skip to main content
10.1145/2998181.2998322acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Team Dating Leads to Better Online Ad Hoc Collaborations

Published:25 February 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Forming work teams involves matching people with complementary skills and personalities, but requires obtaining such data a priori. We introduce team dating, where people interact on brief tasks before working with a dedicated partner for longer, more complex tasks. We studied team dating through two online experiments. In Experiment 1, workers from a crowd platform independently wrote an ad slogan, discussed it with three consecutive people and evaluated their team date interactions. They then selected preferred teammates from a list showing average ratings for people they had dated and not dated. Results show that participants evaluated their dates based on evidence beyond externally judged slogan quality, and relied heavily on their dyad-specific judgments in selecting teammates. In Experiment 2, we replicated the individual and team dating tasks, and formed teams, either i) by honoring pairwise team dating preferences, ii) randomly from their pool of dates, or iii) randomly from those not dated. Results show that teams formed from preferred dates performed better on a final creative task compared to random dates or non-dates. Team dating provides a dynamic technique for forming ad hoc teams accounting for interpersonal dynamics. The initial interactions provided information that helped people select and work with an appropriate teammate.

References

  1. Justin S. Albrechtsen, Christian A. Meissner, and Kyle J. Susa. 2009. Can intuition improve deception detection performance? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45, 4: 1052--1055.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Shoshana Altschuller and Raquel Benbunan-Fich. 2010. Trust, Performance, and the Communication Process in Ad Hoc Decision-Making Virtual Teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 16, 1: 27--47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Nalini Ambady, Frank J. Bernieri, and Jennifer A. Richeson. 2000. Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. Advances in experimental social psychology 32, 201--271.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal. 1992. Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 111, 2: 256--274.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Nalini Ambady and John Joseph Skowronski. 2008. First impressions. First Impressions 31, 1: 368.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Linda Argote and Yuqing Ren. 2012. Transactive Memory Systems: A Microfoundation of Dynamic Capabilities. Journal of Management Studies 49, 1375--1382.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Murray R. Barrick, Greg L. Stewart, Mitchell J. Neubert, and Michael K. Mount. 1998. Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology 83, 3: 377--391.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Robert Bolton and Dorothy Grover Bolton. 2009. People styles at work: Making bad relationships good and good relationships better. AMACOM, NY, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. William P. Bottom. 2004. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Academy of Management Review 29, 4: 695--698.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Kim T. Buehlman, John M. Gottman, and Lynn F. Katz. 1992. How a couple views their past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Journal of Family Psychology 5, 3-4: 295--318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Thang Nguyen Bui and Curt Jones. 1992. Finding good approximate vertex and edge partitions is NP-hard. Information Processing Letters 42, 3: 153--159. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Tiziana Casciaro and Miguel Sousa Lobo. 2005. Competent Jerks, Lovable Fools, and the Formation of Social Networks Competent Jerks, Lovable Fools, and the Formation of Social Networks. Harvard Business Review 83, 6: 92--99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Kevin Chai, Vidyasagar Potdar, and Tharam Dillon. 2009. Content quality assessment related frameworks for social media. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and in Bioinformatics), 791--805. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Susan E. Clark, Herbert H.; Brennan. 1991. Grounding in Communication. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition: 127--149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. D Clutterbuck. 2007. Coaching the team at work.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Thomas G Cummings and Christopher G Worley. 2008. Organization Development and Change.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jared R Curhan and Alex Pentland. 2007. Thin Slices of Negotiation: Predicting Outcomes From Conversational/rDynamics Within the First 5 Minutes. Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 3: 802--811.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Petru L Curşeu, Patrick Kenis, Jörg Raab, et al. 2010. Composing Effective Teams through Team Dating. Organization Studies 31, 7: 873--894.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Erich C Dierdorff, Suzanne T Bell, and James A Belohlav. 2011. The power of "we": effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time. The Journal of applied psychology 96, 2: 247--262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Steven P Dow, Julie Fortuna, Dan Schwartz, Beth Altringer, Daniel L Schwartz, and Scott R Klemmer. 2011. Prototyping Dynamics: Sharing Multiple Designs Improves Exploration, Group Rapport, and Results. Acm: 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Nicolas Ducheneaut, Nicholas Yee, Eric Nickell, and Robert J Moore. 2007. The Life and Death of Online Gaming Communities: A Look at Guilds in World of Warcraft. Distribution In Press,: 839--848. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Jacqueline N W Friedman, Thomas F. Oltmanns, and Eric Turkheimer. 2007. Interpersonal perception and personality disorders: Utilization of a thin slice approach. Journal of Research in Personality 41, 3: 667--688.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. James L Gibson, John M Ivancevich, James H Donnelly, and Robert Konopaske. 