Emotion understanding and performance during computer-supported collaboration

Individuals collaborating around and through computers benefit from receiving information that helps them understand one another, which is often termed awareness. This article explores what collaborators understand about each other's emotions and the potential benefits for performance that might come from raising this understanding. In Experiment 1 co-located collaborators judged each other's emotions after playing a game that required cooperative data collection and analysis. Their judgements were largely inaccurate and based on their own emotions, suggesting limited emotion understanding. Experiment 2 explored if this could be overcome by making collaborators aware of each other's emotions. Co-located and remote collaborators played a cooperative puzzle-solving game under conditions of awareness or no awareness. Awareness was manipulated by making collaborators share their self-reported emotions during key moments of their game play. Both remote and co-located collaborators improved their performance after sharing their emotions. However, unlike co-located collaborators, remote collaborators also improved their understanding of each other's emotions and experienced more positive affect. We conclude by discussing the content of collaborators' emotion understanding and the probable mechanisms underlying the observed effects of being made aware of a partner's emotions.

[1]  Estelle Michinov,et al.  Face-to-face contact at the midpoint of an online collaboration: Its impact on the patterns of participation, interaction, affect, and behavior over time , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[2]  William Ickes,et al.  Naturalistic Social Cognition: Empathic Accuracy in Mixed-Sex Dyads , 1990 .

[3]  Brian Parkinson,et al.  Emotions in direct and remote social interaction: Getting through the spaces between us , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[4]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  I'm sad you're sad: emotional contagion in CMC , 2008, CSCW.

[5]  A. Manstead,et al.  An interpersonal approach to emotion in social decision making: the emotions as social information model , 2010 .

[6]  N. Epley,et al.  Reflexively mindblind: Using theory of mind to interpret behavior requires effortful attention , 2010 .

[7]  C. Lortie,et al.  Judgment of the Humanness of an Interlocutor Is in the Eye of the Beholder , 2011, PloS one.

[8]  Marianne Schmid Mast,et al.  Sources of accuracy in the empathic accuracy paradigm. , 2007, Emotion.

[9]  N. Epley,et al.  In the mood to get over yourself: mood affects theory-of-mind use. , 2008, Emotion.

[10]  Gijsbert Erkens,et al.  Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[11]  W. Ickes,et al.  Gender differences in empathic accuracy: Differential ability or differential motivation? , 2000 .

[12]  Gerben A. van Kleef,et al.  Can expressions of anger enhance creativity? A test of the emotions as social information (EASI) model , 2010 .

[13]  Daniel Bodemer,et al.  Knowledge awareness in CSCL: A psychological perspective , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[14]  Craig A. Smith,et al.  Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. , 1985, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  John Michael,et al.  Shared Emotions and Joint Action , 2011 .

[16]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Disclosing and sharing emotion: Psychological, social and health consequences , 2001 .

[17]  Jeroen Janssen,et al.  Group awareness tools: It's what you do with it that matters , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[18]  Nancy J. Stone,et al.  Understanding coordination in computer-mediated versus face-to-face groups , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[19]  Matthieu J. Guitton The immersive impact of meta-media in a virtual world , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[20]  Lucian Gideon Conway,et al.  Social contagion of time perception , 2004 .

[21]  Gijsbert Erkens,et al.  Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[22]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Dyadic Data Analysis , 2006 .

[23]  Janienke Sturm,et al.  Multimodal support for social dynamics in co-located meetings , 2010, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[24]  Nathan D. Bos,et al.  Anger and happiness in virtual teams: Emotional influences of text and behavior on others’ affect in the absence of non-verbal cues , 2011 .

[25]  Sigal G. Barsade The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and its Influence on Group Behavior , 2002 .

[26]  N. Epley,et al.  Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[27]  S. Baron-Cohen,et al.  The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High Functioning Autism, and Normal Sex Differences , 2004, Journal of autism and developmental disorders.

[28]  Gerben A. van Kleef,et al.  Longer-Term Consequences of Anger Expression in Negotiation: Retaliation or Spill Over? , 2010 .

[29]  M. Hoffman Empathy and prosocial behavior. , 2008 .

[30]  Russell Beale,et al.  Affective interaction: How emotional agents affect users , 2009, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[31]  Olivier Corneille,et al.  Anticipated cooperation vs. competition moderates interpersonal projection , 2010 .

[32]  Roger J. Kreuz,et al.  Emotion encoding and interpretation in computer-mediated communication: Reasons for use , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[33]  Paul A. Kirschner,et al.  Awareness of group performance in a CSCL-environment: Effects of peer feedback and reflection , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[34]  L. Ross,et al.  The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes , 1977 .

[35]  Kenneth L. Bettenhausen,et al.  Realities of Working in Virtual Teams: Affective and Attitudinal Outcomes of Using Computer-Mediated Communication , 2009 .

[36]  J. Krueger,et al.  The truly false consensus effect: an ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[37]  S. Brand,et al.  Effects of Mood and Problem Solving in Dyads on Transfer , 2007 .

[38]  F. Tuerlinckx,et al.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Feelings Change : Accounting for Individual Differences in the Temporal Dynamics of Affect , 2010 .

[39]  P. Totterdell Catching moods and hitting runs: mood linkage and subjective performance in professional sport teams. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[40]  Daantje Derks,et al.  The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: A review , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[41]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Better to be frustrated than bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners' cognitive-affective states during interactions with three different computer-based learning environments , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[42]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  Lark: Coordinating Co-located Collaboration with Information Visualization , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[43]  B. Rimé Emotion Elicits the Social Sharing of Emotion: Theory and Empirical Review , 2009 .

[44]  Rafael A. Calvo,et al.  Affect Detection: An Interdisciplinary Review of Models, Methods, and Their Applications , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing.