This study evaluated the causal relationships among situation awareness (SA), cohesion, and autonomic synchrony (SE) within teams. SA is often a team effort and should be more accurate in better-functioning teams.
Background
Cohesive teams perform better overall, although the relationship appears reciprocal; the relationship to SA has not been considered previously. SE is a collective neurocognitive activity that has been connected to team coordination, communication, and performance in some circumstances.
Method
In this experiment, 71 undergraduates, organized into 16 teams, played two matches of a first-person shooter computer game and completed self-report measures of cohesion and SA. SE was determined through time series analysis of electrodermal responses using the driver-empath framework.
Results
Empaths and those who came from more synchronized teams reported less cohesion in the team. Granger causality regression showed reciprocal relations among SA, SE, and cohesion that were both positive and negative after controlling for match difficulty.
Conclusion
The cohesion-SA relationship is similar to the reciprocal cohesion-performance relationship. SE plays an important and independent role in both the social and cognitive aspects of team behavior. It is possible, furthermore, that individuals who are more attuned to their co-workers reported a more accurate, and less obliging, social situation.
Application
Results are applicable to situations requiring teamwork in a dynamic environment.
BaberC.McMasterR. (2016). Grasping the moment: Sensemaking in response to routine incidents and major emergencies. CRC Press.
2.
BarnettL.BarrettA. B.SethA. K. (2018). Misunderstandings regarding the application of Granger causality in neuroscience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(29), E6676–E6677. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714497115
3.
BraunM. T.KozlowskiS. W. J.BrownT. A.DeShonR. P. (2020). Exploring the dynamic team cohesion performance and coordination-performance relationships of newly formed teams. Small Group Research, 51(5), 551–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496420907157
4.
BrehmerB. (2005). Micro-worlds and the circular relation between people and their environment. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220512331311580
5.
ChiappeD.StrybelT. Z.VuK-P. L. (2012). Mechanisms for the acquisition of situation awareness in situated agents. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 13(6), 625–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2011.611267
6.
ChiappeD.StrybelT. Z.VuK-P. L. (2015). A situated approach to the understanding of dynamic systems. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 9(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343414559053
7.
DarlingtonR. B. (1990). Regression and linear models. Wiley.
8.
DelahercheE.ChetouaniM.MahdhaouiA.Saint-GeorgesC.ViauxS.CohenD. (2012). Interpersonal synchrony: A survey of evaluation methods across disciplines. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(3), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1109/T-AFFC.2012.12.
EndsleyM. R. (2021). An objective review and meta-analysis of direct objective measures of situation awareness: A comparison of SAGAT and SPAM. Human Factors, 63, 124–150. https://doi.org/10.1177.0018720819875376
11.
EndsleyM. R.BoltéB.JonesD. G. (2003). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design. CRC Press.
ForsythD. R. (2021). Recent advances in the study of group cohesion. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 25(3), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.107/gdn0000163
GormanJ. C.GrimmD. A.StevensR. H.GallowayT.Willemsen-DunlapA. M.HalpinD. J. (2020). Measuring real-time team cognition during team training. Human Factors, 62, 825–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819852791
16.
GrangerC. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791
17.
GuastelloS. J. (2010). Nonlinear dynamics of team performance and adaptability in emergency response. Human Factors, 52, 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720809359003
GuastelloS. J.CorreroA. N.IIMarraD. E.PeressiniA. F. (2019). Physiological synchronization and subjective workload in a competitive emergency response task. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 23(3), 347–376.
20.
GuastelloS. J.FutchW.MirabitoL.GreenD.MarsicekL.WittyB. (2021). Heuristics associated with forecasting chaotic events: A rare cognitive ability. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 22(4), 457–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2020.1818001
21.
GuastelloS. J.GregsonR. A. M. (Eds.). (2011). Nonlinear dynamical systems analysis for the behavioral sciences using real data. C R C Press/Taylor & Francis.
22.
GuastelloS. J.MarraD. E.CastroJ.EquiM. J.PeressiniA. F. (2017a). Turn taking, team synchronization, and non-stationarity in physiological time series. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 21(3), 319–334.
23.
GuastelloS. J.MarraD. E.CastroJ.GomezM.PernaC. (2017b). Performance and participation dynamics in an emergency response simulation. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 21(3), 217–250.
24.
GuastelloS. J.MarraD. E.CorreroA. N.IIMichelsM.SchimmelH. (2017c). Elasticity and rigidity constructs and ratings of subjective workload for individuals and groups. In LongoL.LevaM. C. (Eds.), Human mental workload: Models and applications (pp. 51–76). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61061-0_4
25.
GuastelloS. J.MarraD. E.PeressiniA. F.CastroJ.GomezM. (2018). Autonomic synchronization, team coordination, participation, and performance. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 22(3), 359–394.
26.
GuastelloS. J.MirabitoL. (2018). Time granularity, lag length, and down-sampling rates for neurocognitive data. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 22(3), 457–483.
27.
GuastelloS. J.MirabitoL.PeressiniA. F. (2020a). Autonomic synchronization under three task conditions and its impact on team performance. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 24(1), 79–104.
28.
GuastelloS. J.PalmerC.MarraD. E.PeressiniA. F. (2020b). The effect of cooperation and competition dynamics on autonomic synchrony in teams. In. ViolK.SchöllerH.AichhornW. (Eds.), Self-organization: A paradigm for the human sciences? (pp. 303–318). Springer.
29.
GuastelloS. J.PeressiniA. F. (2017). Development of a synchronization coefficient for biosocial interactions in groups and teams. Small Group Research, 48(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496416675225
30.
GuastelloS. J.PeressiniA. F. (2021). A comparison of four dyadic synchronization models. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 25(1), 19-39.
31.
GuastelloS. J.PincusD.GundersonP. R. (2006). Electrodermal arousal between participants in a conversation: Nonlinear dynamics and linkage effects. Nonlinear Dynamics in Psychology and Life Sciences, 10, 365-399.
32.
GuastelloS. J.WittyB.JohnsonC.PeressiniA. F. (2020). Autonomic synchronization, leadership emergence, and the roles of drivers and empaths. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 24(4), 451-473.
33.
HakenH. (1984). The science of structure: Synergetics. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
34.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of the NASA task load index (TLX): Results of experimental and theoretical research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human workload (pp. 138–183). North Holland.
HatfieldE.RapsonR. L.LeY. C. L. (2009). Emotional contagion and empathy. In DecetyJ.IckesW. (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 19–30). MIT Press.
37.
HenningR. A.BoucseinW.GilM. C. (2001). Social-physiological compliance as a determinant of team performance. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 40(3), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8760(00)00190-2
38.
HoeglM.GemuendenH. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435-449.
39.
HowellD. C. (1992). Statistical methods for psychology (3rd edition). PWS Kent/Wadsworth.
40.
KaziS.KhaleghzadeganS.DinhJ. V.ShelhamerM. J.SpairsteinA.GoeddelL. A.ChimeN. O.SalasE.RosenM. A. (2021). Team physiological dynamics: A critical review. Human Factors, 63, 32-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819874160.
41.
LentR. W.SchmidtJ.SchmidtL. (2006). Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: Relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.04.001
42.
MønsterD.HåkonssonD. D.EskildsenJ. K.WallotS. (2016). Physiological evidence of interpersonal dynamics in a cooperative production task. Physiology and Behavior, 156(Supplement C), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.01.004
MurphyK. R.MyorsB. (1998). Statistical power analysis: A simple and general model for traditional and modern hypothesis testing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis.
45.
OsmanM. (2010). Controlling uncertainty: A review of human behavior in complex dynamic environments. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017815
46.
OrsucciF. F.MusmeciN.AasB.SchiepekG.RedaM. A.CanestriL.GiulianiAde FeliceGde FeliceG. (2016). Synchronization analysis of language and physiology in human dyads. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 20(2), 167–192.
