Team Structure and Team Building Improve Human–Machine Teaming With Autonomous Agents

IF 2.2 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making Pub Date : 2019-08-09 DOI:10.1177/1555343419867563
James C. Walliser, E. D. de Visser, E. Wiese, Tyler H. Shaw
{"title":"Team Structure and Team Building Improve Human–Machine Teaming With Autonomous Agents","authors":"James C. Walliser, E. D. de Visser, E. Wiese, Tyler H. Shaw","doi":"10.1177/1555343419867563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research suggests that humans and autonomous agents can be more effective when working together as a combined unit rather than as individual entities. However, most research has focused on autonomous agent design characteristics while ignoring the importance of social interactions and team dynamics. Two experiments examined how the perception of teamwork among human–human and human–autonomous agents and the application of team building interventions could enhance teamwork outcomes. Participants collaborated with either a human or an autonomous agent. In the first experiment, it was revealed that manipulating team structure by considering your human and autonomous partner as a teammate rather than a tool can increase affect and behavior, but does not benefit performance. In the second experiment, participants completed goal setting and role clarification (team building) with their teammate prior to task performance. Team building interventions led to significant improvements for all teamwork outcomes, including performance. Across both studies, participants communicated more substantially with human partners than they did with autonomous partners. Taken together, these findings suggest that social interactions between humans and autonomous teammates should be an important design consideration and that particular attention should be given to team building interventions to improve affect, behavior, and performance.","PeriodicalId":46342,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1555343419867563","citationCount":"46","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343419867563","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 46

Abstract

Research suggests that humans and autonomous agents can be more effective when working together as a combined unit rather than as individual entities. However, most research has focused on autonomous agent design characteristics while ignoring the importance of social interactions and team dynamics. Two experiments examined how the perception of teamwork among human–human and human–autonomous agents and the application of team building interventions could enhance teamwork outcomes. Participants collaborated with either a human or an autonomous agent. In the first experiment, it was revealed that manipulating team structure by considering your human and autonomous partner as a teammate rather than a tool can increase affect and behavior, but does not benefit performance. In the second experiment, participants completed goal setting and role clarification (team building) with their teammate prior to task performance. Team building interventions led to significant improvements for all teamwork outcomes, including performance. Across both studies, participants communicated more substantially with human partners than they did with autonomous partners. Taken together, these findings suggest that social interactions between humans and autonomous teammates should be an important design consideration and that particular attention should be given to team building interventions to improve affect, behavior, and performance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
团队结构和团队建设通过自主代理改善人机合作
研究表明,当人类和自主代理作为一个组合单位而不是单独的实体一起工作时,它们会更有效。然而,大多数研究都集中在自主智能体的设计特征上,而忽略了社会互动和团队动态的重要性。两个实验考察了人类和人类自主主体之间的团队合作感知以及团队建设干预措施的应用如何提高团队合作成果。参与者要么与人类合作,要么与自主代理合作。在第一个实验中,研究人员发现,通过将你的人类和自主伙伴视为队友而不是工具来操纵团队结构,可以增加情感和行为,但对绩效没有好处。在第二个实验中,参与者在任务执行前与队友一起完成了目标设定和角色澄清(团队建设)。团队建设干预导致所有团队成果的显著改善,包括绩效。在这两项研究中,参与者与人类伴侣的交流比与自主伴侣的交流要多得多。综上所述,这些发现表明,人类和自主团队成员之间的社会互动应该是一个重要的设计考虑因素,应该特别注意团队建设干预措施,以改善情感、行为和表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Introduction to the Special Issue on Automation Failure Augmenting Human Cognition With a Digital Submarine Periscope Get on the Round Dial: Fighter Pilot Strategies for Recovering Situation Awareness After Disorienting Physiological Events Distinguishing Urgent From Non-urgent Communications: A Mixed Methods Study of Communication Technology Use in Perinatal Care Wrong, Strong, and Silent: What Happens when Automated Systems With High Autonomy and High Authority Misbehave?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1