具有不同个体类型特征的受试者二人组中协同认知活动的策略
- 作者: Murtazina E.P.1, Ermakova O.I.1, Pertsov S.S.1
-
隶属关系:
- Federal Research Center for Innovator and Emerging Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Technologies
- 期: 卷 32, 编号 1 (2025)
- 页面: 20-31
- 栏目: ORIGINAL STUDY ARTICLES
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/1728-0869/article/view/314567
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/humeco655823
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QWQJYX
- ID: 314567
如何引用文章
全文:
详细
论证。在社会心理生理学中,研究团队活动成果达成策略及其选择因素,尤其在不同专业领域中,仍是一个重要课题。
目的。揭示在具有人格特征和个人绩效差异的被试者二人组中达成认知活动共同结果的策略。
材料与方法。共评估52对男性与50对女性组成的二人组(平均年龄17岁9个月±3个月,组内成员彼此熟识),所有参与者均签署知情同意书。个体人格特征采用“五大人格特质”法进行评估。受试者在三种条件下完成“模式识别”测试任务:单独完成、竞争模式下完成、二人协作完成。
结果。识别出协作策略的两种类型——共同策略与分工策略,两者在综合成功率方面相当,并在总体样本及男性与女性二人组中呈现出相同的分布特征。采用不同协作策略的二人组在时间特征和错误率方面存在差异。在分工策略下,与共同策略相比,二人组完成测试的速度更快,识别出的规律更多,但同时错误率也更高。采用共同协作策略的受试者表现出更高的个体错误率、更大的组内差异,以及较分工策略组更一致的活动节奏。在采用共同策略的受试者对中,“理解性”和“放松度”的初始人格特质水平高于选择分工策略的参与者,而活跃度水平则较低。
结论。所得结果有助于深化对团队智力活动中策略选择机制及其与组员个体特征之间关系的理解。所揭示的规律可为在多种活动领域中协作完成综合性任务时的人员选配方法提供依据。
作者简介
Elena P. Murtazina
Federal Research Center for Innovator and Emerging Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Technologies
编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: murtazina_ep@academpharm.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4243-8727
SPIN 代码: 4445-4178
MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine); Associate Professor
俄罗斯联邦, MoscowOlga I. Ermakova
Federal Research Center for Innovator and Emerging Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Technologies
Email: ermakova_oi@academpharm.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4860-6151
SPIN 代码: 4609-3885
俄罗斯联邦, Moscow
Sergey S. Pertsov
Federal Research Center for Innovator and Emerging Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Technologies
Email: pertsov_ss@academpharm.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5530-4990
SPIN 代码: 3876-0513
MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor, Corresponding Member of the RAS
俄罗斯联邦, Moscow参考
- Chashchin VP, Kovshov AA, Gudkov AB, Morgunov BA. Socioeconomic and behavioral risk factors of disabilities among the indigenous population in the far north. Ekologiya cheloveka (Human Ecology). 2016;23(6):3–8. doi: 10.33396/1728-0869-2016-6-3-8 EDN: VZZFET
- Giesinger I, Buajitti E, Siddiqi A, et al. The association between total social exposure and incident multimorbidity: A population-based cohort study. SSM Popul Health. 2024;29:101743. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2024.101743
- Korneeva Yа, Simonova N. Job stress and working capacity among fly-in-fly-out workers in the oil and gas extraction industries in the Arctic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(21):7759. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17217759 EDN: UGQELN
- Murtazina EP, Korobeynikova II, Poskotinova LV, et al. Analysis of cognitive functions and neurophysiological processes in adaptation of human to conditions of the Arctic region. IP Pavlov Russian Medical Biological Herald. 2023;31(2):293–304. doi: 10.17816/PAVLOVJ109581 EDN: FLNEIA
- Sidorov PI. Mental health service. Ekologiya cheloveka (Human Ecology). 2014;21(8):44–56. doi: 10.17816/humeco17215 EDN: SMKJMD
- Andreatta PB, Graybill JC, Renninger CH, et al. Five influential factors for clinical team performance in urgent, emergency care contexts. Military Medicine. 2023;188(7-8):e2480–e2488. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usac269
- Dawe J, Cronshaw H, Frerk C. Learning from the multidisciplinary team: advancing patient care through collaboration. Br J Hosp Med. 2024;85(5):1–4. doi: 10.12968/hmed.2023.0387
- Momennejad I. Collective minds: social network topology shapes collective cognition. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2022;377(1843):20200315. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0315
- Kozlowski SWJ. A multilevel, emergent journey to unpack team process dynamics. Small Group Research. 2024;56(3):487–523. doi: 10.1177/10464964241281347
- Child J, Faulkner D. Strategies of cooperation: managing alliances, networks, and joint ventures. Oxford University Press; 1998. 371 p. ISBN: 10: 0198774842
- Wahn B, Kingstone A, König P. Group benefits in joint perceptual tasks — а review. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018;1426(1):166–178. doi: 10.1111/nyas.13843
- Gordon J, Knoblich G, Pezzulo G. Strategic task decomposition in joint action. Cogn Sci. 2023;47(7):e13316. doi: 10.1111/cogs.13316
- Gulati R, Wohlgezogen F, Zhelyazkov P. The two facets of collaboration: cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. Academy of Management Annals. 2012;6(1):531–583. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2012.691646
- Belousova AK, Kachan YuM. Functional-role distribution of students in the joint solution of problems of different types. Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy. 2024;34(1):26–37. doi: 10.35634/2412-9550-2024-34-1-26-37 EDN: EGZVYT
- Prewett MS, Brown MI, Goswami A, Christiansen ND. Effects of team personality composition on member performance: a multilevel perspective. Group & Organization Management. 2018;43(2):316–348. doi: 10.1177/1059601116668633
- Jolić Marjanović Z, Krstić K, Rajić M, et al. The big five and collaborative problem solving: a narrative systematic review. European Journal of Personality. 2024;38(3):457–475. doi: 10.1177/08902070231198650
- Khromov AB. A five-factor personality questionnaire. Kurgan: Izd-vo Kurganskogo gosuniversiteta; 2000. 23 p. (In Russ.) ISBN: 5-86328-381-5
- Logutova EV. Diagnosis of cognitive development. Orenburg: OGU; 2021. 142 p. (In Russ.) EDN: MYFXGU
- Umryukhin YeA, Dzhebrailova T D, Korobeynikova II. Individual characteristics of achieving the results of purposeful activity and spectral characteristics of students’ EEG in a pre-examination situation. Psychological Journal. 2005;26(4):57–65. (In Russ.) EDN: HRWFIZ
- Marlin D, Ketchen DJ, Lamont B. Equifinality and the strategic groups — performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Issues. 2007;19(2):208–232. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40604564
- von Bertalanffy L. General system theory: foundations, development, applications. New York: G. Braziller; 1969. 289 p. URL: https://archive.org/details/generalsystemthe0000bert
- Anokhin PK. Fundamental issues of the general theory of functional systems. Moscow; 1971. 61 p. (In Russ.) URL: https://rusneb.ru/catalog/000199_000009_007229347
- Rosing F, Boer D, Buengeler C. When timing is key: how autocratic and democratic leadership relate to follower trust in emergency contexts. Front Psychol. 2022;13:904605. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.904605
- Wahn B, Czeszumski A, König P. Performance similarities predict collective benefits in dyadic and triadic joint visual search. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(1):e0191179. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191179
- Dziura SL, Hosangadi A, Shariq D, et al. Partner similarity and social cognitive traits predict social interaction success among strangers. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2023;18(1):nsad045. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsad045
- Varfolomeyeva AV, Tishchenko AG, Aleхandrov YuI. Variants of mutual coordination of individuals with similar and different psychological characteristics. Experimental Psychology. 2024;17(2):84–97. doi: 10.17759/exppsy.2024170205. EDN: DRFEWI
- Campos-Moinier K, Murday V, Brunel L. Individual differences in social interaction contexts: examining the role of personality traits in the degree of self-other integration. Personality and Individual Differences. 2022;203:112002. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.112002
- Paletta P, Bass N, Aspesi D, Choleris E. Sex differences in social cognition. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2023;62:207–234. doi: 10.1007/7854_2022_325
补充文件
