Matching or Crashing? Personality-based Team Formation in Crowdsourcing Environments

"Does placing workers together based on their personality give better performance results in cooperative crowdsourcing settings, compared to non-personality based crowd team formation?" In this work we examine the impact of personality compatibility on the effectiveness of crowdsourced team work. Using a personality-based group dynamics approach, we examine two main types of personality combinations (matching and crashing) on two main types of tasks (collaborative and competitive). Our experimental results show that personality compatibility significantly affects the quality of the team's final outcome, the quality of interactions and the emotions experienced by the team members. The present study is the first to examine the effect of personality over team result in crowdsourcing settings, and it has practical implications for the better design of crowdsourced team work.

[1]  W. Marston.  Emotions of normal people , 1928 .

[2]  Oded Nov,et al.  Exploring personality-targeted UI design in online social participation systems , 2013, CHI.

[3]  Donald W. Taylor,et al.  DOES GROUP PARTICIPATION WHEN USING BRAINSTORMING FACILITATE OR INHIBIT CREATIVE THINKING , 1958 .

[4]  Lawrence A. Pervin,et al.  Current controversies and issues in personality , 1978 .

[5]  J. L. Holland,et al.  Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Careers , 1973 .

[6]  J. Kidd.  Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail , 1982 .

[7]  C. Brewin.  Cognitive Foundations of Clinical Psychology , 1988 .

[8]  Aniket Kittur,et al.  Crowdsourcing, collaboration and creativity , 2010, XRDS.

[9]  Gabriella Kazai,et al.  The face of quality in crowdsourcing relevance labels: demographics, personality and labeling accuracy , 2012, CIKM.

[10]  Jeroen B. P. Vuurens,et al.  How Much Spam Can You Take? An Analysis of Crowdsourcing Results to Increase Accuracy , 2011 .

[11]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  Crowds in two seconds: enabling realtime crowd-powered interfaces , 2011, UIST.

[12]  S. Fiske,et al.  Social Psychology , 2019, Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences.

[13]  Aditya Ramesh.  Identifying Reliable Workers Swiftly , 2012 .

[14]  Anne C. Frenzel,et al.  Measuring emotions in students learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AE , 2011 .

[15]  M. Denton,et al.  Satisfied Workers, Retained Workers: Effects of Work and Work Environment on Homecare Workers' Job Satisfaction, Stress, Physical Health, and Retention , 2006 .

[16]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[17]  Adrian Furnham.  Personality At Work , 1992 .

[18]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  Twitch crowdsourcing: crowd contributions in short bursts of time , 2014, CHI.

[19]  R. Cattell,et al.  Handbook for the sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16 PF) , 1970 .

[20]  A. P. deVries,et al.  How Crowdsourcable is Your Task , 2011 .

[21]  M. Hossain,et al.  Users' motivation to participate in online crowdsourcing platforms , 2012, 2012 International Conference on Innovation Management and Technology Research.

[22]  Clifton Forlines,et al.  Crowdsourcing the future: predictions made with a social network , 2014, CHI.

[23]  C. Carver,et al.  Perspectives on Personality , 1988 .

[24]  Bipin Indurkhya,et al.  Cognitively inspired task design to improve user performance on crowdsourcing platforms , 2014, CHI.

[25]  Lorrie Faith Cranor,et al.  Are your participants gaming the system?: screening mechanical turk workers , 2010, CHI.

[26]  Devavrat Shah,et al.  Budget-Optimal Task Allocation for Reliable Crowdsourcing Systems , 2011, Oper. Res..

[27]  Tharam S. Dillon,et al.  Content Quality Assessment Related Frameworks for Social Media , 2009, ICCSA.

[28]  H. Sauermann,et al.  Crowd Science: The Organization of Scientific Research in Open Collaborative Projects , 2013 .

[29]  H. Eysenck.  Biological Basis of Personality , 1963, Nature.

[30]  Hans J. Eysenck,et al.  The Inequality Of Man , 1973 .

[31]  M. Zuckerman.  Sensation Seeking : Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal , 1979 .

[32]  David A. Kravitz,et al.  Ringelmann rediscovered: the original article , 1986 .

[33]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Prototyping dynamics: sharing multiple designs improves exploration, group rapport, and results , 2011, CHI.

[34]  A. Furnham.  The Psychology of Behaviour at Work - The Individual in the Organization Adrian Furnham The Psychology of Behaviour at Work - The Individual in the Organization Psychology Press 821pp £16.95 1 84169 504 184169504 [Formula: see text]. , 2005, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[35]  Elizabeth Gerber,et al.  Affect and Creative Performance on Crowdsourcing Platforms , 2013, 2013 Humaine Association Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction.

[36]  Glenn D. Wilson,et al.  The Psychology of conservatism , 1973 .

[37]  I. B. Myers.  Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator , 1985 .

[38]  Walter S. Lasecki,et al.  Warping time for more effective real-time crowdsourcing , 2013, CHI.

[39]  Aniket Kittur,et al.  Effects of simultaneous and sequential work structures on distributed collaborative interdependent tasks , 2014, CHI.

[40]  Audun Jøsang,et al.  A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision , 2007, Decis. Support Syst..

[41]  Javier R. Movellan,et al.  Whose Vote Should Count More: Optimal Integration of Labels from Labelers of Unknown Expertise , 2009, NIPS.

[42]  Gabriella Kazai,et al.  Worker types and personality traits in crowdsourcing relevance labels , 2011, CIKM '11.