The small groups did not improve on questions 1 and 4, G2 declined on questions 2 and 3, and G3 improved only on question 2¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Neither small group improved its mean answer score on questions 1 and 4; G2 showed a negative tendency on questions 2 and 3, and G3 progressed positively on question 2 from phase 4 but not on question 3. → Tatiana Íñiguez-Berrozpe 2025

Evidence¶

Tatiana Íñiguez-Berrozpe 2025¶

Tatiana Íñiguez-Berrozpe, Carmen Elboj-Saso, Francesco Marcaletti, Pablo Bautista-Alcaine. (2025). Learning to deal with hate speech: An online collective intelligence experiment on the Collective Learning platform. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-025-09460-9

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive analysis of mean scores for G2 (n = 18) and G3 (n = 20) across the seven phases, per Table 1. The authors describe G2's "negative tendency" on questions 2 and 3 and G3's positive progression on question 2 from phase 4 on; no effect sizes are printed.

"Results were quite different in the small groups G2 and G3. On questions 1 and 4, neither of the two groups managed to improve their mean answer score."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The large online group showed significant score improvements from phase onward on question 1 while the smaller groups did not, indicating collective intelligence capacity emerged in the large group — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Omnibus tests found significant group, phase and group-by-phase effects on questions 1 and 2, and predominantly group effects on questions 3 and 4
• Mean answer scores in the large group rose continually across the interaction phases, especially from phase 4 onward, but stagnated on question 3 — related