Fabian Walocha
ABSTRACT
Group cohesion is a multidimensional emergent state that manifests during group interaction. It has been extensively studied in several disciplines such as Social Sciences and Computer Science and it has been investigated through both verbal and nonverbal communication. This work investigates the dynamics of task and social dimensions of cohesion through nonverbal motion-capture-based features. We modeled dynamics either as decreasing or as stable/increasing regarding the previous measurement of cohesion. We design and develop a set of features related to space and body movement from motion capture data as it offers reliable and accurate measurements of body motions. Then, we use a random forest model to binary classify (decrease or no decrease) the dynamics of cohesion, for the task and social dimensions. Our model adopts labels from self-assessments of group cohesion, providing a different perspective of study with respect to the previous work relying on third-party labelling. The analysis reveals that, in a multilabel setting, our model is able to predict changes in task and social cohesion with an average accuracy of 64%(±3%) and 67%(±3%), respectively, outperforming random guessing (50%). In a multiclass setting comprised of four classes (i.e., decrease/decrease, decrease/no decrease, no decrease/decrease and no decrease/no decrease), our model also outperforms chance level (25%) for each class (i.e., 54%, 44%, 33%, 50%, respectively). Furthermore, this work provides a method based on notions from cooperative game theory (i.e., SHAP values) to assess features' impact and importance. We identify that the most important features for predicting cohesion dynamics relate to spacial distance, the amount of movement while walking, the overall posture expansion as well as the amount of inter-personal facing in the group.
- J. A. Allen, C. Fisher, M. Chetouani, M. M. Chiu, H. Gunes, M. Mehu, and H. Hung. 2017. Comparing Social Science and Computer Science Workflow Processes for Studying Group Interactions. Small Group Research, Vol. 48, 5 (2017), 568--590.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal. 1993. Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 64, 3 (1993), 431.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aristotle. 4th Century BC. Politics.Google Scholar
- Reshmashree Bangalore Kantharaju, Caroline Langlet, Mukesh Barange, Chloé Clavel, and Catherine Pelachaud. 2020. Multimodal Analysis of Cohesion in Multi-party Interactions. In Proceedings of The 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. European Language Resources Association, 498--507.Google Scholar
- Daniel J Beal, Robin R Cohen, Michael J Burke, and Christy L McLendon. 2003. Cohesion and Performance in Groups: A Meta-Analytic Clarification of Construct Relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, 6 (2003), 989--1004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kenneth A Bollen and Rick H Hoyle. 1990. Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social forces, Vol. 69, 2 (1990), 479--504.Google Scholar
- Zhe Cao, Gines Hidalgo, Tomas Simon, Shih-En Wei, and Yaser Sheikh. 2018. OpenPose: realtime multi-person 2D pose estimation using Part Affinity Fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.08008 (2018).Google Scholar
- Dana R. Carney, Judith A. Hall, and Lavonia Smith LeBeau. 2005. Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of social power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, Vol. 29, 2 (2005), 105--123.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. V. Carron, W. N. Widmeyer, and L. R. Brawley. 1985. The Development of an Instrument to Assess Cohesion in Sport Teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, Vol. 7, 3 (1985), 244--266.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Abhinav Dhall. 2019. EmotiW 2019: Automatic Emotion, Engagement and Cohesion Prediction Tasks. In 2019 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, 546----550. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Abhinav Dhall, Roland Goecke, Shreya Ghosh, Jyoti Joshi, Jesse Hoey, and Tom Gedeon. 2017. From individual to group-level emotion recognition: Emotiw 5.0. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on multimodal interaction. 524--528. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kenneth L Dion. 2000. Group Cohesion: From Field of Forces to Multidimensional Construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 4, 1 (2000), 7--26.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Ghosh, A. Dhall, N. Sebe, and T. Gedeon. 2019. Predicting Group Cohesiveness in Images. In 2019 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). 1--8.Google Scholar
- Susan Goldin-Meadow and Martha Wagner Alibali. 2013. Gesture's role in speaking, learning, and creating language. Annual review of psychology, Vol. 64 (2013), 257--283.Google Scholar
- James Griffith. 1988. Measurement of group cohesion in US Army units. Basic and applied social psychology, Vol. 9, 2 (1988), 149--171.Google Scholar
- Da Guo, Kai Wang, Jianfei Yang, Kaipeng Zhang, Xiaojiang Peng, and Yu Qiao. 2019. Exploring Regularizations with Face, Body and Image Cues for Group Cohesion Prediction. In 2019 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. 557--561. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Edward Twitchell Hall. 1966. The hidden dimension. Vol. 609. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
- Anjali Hans and Emmanuel Hans. 2015. Kinesics, Haptics and Proxemics: Aspects of Non -Verbal Communication. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 47--48.Google Scholar
- Richard Heslin. 1974. Steps toward a taxonomy of touching. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association. Chicago (1974).Google Scholar
- Hayley Hung and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2010. Estimating Cohesion in Small Groups Using Audio-Visual Nonverbal Behavior. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, Vol. 12, 6 (2010), 563--575. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dinesh Babu Jayagopi, Hayley Hung, Chuohao Yeo, and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2009. Modeling dominance in group conversations using nonverbal activity cues. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, Vol. 17, 3 (2009), 501--513.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Simone Kauffeld, Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock, and Annika L. Meinecke. 2018. The Advanced Interaction Analysis for Teams (act4teams) Coding Scheme .Cambridge University Press, 422----431.Google Scholar
- Andrey Kolmogorov. 1933. Sulla determinazione empirica di una lgge di distribuzione. Inst. Ital. Attuari, Giorn., Vol. 4 (1933), 83--91.Google Scholar
- Steve WJ Kozlowski. 2015. Advancing research on team process dynamics: Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 5, 4 (2015), 270--299.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Uliyana Kubasova, Gabriel Murray, and McKenzie Braley. 2019. Analyzing Verbal and Nonverbal Features for Predicting Group Performance. In Proc. Interspeech 2019. ISCA, 1896--1900.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Catherine Lai and Gabriel Murray. 2018. Predicting group satisfaction in meeting discussions. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Modeling Cognitive Processes from Multimodal Data. 1--8. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Scott M Lundberg, Gabriel Erion, Hugh Chen, Alex DeGrave, Jordan M Prutkin, Bala Nair, Ronit Katz, Jonathan Himmelfarb, Nisha Bansal, and Su-In Lee. 2020. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nature machine intelligence, Vol. 2, 1 (2020), 2522--5839.Google Scholar
- Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 4765--4774. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lucien Maman, Eleonora Ceccaldi, Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock, Laurence Likforman-Sulem, Mohamed Chetouani, Gualtiero Volpe, and Giovanna Varni. 2020. GAME-ON: A Multimodal Dataset for Cohesion and Group Analysis. IEEE Access, Vol. 8 (2020), 124185--124203.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul Marshall, Yvonne Rogers, and Nadia Pantidi. 2011. Using F-formations to analyse spatial patterns of interaction in physical environments. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 445--454. Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Mccowan, J. Carletta, W. Kraaij, S. Ashby, S. Bourban, M. Flynn, M. Guillemot, T. Hain, J. Kadlec, V. Karaiskos, M. Kronenthal, G. Lathoud, M. Lincoln, A. Lisowska Masson, W. Post, D. Reidsma, and P. Wellner. 2005. The AMI meeting corpus. Int'l. Conf. on Methods and Techniques in Behavioral Research (2005).Google Scholar
- Philipp Müller, Michael Xuelin Huang, and Andreas Bulling. 2018. Detecting low rapport during natural interactions in small groups from non-Verbal behaviour. In 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 153--164. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marjolein C Nanninga, Yanxia Zhang, Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock, Zoltán Szlávik, and Hayley Hung. 2017. Estimating Verbal Expressions of Task and Social Cohesion in Meetings by Quantifying Paralinguistic Mimicry. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, 206----215. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Olguin and A. Pentland. 2010. Sensor-based organisational design and engineering. International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering, Vol. 1, 1 (2010), 69--97.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 12 (2011), 2825--2830. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alex Pentland. 2007. Social signal processing [exploratory DSP]. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, Vol. 24, 4 (2007), 108--111.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stefano Piana, Maurizio Mancini, Antonio Camurri, Giovanna Varni, and Gualtiero Volpe. 2013. Automated analysis of non-verbal expressive gesture. In Human Aspects in Ambient Intelligence. Springer, 41--54.Google Scholar
