Claims

Objective feedback is neither necessary nor sufficient for the group advantage; discussion is the critical factor

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? No group advantage occurred with feedback but no discussion, while advantage occurred with discussion but no feedback, though more slowly. → Frith Chris D 2012

Evidence

Frith Chris D 2012

Frith Chris D. (2012). The role of metacognition in human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0123

q2 · i? · review · r2

Follow-up experiments (Bahrami et al., as reviewed here) manipulated feedback and discussion across sessions of 128 trials. The review reports that discussion without feedback produced the group advantage, more slowly, reaching the same level by the second session.

"No advantage was obtained if feedback was given in the absence of discussion, while advantage was obtained when there was discussion, but no feedback."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id feedback-not-needed-for-group-advantage
title Objective feedback is neither necessary nor sufficient for the group advantage; discussion is the critical factor
description Objective feedback is neither necessary nor sufficient for the group advantage; discussion is the critical factor
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2012
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — frith-chris-d-2012

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.