LAUSR

Collective intelligence (CI) is said to manifest in a group’s domain general mental ability. It can be measured across a battery of group IQ tests and statistically reduced to a latent factor called the “ c- factor.” Advocates have found the c- factor predicts group performance better than individual IQ. We test this claim by meta-analyzing correlations between the c- factor and nine group performance criterion tasks generated by eight independent samples ( N  = 857 groups). Results indicated a moderate correlation, r , of .26 (95% CI .10, .40). All but four studies comprising five independent samples ( N  = 366 groups) failed to control for the intelligence of individual members using individual IQ scores or their statistically reduced equivalent (i.e., the g- factor). A meta-analysis of this subset of studies found the average IQ of the groups’ members had little to no correlation with group performance ( r  = .06, 95% CI −.08, .20). Around 80% of studies did not have enough statistical power to reliably detect correlations between the primary predictor variables and the criterion tasks. Though some of our findings are consistent with claims that a general factor of group performance may exist and relate positively to group performance, limitations suggest alternative explanations cannot be dismissed. We caution against prematurely embracing notions of the c- factor unless it can be independently and robustly replicated and demonstrated to be incrementally valid beyond the g- factor in group performance contexts.