This study applies theories of computer-mediated communication and human-computer interaction to the study of transactive memory systems (TMS; how small groups coordinate expertise, for which communication is the central mechanism) in video game teams. A large-scale survey (N = 18,627) of players from the small group video game League of Legends (LoL) combined with server-side data provided by Riot Games (the creators of LoL) was conducted to look at the relationship between TMS and win/loss outcome as well as the role of team size and past team member acquaintanceship on the formation of TMS, using social presence as a mediator. Results found that TMS was highly predictive of the likelihood of a team winning a game, and that while past team member acquaintanceship predicted TMS, team size did not. Furthermore, only two dimensions of social presence, copresence and perceived comprehension, were related to TMS. These two dimensions fully mediated the relationship between past team member acquaintanceship and TMS.
AkgünA. E.ByrneJ.KeskinH.LynnG. S.ImamogluS. Z. (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42, 1105-1120. doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.01.001
2.
AustinJ. R. (2003). Transactive memory in organizational groups: The effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 866-878.
3.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
BioccaF.HarmsC.BurgoonJ. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12, 456-480. doi:10.1162/105474603322761270
6.
BioccaF.HarmsC.GreggJ. (2001, May). The networked minds measure of social presence: Pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity. Paper presented at the 4th annual International Workshop on Presence, Philadelphia, PA.
7.
BrandonD. P.HollingsheadA. B. (2004). Transactive memory systems in organizations: Matching tasks, expertise, and people. Organization Science, 15, 633-644. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0069
8.
CastronovaE.FalkM. (2009). Virtual worlds: Petri dishes, rat mazes, and supercolliders. Games and Culture, 4, 396-407. doi:10.1177/1555412009343574
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
DucheneautN.YeeN.NickellE.MooreR. J. (2006, April22-27). “Alone together?” Exploring the social dynamics of massively multiplayer online games. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2006), Montréal, Québec, Canada (pp. 407-416). New York, NY: ACM.
GriffithsM. D.DaviesM. N. O.ChappellD. (2004). Demographic factors and playing variables in online computer gaming. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 479-487. doi:10.1089/cpb.2004.7.479
13.
HarmsC.BioccaF. (2004, October). Internal consistency and reliability of the networked minds social presence measure. Paper presented at the 7th annual International Workshop on Presence, Valencia, Spain.
14.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
15.
HollingsheadA. B. (1998). Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 423-442. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1358
16.
HollingsheadA. B. (2000). Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory in work relationships. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 257-267. doi:10.1177/1368430200033002
17.
HollingsheadA. B. (2001). Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1080-1089. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1080
18.
HollingsheadA. B.BrandonD. P. (2003). Potential benefits of communication in transactive memory systems. Human Communication Research, 29, 607-615. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00859.x
19.
HollingsheadA. B.BrandonD. P.YoonK.GuptaN. (2011). Communication and knowledge-sharing errors in groups: A transactive memory perspective. In CanaryH. E.McPheeR. D. (Eds.), Communication and organizational knowledge: Contemporary issues for theory and practice (pp. 133-150). New York, NY: Routledge.
20.
HollingsheadA. B.FraidinS. N. (2003). Gender stereotypes and assumptions about expertise in transactive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 355-363. doi:10.1016/s0022-1031(02)00549-8
21.
JacksonM.MorelandR. L. (2009). Transactive memory in the classroom. Small Group Research, 40, 508-534. doi:10.1177/1046496409340703
22.
JinS.-A. (2010). Parasocial interaction with an avatar in second life: A typology of the self and an empirical test of the mediating role of social presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 19, 331-340. doi:10.1162/PRES_a_00001
23.
JinS.-A. (2011). “It feels right. Therefore, I feel present and enjoy”: The effects of regulatory fit and the mediating roles of social presence and self-presence in avatar-based 3D virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 20, 105-116. doi:10.1162/pres_a_00038
24.
KahnA. S.RatanR.WilliamsD. (2014). Why we distort in self-report: Predictors of self-report errors in video game play. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 1010-1023. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12056
25.
KahnA. S.ShenC.LuL.RatanR. A.CoaryS.HouJ.. . . WilliamsD. (2015). The Trojan Player Typology: A cross-genre, cross-cultural, behaviorally validated scale of video game play motivations. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 354-361. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.018
26.
KanawattanachaiP.YooY. (2007). The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31, 783-808.
27.
KeytonJ. (2000). The relational side of groups. Small Group Research, 31, 387-396. doi:10.1177/104649640003100401
28.
KozlowskiS. W. J. (2012). Groups and teams in organizations: Studying multilevel dynamics of emergence. In HollingsheadA. B.PooleM. S. (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 260-283). New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
LeeK. M. (2004a). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14, 27-50. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x
30.
LeeK. M. (2004b). Why presence occurs: Evolutionary psychology, media equation, and presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13, 494-505. doi:10.1162/1054746041944830
31.
LeeK. M.NassC. (2004). The multiple source effect and synthesized speech: Doubly-disembodied language as a conceptual framework. Human Communication Research, 30, 182-207. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00730.x
32.
LeeK. M.NassC. (2005). Social-psychological origins of feelings of presence: Creating social presence with machine-generated voices. Media Psychology, 7, 31-45. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0701_2
33.
LeeK. M.PengW.JinS.-A.YanC. (2006). Can robots manifest personality? An empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human–robot interaction. Journal of Communication, 56, 754-772. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00318.x
34.
