Lucien Maman
ABSTRACT
Groups are getting more and more scholars' attention. With the rise of Social Signal Processing (SSP), many studies based on Social Sciences and Psychology findings focused on detecting and classifying groups? dynamics. Cohesion plays an important role in these groups? dynamics and is one of the most studied emergent states, involving both group motions and goals. This PhD project aims to provide a computational model addressing the multidimensionality of cohesion and capturing its subtle dynamics. It will offer new opportunities to develop applications to enhance interactions among humans as well as among humans and machines.
Supplemental Material
- Bryan P Acton, Michael T Braun, and Roseanne J Foti. 2019. Built for unity: assessing the impact of team composition on team cohesion trajectories. Journal of Business and Psychology (2019), 1--16.Google Scholar
- Kurt W Back. 1951. Influence through social communication. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46, 1 (1951), 9--23.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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 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 69, 2 (1990), 479--504.Google Scholar
- Clara Bonillo, Teresa Romão, and Eva Cerezo. 2019. Persuasive games in Interactive Spaces: The Hidden Treasure Game. In Proceedings of the XX International Conference on Human Computer Interaction. 1--8.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael T Braun, Steve WJ Kozlowski, Tara A Brown, and Richard P DeShon. 2020. Exploring the Dynamic Team Cohesion--Performance and Coordination--Performance Relationships of Newly Formed Teams. Small Group Research (2020).Google Scholar
- Sally A Carless and Caroline De Paola. 2000. The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small group research 31, 1 (2000), 71--88.Google Scholar
- Albert V Carron, W Neil Widmeyer, and Lawrence R Brawley. 1985. The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise psychology 7, 3 (1985), 244--266.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chris W Coultas, Tripp Driskell, C Shawn Burke, and Eduardo Salas. 2014. A conceptual review of emergent state measurement: Current problems, future solutions. Small Group Research 45, 6 (2014), 671--703.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kenneth L Dion. 2000. Group Cohesion: From Field of Forces to Multidimensional Construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 4, 1 (2000), 7--26.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul A Estabrooks and Albert V Carron. 2000. The Physical Activity Group Environment Questionnaire: An instrument for the assessment of cohesion in exercise classes. Group Dynamics 4, 3 (2000), 230--243.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Leon Festinger, Stanley Schachter, and Kurt Back. 1950. Social pressures in informal groups; a study of human factors in housing. (1950).Google Scholar
- Susan T Fiske, Amy JC Cuddy, and Peter Glick. 2007. Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence. Trends in cognitive sciences 11, 2 (2007), 77--83.Google Scholar
- Gili Freedman and Mary Flanagan. 2017. From dictators to avatars: Furthering social and personality psychology through game methods. Social and personality psychology compass 11, 12 (2017), e12368.Google Scholar
- James Griffith. 1988. Measurement of group cohesion in US Army units. Basic and applied social psychology 9, 2 (1988), 149--171.Google Scholar
- Jean-Philippe Heuzé and Paul Fontayne. 2002. Questionnaire sur l'Ambiance du Groupe: A French-Language Instrument for Measuring Group Cohesion. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 24, 1 (2002), 42--67.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hayley Hung and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2010. Estimating Cohesion in Small Groups Using Audio-Visual Nonverbal Behavior. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 12, 6 (2010), 563--575.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fengfeng Ke and Tami Im. 2013. Virtual-reality-based social interaction training for children with high-functioning autism. The Journal of Educational Research 106, 6 (2013), 441--461.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Steve WJ Kozlowski. 2015. Advancing research on team process dynamics: Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review 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
- Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock, Hayley Hung, and Joann Keyton. 2017. New frontiers in analyzing dynamic group interactions: Bridging social and computer science. Small group research 48, 5 (2017), 519--531.Google Scholar
- Francisco M Leo, Inmaculada González-Ponce, Tomás García-Calvo, David Sánchez-Oliva, et al. 2019. The relationship among cohesion, transactive memory systems, and collective efficacy in professional soccer teams: A multilevel structural equation analysis. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 23, 1 (2019), 44--56.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dani Levine, Daphna Buchsbaum, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, and Roberta M Golinkoff. 2019. Finding events in a continuous world: A developmental account. Developmental psychobiology 61, 3 (2019), 376--389.Google Scholar
