Compatibility of Small Team Personalities in Computer-Based Tasks

There are works that study personality and task performance but there are no (or very few works) that study the balancing of personalities within teams that work together towards a common goal in computer-based tasks. This study investigates how personality compatibility in collaborative tasks affects performance, intra-group communication and participants’ emotions for computer-based tasks and introduces the challenges for research in this field. Using the DISC (dominance, inducement/influence, submission/steadiness, compliance) tool for personality assessment and team compatibility, 12 teams were created with either balanced or imbalanced personality compositions. Results showed statistical differences in emotions between the two experimental conditions and also differences in terms of time needed for the completion of the game. The present work showed the qualitative differences between cooperative tasks and revealed the challenges of studying further team compatibility for different tasks.

[1]  T. G. Alper,et al.  Memory for completed and incompleted tasks as a function of personality; an analysis of group data. , 1946, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[2]  Jerry W. Gilley,et al.  Strategically Integrated Hrd: Partnering To Maximize Organizational Performance , 1968 .

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

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

[5]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. , 1981 .

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

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

[8]  P. Muchinsky,et al.  What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit , 1987 .

[9]  R. Mark Isaac,et al.  Group Size Effects in Public Goods Provision: The Voluntary Contributions Mechanism , 1988 .

[10]  H. Triandis.  The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts , 1989 .

[11]  James M. Walker,et al.  Group size and the voluntary provision of public goods : Experimental evidence utilizing large groups , 1994 .

[12]  Robert Bolton,et al.  People Styles at Work: Making Bad Relationships Good and Good Relationships Better , 1996 .

[13]  Merrill Warkentin,et al.  Virtual Teams versus Face-to-Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-based Conference System* , 1997 .

[14]  Lee Anna Clark,et al.  Temperament: A new paradigm for trait psychology. , 1999 .

[15]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Testing a Typology of Tasks , 1999 .

[16]  William D. Schafer,et al.  Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. , 1999 .

[17]  Stephen H. Wagner,et al.  The Relationship between Work-Team Personality Composition and the Job Performance of Teams , 1999 .

[18]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Computer-Mediated Inter-Organizational Knowledge-Sharing: Insights from a Virtual Team Innovating Using a Collaborative Tool , 2000, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[19]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Distance Matters , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[20]  Alexis A. Fink,et al.  The Effects of Personality and Management Role on Perceived Values in Business Settings , 2000 .

[21]  J. A. Lepine,et al.  Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[22]  Judith A. Holton,et al.  Building trust and collaboration in a virtual team , 2001 .

[23]  A. Furnham.  The psychology of behaviour at work , 2005 .

[24]  Tjai M. Nielsen,et al.  Group Personality Composition and Group Effectiveness , 2005 .

[25]  E. Mirza,et al.  Impact of computer-mediated communication on virtual Teams’ Performance: An empirical study , 2008, 2008 International Symposium on Information Technology.

[26]  Tammy L. Rapp,et al.  Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse Into the Future , 2008 .

[27]  Elena Suman.  ROLE OF BEHAVIORAL AND PERSONALITY INSTRUMENTS IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS IN THE ORGANIZATION , 2009 .

[28]  J. Sugerman,et al.  Using the DiSC® model to improve communication effectiveness , 2009 .

[29]  Kimberly Furumo,et al.  Personality influences trust differently in virtual and face-to-face teams , 2009 .

[30]  D. Meyer,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Som Text Figs. S1 to S6 References Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups , 2022 .

[31]  Jerry W. Gilley,et al.  Integrated Theoretical Model for Building Effective Teams , 2010 .

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

[33]  Ralf Steinmetz,et al.  Designing collaborative multiplayer serious games , 2012, Education and Information Technologies.

[34]  Monica Divitini,et al.  Collaborative Serious Games for Crisis Management: An Overview , 2012, 2012 IEEE 21st International Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises.

[35]  Rong Yang,et al.  A robust approach to addressing human adversaries in security games , 2012, AAMAS.

[36]  Denis Hlynka.  Postmodernism In Educational Technology: update: 1996–2002 , 2013 .

[37]  David G. Rand,et al.  Heuristics guide the implementation of social preferences in one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma experiments , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[38]  C. Chabris,et al.  Reading the Mind in the Eyes or Reading between the Lines? Theory of Mind Predicts Collective Intelligence Equally Well Online and Face-To-Face , 2014, PloS one.

[39]  Valerio Capraro,et al.  Group size effect on cooperation in one-shot social dilemmas , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[40]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science , 2015, Science.

[41]  Eamonn Ferguson,et al.  Prosocial Personality Traits Differentially Predict Egalitarianism, Generosity, and Reciprocity in Economic Games , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[42]  David G. Rand,et al.  Social Heuristics and Social Roles: Intuition Favors Altruism for Women But Not for Men , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[43]  Yannick Naudet,et al.  Personality Matters: Balancing for Personality Types Leads to Better Outcomes for Crowd Teams , 2016, CSCW.

[44]  Thomas A. O’Neill,et al.  Team Decision Making in Virtual and Face-to-Face Environments , 2015, Group Decision and Negotiation.

[45]  Tisha L. N. Emerson,et al.  Cooperative learning and personality types , 2016 .

[46]  C. Engel,et al.  When is the risk of cooperation worth taking? The prisoner’s dilemma as a game of multiple motives , 2013 .

[47]  V. Capraro.  Gender Differences in Lying in Sender-Receiver Games: A Meta-Analysis , 2017, Judgment and Decision Making.

[48]  David G. Rand,et al.  Social dilemma cooperation (unlike Dictator Game giving) is intuitive for men as well as women. , 2017, Journal of experimental social psychology.

[49]  Valerio Capraro,et al.  Gender Differences in Altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and Actual Behaviour , 2016, Economics Letters.

[50]  Cornelius J. König,et al.  Personality Testing in Personnel Selection , 2018, Current Issues in Work and Organizational Psychology.

[51]  John M. Levine,et al.  Creating the Ideal Group: Composition Effects at Work , 2018, Understanding Group Behavior.

[52]  David G. Rand,et al.  Do the Right Thing: Experimental Evidence that Preferences for Moral Behavior, Rather Than Equity or Efficiency per se, Drive Human Prosociality , 2018, Judgment and Decision Making.

[53]  Valerio Capraro,et al.  Group size effects and critical mass in public goods games , 2019, Scientific Reports.