Training Collaborators for Effective Division of Labor

IF 2.5 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Fangze Tian,  Samuel J. Gershman,  Yang Xiang
{"title":"Training Collaborators for Effective Division of Labor","authors":"Fangze Tian,&nbsp; Samuel J. Gershman,&nbsp; Yang Xiang","doi":"10.1111/cogs.70247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>By dividing labor, collaboration brings together the complementary strengths of individuals. Yet, division of labor benefits collaboration not only by assigning people to tasks that match their competences, but by allowing them to improve “on-the-job” through training and practice. Thus, optimal division of labor requires anticipating how each individual will develop and what roles they will eventually be best suited for. Existing research on collaboration, however, rarely considers this prospective dimension. To address this gap, we studied how humans make training decisions, while manipulating the long-term consequences of those decisions. Across three experiments (<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>N</mi>\n <mo>=</mo>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$N =$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> 600), participants trained two military defense teams to counter two types of attacks (land and air), where the long-term goals and the teams' relative competences varied. Participants made a sequence of training decisions before assigning teams to roles in the final battle. Overall, participants divided labor and trained collaborators by considering how each team's competence would develop, and whether they would eventually meet task demands. These patterns were best captured by a Planning model that trained collaborators based on the expected outcome at the time of deployment. The Planning model outperformed several heuristic alternatives that optimized training based on current competence, learning potential, fairness, or versatility. Together, these findings provide a first step toward understanding how training unlocks one of the central benefits of dividing labor—complementary competences. People do not simply match existing competences to tasks; rather, they actively cultivate individual competences to support future specialization.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"50 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70247","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

By dividing labor, collaboration brings together the complementary strengths of individuals. Yet, division of labor benefits collaboration not only by assigning people to tasks that match their competences, but by allowing them to improve “on-the-job” through training and practice. Thus, optimal division of labor requires anticipating how each individual will develop and what roles they will eventually be best suited for. Existing research on collaboration, however, rarely considers this prospective dimension. To address this gap, we studied how humans make training decisions, while manipulating the long-term consequences of those decisions. Across three experiments ( N = $N =$ 600), participants trained two military defense teams to counter two types of attacks (land and air), where the long-term goals and the teams' relative competences varied. Participants made a sequence of training decisions before assigning teams to roles in the final battle. Overall, participants divided labor and trained collaborators by considering how each team's competence would develop, and whether they would eventually meet task demands. These patterns were best captured by a Planning model that trained collaborators based on the expected outcome at the time of deployment. The Planning model outperformed several heuristic alternatives that optimized training based on current competence, learning potential, fairness, or versatility. Together, these findings provide a first step toward understanding how training unlocks one of the central benefits of dividing labor—complementary competences. People do not simply match existing competences to tasks; rather, they actively cultivate individual competences to support future specialization.

培训合作者,实现有效分工。
通过分工,协作将个人的互补力量汇集在一起。然而,劳动分工不仅通过将人们分配到与其能力相匹配的任务,而且通过允许他们通过培训和实践来提高“在职”水平,从而有利于协作。因此,最优劳动分工需要预测每个人将如何发展,以及他们最终将最适合什么角色。然而,现有的合作研究很少考虑这一前瞻性维度。为了解决这一差距,我们研究了人类如何做出训练决策,同时操纵这些决策的长期后果。在三个实验中(N = 600),参与者训练了两个军事防御小组来对抗两种类型的攻击(陆地和空中),其中长期目标和小组的相对能力各不相同。参与者在分配团队在最后一场战斗中的角色之前,做出了一系列的训练决定。总的来说,参与者通过考虑每个团队的能力如何发展,以及他们最终是否能满足任务要求,来分工和培训合作者。这些模式最好由Planning模型捕获,该模型根据部署时的预期结果训练协作者。规划模型优于几个基于当前能力、学习潜力、公平性或多功能性优化训练的启发式替代方案。综上所述,这些发现为理解培训如何释放分工劳动互补能力的核心好处提供了第一步。人们不会简单地将现有的能力与任务相匹配;相反,他们积极培养个人能力,以支持未来的专业化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书