How individuals and teams work together to plan, think, decide, and solve problems has been of increasing interest to researchers within the past decade. Specifically, collaborative aspects of macrocognition such as knowledge construction, collaborative team problem solving, team consensus, and outcome evaluation and revision are moving to the forefront of team research. Critical to our overall goal of improving collaboration, is an understanding of how the nature of the task interacts with team problem solving. Therefore, in this paper we focus on task complexity and discuss how it can potentially be operationalized and examined to better understand how it can impact collaboration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CacciabueP. C.HollnagelE. (1995). Simulation of cognition: Applications. In HocJ. M.CacciabueP. C.HollnagelE. (Eds.), Expertise and Technology: Issues in Cognition and Human-Computer Cooperation (pp. 55–74). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
2.
EspinosaJ.SlaughterS.KrautR.HerbslebJ. (2007, July). Familiarity, Complexity, and Team Performance in Geographically Distributed Software Development. Organization Science, 18(4), 613–630.
3.
FioreS. M.CuevasH. M.ScielzoS.SalasE. (2002). Training individuals for distributed teams: Problem solving assessment for distributed mission research. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 125–140.
4.
HocJ.M.AmalbertiR.BorehamN. (1995). Human operator expertise in diagnosis, decision-making, and time management. In HocJ. M.CacciabueP. C.HollnagelE. (Eds.), Expertise and Technology: Issues in Cognition and Human-Computer Cooperation (pp. 19–42). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
LetskyM.WarnerN.FioreS. M.RosenM. A.SalasE. (2007). Macrocognition in Complex Team Problem Solving. Proceedings of the 12th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (12th ICCRTS), Newport, RI, June 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense Command and Control Research Program.
7.
SalasE.HoffmanR. (2007) Multiple perspectives on the Macro-cognition construct. Panel presented at the 8th International Naturalistic Decision Making Conference, Pacific Grove, CA, June 2007.
8.
SalasE.KleinG. A. (Eds.) (2001). Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making: Expertise, research and applications. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
9.
SpeierC. (2006). The influence of information presentation formats on complex task decision-making performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(11), 1115–1131.
10.
TopiH.ValacichJ.S.HofferJ.A. (2005). The effects of task complexity and time availability limitations on human performance in database query tasks. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62(3), 349–379.
11.
VasseyI. (1991). Cognitive fit: A theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decision Sciences22, 219–240.
12.
WarnerN.LetskyM.CowenM. (2005). Cognitive model of team collaboration: Macro-cognitive focus. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
13.
ZsambokC.E.KleinG. (1997). Naturalistic decision making. Expertise: Research and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