2012. Organizations Behavior, Structure, Processes.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Alastair J Gill, Darren Gergle, Robert M French, and Jon Oberlander. 2008. Emotion rating from short blog texts. Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual CHI conference on Human factors in computing systems CHI '08: 1121. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jerry W. Gilley, M. Lane Morris, Alina M. Waite, Tabitha Coates, and Abigail Veliquette. 2010. Integrated Theoretical Model for Building Effective Teams. Advances in Developing Human Resources 12: 7--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Miha Grčar, Dunja Mladenič, Blaz Fortuna, and Marko Grobelnik. 2006. Data Sparsity Issues in the Collaborative Filtering Framework. In Advances in Web Mining and Web Usage Analysis, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 58--76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Martie G Haselton and David C Funder. 2006. The Evolution of Accuracy and Bias in Social Judgment. Evolution and social psychology, January: 15--37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Pamela J. Hinds and Mark Mortensen. 2005. Understanding Conflict in Geographically Distributed Teams: The Moderating Effects of Shared Identity, Shared Context, and Spontaneous Communication. Organization Science 16, 3: 290--307. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Pamela Hinds and Cathleen McGrath. 2006. Structures that work: Social structure, work structure and coordination ease in geographically distributed teams. 20th Anniversary ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW 2006, November 4, 2006 - November 8, 2006: 343--352. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Eric von Hippel and Georg von Krogh. 2013. Identifying viable "need-solution pairs": Problem solving without problem formulation. von Hippel, Eric von Krogh, Georg, January 2016: 1--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Bob Hoffman. 2009. The ad contrarian. Fowler Digital Services.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. John R. Hollenbeck, D. Scott DeRue, and Rick Guzzo. 2004. Bridging the gap between I/O research and HR practice: Improving team composition, team training, and team task design. Human Resource Management 43, 353--366.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Lawrence Holpp. 1999. Managing teams. McGrawHill, NY, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Stephen E Humphrey, Frederick P Morgeson, and Michael J Mannor. 2009. Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: a role composition model of team performance. The Journal of applied psychology 94, 1: 48--61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa and Dorothy E. Leidner. 1999. Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Organization Science 10, 6: 791--815. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Brigitte Jordan and Austin Henderson. 1995. interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences 4, 1: 39--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Peter J. Jordan, Neal M. Ashkanasy, Charmine E J Härtel, and Gregory S. Hooper. 2002. Workgroup emotional intelligence. Scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus. Human Resource Management Review 12, 195--214.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Malte Jung, Jan Chong, and Larry Leifer. 2012. Group hedonic balance and pair programming performance: affective interaction dynamics as indicators of performance. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI '12, 829--838. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Malte Jung and Larry Leifer. 2011. A Method to Study Affective Dynamics and Performance in Engineering Design Teams. Internation Conference on Engineering Design, ICED'11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. David A Kenny and Lawrence La Voie. 1982. Reciprocity of interpersonal attraction: a confirmed hypothesis. Social Psychology Quarterly 45, 1: 54--58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Yehuda Koren, Robert Bell, and Chris Volinsky. 2009. Matrix Factorization Techniques for Recommender Systems. Computer 42, 8: 42--49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Michael W. Kraus and Dacher Keltner. 2009. Signs of socioeconomic status: A thin-slicing approach. Psychological Science 20, 1: 99--106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Vincent Lenhardt. 2004. Coaching for meaning: The culture and practice of coaching and team building. Palgrave Macmillan, NY, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Daniel Levi. Group dynamic for teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Lester Luborsky. 1996. Onset conditions for psychological and psychosomatic symptoms during psychotherapy: A new theory based on a unique data set. American Journal of Psychiatry 153, 7: 11--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Andy Luse, James C. McElroy, Anthony M. Townsend, and Samuel Demarie. 2013. Personality and cognitive style as predictors of preference for working in virtual teams. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 4: 1825--1832. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Ioanna Lykourentzou, Angeliki Antoniou, Yannick Naudet, and Steven P. Dow. 2016. Personality Matters: Balancing for Personality Types Leads to Better Outcomes for Crowd Teams. CSCW 2016: 260--273. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Merce Mach, Simon Dolan, and Shay Tzafrir. 2010. The differential effect of team members' trust on team performance: The mediation role of team cohesion. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83, 3: 771--794.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Gretchen A. Macht, Robert M. Leicht, and David A. Nembhard. 2013. Emotional Intelligence, Communication, and Team Performance. Proceedings of the 2013 IIE Annual Conference, 2810--2819.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Tammy L. Madsen, Jennifer Woolley, and Kumar Sarangee. 2012. Using Internet-based collaboration technologies for Innovation: crowdsourcing vs. expertsourcing. Boston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Thomas W. Malone. 2011. Solving Climate Change with Crowdsourcing. MIT Sloan Experts Blog.