Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social: Social Cognition and Teamwork

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Foundations for Designing User-Centered Systems

  • 100k Accesses

Abstract

Most work is carried out by people working as part of a team. Even where work is carried out by one person it is likely to be in connection if not in collaboration with other people. This could be in a formal organization that has standard operating procedures or as part of a larger system, or it could be part of an informal group of loosely organized collaborators. Social processes—how people interact with each other—are important; they affect how systems interfaces are used. Any system that supports more than one person needs to take these phenomena into account along with the various factors that define the social context in which users especially user working in teams will make decisions take actions including extrinsic intrinsic motivation. In this chapter we introduce some concepts that have proven to be important for system adoption use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abelson, R. P., Frey, K. P., & Gregg, A. P. (2004). Experiments with people: Revelations from social psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bales, R. F., & Borgatta, E. F. (1955). Size of group as a factor in the interaction profile. In A. P. Hare, E. F. Borgatta, & R. F. Bales (Eds.), Small groups: Studies in social interaction (pp. 495–512). Toronto: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bales, R. F., Strodtbeck, F. L., Mills, T. M., & Roseborough, M. E. (1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16, 461–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, N. (1966). Familiarization, group discussion and risk taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 119–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benenson, J. F., Gordon, A. J., & Roy, R. (2000). Children’s evaluative appraisals of competition in tetrads versus dyads. Small Group Research, 31(6), 635–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bly, S., & Churchill, E. F. (1999). Design through matchmaking: Technology in search of users. Interactions, 6(2), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogardus, E. S. (1933). A social distance scale. Sociology and Social Research, 17, 265–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogardus, E. S. (1967). A forty year racial distance study. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booher, H. R., & Minninger, J. (2003). Human systems integration in army systems acquisition. In H. R. Booher (Ed.), Handbook of human systems integration (pp. 663–698). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, F. P. (1975). The mythical man-month: Essays on software engineering. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon, W. B. (1932). The wisdom of the body. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, G. (1974). Support systems and community mental health: Lectures on concept development. New York: Behavioral Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K. M. (1992). Organizational learning and personnel turnover. Organizational Science, 3(1), 20–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K. M., & Hill, V. (2001). Structural change and learning within organizations. In A. Lomi & E. R. Larsen (Eds.), Dynamics of organizations: Computational modeling and organizational theories (pp. Ch. 2. pp. 63–92). Live Oak: MIT Press/AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (pp. 91–118). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, S. M. (1998). Set phasers on stun: And other true tales of design, technology, and human error. Santa Barbara, CA: Aegean.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chekroun, P., & Brauer, M. (2002). The bystander effect and social control behavior: The effect of the presence of others on people’s reactions to norm violations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(6), 853–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, E. F., & Bly, S. (2000). Culture vultures: Considering culture and communication in virtual environments. SIG Group Bulletin, 21(1), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, E. F., Trevor, J., Bly, S., Nelson, L., & Cubranic, D. (2000). Anchored conversations. Chatting in the context of a document. In CHI 2000 Conference Proceedings (pp. 454–461). New York, NY: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). Focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38(5), 300–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, B. E., & Guetzkow, H. (1964). A social psychology of group processes for decision-making. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. (2008). Violence: A micro-sociological theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). “From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinter, E. (1985). Hero or coward: Pressures facing the soldier in battle. Totowa, NJ: Frank Cass and Company Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, N. B. (2004). Telework and social change: How technology is reshaping the boundaries between home and work. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epley, S. W. (1974). Reduction of the behavioral effects of aversive stimulation by the presence of companions. Psychological Bulletin, 81(5), 271–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ethington, P. J. (1997). The intellectual construction of “social distance”: Toward a recovery of Georg Simmel’s social geometry. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography, 30. http://cybergeo.revues.org/index227.html