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
35.
LewisK. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50, 1519-1533. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1040.0257
36.
LewisK.BelliveauM.HerndonB.KellerJ. (2007). Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 159-178. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.01.005
37.
LewisK.HerndonB. (2011). Transactive memory systems: Current issues and future research directions. Organization Science, 22, 1254-1265. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0647
LiangD. W.MorelandR.ArgoteL. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384-393. doi:10.1177/0146167295214009
40.
LimS.ReevesB. (2010). Computer agents versus avatars: Responses to interactive game characters controlled by a computer or other player. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68, 57-68. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.09.008
41.
LindellM. K.WhitneyD. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114-121. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114
42.
LowryP. B.RobertsT. L.RomanoN. C.Jr.CheneyP. D.HightowerR. T. (2006). The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication: Does computer-mediated communication make a difference?Small Group Research, 37, 631-661. doi:0.1177/1046496406294322
43.
McGrathJ. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
44.
MorelandR. L. (1999). Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. In ThompsonL. L.LevineJ. M.MessickD. M. (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 3-31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
MorelandR. L.LevineJ. M.WingertM. L. (1996). Creating the ideal group: Composition effects at work. In WitteE.DavisJ. H. (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (Vol. 2. pp. 11-35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46.
MorelandR. L.MyaskovskyL. (2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 117-133. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2891
47.
NeffJ. J.FulkJ.YuanY. C. (2014). Not in the mood? Affective state and transactive communication. Journal of Communication, 64, 785-805. doi:10.1111/jcom.12109
48.
PeñaJ.HancockJ. T. (2006). An analysis of socioemotional and task communication in online multiplayer video games. Communication Research, 33, 92-109. doi:10.1177/0093650205283103
49.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
50.
PodsakoffP. M.OrganD. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544. doi:10.1177/014920638601200408
51.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553
52.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879
53.
PreacherK. J.KelleyK. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93-115. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173380635410.1037/0022-3514.51.6.11731987-13085-001
RavajaN.SaairT.TurpeinenM.LaarniJ.SalminenM.KivikangasM. (2006). Spatial presence and emotions during video game playing: Does it matter with whom you play?Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15, 381-392. doi:10.1162/pres.15.4.381
56.
RiceR. E.LoveG. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14, 85-108. doi:10.1177/009365087014001005
57.
RichterS.LechnerU. (2009, April). Transactive memory systems and shared situation awareness: A World of Warcraft experiment. Paper presented at the International Conference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities, The Netherlands.
58.
RiedlB. C.GallenkampJ. V.PicotA.WelpeI. M. (2012, January). Antecedents of transactive memory systems in virtual teams: The role of communication, culture, and team size. Paper presented at the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI.
SherryJ. L.LucasK.GreenbergB. S.LachlanK. (2006). Video game uses and gratifications as predictors of use and game preferences. In VordererP.BryantJ. (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 213-224). New York, NY: Routledge.
62.
ShortJ.WilliamsE.ChristieB. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London, England: John Wiley.
63.
SkalskiP.TamboriniR. (2007). The role of social presence in interactive agent-based persuasion. Media Psychology, 10, 385-413. doi:10.1080/15213260701533102
64.
SteinerI. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press.
65.
ThorndikeE. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25-29. doi:10.1037/h0071663
66.
WaltherJ. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90. doi:10.1177/009365092019001003
WegnerD. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In MullenB.GoethalsG. R. (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185-208). New York, NY: Spring-Verlag.
69.
WeibelD.WissmathB.HabeggerS.SteinerY.GronerR. (2008). Playing online games against computer- vs. human-controlled opponents: Effects on presence, flow, and enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2274-2291. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.11.002
70.
WilliamsD. (2010). The mapping principle, and a research framework for virtual worlds. Communication Theory, 20, 451-470. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01371.x
71.
WilliamsD.CaplanS. E.XiongL. (2007). Can you hear me now? The impact of voice in an online gaming community. Human Communication Research, 33, 427-449. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00306.x
72.
WilliamsD.ContractorN.PooleM. S.SrivastavaJ.CaiD. (2011). The Virtual Worlds Exploratorium: Using large-scale data and computational techniques for communication research. Communication Methods and Measures, 5, 163-180. doi:10.1080/19312458.2011.568373
73.
WilliamsD.KahnA. S. (2013). Games, online and off. In DuttonW. H. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 195-215). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
74.
WirthJ. H.FeldbergF.SchoutenA.van den HooffB.WilliamsK. (2012). Using virtual game environments to study group behavior. In HollingsheadA. B.PooleM. S. (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 173-198). New York, NY: Routledge.
75.
XiongL.PooleM. S.WilliamsD.AhmadM. A. (2009, July). The effects of group structure on group behavior and outcomes in an online gaming environment. Paper presented at the INGRoup Annual Conference, Boulder, CO.
76.
YooY.KanawattanachaiP. (2001). Developments of transactive memory systems and collective mind in virtual teams. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9, 187-208. doi:10.1108/eb028933
77.
YuanY. C.FulkJ.MongeP. R. (2007). Access to information in connective and communal transactive memory systems. Communication Research, 34, 131-155. doi:10.1177/0093650206298067
78.
YuanY. C.FulkJ.MongeP. R.ContractorN. (2010). Expertise directory development, shared task interdependence, and strength of communication network ties as multilevel predictors of expertise exchange in transactive memory work groups. Communication Research, 37, 20-47. doi:10.1177/0093650209351469
