This article describes some of the theoretical approaches used by social scientists as well as those used by computer scientists to study the team and group phenomena. The purpose of this article is to identify ways in which these different fields can share and develop theoretical models and theoretical approaches, in an effort to gain a better understanding and further develop team and group research.
AndersenD. F.RichardsonG. P.VennixJ. M. (1997). Group model building: Adding more science to the craft. System Dynamics Review, 13, 187-201. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1727(199722)13:2<187::AID-SDR124>3.0.CO;2-O
2.
AstridM.KrämerN. C.GratchJ.KangS. H. (2010). “It doesn’t matter what you are!” Explaining social effects of agents and avatars. Computers in Human Behavior, 2, 61641-61650. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.012
3.
BarrickM. R.StewartG. L.NeubertM. J.MountM. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377
4.
BlieseP. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In KleinK. L.KozlowskiS. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5.
BreazealC. L. (2004). Designing sociable robots. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
BreazealC. L. (2009). Role of expressive behaviour for robots that learn from people. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364, 3527-3538. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0157
7.
BrennanS. E.GalatiA.KuhlenA. K. (2010). Two minds, one dialog: Coordinating speaking and understanding. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 53, 301-344. doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(10)53008-1
8.
ByomL. J.MutluB. (2013). Theory of mind: Mechanisms, methods, and new directions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1-12. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00413
CarleyK. M.NewellA. (1994). The nature of the social agent. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 19, 221-262.
11.
CassellJ.BickmoreT.BillinghurstM.CampbellL.ChangK.VilhjálmssonH.YanH. (1999). Embodiment in conversational interfaces: Rea. In AltomM.WilliamsM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 520-527). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
12.
CassellJ.PelachaudC.BadlerN.SteedmanM.AchornB.BecketT.. . . StoneM. (1994). Animated conversation: Rule-based generation of facial expression, gesture & spoken intonation for multiple conversational agents. In SchweitzerD.GlassnerA.KeelerM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (pp. 413-420). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
13.
ChangS. N. (2007). Externalising students’ mental models through concept maps. Journal of Biological Education, 41, 107-112. doi:10.1080/00219266.2007.9656078
14.
ClarkH. H.BrennanS. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, 13, 127-149. doi:10.1037/10096-006
15.
CocoM. I.DaleR. (2014). Cross-recurrence quantification analysis of categorical and continuous time series: An R package. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1-14. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00510
16.
DeChurchL. A.Mesmer-MagnusJ. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 32-53. doi:10.1037/a0017328
17.
DelahercheE.ChetouaniM.MahdhaouiA.Saint-GeorgesC.ViauxS.CohenD. (2012). Interpersonal synchrony: A survey of evaluation methods across disciplines. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3, 349-365. doi:10.1109/t-affc.2012.12
18.
DerrickD. C.LigonG. S. (2014). The affective outcomes of using influence tactics in embodied conversational agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 39-48. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.027
19.
DillenbourgP.LemaignanS.SanginM.NovaN.MolinariG. (2016). The symmetry of partner modelling. International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 11, 227-253. doi:10.1007/s11412-016-9235-5
20.
FayD.BorrillC.AmirZ.HawardR.WestM. (2006). Getting the most out of multidisciplinary teams: A multi-sample study of team innovation in health care. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 553-567. doi:10.1348/096317905x72128
FlavellJ. H.GreenF. L.FlavellE. R. (1990). Developmental changes in young children’s knowledge about the mind. Cognitive Development, 5, 1-27. doi:10.1016/0885-20174(90)90010-Q
23.
FraisseP. (1963). The psychology of time. New York, NY: Harper & Row. doi:10.4324/9781315010038
24.
Gatica-PerezD. (2009). Automatic nonverbal analysis of social interaction in small groups: A review. Image and Vision Computing, Special Issue on Human Behavior, 27, 1775-1787.
25.
Gatica-PerezD.VinciarelliA.OdobezJ.-M. (2014). Nonverbal behavior analysis. In BourlardH.Popescu-BelisA. (Eds.), Multimodal interactive systems management (pp. 165-187). Lausanne, Switzerland: EFPL Press. doi:10.1201/b15535-15
26.
GilboaA.Tal-ShmotkinM. (2010). String quartets as self-managed teams: An interdisciplinary perspective. Psychology of Music, 40, 19-41. doi:10.1177/0305735610377593
27.
GlowinskiD.ManciniM.CowieR.CamurriA.ChiorriC.DohertyC. (2013). The movements made by performers in a skilled quartet: A distinctive pattern, and the function that it serves. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1-9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00841
28.
GoldmanA. I. (2012). Theory of mind. In MargolisE.SamuelsR.StichS. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of philosophy and cognitive science (pp. 402-424). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195309799.001.0001
29.
GombolayM. C.GutierrezR. A.ClarkeS. G.SturlaG. F.ShahJ. A. (2015). Decision-making authority, team efficiency and human worker satisfaction in mixed human–robot teams. Autonomous Robots, 39, 293-312. doi:10.1007/s10514-015-9457-9
30.
GraesserA. C.McNamaraD. S.LouwerseM. M.CaiZ. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 193-202. doi:10.3758/bf03195564
31.
GrangerC. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37, 424-438. doi:10.2307/1912791
32.
GreenS. A.BillinghurstM.ChenX.ChaseJ. G. (2008). Human-robot collaboration: A literature review and augmented reality approach in design. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 5(1), 1-18.
33.
HarrisonD. A.KleinK. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199-1228. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.26586096
34.
HeylenD. (2006). Head gestures, gaze and the principles of conversational structure. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 3, 241-267. doi:10.1142/s0219843606000746
35.
HindsP. J.RobertsT. L.JonesH. (2004). Whose job is it anyway? A study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task. Human-computer Interaction, 19, 151-181. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_7
HulshegerU. R.AndersonN.SalgadoJ. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128-1145. doi:10.1037/a0015978
38.
IlgenD. R.HollenbeckJ. R.JohnsonM.JundtD. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-543. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250
39.
KashyD. A.KennyD. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M.ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 451-477). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40.
KinchinI. M.HayD. B.AdamsA. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 42, 43-57. doi:10.1080/001318800363908
41.
KozlowskiS. W.ChaoG. T. (2012). The dynamics of emergence: Cognition and cohesion in work teams. Managerial and Decision Economics, 33, 335-354. doi:10.1002/mde.2552
42.
KozlowskiS. W.ChaoG. T.GrandJ. A.BraunM. T.KuljaninG. (2013). Advancing multilevel research design capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 581-615.
43.
KozlowskiS. W.IlgenD. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
44.
KozlowskiS. W.KleinK. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In KleinK. J.KozlowskiS. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
45.
LewisK. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 587-604. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.587
46.
MannixE.NealeM. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 31-55. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x
47.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376. doi:10.5465/amr.2001.4845785
48.
MarwanN.RomanoM. C.ThielM.KurthsJ. (2007). Recurrence plots for the analysis of complex systems. Physics Reports, 438, 237-329. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2006.11.001
49.
MendesJ. J. A.VieiraM. E. M.PiresM. B.StevanS. L. (2016). Sensor fusion and smart sensor in sports and biomedical applications. Sensors, 16(10), 1-31. doi:10.3390/s16101569
50.
MohammedS.FerzandiL.HamiltonK. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36, 876-910. doi:10.1177/0149206309356804
51.
MorelandR. L.LevineJ. M.WingertM. L. (1996). Creating the ideal group: Composition effects at work. In DavisJ.WitteE. (Eds.). Understanding group behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 11-35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52.
NovakJ. D.CañasA. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 1. Retrieved from http://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/theory-of-concept-maps
53.
NunamakerJ. F.DerrickD. C.ElkinsA. C.BurgoonJ. K.PattonM. W. (2011). Embodied conversational agents-based kiosk for automatic interviewing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28, 17-48. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222280102
54.
OlguínD. O.PentlandA. (2010). Sensor-based organisational design and engineering. International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering, 1, 69-97. doi:10.1504/ijode.2010.035187
55.
OlguínD. O.WaberB. N.KimT.MohanA.AraK.PentlandA. (2009). Sensible organizations: Technology and methodology for automatically measuring organizational behavior. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), 39, 43-55. doi:101109/tsmcb20082006638
56.
PeetersM. A. G.van TuijlH. F.J.M.RutteC. G.ReymenI. M. M.J. (2006). Personality and team performance: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 20, 377-396. doi:10.1002/per.588
57.
PicardR. W. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
58.
PoggiI. (2002). Mind markers. In RectorM.PoggiI. (Eds.), Gestures, Meaning and use. Oporto, Portugal: University Fernando Pessoa Press.
59.
PöppelE. (1997). A hierarchical model of temporal perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 56-61. doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(97)01008-5
60.
Quian QuirogaR.KreuzT.GrassbergerP. (2002). Event synchronization: A simple and fast method to measure synchronicity and time delay patterns. Physical Review E, 66(4), 1-9. doi:10.1103/physreve.66.041904
61.
