Are dyads better at categorizing than individuals? In this paper (psyarxiv.com/qs253, w @kristian_tylen, Smith and Arnoldi) we developed a new paradigm relying on these cute aliens. Participants (alone or chatting with another participant) have to 
figure out whether the aliens are dangerous or not & whether they can obtain precious resources from them or not. The categories are - unknown to the participants - based on combinations of visible features (e.g. arms up and/or big eyes) with different levels of complexity.
Dyads seem better at figuring out which aliens are what, across levels of complexity.
Dyads seem also to be slightly better at generalizing the inferred mappings to new never seen before stimuli, and their performance is negatively related to how similar their linguistic productions are (in semantic space).
We therefore argue that interacting dyads create more general categories, better capturing new stimuli, and this is related to the diversity of their contributions to the dialog leading to the joint decisions. More is in the work about the sources of diversity, the causal link,
and process models of the categorization processes.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
