# Adolescent's Collective Intelligence: Empirical Evidence in Real and Online Classmates Groups
## 3 Materials and Methods
### Results  
Figure 4 shows the comparison between the participants' performance in the individual RAPM test and the FtF groups' ability in the resolution of the same task. We compared the individual and group performances including in the sample only the score obtained by the same participants in the group and in the individual performance. As can be seen in the box-plot in Figure 4, the two distributions differ widely from each other. The \(t\)-test analysis performed found significant difference between the performance achieved by individuals and FtF groups (\(t_{(56)}=14.674,p<0.001,d=1.91\)). In particular, the mean of the individual RAPM score obtained by participants in the FtF condition (\(M=0.41,S.D.=0.11\)) was significantly lower then the one obtained by groups in the same task (\(M=0.74,S.D.=0.18\)). Therefore, according to first hypothesis, in FtF condition groups outperform individuals in problem-solving outcomes. Similar results were achieved by participants involved in CMC experimental condition. As can be observed in Figure 5, groups show higher score than their members in online environments. The paired sample Student \(t\)-test analysis highlights a significant difference between individual and CMC groups' performance (\(t_{(109)}=1.39,p=0.166,d=0.266\)). Indeed, teammates' average RAPM score (\(M=0.392,S.D.=0.096\)) results were significantly lower than the results obtained by groups (\(M=0.696,S.D.=0.19\)) in the same test. Both results obtained from the paired sample Student \(t\)-tests that were performed to compare individuals and group problem-solving performance support the first hypothesis of the current study (H1). Figure 4: Comparison between individuals’ and FtF groups’ performance. A box-plot is shown, comparing the performance in Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM) of the groups involved in face-to-face condition (FtF) and the score obtained in the test by teammates when they worked individually (teammates’ average RAPM score). The horizontal lines in the box indicates the median values, respectively \(Med=0.8\) for groups and \(Med=0.4\) for individuals. Hypothesis 2 predicts no difference in the performance of CMC and Ftf groups. A third Student \(t\)-test was performed to verify the second hypothesis. The results are presented in Figure 6. The box-plot shows that the two distributions barely differ from each other. The \(t\)-test analysis found no significant difference between the performance achieved by groups that completed the task in the CMC condition and the ones who worked in Ftf conditions (\(t_{(109)}=1.39,p=0.166,d=0.266\)). Therefore, the \(t\)-test results support H2. Figure 5: Comparison between individuals’ and CMC groups’ performance. A box-plot is shown, comparing the performance in RAPM of the groups involved in computer-mediated-communication (CMC) and the score obtained in the test by teammates when they worked individually (teammates’ average RAPM score). The horizontal lines in the box indicates the median values, respectively \(Med=0.733\) for groups and \(Med=0.386\) for individuals. Figure 6: Comparison between performance of groups in CMC and Ftf conditions. A box-plot is shown, comparing the performance in RAPM of the groups involved in computer-mediated-communication (CMC) and groups involved in face-to-face condition (Ftf). The horizontal lines in the box indicates the median values, respectively \(Med=0.733\) for CMC and \(Med=0.8\) for Ftf. A _Generalized Linear Mixed Model_ was used to control the effect of some factors on CI in groups within the CMC condition, and to verify the third, fourth, and fifth hypothesis of the current study. In particular, the teammates' average RAPM score, participants' average sense of community score, conversational turnover, teammates' variability in RME score (i.e., RME standard deviation), teammates' average neuroticism score, and difficulty of problem are the six factors included in this inferential analyses.