- Lisa Rosh, Lynn R Offermann, and Rhonda Van Diest. 2012. Too close for comfort? Distinguishing between team intimacy and team cohesion. Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 22, 2 (2012), 116--127.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1978. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. Elsevier, 7--55.Google Scholar
- Eduardo Salas, Rebecca Grossman, Ashley M Hughes, and Chris W Coultas. 2015. Measuring team cohesion: Observations from the science. Human factors, Vol. 57, 3 (2015), 365--374.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jamie B Severt and Armando X Estrada. 2015. On the function and structure of group cohesion. In Team cohesion: Advances in psychological theory, methods and practice. Vol. 17. Emerald Group publishing limited, 3--24.Google Scholar
- Lloyd S Shapley. 1951. Notes on the n-Person Game?II: The Value of an n-Person Game. (1951).Google Scholar
- Nickolay Smirnov. 1948. Table for estimating the goodness of fit of empirical distributions. The annals of mathematical statistics, Vol. 19, 2 (1948), 279--281.Google Scholar
- Daniel Szafir and Bilge Mutlu. 2012. Pay Attention! Designing Adaptive Agents That Monitor and Improve User Engagement. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI '12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 11----20. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Tomasello, Alicia P. Melis, Claudio Tennie, Emily Wyman, and Esther Herrmann. 2012. Two Key Steps in the Evolution of Human Cooperation. Current Anthropology, Vol. 53, 6 (2012), 673--692.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alessandro Vinciarelli and Gelareh Mohammadi. 2014. A survey of personality computing. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, Vol. 5, 3 (2014), 273--291.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alessandro Vinciarelli, Maja Pantic, Hervé Bourlard, and Alex Pentland. 2008. Social signal processing: state-of-the-art and future perspectives of an emerging domain. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on Multimedia. 1061--1070. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Henry Kenneth Walker, Wilbur Dallas Hall, and John Willis Hurst. 1990. Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations .Butterworths.Google Scholar
- Glenn E Weisfeld and Jody M Beresford. 1982. Erectness of posture as an indicator of dominance or success in humans. Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 6, 2 (1982), 113--131.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tien Xuan Dang, Soo-Hyung Kim, Hyung-Jeong Yang, Guee-Sang Lee, and Thanh-Hung Vo. 2019. Group-level Cohesion Prediction using Deep Learning Models with A Multi-stream Hybrid Network. In 2019 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. 572--576. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yanxia Zhang, Jeffrey Olenick, Chu-Hsiang Chang, Steve WJ Kozlowski, and Hayley Hung. 2018. TeamSense: assessing personal affect and group cohesion in small teams through dyadic interaction and behavior analysis with wearable sensors. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, Vol. 2, 3 (2018), 1--22. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Modeling Dynamics of Task and Social Cohesion from the Group Perspective Using Nonverbal Motion Capture-based Features
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Exploiting the Interplay between Social and Task Dimensions of Cohesion to Predict its Dynamics Leveraging Social Sciences
ICMI '21: Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Multimodal InteractionEmergent states are behavioral, cognitive and affective processes appearing among the members of a group when they interact together. In the last decade, the development of computational approaches received a growing interest in building Human-Centered ...
Estimating verbal expressions of task and social cohesion in meetings by quantifying paralinguistic mimicry
ICMI '17: Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal InteractionIn this paper we propose a novel method of estimating verbal expressions of task and social cohesion by quantifying the dynamic alignment of nonverbal behaviors in speech. As team cohesion has been linked to team effectiveness and productivity, ...
Are Slice-Based Cohesion Metrics Actually Useful in Effort-Aware Post-Release Fault-Proneness Prediction? An Empirical Study
Background. Slice-based cohesion metrics leverage program slices with respect to the output variables of a module to quantify the strength of functional relatedness of the elements within the module. Although slice-based cohesion metrics have been ...
Comments