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Ivan Markovsky. 2012. Low Rank Approximation Algorithms, Implementation, Applications. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Ashley E Mason, David a Sbarra, and Matthias R Mehl. 2010. Thin-slicing divorce: thirty seconds of information predict changes in psychological adjustment over 90 days. Psychological science: a journal of the American Psychological Society / APS 21, 10: 1420--1422.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Craig McGarty, Vincent Y. Yzerbyt, and Russell Spears. 2002. Social, cultural and cognitive factors in stereotype formation. Stereotypes as explanations: the formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups: 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. B Nardi and J Harris. 2010. Strangers and friends: Collaborative play in World of Warcraft. International Handbook of Internet Research: 395--410.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Randolph M. Nesse. 2001. The Smoke Detector Principle - Natural Selection and the Regulation of Defensive Responses. In Unity of Knowledge -- The Convergence of Natural and Human Science. 75--85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Richard E Nisbett and Timothy Decamp Wilson. 1977. The Halo Effect: Evidence for Unconscious Alteration of Judgments. Journal of Feisonality and Social Psychology 35, 4: 250--256.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Ranjani Prabhakaran, Adam E Green, and Jeremy R Gray. 2014. Thin slices of creativity: Using singleword utterances to assess creative cognition. Behavior research methods 46, 3: 641--6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Ray Reagans, Linda Argote, and Daria Brooks. 2005. Individual Experience and Experience Working Together: Predicting Learning Rates from Knowing Who Knows What and Knowing How to Work Together. Management Science 51, 6: 869--881. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Daniela Retelny, Sébastien Robaszkiewicz, Alexandra To, et al. 2014. Expert Crowdsourcing with Flash Teams. Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology - UIST '14: 75--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Frank E. Saal, Ronald G. Downey, and Mary a. Lahey. 1980. Rating the ratings: Assessing the psychometric quality of rating data. Psychological Bulletin 88, 2: 413--428.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Kai Sassenberg, Kai J Jonas, James Y Shah, and Paige C Brazy. 2007. Why some groups just feel better: the regulatory fit of group power. Journal of personality and social psychology 92, 2: 249--267.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter. 1998. The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings. Psychological Bulletin 124, 2: 262--274.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Robert Sedgewick and Kevin Wayne. 2011. Algorithms. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Herbert A. Simon. 1956. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review 63, 2: 129--138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Scott A. Snook and Jeffrey T. Polzer. 2004. The Army Crew Team (Case 9-403-131). Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Kristin Stecher and Scott Counts. 2008. Thin slices of online profile attributes. proc. ICWSM: 127--135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Michael J. Stevens and Michael A. Campion. 1999. Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings. Journal of Management 25, 2: 207--228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Paul E Stillman, Thomas Gilovich, and Kentaro Fujita. 2014. Predicting group outcomes from brief exposures. Social Cognition 32, 1: 71--82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner. 1993. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. Long Range Planning 26, 5: 153.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Mary Ann C. Tuckman, Bruce W.Jensen. 1977. Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organisation Management 2, 4: 419--427.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 4157: 1124--1131.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Helen J. Wall, Paul J. Taylor, John Dixon, Stacey M. Conchie, and David A. Ellis. 2013. Rich contexts do not always enrich the accuracy of personality judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49, 6: 1190--1195.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Mj Waller, G. Sohrab, and Bw Ma. 2013. Beyond 12 Angry Men Thin-Slicing Film to Illustrate Group Dynamics. Small Group Research 44, 4: 446--465.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. Xinyu Wang, Zhou Zhao, and Wilfred Ng. 2016. USTF: A Unified System of Team Formation. IEEE Transactions on Big Data 2, 70--84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Daniel M Wegner, T. Giuliano, and P. T. Hertel. 1985. Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. Compatible and incompatible relationships: 253--276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Miaomiao Wen, Keith Maki, Xu Wang, Steven Dow, James D. Herbsleb, and Carolyn Penstein Rosé. 2016. Transactivity as a Predictor of Future Collaborative Knowledge Integration in Team-Based Learning in Online Courses. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, 533--538.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. J. M. Wilson, M. Boyer O'Leary, a. Metiu, and Q. R. Jett. 2008. Perceived Proximity in Virtual Work: Explaining the Paradox of Far-but-Close. Organization Studies 29, 7: 979--1002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. David J. Woehr and Allen I. Huffcutt. 1994. Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 67: 189--205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Team Dating Leads to Better Online Ad Hoc Collaborations

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CSCW '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
        February 2017
        2556 pages
        ISBN:9781450343350
        DOI:10.1145/2998181

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 25 February 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CSCW '17 Paper Acceptance Rate183of530submissions,35%Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

        Upcoming Conference

        CSCW '24

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader