Distinguishing meaningful structure from unpredictable randomness is a key challenge in many domains of life. We examined whether collaborating three-person groups (n = 81) outperform individuals (n = 81) in facing this challenge with a two-part repeated choice task, where outcomes were either serially independent (probabilistic part) or fixed in a particular sequence (pattern part). Groups performed as well as the best individuals in the probabilistic part but groups' accuracy did not credibly exceed that of the average individual in the pattern part. Qualitative coding of group discussion data revealed that failures to identify existing patterns were related to groups accepting probability maximizing as a “good enough” strategy rather than expending effort to search for patterns. These results suggest that probability maximizing can arise via two routes: recognizing that probabilistic processes cannot be outdone (maximizing as optimizing) or settling for an imperfect but easily implementable strategy (maximizing as satisficing).

在生活的许多领域中，将有意义的结构与不可预测的随机性区分开是一个关键挑战。我们研究了三人协作（n  = 81）是否胜过个人（n = 81）分为两部分的重复选择任务来应对这一挑战，其中结果要么是序列独立的（概率部分），要么是按特定顺序固定的（模式部分）。在概率部分中，小组的表现不及最佳个人，但小组的准确性并未可信地超过模式部分中的平均个体。小组讨论数据的定性编码表明，未能识别现有模式的原因与小组将最大化概率作为一种“足够好”的策略有关，而不是将精力放在寻找模式上。这些结果表明，概率最大化可以通过以下两种途径实现：认识到概率过程不能过高（最大化为优化），或者解决不完善但易于实施的策略（最大化最大化）。