Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T04:36:28.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOW FAMILIARITY IMPACTS INFLUENCE IN COLLABORATIVE TEAMS?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Harshika Singh ,
Niccolo Becattini ,
Gaetano Cascini  and
Stanko Škec
Harshika Singh*
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano
Niccolo Becattini
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano
Gaetano Cascini
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano
Stanko Škec
Affiliation:
University of Zagreb
*
Singh, Harshika, Politecnico di Milano, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Italy, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Individual traits strongly impact team composition and the biases arising from them can also impact design activities. One such bias highlighted in the study is the familiarity bias (i.e., a bias that might be present between the two individuals due to their prior acquaintance). In order to detect the familiarity bias, participants from 4 universities who evaluated their peers and rated them for (1) their perceived degree of influence, (2) trust, (3) the amount of agreement they had with the other team member and (4) the amount of agreement the other individual in the team had with them. It was found that familiarity bias exists in collaborative teams. Its impact on the four variables, especially on influence, was discovered. In the end, the study briefly highlighted the importance of studying the factors (like the one revealed in this study) that affect influence in design teams as it eventually impacts design outcome. It was found that the individuals who explore most idea clusters, are less likely to be perceived influential and teams having the most influence produced a smaller number of idea clusters. Overall, the study contributes to understanding the factors affecting human cognition and behaviour in the design teams.

Keywords

Collaborative designDesign cognitionTeamworkDesign education
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1735 - 1744
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Adams, S., Roch, S. and Ayman, R. (2005). “Communication medium and member familiarity: the effects on decision time, accuracy, and satisfaction”, Small Group Research, Vol. 36 No. 3,pp 321–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405275232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aryadoust, V. (2016), “Gender and academic major bias in peer assessment of oral presentations”, Language Assessment Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp 1–24. 10.1080/15434303.2015.1133626 10.1080/15434303.2015.1133626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becattini, N., Škec, S., Pavković, N. and Cascini, G. (2020), “E-learning infrastructure prototype for geographically distributed project-based learning”, Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, pp. 1667–1676. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/dsd.2020.282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, V. and Paulus, P. B. (1996), “A simple dynamic model of social factors in group brainstorming”, Small Group Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496496271005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A. C.(2003),“Work team trust and effectiveness”.Personnel Review, Vol. 32 No.5, pp. 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480310488360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. and Cross, A. C. (1995), “Observations of teamwork and social processes in design”, Design Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 145–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(94)00007-ZCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (2004), “Expertise in design: an overview”, Design studies, Vol. 25 No. 5,pp. 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingel, M. and Wei, W. (2014), “Influences on peer evaluation in a group project: an exploration of leadership, demographics and course performance”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp.729–742, 10.1080/02602938.2013.867477 10.1080/02602938.2013.867477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dove, G., Abildgaard, S.J., Biskjær, M.M., Hansen, N.B., Christensen, B.T. and Halskov, K. (2018), “Grouping notes through nodes: The functions of post-it notes in design team cognition”, Design Studies, Vol. 57, pp.112–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falchikov, N. and Magin, D. (1997) Detecting gender bias in peer marking of students’ group process work, assessment & evaluation in higher education, 22:4, 385–396, 10.1080/0260293970220403Google Scholar
Ferguson, A., Stoverink, A. C. and Downes, P. (2020), “Exploring team familiarity as a buffer to external conformity pressure in decision-making teams”, Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. 17079. Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.10.5465/AMBPP.2020.17079abstractCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, M. S.(1973), “The strength of weak ties”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78 No.6, pp. 1360–1380.10.1086/225469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, P. J., Carley, K. M., Krackhardt, D. and Wholey, D. (2000), “Choosing work group members: Balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity”, Organizational behavior and human decision processes, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 226–251. 