单项选择题

Text 2

    Psychologists have known for a century that individuals vary in their cognitive ability. But are some groups, like some people, reliably smarter than others In order to answer that question. we grouped 697 volunteer participants into teams of two to five members. Each team worked together to complete a series of short tasks, which were selected to represent the varied kinds of problems that groups are called upon to solve in the real world. One task involved logical analysis, another brain- storming; others emphasized coordination, planning and moral reasoning. 
    Individual intelligence, as psychologists measure it, is defined by its generality: People with good vocabularies, for instance, also tend to have good math skills, even though we often think of those abilities as distinct. The results of our studies showed that this same kind of general intelli- gence also exists for teams. On average, the groups that did well on one task did well on the others, too. In other words, some teams were simply smarter than others. 
    We found the smartest teams were distinguished by three characteristics. First, their members contributed more equally to the team’s discussions, rather than letting one or two people dominate the  group.  Second,  their  members  scored  higher  on  a  test  called  Reading  the  Mind  in  the  Eyes, which measures how well people can read complex emotional states from images of faces with only the eyes visible. Finally, teams with more women outperformed teams with more men. This last ef- fect, however, was partly explained by the fact that women, on average, were better at “mindread- ing” than men. 
    In a new study, we replicated these earlier findings. We randomly assigned each of 68 teams to complete our collective intelligence test in one of two conditions. Half of the teams worked face to face. The other half worked online, with no ability to see any of their teammates. We wanted to see whether groups that worked online would still demonstrate collective intelligence, and whether so- cial ability would matter as much when people communicated purely by typing messages into a browser. 
    And they did. Online and off, some teams consistently worked smarter than others. More sur- prisingly, the most important ingredients for a smart team remained constant regardless of its mode of interaction: members who communicated a lot, participated equally and possessed good emo- tion-reading skills. 

It can be inferred from the first paragraph that （     ）