russian)
Schilbach, L., Redcay, E. (2025) Synchrony across brains. Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 883–911. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-080123-101149 (In English)
Smirnov, A. N. (2010) The relationship between the style of interpersonal interaction and the interactive status of the individual. Molodoj uchenyj, no. 7 (18), pp. 232–235. (In Russian)
Strough, J., McFall, J. P., Flinn, J. A., Schuller, K. L. (2008) Collaborative everyday problem solving among same-gender friends in early and later adulthood. Psychology and Aging, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012830 (In English)
Varfolomeeva, A. V., Tishchenko, A. G., Alexandrov, Y. I. (2024) Variants of mutual coordination of individuals with similar and different psychological characteristics. Experimental Psychology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 84–97. https://doi.org/10.17759/exppsy.2024170205 (In English)
Voronin, A. N. (2017) Efficiency collective intellectual activity depending on social role of participants of group solution of tasks. Bulletin of Moscow Region State University. Series: Psychology, no. 3, article 3. https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-7235-2017-3-29-37 (In Russian)
Wahn, B., Kingstone, A., König, P. (2018) Group benefits in joint perceptual tasks — A review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1426, no. 1, pp. 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13843 (In English)
Wheatley, T., Thornton, M. A., Stolk, A., Chang, L. J. (2024) The emerging science of interacting minds. Perspectives on psychological science: A journal of the Association for Psychological Science, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 355–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231200177 (In English)
Xiang, Y., Vélez, N., Gershman, S. J. (2023). Collaborative decision making is grounded in representations of other people’s competence and effort. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 152, no. 6, pp. 1565–1579. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001336 (In English)
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Elena P. Murtazina
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The work is provided under the terms of the Public Offer and of Creative Commons public license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
This license permits an unlimited number of users to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial use.
This license retains copyright for the authors but allows others to freely distribute, use, and adapt the work, on the mandatory condition that appropriate credit is given. Users must provide a correct link to the original publication in our journal, cite the authors' names, and indicate if any changes were made.
Copyright remains with the authors. The CC BY 4.0 license does not transfer rights to third parties but rather grants users prior permission for use, provided the attribution condition is met. Any use of the work will be governed by the terms of this license.