47.
ØvergårdK. I.NielsonA. R.NazirS.SorensenL. J. (2015). Assessing navigational teamwork through the situational correctness and relevance of communication. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2589-2596. https://doi.org/10.1016/p.promfg.2015.07.579.
48.
OzakiT. (2012). Time series modeling of neurscience data. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
49.
PalumboR. V.MarracciniM. E.WeyandtL. L.Wilder-SmithO.McGeeH. A.LiuS.GoodwinM. S. (2017). Interpersonal autonomic physiology: A systematic review of the literature. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(2), 99–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316628405
50.
PatrickJ.MorganP. L. (2010). Approaches to understanding, analyzing, and developing situation awareness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(1-2), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220903009946
PikovskyA.RosenblumM.KurthsJ. (2001). Synchronization: A universal concept in nonlinear sciences. Cambridge University Press.
53.
PrigogineI.StengersI. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialog with nature. Bantam.
54.
RamseyerF.TschacherW. (2016). Movement coordination in psychotherapy: Synchrony of hand movements is associated with session outcome: A single-case study. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 20(2), 145–166.
55.
SalasE.GrossmanR.HughesA. M.CoultasC. W. (2015a). Measuring team cohesion: Observations from the science. Human Factors, 57, 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815578267
56.
SalasE.StevensR.GormanJ.CookeN. J.GuastelloS. J.von DavierA. (2015b). What will quantitative measures of teamwork look like in 10 years?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59(1), 235–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591048
57.
SalmonP. M.StantonN. A.WalkerG. H.JenkinsD. P.RaffertyL. (2010). Is it really better to share? Distributed situation awareness and its implications for collaborative system design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(1-2), 58–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220903009953
58.
SharmaS.IvancevicV. G. (2010). Nonlinear dynamical characteristics of situation awareness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(5), 448–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220902866718
59.
StefańskiA. (2009). Determining thresholds of complete synchronization, and application. World Scientific.
60.
StokesP. A.PurdonP. L. (2017). A study of problems encountered in Granger causality analysis from a neuroscience perspective. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 114(34), E7063–E7072. https://www.pnas.org_by_75.86.131.75
61.
StrogatzS. (2003). Sync: The emerging science of spontaneous order. Hyperion.
62.
SulisW. (2009). Collective intelligence: Observations and models. In GuastelloS. J.KoopmansM.PincusD. (Eds.), Chaos and complexity in psychology: Theory of nonlinear dynamical systems (pp. 41-72). Cambridge University Press.
63.
SulisW. (2016). Synchronization, TIGoRS, and information flow in complex systems: Dispositional celluar automata. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 20(2), 293-317.
64.
SulisW. (2021). Lessons from collective intelligence. In ElliottE.KielL. D. (Eds.), Complex systems in the social and behavioral sciences: Theory, method and application (pp. 263–297). University of Michigan Press.
65.
TorrentsC.BalaguéN.HristovskiR. (2016). Interpersonal coordination in competitive and cooperative performance contexts. In PassosP.DavidsK.ChowJ. Y. (Eds.), Interpersonal coordination and performance in social systems (pp. 85-93). Routledge.
66.
Valve Corporation (2022). Counter-Strike: Global offensive. Valve Corporation. Retrieved January 24, 2022 fromhttps://blog.counter-strike.net/
67.
WhittleP. (2010). Neural nets and chaotic carriers (2nd edition). Imperial College Press.
68.
WeickK. E. (2005). Managing the unexpected: Complexity as distributed sensemaking. In McDanielR. R.DriebeD. J. (Eds.). Uncertainty and surprise in complex systems (pp. 51–65). Springer-Verlag.
69.
WoodsD. D.SarterN. B. (2010). Capturing the dynamics of attention control from individual to distributed systems: The shape of models to come. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(1), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220903009896
70.
ZanderA. (1994). Making groups effective (2nd edition). Jossey-Bass.