- Kurt Lewin. 1939. Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Concepts and methods. American journal of sociology 44, 6 (1939), 868--896.Google Scholar
- Kurt Lewin. 1946. Behavior and development as a function of the total situation. In Manual of child psychology. John Wiley & Sons Inc, 791--844.Google Scholar
- David Lyle Light Shields, Douglas E Gardner, Brenda Jo Light Bredemeier, and Alan Bostro. 1997. The Relationship Between Leadership Behaviors and Group Cohesion in Team Sports. The Journal of Psychology 131, 2 (1997), 196--210.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David Lyle Light Shields, Douglas E Gardner, Brenda Jo Light Bredemeier, and Alan Bostro. 1997. The relationship between leadership behaviors and group cohesion in team sports. the Journal of Psychology 131, 2 (1997), 196--210.Google Scholar
- Albert J Lott and Bernice E Lott. 1965. Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological bulletin 64, 4 (1965), 259--309.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 Scholar
- Joe C Magee and Larissa Z Tiedens. 2006. Emotional ties that bind: The roles of valence and consistency of group emotion in inferences of cohesiveness and common fate. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32, 12 (2006), 1703--1715.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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 8 (2020), 124185--124203.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michelle A Marks, John E Mathieu, and Stephen J Zaccaro. 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of management review 26, 3 (2001), 356--376.Google Scholar
- Michael D Michalisin, Steven J Karau, and Charnchai Tangpong. 2004. Top management team cohesion and superior industry returns: An empirical study of the resource-based view. Group & Organization Management 29, 1 (2004), 125--140.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- Daniel Olguín-Olguín and Alex Pentland. 2010. Sensor-based organisational design and engineering. International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering 1, 1--2 (2010), 69--97.Google Scholar
- Kyung-Min Park, Jeonghun Ku, Soo-Hee Choi, Hee-Jeong Jang, Ji-Yeon Park, Sun I Kim, and Jae-Jin Kim. 2011. A virtual reality application in role-plays of social skills training for schizophrenia: a randomized, controlled trial. Psychiatry research 189, 2 (2011), 166--172.Google Scholar
- Elizabeth Redcay and Leonhard Schilbach. 2019. Using second-person neuroscience to elucidate the mechanisms of social interaction. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 20, 8 (2019), 495--505.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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 22, 2 (2012), 116--127.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Eduardo Salas, Rebecca Grossman, Ashley M Hughes, and Chris W Coultas. 2015. Measuring team cohesion: Observations from the science. Human factors 57, 3 (2015), 365--374.Google Scholar
- 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
- Mel Slater, Amela Sadagic, Martin Usoh, and Ralph Schroeder. 2000. Small-group behavior in a virtual and real environment: A comparative study. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 9, 1 (2000), 37--51.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Juliana Sutanto, Chee Wei Phang, Chuan Hoo Tan, and Xianghua Lu. 2011. Dr. Jekyll vis-a-vis Mr. Hyde: Personality variation between virtual and real worlds. Information & management 48, 1 (2011), 19--26.Google Scholar
- Annie Van Bergen and J Koekebakker. 1959. 'Group cohesiveness' in laboratory experiments. Acta Psychologica 16 (1959), 81--98.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Eric Van Dijk, Carsten KW De Dreu, and Jörg Gross. 2020. Power in economic games. Current opinion in psychology 33 (2020), 100--104.Google Scholar
- Alessandro Vinciarelli and Gelareh Mohammadi. 2014. A survey of personality computing. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 5, 3 (2014), 273--291.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Josef Wideström, Ann-Sofie Axelsson, Ralph Schroeder, Alexander Nilsson, Ilona Heldal, and Åsa Abelin. 2000. The collaborative cube puzzle: a comparison of virtual and real environments. In Proceedings of the third international conference on Collaborative virtual environments. 165--171.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 2, 3 (2018), 1--22.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Multimodal Groups' Analysis for Automated Cohesion Estimation
Recommendations
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 ...
Metrics for class cohesion and similarity between methods
ACM-SE 44: Proceedings of the 44th annual Southeast regional conferenceClass cohesion is one of the desirable properties in object oriented designs. But, designers and managers need a good metric for this property to help them evaluate, compare and choose among various possible solutions to a given problem. In this paper, ...
An empirical study of slice-based cohesion and coupling metrics
Software reengineering is a costly endeavor, due in part to the ambiguity of where to focus reengineering effort. Coupling and Cohesion metrics, particularly quantitative cohesion metrics, have the potential to aid in this identification and to measure ...
Comments