  • Eveland, W, Jr, Nathanson, A. I., Detenber, B. H., & McLeod, D. M. (1999). Rethinking the social distance corollary: Perceived likelihood of exposure and the third-person perception. Communication Research, 26(3), 275–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, J. D. (1944). Experimental studies of personal pressure and resistance: I. Experimental production of resistance. Journal of General Psychology, 30, 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginges, J., & Eyal, S. (2009). Psychological distance, group size and intergroup relations. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Society of Political Psychology (pp. 51–65). Dublin, Ireland: ISSP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, D. (1996). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. New York: Back Bay Books, Little Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Washington, DC: Office of Naval Research (ONR).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, A. P. (1952). A study of interaction and consensus in different sized groups. American Sociological Review, 17, 261–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface and deep level diversity on work group cohesion. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology in action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, P., & Kiesler, S. (Eds.). (2002). Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel, E. (2007). Flight decks and free flight: Where are the system boundaries? Applied Ergonomics, 38(4), 409–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., & Weiner, B. (1971/1972). Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. New York: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanki, B., Helmreich, R. L., & Arca, J. (Eds.). (2010). Crew resource management (2nd ed.). London, UK: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., & Marsh, J. (2006–2007). We are all bystanders. Greater Good, 3(2). http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/archive/2006fallwinter/keltnermarsh.html

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R. E., Egido, C., & Galegher, J. (1990). Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaborations In J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp. 149–171). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liska, A. E. (1997). Modeling the relationships between macro forms of social control. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 39–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, C. (1989). The nature of social influence in groupthink: Compliance and internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 250–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeese, M. D. (2000). Socio-cognitive factors in the acquisition and transfer of knowledge. Cognition, Technology and Work, 2, 164–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 598–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J. H., Morgan, G. P., & Ritter, F. E. (2010). A preliminary model of participation for small groups. Computational and Mathematical Organization Science, 16, 246–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A, I. I. I., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human–Computer Interaction, 15, 139–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2008). Computer-supported cooperative work. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, R. E. (1924). The concept of social distance as applied to the study of racial attitudes and racial relations. Journal of Applied Sociology, 8, 339–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-person effect research 1983–1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5, 167–184.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive. New York: Riverhead Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L., Amabile, T. M., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social roles, social control, and biases in social-perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 485–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Priest, H. A., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Teamwork and team performance measurement. In J. Wilson & N. Corlett (Eds.), Evaluation of human work (3rd ed., pp. 793–808). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Burke, C. S., & Bowers, C. A. (2002). Myths about crew resource training. Ergonomics in Design, 10(4), 21–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, I. R., & Lakey, B. (1982). Locus of control as a stress moderator: The role of control perceptions and social support. American Community Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seely Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalit, B. (1988). The psychology of conflict and combat. New York: Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan, T. B., & Ferrell, W. R. (1974). Man–machine systems: Information, control, and decision models of human performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (1995). Social psychology. New York: Worth Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starbuck, W. H., & Farjoun, M. (Eds.). (2005). Organization at the limit: Lessons from the Columbia disaster. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoner, J. A. F. (1968). Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions: The influence of widely held values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 442–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terborg, J. R., Castore, C., & DeNinno, J. A. (1976). A longitudinal field investigation of the impact of group composition on group performance and cohesion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 782–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 228–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, D. (1997). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASAw. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vicente, K. (1999). Cognitive work analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. J. (1964). Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk taking in groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westie, F. R., & Westie, M. L. (1956). The social-distance pyramid: Relationships between caste and class. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 190–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetherell, C., Plakans, A., & Wellman, B. (1994). Networks, neighborhoods, and communities: Approaches to the study of the community question. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 14(3), 363–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, E., Kanki, B., & Helmreich, R. L. (Eds.). (1993). Cockpit Resource Management. London, UK: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of IST, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Frank E. Ritter

  2. School of Computer Science, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, UK

    Gordon D. Baxter

  3. eBay Research Labs, San Jose, CA, USA

    Elizabeth F. Churchill

Authors
  1. Frank E. Ritter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gordon D. Baxter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth F. Churchill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank E. Ritter .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ritter, F.E., Baxter, G.D., Churchill, E.F. (2014). Social: Social Cognition and Teamwork. In: Foundations for Designing User-Centered Systems. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5134-0_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5134-0_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-5133-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-5134-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation