Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
Similar to The neuroscience of social learning: Brain-to-Brain Synchrony in Groups
Similar to The neuroscience of social learning: Brain-to-Brain Synchrony in Groups (20)
More from Jay Van Bavel
More from Jay Van Bavel (17)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The neuroscience of social learning: Brain-to-Brain Synchrony in Groups
- 1. The neuroscience of social learning: Brain-to-Brain Synchrony in Groups @jayvanbavel New York University
- 6. Educational Neuroscience Schilbach (2013), Stanley & Adolphs (2013) the “dark matter of social neuroscience
- 7. Educational Neuroscience Schilbach (2013), Stanley & Adolphs (2013)
- 8. Learning in the wild
- 9. A world of groups and teams
- 10. Social Identity Tajfel (1974), Tajfel (1971), Tajfel & Turner (1986), Hogg (1993)
- 11. Jean-Marc Côte, ca 1900
- 13. EEG coherence
- 15. Brain-to-Brain Synchrony Classroom EEG Suzanne Dikker Dikker et al (2017)
- 17. Does group neural synchrony predict group performance? Neural Synchrony Collective Performance Reinero et al., in prep
- 18. Does group neural synchrony predict group performance? Neural Synchrony Collective Performance Individuals vs. teamwork Reinero et al., in prep
- 19. Group Manipulation Team Individual Measure EEG throughout
- 21. Group Manipulation Team Individual Team Name: Mellow Tones Code-name: Red Code-name: Green Code-name: Purple Code-name: Teal Einsteins Sanders! Eagles
- 22. Generate team/individual name Team Individual
- 23. Group Manipulation Team Individual Physical synchrony Physical asynchrony
- 24. Hand tapping exercise (team)
- 25. Hand tapping exercise (team)
- 26. Post tasks survey Survey • One-Shot Public Goods • Group Identification • Groupiness • Empathy (RMET) • Demographics
- 27. Group Identification & Cooperation Team: M = 0.68 SD = 0.21 Indiv: M = 0.53 SD = 0.21
- 28. Post tasks survey Survey • One-Shot Public Goods • Group Identification • Groupiness • Empathy (RMET) • Demographics $ $ $ $
- 29. Group Identification & Cooperation t(171.97) = 4.68, p < .001, d = 0.71 t(169.79) = 2.15, p = .033, d = 0.33 Team: M = $8.54 SD = 2.86 Indiv: M = $7.54 SD = 3.21 Team: M = 0.68 SD = 0.21 Indiv: M = 0.53 SD = 0.21
- 30. Problem solving tasks Test of Collective Intelligence; Woolley et al (2010) Matrix – 6min Memory – 2min Typing – 6.5min Brainstorm – 2min Unscramble – 4min Sudoku – 3.5min Winter Survival – 10min
- 32. Does group neural synchrony predict group performance? Neural Synchrony Collective Performance Individuals vs. teamwork
- 33. Main Findings 1. Teams identify & cooperate more than competing individuals 2. Teams outperform the average of individuals (when avoiding process loss) 1. Do no worse than the best individual 2. Do no worse than optimally pooling individuals 3. Neural synchrony predicts performance among teams
- 35. NYU Van Bavel Lab Thank you Diego Reinero Suzanne Dikker Ido Davidesco Anna Balchunas Simone Van Taylor Anita Woolley Young Ji Kim John Andrew Chwe Brienna Carter Zoe Kleiman 4th year cohort Tessa West Melda Kahraman Henry Valk Randi Garcia David Kenny Pascal Wallisch Dana Bevilacqua
Editor's Notes
- However, our understanding of how the human brain supports these sorts of collective social interactions has been somewhat of a black box. Most social neuro research removes the social element almost entirely, usually having one participant at a time perform a task in a highly constrained environment – like having to lie or sit completely still and respond to computer based stimuli.
- However, our understanding of how the human brain supports these sorts of collective social interactions has been somewhat of a black box. Most social neuro research removes the social element almost entirely, usually having one participant at a time perform a task in a highly constrained environment – like having to lie or sit completely still and respond to computer based stimuli.
- However, our understanding of how the human brain supports these sorts of collective social interactions has been somewhat of a black box. Most social neuro research removes the social element almost entirely, usually having one participant at a time perform a task in a highly constrained environment – like having to lie or sit completely still and respond to computer based stimuli.
- It comes as no surprise that we live in a world of groups and teams… from politics, to business, to education, to science. And understanding how groups work and what makes them successful, has been and continues to be, a question of great interest.
- We form group identities to help us establish reality and a obtain a sense of self (and us vs. them mentality) Feeling highly identified with a group can be shown by having shared goals So boosting group identification might boost how we interpret our shared world and impact how we work within a group This is where I think group identification plays a big role. We know from decades of work that our social group identities are integral to how we view ourselves and others. [CLICK] SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY argues that our sense of ourselves comes from the groups we belong to, and that we look to draw lines between groups, to differentiate those who are ingroups and those who are outgroups. And we’re all familiar with work on [CLICK] MINIMAL GROUPS, showing that if you arbitrarily assign individuals to teams like the RED TEAM or BLUE TEAM, people show ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation. And once groups are established, the way we bond with group members, or create [CLICK] group cohesiveness – in addition to having a highly salient group identity and by drawing competitive comparisons with other groups – has been explained by attraction to group members and having shared goals. In other words, group identification is strengthened through feelings of similarity, trust and efficacy.
- We used the classroom as a starting point for this line of investigation Not only because it is a highly social environment, as you will all recall fondly And the classroom is fairly similar to the laboratory in crucial ways Classes are typically governed by a sequence of predetermined activities of a fixed duration And students are used to being told to sit still.
