This article focuses on two fundamental human–human teamwork behaviors and seeks to understand them better in human–machine teams. Specifically, team situation awareness (TSA) and team conflict are examined in human–machine teams. There is a significant need to identify how TSA and team conflict occur during human–machine teaming, in addition to how they impact each other. In this work, we present an experiment aimed at understanding TSA and team conflict in the context of human–machine teaming in a remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS). Three conditions were tested: (1) control: teams consisted of all humans; (2) synthetic: teams consisted of the pilot role being occupied by a computational agent based on ACT-R architecture that employed AI capabilities, with all other team roles being humans; and (3) experimenter: an experimenter playing the role of the pilot as a highly effective computational agent, with the other roles being humans. The results indicate that TSA improved over time in synthetic teams, improved and then stabilized over time in experimenter teams, and did not improve in control teams. In addition, results show that control teams had the most team conflict. Finally, in the control condition, team conflict negatively impacts TSA.
BallJ.MyersC.HeibergA.CookeN. J.MatessaM.FreimanM.RodgersS. (2010). The synthetic teammate project. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 16(3), 271–299.doi:10.1007/s10588-010-9065-3
2.
Canan & Demir. (2021). The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Applied human factors and ergonomics[Conference session]. 12th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2021), New York, NY, USA.
3.
CookeN. J.GormanJ. C.MyersC. W.DuranJ. L. (2013). Interactive team cognition. Cognitive Science, 37(2), 255–285.doi:10.1111/cogs.1200923167661
CooperG. E. (1979, June 26). Resource management on the flight deck[Workshop] Proceedings of a NASA/Industry Workshop, San Francisco, California.
6.
CoxK. B. (2003). The effects of intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict on team performance effectiveness and work satisfaction. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 153–163.doi:10.1097/00006216-200304000-0000912765107
7.
CramerD.HowittD. L. (2004). The SAGE dictionary of statistics: A practical resource for students in the social sciences (1st ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
8.
De DreuC. K. W.GelfandM. J. (2008). Conflicts in the workplace: sources, functions, and dynamics across multiple levels of analysis. InThe psychology of conflict and conflict managment in organizations (1st ed., pp.3–54). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
DeChurchL. A.Mesmer-MagnusJ. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53.doi:10.1037/a001732820085405
10.
DeChurchL. A.Mesmer-MagnusJ. R.DotyD. (2013). Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 559–578.doi:10.1037/a003289623731027
11.
DemirM.McNeeseN. J.CookeN. J. (2017). Team situation awareness within the context of human-autonomy teaming. Cognitive Systems Research, 46(3), 3–12.doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2016.11.003
12.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 65–84.doi:10.1518/001872095779049499
EndsleyM. R. (2017). From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human–automation research. Human Factors, 59(1), 5–27.doi:10.1177/0018720816681350
15.
FioreS. M.WiltshireT. J. (2016). Technology as teammate: Examining the role of external cognition in support of team cognitive processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1531.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.0153127774074
16.
GigerenzerG. (2018). Statistical rituals: The replication delusion and how we got there. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 198–218.doi:10.1177/2515245918771329
17.
GormanJ. C.AmazeenP. G.CookeN. J. (2010). Team coordination dynamics. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 14(3), 265–289.20587302
18.
GormanJ. C.CookeN. J.PedersenH. K.WinnerJ.AndrewsD.AmazeenP. G. (2006). Changes in team composition after a break: Building adapative command-and-control teams. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(3), 487–491.doi:10.1177/154193120605000358
19.
GormanJ. C.CookeN. J.PedersonH. K.OlenaO. C.DeJoodeJ. A. (2005). Coordinated awareness of situation by teams (cast): Measuring team situation awareness of a communication Glitch. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 49(3), 274–277.doi:10.1177/154193120504900313
20.
GormanJ. C.CookeN. J.WinnerJ. L. (2006). Measuring team situation awareness in decentralized command and control environments. Ergonomics, 49(12–13), 1312–1325.doi:10.1080/0014013060061278817008258
21.
HedgesL.HedbergE. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 60–87.doi:10.3102/0162373707299706
JehnK. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530–557.doi:10.2307/2393737
24.
KannoT.NakataK.FurutaK. (2006). A method for conflict detection based on team intention inference. Interacting with Computers, 18(4), 747–769.doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2005.11.012
25.
KleinG.WoodsD. D.BradshawJ. M.HoffmanR. R.FeltovichP. J. (2004). Ten challenges for making automation a “team player” in joint human-agent activity. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19(6), 91–95.doi:10.1109/MIS.2004.74
LabiancaG.BrassD. J.GrayB. (1998). Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 55–67.doi:10.2307/256897
28.
LimB.-C.KleinK. J. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 403–418.doi:10.1002/job.387
29.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.doi:10.5465/amr.2001.4845785
30.
MarksM. A.PanzerF. J. (2004). The influence of team monitoring on team processes and performance. Human Performance, 17(1), 25–41.doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1701_2
31.
MathieuJ. E.HeffnerT. S.GoodwinG. F.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273
32.
McNeeseN. J.DemirM.CookeN. J.MyersC. (2018). Teaming with a synthetic teammate: Insights into human-autonomy teaming. Human Factors, 60(2), 262–273.doi:10.1177/001872081774322329185818
33.
MirmanD. (2014). Growth curve analysis and visualization using R (1 ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
34.
MohammedS.FerzandiL.HamiltonK. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36(4), 876–910.doi:10.1177/0149206309356804
35.
MyersC.BallJ.CookeN.FreimanM.CaisseM.RodgersS.DemirM.McNeeseN. (2018). Autonomous intelligent agents for team training. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 34(2), 3–14.doi:10.1109/MIS.2018.2886670
36.
MyersC.BallJ.CookeN.FreimanM.CaisseM.RodgersS.DemirM.McNeeseN. (2019). Autonomous intelligent agents for team training making the case for synthetic teammates. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 1–1.doi:10.1109/MIS.2018.2886670
37.
O’NeillT.McNeeseN.BarronA.SchelbleB. (2020). Human–autonomy teaming: A review and analysis of the empirical literature. Human Factors, 0018720820960865.
38.
ParisC. R.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (2000). Teamwork in multi-person systems: A review and analysis. Ergonomics, 43(8), 1052–1075.doi:10.1080/0014013005008487910975173
39.
ParkerJ.BestC.FunkeG.StrangA.MarionK. (2016). An investigation of coding schemes for sample entropy analysis of communications data. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1), 111–115.doi:10.1177/1541931213601025
40.
R Development Core Team. (2016, October 31). R: A Programming Environment for Data Analysis and Graphics (Version 3.3.2). https://www.r-project.org/
41.
SherryR. R.RitterF. E. (2002). Dynamic task allocation: Issues for implementing adaptive intelligent automation. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada436213.
42.
SusskindA. M.Odom-ReedP. R. (2019). Team member’s centrality, cohesion, conflict, and performance in multi-university geographically distributed project teams. Communication Research, 46(2), 151–178.doi:10.1177/0093650215626972
43.
WrightP. C.FieldsR. E.HarrisonM. D. (2000). Analyzing human-computer interaction as distributed cognition: The resources model. Human–Computer Interaction, 15(1), 1–41.doi:10.1207/S15327051HCI1501_01
44.
ZhangR.McNeeseN. J.FreemanG.MusickG. (2021). “An ideal human” expectations of AI teammates in human-AI teaming. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW3), 1–25.