RanasingheS.Al MachotF.MayrH. C. (2016). A review on applications of activity recognition systems with regard to performance and evaluation. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 12(8), 1-22.
62.
ReidsmaD.NijholtA.TschacherW.RamseyerF. (2010, October). Measuring multimodal synchrony for human-computer interaction. In SourinA.FellnerD.ThalmannD.SourinaO. (Eds.), 2010 International Conference on Cyberworlds (pp. 67-71). Singapore: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
63.
Reiter-PalmonR.HermanA. E.YammarinoF. J. (2008). Creativity and cognitive processes: Multi-level linkages between individual and team cognition. In MumfordM. D.HunterS. T.Bedell-AversK. E. (Eds.), Multi-level issues in creativity and innovation (pp. 203-267). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
64.
Reiter-PalmonR.WigertB.de VreedeT. (2011). Team creativity and innovation: The effect of team composition, social processes and cognition. In Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 295-326). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-374714-3.00013-6
65.
RoschelleJ.TeasleyS. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O’MalleyC. (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_5
66.
Ruiz-PrimoM. A.ShavelsonR. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 569-600. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199608)33:6<569::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-M
67.
SalasE.BurkeC.StaglK. (2004). Developing teams and team leaders: Strategies and principles. In DayD. V.ZaccaroS. J.HalpinS. M. (Eds.), Leader development for transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow (pp. 325-355). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. doi:10.1145/1957656.1957668
68.
Sanchez-CortesD.AranO.MastM. S.Gatica-PerezD. (2012). A nonverbal behavior approach to identify emergent leaders in small groups. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 14, 816-832. doi:101109/tmm20112181941
69.
ShahJ.WikenJ.WilliamsB.BreazealC. (2011, March). Improved human-robot team performance using Chaski, a human-inspired plan execution system. Proceedings of the 6th International Association for Computing Machinery Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Lausanne, Switzerland.
70.
SheridanT. B. (2016). Human-robot interactions: Status and challenges. Human Factors, 58, 525-532. doi:10.1177/0018720816644364
71.
SinhaT.CassellJ. (2015). We click, we align, we learn: Impact of influence and convergence processes on student learning and rapport building. In ChetouaniM.VarniG.SalamH.HammalZ.CohnJ. F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Modeling Interpersonal Synchrony and Influence (pp. 13-20). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
72.
SycaraK.LewisM. (2004). Integrating intelligent agents into human teams. In SalasE.FioreM. S. (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 203-231). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
73.
Tal-ShmotkinM.GilboaA. (2013). Do behaviors of string quartet ensembles represent self-managed teams?Team Performance Management, 19, 57-71. doi:10.1108/13527591311312097
74.
TannenbaumS. I.MathieuJ. E.SalasE.CohenD. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough?Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspective on Science and Practice, 5, 2-24.
75.
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24-54. doi:10.1177/0261927x09351676
76.
TorreyC.FussellS. R.KieslerS. (2009). What robots could teach us about perspective taking. In MorsellaE. (Ed.), Expressing oneself/expressing one’s self: Communication, cognition, language, and identity (pp. 93-106). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
77.
VarniG.VolpeG.MazzarinoB. (2011). Towards a social retrieval of music content. In ZhanJ. (Ed.), Proceedings of 3rd IEEE International Conference on Social Computing (2011), Workshop on Social Behavioral Analysis and Behavioral Change (pp. 1466-1473). Boston, MA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
78.
VinciarelliA.PanticM.BourlardH. (2009). Social signal processing: Survey of an emerging domain. Image and Vision Computing, 27, 1743-1759. doi:101016/jimavis200811007
79.
WardA.LitmanD. (2008). Semantic cohesion and learning. In WoolfB. P.AïmeurE.NkambouR.LajoieS. (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 459-469). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69132-7_49
80.
WilliamsK. Y.O’ReillyC. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In StawB.SuttonR. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 77-140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
81.
WinfieldA. F. (2010). You really need to know what your bot(s) are thinking about you. In WilksY. (Ed.), Close engagements with artificial companions: Key social, psychological, ethical and design issues (pp. 201-208). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
82.
ZhangZ. X.HempelP. S.HanY. L.TjosvoldD. (2007). Transactive memory system links work team characteristics and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1722-1730. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1722
83.
ZhaoR.SinhaT.BlackA. W.CassellJ. (2016). Socially-aware virtual agents: Automatically assessing dyadic rapport from temporal patterns of behavior. In TraumD.SwartouW.KhooshabehP.KoppS.SchererS.LeuskiA. (Eds.), International conference on intelligent virtual agents (pp. 218-233). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47665-0_20
