Team Member Personality,Performance and Stress in a RoboFlag Synthetic Task Environment

Abstract

Effective teamwork is an important component in the control of multiple unmanned vehicles (UVs). Personality traits of individual team members may be a factor influencing overall team performance and individual levels of perceived workload and stress. In this study, a multiple UV environment was simulated by use of the RoboFlag game. Participants played the RoboFlag game individually or in two-person teams and were presented with this sequence of task-phases: RoboFlag alone, RoboFlag with a secondary task, RoboFlag alone. It was predicted that the RoboFlag performance would relate to ‘Big Five’ personality traits. It was also expected that Neuroticism would relate to higher workload and stress, especially in more demanding task conditions. The results suggested that the influence of personality is generally limited, but may sometimes be important. Specifically, high Neuroticism individuals showed higher workload and stress in a team player condition, which may impose social as well as task demands.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bell

(2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9, 595–615.

Bolia

Nelson

Ericson

Simpson

(2000). A speech corpus for multitalker communications research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 1065–1066.

Campbell

D'Andrea

Schneider

Chaudhry

Waydo

Sullivan

(2005). RoboFlag games using system based hierarchical control. Cornell RoboFlag. Retrieved October 24, 2008, from http://www.cds.caltech.edu/∼waydo/papers/ACC03.pdf.

D'Andrea

Babish

(2003). The RoboFlag testbed. Cornell RoboFlag. Retrieved October 24, 2008, from http://roboflag.mae.cornell.edu/publications/INV3202.pdf.

Driskell

J. E.

Goodwin

G. F.

Salas

O'Shea

P. G.

(2006). What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics, 10, 249–271.

Goldberg

(1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.

Hart

S. G.

Staveland

L. E.

(1988). Development of a multi-dimensional workload scale: Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Hancock

P. A.

Meshkati

(Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Kowalski-Trakofler

Vaught

Scharf

(2003). Judgment and decision making under stress: An overview for emergency managers. International Journal of Emergency Management, 1, 278–289.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

10.

Matthews

Campbell

S. E.

Falconer

Joyner

L. A.

Huggins

Gilliland

(2002). Fundamental dimensions of subjective state in performance settings: Task engagement, distress, and worry. Emotion, 2, 315–340.

11.

Matthews

Deary

I. J.

Whiteman

M. C.

(2009). Personality traits (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

12.

Matthews

Emo

A.K.

Funke

G. J.

(2005). A short version of the Dundee Stress State Questionnaire. Paper presented at the Twelfth Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences, Adelaide, Australia, July 2005.

13.

Parasuraman

Galster

Miller

(2003). Human control of multiple robots in the RoboFlag simulation environment. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 4, 3232–3237.

14.

Paris

Salas

Cannon-Bowers

(2000). Teamwork in multi-person systems: A review and analysis. Ergonomics, 43, 1052–1075.

15.

Peeters

M. A. G.

Van Tujil

H. F. J. M.

Rutte

C. G.

Reymen

I. M. M. J.

(2006). Personality and team performance: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology, 20, 377–396.

16.

Saucier

(2003). Orthogonal markers for orthogonal factors: The case of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 1–31.

17.

Thayer

R. E.

(1989; Paperback ed. 1989). The biopsychology of mood and arousal. New York: Oxford University Press.

18.

Vollrath

(2001). Personality and stress. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 335–347.