- In their analysis, students’ brain-to-brain synchrony during different teaching styles was quantified as the inter-brain coherence between pairs of students during different teaching activities
- Coherence measures correlation over trials Toy example Similar phase/amplitude reflects similar brain activity
- Associated with successful commication http://www.radiolab.org/story/122564-soul-mates-and-brain-doubles/
- They tracked a classroom of students over the course of the semester and looked at how various pedagogical styles influenced neural synchrony among the students and the teacher. This schematic lays out the general process of things.
- And vice versa – in other words, how unsuccessful interactions/communication led to a breakdown of neural synchrony, which may be predictive of learning outcomes.
- If you'll recall, our model was that neural synchrony would predict collective performance, moderated by group identification. And in fact we find some preliminary evidence, such that neural synchrony appears to predict group performance but only for the team condition. This suggests that, while neural synchrony doesn't seem to be related to self-report group ID or a one-shot cooperation decision, it may reflect a level of engagement or shared mental templates during the actual problem solving tasks, that facilitates performance. Since this didn’t occur in the individual condition, it suggests something beyond just working on the same task individually, but rather taking into account the actions of others and mutual influence.
- If you'll recall, our model was that neural synchrony would predict collective performance, moderated by group identification. And in fact we find some preliminary evidence, such that neural synchrony appears to predict group performance but only for the team condition. This suggests that, while neural synchrony doesn't seem to be related to self-report group ID or a one-shot cooperation decision, it may reflect a level of engagement or shared mental templates during the actual problem solving tasks, that facilitates performance. Since this didn’t occur in the individual condition, it suggests something beyond just working on the same task individually, but rather taking into account the actions of others and mutual influence.
- So participants, in groupings of 4, were randomly assigned to either the team or individual condition. In the team condition they would work together on a series of problem solving tasks, and in the individual condition, they would compete against one another on those same problem solving tasks. And we used mobile EEG headsets to measure everyone's brain activity throughout.
- Our manipulation was intended to encourage group cohesion among teams while fracturing it among the collection of individuals. So among teams, rewards for group achievement was explicitly contingent on overall group performance. [CLICK] So everyone will share the wealth. Whereas in the Individual condition, tasks are completed individually, with rewards contingent on individual performance. [CLICK] So the winning person might win everything.
- In the team condition, they also collaboratively come up with a team name. [CLICK] so maybe they throw around a few options, before settling on their team name. In the individual condition, they will individually come up with their own personal code name. [CLICK].
- Here’s an actual screenshot of groups coming up with team names – you can see they are laughing and bonding – and in the individual condition…not so much.
- And finally, in the team condition, participants face one another and tap at the same time in rhythm to a beat, [CLICK] inducing physical synchrony. Whereas in the individual condition, participants face away from one another and tap that same rhythm to themselves, [CLICK] inducing physical asynchrony. And one of our goals in having these two conditions was to try and match some of the external environmental similarities between the two conditions, but shift the psychological experience from a cooperative team-based one that built rapport, to a competitive individualistic one.
- And you can see a very quick clip of a group doing this hand tapping synchrony task
- And you can see a very quick clip of a group doing this hand tapping synchrony task
- Group ID
- t(171.97) = 4.68, p < .001, d = 0.71 To get right to the results. For all plots you’ll see, teams will be the blueish color and individuals in red. So first we looked at our manipulation check. People on teams gave on average $1 to the public pot. Suggests people on teams were more trusting of the others in their group. [once boxplot goes up, can explain– 25th/75th and whiskers extend 1.5 IQR]
- Participants did few survey measures after problem solving tasks. People get monetary endowment and can either contribute some, all, or none of that to a public pot. Anything in the public pot then gets doubled and equally redistributed. So if everyone gives all their money, you maximize the group winnings (everyone gave $10 -> $40 in pot, doubled to $80, equally split so everyone gets $20 back). But from a rational economic standpoint there's incentive to keep you endowment and not give it to the public pot (everyone gives $10 except for you -> $30 in pot, doubled to $60, everyone gets back $15, that plus your original $10). So it's a nice measure of interpersonal trust and cooperation.
- To get right to the results. For all plots you’ll see, teams will be the blueish color and individuals in red. So first we looked at our manipulation check. People on teams gave on average $1 to the public pot. Suggests people on teams were more trusting of the others in their group. [once boxplot goes up, can explain– 25th/75th and whiskers extend 1.5 IQR]
- And when we look at group performance…
- Teams do better on everything except those tasks which are prone to process loss (text retyping). Provides discriminant validity for the tasks. Brainstorm Brick: F(1,42) = 88.51, p < .001 Memory Picture: F(1,42) = 19.92, p < .001 Sudoku: F(1,42) = 49.83, p < .001 Unscramble Words: F(1,42) = 56.73, p < .001 Winter Survival (1, 42) = 3.13, p = .084 Individuals do better on Text Retyping Text Retyping: F(1,42) = 119.5, p < .001
- If you'll recall, our model was that neural synchrony would predict collective performance, moderated by group identification. And in fact we find some preliminary evidence, such that neural synchrony appears to predict group performance but only for the team condition. This suggests that, while neural synchrony doesn't seem to be related to self-report group ID or a one-shot cooperation decision, it may reflect a level of engagement or shared mental templates during the actual problem solving tasks, that facilitates performance. Since this didn’t occur in the individual condition, it suggests something beyond just working on the same task individually, but rather taking into account the actions of others and mutual influence.
- Rethink how we motivate learning in the classroom
- So with that, I want to say thanks to my advisor Jay, and my fellow NYU collaborators Suzanne, Ido, and thanks to everyone who has helped with this research so far: it’s absolutely been a collective effort. And of course thanks to you all for listening.