Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:51:00.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part V - Coding Schemes for Interaction Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2018

Edited by
Elisabeth Brauner ,
Margarete Boos  and
Michaela Kolbe
Elisabeth Brauner
Affiliation:
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Margarete Boos
Affiliation:
University of Göttingen
Michaela Kolbe
Affiliation:
ETH Zürich
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis , pp. 419 - 638
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Primary Sources

Kauffeld, S. (2006a). Kompetenzen messen, bewerten, entwickeln [Measuring, evaluating, and developing competencies]. Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer-Poeschel.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S., Grote, S., & Frieling, E. (2000). Die Diagnose beruflicher Handlungskompetenz: Das Kasseler-Kompetenz-Raster [Diagnosis of professional competence: The Cassel competency grid]. In Geißler, K. A. & Loos, W. (Eds.), Handbuch Personalentwicklung (pp. 1–22). Cologne, Germany: Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst.Google Scholar
Meinecke, A. L., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2015). Social dynamics at work: Meetings as a gateway. In Allen, J. A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Rogelberg, S. G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of meeting science (pp. 325–356). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Secondary Sources

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bales, R. F., & Cohen, S. P. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Fisch, F. (1994). Eine Methode zur Analyse von Interaktionsprozessen beim Problemlösen in Gruppen [A method for the analysis of interaction processes during group problem solving]. Gruppendynamik, 25, 149–168.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S. (2006b). Self-directed work groups and team competence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 1–21. doi:10.1348/096317905X53237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S. (2007). Jammern oder Lösungsexploration: Eine sequenzanalytische Betrachtung des Interaktionsprozesses in betrieblichen Gruppen bei der Bewältigung von Optimierungsaufgaben [Complaining or exploration of solutions: A sequential examination of interaction processes in work groups when completing optimization tasks]. German Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 51, 55–67. doi:10.1026/0932-4089.51.2.55Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S. (2010). Das Kasseler-Kompetenz-Raster [The Cassel competency grid]. In Sarges, W., Wottawa, H., & Roos, C. (Eds.), Handbuch wirtschaftspsychologischer Testverfahren, Band II: Organisationspsychologische Instrumente (2nd edn., pp. 165–173). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S., Grote, S., & Frieling, E. (2000). Die Diagnose beruflicher Handlungskompetenz: Das Kasseler-Kompetenz-Raster [Diagnosis of professional competence: The Cassel competency grid]. In Geißler, K. A. & Loos, W. (Eds.), Handbuch Personalentwicklung (pp. 1–22). Cologne, Germany: Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meeting communication on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 128–156. doi:10.1177/1046496411429599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Meyers, R. (2009). Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 267–294. doi:10.1080/13594320701693209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klonek, F. E., Quera, V., Burba, M., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Group interactions and time: Using sequential analysis to study group dynamics in project meetings. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20, 209–222. doi:10.1037/gdn0000052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Allen, J. A. (2014). How fun are your meetings? Investigating the relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1278–1287. doi:10.1037/a0038083CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Allen, J. A. (2017). Well, now what do we do? Wait … : A group process analysis of meeting lateness. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2329488417696725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Meinecke, A. L. (2014). Observing culture: Differences in U.S.-American and German team meeting behaviors. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 252–271. doi:10.1177/1368430213497066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Beck, S. J., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Emergent team roles in organizational meetings: Identifying communication patterns via cluster analysis. Communication Studies, 67, 37–57. doi:10.1080/10510974.2015.1074087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Chiu, M. M., Lei, Z., & Kauffeld, S. (2017). Understanding positivity within dynamic team interactions: A statistical discourse analysis. Group & Organization Management, 42, 39–78. doi:10.1177/1059601116628720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2010). The downside of communication: Complaining cycles in group discussions. In Schuman, S. (Ed.), The handbook for working with difficult groups: How they are difficult, why they are difficult, what you can do (pp. 33–54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.Google Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Meinecke, A. L., Rowold, J., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). How transformational leadership works during team interactions: A behavioral process analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 1017–1033. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangold. (2014). INTERACT user manual. Retrieved from www.mangold-international.comGoogle Scholar