10.1006/obhd.1999.2875 10.1006/obhd.1999.2875CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, P. E. and Roelofsma, P. H. (2000), “The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: Biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms”, Ergonomics, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 1129–1152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130050084914CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kane, J. S. and Lawler, E. E. (1978), “Methods of peer assessment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 85, pp. 555–586.10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinsmann, M. and Valkenburg, R. (2008), “Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects”, Design Studies, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keum, D. D. and See, K. E. (2017), “The influence of hierarchy on idea generation and selection in the innovation process”, Organisation Science, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 653–669. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1142Google Scholar
Latham, G. P., and Wexley, K. N. (1981), “Increasing productivity through performance appraisal”, Addison-Wesley Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
Layton, R.A. and Ohland, M.W. (2000). “Peer evaluations in teams of predominantly minority students”. Proc. ASEE Annual Conference. St. LouisGoogle Scholar
Lindley, J., & Wynn, L., 2018. Decision making in product design–bridging the gap between inception and reality. Design and Technology Education: an International Journal, 23(2), pp. 74–85.Google Scholar
May, G. L. and Gueldenzoph, L. E. (2006), “The impact of social style on peer evaluation ratings in project teams”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 43, pp. 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943605282368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, D.G. (1982), “Polarizing effects of social interaction”, Group decision-making, ed. by Brandstatter, H., Davis, JH, Stacker-Kreichgauer, G., pp. 125–161. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Oesch, N. and Dunbar, R.I.M. (2018), “Group size, communication, and familiarity effects in foraging human teams”, Ethology, Vol. 124, pp. 483–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/ eth.12756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohland, M.W., Loughry, M.L., Woehr, D.J., Bullard, L.G., Felder, R.M., Finelli, C. J., Layton, R. A., Pomeranz, H.R. & Schmucker, D.G. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self- and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 609–630.Google Scholar
Paswan, P.K and Gollakota, K. (2004), “Dimensions of peer evaluation, overall satisfaction, and overall evaluation: An investigation in a group task environment”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 225–231, 10.3200/JOEB.79.4.225-231Google Scholar
Perry-Smith, J.E. and Shalley, C.E.(2003), “The social side of creativity: a static and dynamic social network perspective”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 89–106. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.8925236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramachandran, K., Tereyagoglu, N. and Unal, M. (2017), “Help or Hindrance? The Role of Familiarity in Collaborative Product Development”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), pp. 17–27. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3000522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherrard, W.R., Raafat, F. and Weaver, R.R.(1994), “An empirical study of peer bias in evaluations: students rating students”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 70, pp. 43- 47. 10.1080/08832323.1994.10117723 10.1080/08832323.1994.10117723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, V., Dong, A. and Gero, J. S. (2009), “Effects of social learning and team familiarity on team performance”, SpringSim.Google Scholar
Singh, H., McComb, C. and Cascini, G. (2020a), “Modelling the dynamics of influence on individual thinking during idea generation in co-design teams”, Ninth International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition (DCC20). Atlanta, USAGoogle Scholar
Singh, H., Cascini, G., and McComb, C. (2020b), “Analysing The Effect of Self-efficacy and Influencers on Design Team Performance”, Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsd.2020.64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R. P., Hall, K. L. and Taylor, B. K. (2008), “The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration”, American journal of preventive medicine, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. S96–S115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, R. S. (2001), “Reliability, validity, and bias in peer evaluations of self-directed interdependent work teams”, Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Vol. 6, pp. 1–37. American Society for Engineering EducationGoogle Scholar
Watson, W. E., BarNir, A. and Pavur, R. (2010), “Elements influencing peer evaluation: An examination of individual characteristics, academic performance, and collaborative processes”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 2995–3019. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00690.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetmore, W. R. III, Summers, J. D. and Greenstein, J. S. (2010), “Experimental study of influence of group familiarity and information sharing on design review effectiveness”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820802238217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E. & Griffin, R. W., 1993. Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity. The Academy of Management Review, 18(2), pp. 293–321.10.2307/258761CrossRefGoogle Scholar