van der Haar, S., Koeslag-Kreunen, M., Euwe, E., & Segers, M. (2017). Team leader structuring for team effectiveness and team learning in command-and-control teams. Small Group Research, 48, 215–248. doi:10.1177/1046496417689897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schermuly, C. C., & Scholl, W. (2011). Instrument zur Kodierung von Diskussionen (IKD) [Discussion Coding System (DCS)]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Schermuly, C. C., & Scholl, W. (2012). The Discussion Coding System (DCS). A new instrument for analyzing communication processes. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 12–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Boos, M. (1995). Die sequentielle Strukturierung sozialer Interaktion [The sequential structure of social interaction]. In Langenthaler, W. & Schiepek, G. (Hrsg.), Selbstorganisation und Dynamik in Gruppen (pp. 209–221). Münster: Lit.Google Scholar
Brauner, E. (2006). Kodierung transaktiver Wissensprozesse (TRAWIS). Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Wissenstransfers in Interaktionen [Transactive Knowledge Coding System (TRAWIS): A schema for the assessment of knowledge transfer in interactions]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37, 99–112. doi:10.1024/0044-3514.37.2.99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, R. (1994). Eine Methode zur Analyse von Interaktionsprozessen beim Problemlösen in Gruppen [A method for the analysis of interaction processes during group problem solving]. Gruppendynamik, 25, 149–168.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2006). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heise, D. R. (2007). Expressive order. Confirming sentiments in social action. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Ianiro, P. M., & Kauffeld, S. (2014). Take care what you bring with you: How coaches’ mood and interpersonal behavior affect coaching success. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 66, 231–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ianiro, P. M., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). Coaches and clients in action: A sequential analysis of interpersonal coach and client behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 435–456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9374-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ianiro, P. M., Schermuly, C. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Why interpersonal affiliation and dominance matter: An interaction analysis of the coach-client relationship. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research & Practice, 6, 25–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2012.740489Google Scholar
Jacobs, I., & Scholl, W. (2005). Interpersonale Adjektivliste (IAL): Die empirische Umsetzung theoretischer Circumplex-Eigenschaften für die Messung interpersonaler Stile [Interpersonal Adjective List (IAL): The empirical implementation of theoretical circumplex characteristics for the measurement of interpersonal styles]. Diagnostica, 51, 145–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.51.3.145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kämmer, J. E., Gaissmaier, W., Reimer, T., & Schermuly, C. C. (2014). The adaptive use of recognition in group decision making. Cognitive Science, 38, 911–942. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolbe, M. (2007). Koordination von Entscheidungsprozessen in Gruppen. Die Bedeutung expliziter Koordinationsmechanismen. [Process coordination in decision making groups. The meaning of explicit coordination mechanisms]. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Luxen, M. F. (2005). Gender differences in dominance and affiliation during a demanding interaction. The Journal of Psychology, 139, 331–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.4.331-347CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, B., Burtscher, M. J., Jonas, K., Feese, S., Arnrich, B., Tröster, G., & Schermuly, C. C. (2016). What good leaders actually do: Micro-level leadership behavior, leader evaluations, and team decision quality. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 773–789. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1189903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, B., & Schermuly, C. C. (2012). When beliefs are not enough: Examining the interaction of diversity faultlines, task motivation, and diversity beliefs on team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 456–487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.560383CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sachs, L. (1999). Angewandte Statistik. Anwendung statistischer Methoden (Applied statistics. Application of statistical methods). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Scharpf, U., & Fisch, R. (1989). Das Schicksal von Vorschlägen in Beratungs- und Entscheidungssitzungen. Ein Beitrag zur Analyse inhaltlicher Aspekte der Interaktion bei der Entscheidungsfindung in Gruppen [The fate of proposals in consultation and decision situations. A contribution to the analysis of content aspects of interaction in group decision-making]. Gruppendynamik, 20, 283–296.Google Scholar
Schermuly, C. C., Schröder, T., Nachtwei, J. & Scholl, W. (2010). Das Instrument zur Kodierung von Diskussionen (IKD): Ein Verfahren zur zeitökonomischen und validen Kodierung von Interaktionen in Organisationen [The Discussion Coding System (DCS): An instrument for valid and time-efficient coding of interactions in organizations]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 54, 149–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schröder, T., Netzel, J., Schermuly, C. C., & Scholl, W. (2013). Culture-constrained affective consistency of interpersonal behavior. A test of affect control theory with nonverbal expressions. Social Psychology, 44, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjøvold, E. (2007). Systematizing person-group relations (SPGR). A field theory of social interaction. Small Group Research, 38, 615–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950b). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Allen, W. R., Comerford, R. A., & Ruhe, J. A. (1989). Factor analytic study of Bales’ Interaction Process Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 701–707. doi:10.1177/001316448904900325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950a). A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction. American Sociological Review, 15, 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F., & Cohen, S. P. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 485–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, D., & Fisch, R. (2000). Argumentation and emotional processes in group decision-making: Illustration of a multilevel interaction process analysis approach. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 183–201. doi:10.1177/1368430200003002005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. J., & Keyton, J. (2009). Perceiving strategic meeting interaction. Small Group Research, 40, 223–246. doi:10.1177/1046496408330084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. J., & Keyton, J. (2012). Team cognition, communication, and message interdependence. In Salas, E., Fiore, S. F., & Letsky, M. (Eds.), Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 471–494). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beck, S. J., & Keyton, J. (2014). Facilitating social support: Member-leader communication in a breast cancer support group. Cancer Nursing, 37, E36–43. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e3182813829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. J., Paskewitz, E. A., Anderson, W. A., Bourdeaux, , & Currie-Mueller, J. (2017). The task and relational dimensions of online social support. Health Communication, 32, 347–355. doi:10.1080/10410236.2016.1138383CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, K. S., Im, I., & Hofstede, G. J. (2016). A cross-cultural comparative analysis of small group collaboration using mobile twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 308–318. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, M. R., Kunkel, A., & Keyton, J. (2008). Problematic integration theory, appraisal theory, and the Bosom Buddies Breast Cancer Support Group. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 415–436. doi:10.1080/00909880802094315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin, J., Bonito, J., & Keyton, J. (2017). Convergence of intrapersonal and interpersonal processes across group meetings. Communication Monographs, 84, 200–220. doi:10.1080/03637751.2016.1185136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahy, , P. (2005). Online and face-to-face group interaction processes compared using Bales’ Interaction Process Analysis (IPA). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Patrick_J_Fahy.htmGoogle Scholar
Fisher, B. A. (1970). Decision emergence: Phases in group decision‐making. Speech Monographs, 7, 53–66. doi:10.1080/03637757009375649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, H., & Goh, D.H-L. (2014). ‘‘I Have AIDS”: Content analysis of postings in HIV/AIDS support group on a Chinese microblog, 34, 219–226. Retrieved February 14, 2018, from www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Patrick_J_Fahyhtm.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 45–99. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60248-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225–252 doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00104.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyton, J. (1997). Coding communication in decision-making groups: Assessing effective and ineffective process. In Frey, L. R. & Barge, J. K. (Eds.), Managing group life: Communication in decision-making groups (pp. 236–269). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Keyton, J. (2003). Observing group interaction. In Hirokawa, R. Y., Cathcart, R. S., Samovar, L. A., & Henman, L. D., Small group communication: Theory and practice (8th edn., pp. 256–266). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.Google Scholar
Keyton, J., & Beck, S. J. (2009). The influential role of relational messages in group interaction. Group Dynamics, 13, 14–30. doi:10.1037/a0013495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology. American Journal of Sociology, 44, 868–896. doi:10.1086/218177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., Rau, P-L. P., Li, H., & Maedche, A. (2017). Effects of a dyad’s cultural intelligence on global virtual collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60, 56–75. doi:10.1109/TPC.2016.2632842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lofstrand, P., & Zakrisson, I. (2014). Competitive versus non-competitive goals in group decision-making. Small Group Research, 45, 451–464. doi:10.1177/1046496414532954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mabry, E. A. (1975). An instrument for assessing content themes in group interaction. Speech Monographs, 42, 191–297. doi:10.1080/03637757509375904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2002). The meaning of an online health community in the lives of its members: Roles, relationships and group dynamics. Published in the proceedings of the IEEE 2002 International Symposium on Technology and Society: Social Implications of Information and Communication Technology. doi:10.1109/ISTAS.2002.1013791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2005). Multilevel analysis of sociability, usability, and community dynamics in an online health community. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 12, 201–232. doi:10.1145/1067860.1067864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pena, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2006). An analysis of socioemotional and task communication in online multiplayer video games. Communication Research, 33, 92–109. doi:10.1177/0093650205283103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Folger, J. P. (1981). A method for establishing the representational validity of interaction coding systems: Do we see what they see? Human Communication Research, 8, 26–42. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1981.tb00654.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futoran, G. C., Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1989). TEMPO: A time-based system for analysis of group interaction process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 211–232. doi:10.1207/2s15324834basp1003.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Karau, S. J., & Kelly, J. R. (1992). The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 542–571. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(92)90045-LCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130–158. doi:10 1177/1046496411429599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolbe, M., Strack, M., Stein, A., & Boos, M. (2011). Effective coordination in human group decision making: MICRO_CO: A micro-analytical taxonomy for analyzing explicit coordination mechanisms in decision-making groups. In Boos, M. et al. (Eds.), Coordination in Human and Primate Groups (pp. 199–219). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15355-6_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y. C., & Burn, J. M. (2007). Improving the performance of online learning teams – A discourse analysis. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18, 369–379.Google Scholar
McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Research, 22, 147–174. doi:10.1177/1046496491222001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordback, E., & Sivunen, A. (2013). Leadership behaviors in virtual team meetings taking place in a 3D virtual world. 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2013.380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, S. G. (1997). Technology, group process, and group outcomes: Testing the connections in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 227–266. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1203_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, S. G. (1999). Testing a typology of tasks: An empirical validation of McGrath’s (1984) Group Task Circumplex. Small Group Research, 30, 166–187. doi:10.1177/104649649903000202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, C., Boos, M., Conradi, E., Biller-Andorno, N., & Wiesemann, C. (2011). Care and justice arguments in the ethical reasoning of medical students. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, 2, 9–32.Google Scholar
Bergmann, J., & Luckmann, T. (Eds.), (1999). Die kommunikative Konstruktion von Moral [The communicative construction of morality]. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd edn.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1981). On social representations. In Forgas, J. P. (Ed.), Social cognition: Perspectives on everyday understanding (pp. 181–209). London, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In Farr, R. & Moscovici, S. (Eds.), Social representations (pp. 3–69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sommer, C. (2004). Fürsorge- und Gerechtigkeitsmoral: Eine interpersonelle Perspektive [Care and Justice Morality: An Interpersonal Perspective]. Hamburg: Kovač.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Voss, J. F., Tyler, S. W., & Yengo, L. A. (1983). Individual differences in the solving of social science problems. In Dillon, R. F. & Schmeck, R. R. (Eds.), Individual differences in cognition (pp. 205–232). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989a). Decision development in small groups IV: A typology of decision paths. Human Communication Research, 15, 323–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups II: A study of multiple sequences in decision-making. Communication Monographs, 50, 206–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The coding manual can be found at http://hdl.handle.net/2142/35315 (last retrieved on February 18, 2018).Google Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fisher, B. A. (1970). Decision emergence: Phases in group decision making. Communication Monographs, 37, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markman, H. J., Renick, M. J., Floyd, F. J., Stanley, S. M., & Clements, M. (1993). Preventing marital distress through communication and conflict management training: A 4- and 5-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Dobosh, M. (2010). Exploring conflict management processes in jury deliberations through interaction analysis. Small Group Research, 41, 408–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989b). Decision development in small groups V: Test of a contingency model. Human Communication Research, 15, 549–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S., Holmes, M., & DeSanctis, , G. (1991). Conflict management in a computer-supported meeting environment. Management Science, 37, 926–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sambamurthy, V., & Poole, M. S. (1992). The effects of variations in capabilities of GDSS designs on management of cognitive conflict in groups. Information Systems Research, 3, 224–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillars, A. L., Coletti, S. F., Parry, D., & Rogers, M. A. (1982). Coding verbal conflict tactics: Nonverbal and perceptual correlates of the “avoidance-distributive-integrative” distinction. Human Communication Research, 9, 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paletz, S. B. F., Schunn, C. D., & Kim, K. H. (2011). Conflict under the microscope: Micro-conflicts in naturalistic team discussions. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 4, 314–351. doi:10.1111/j.1750-4716.2011.00085.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paletz, S. B. F., Chan, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2017). The dynamics of micro-conflicts and uncertainty in successful and unsuccessful design teams. Design Studies, 50, 39–69. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2017.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paletz, S. B. F., Sumer, A., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2017). Psychological factors surrounding disagreement in multicultural design team meetings. CoDesign. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1378685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amason, A. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–143. doi:10.2307/256633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R., Quera, V., McArthur, D., & Robinson, B. F. (1997). Detecting sequential patterns and determining their reliability with fallible observers. Psychological Methods, 2, 357–370. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.2.4.357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1951). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar
Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 216–244. doi:10.1108/eb022913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bearman, C. R., Paletz, S. B. F., Orasanu, J., & Thomas, M. J. W. (2010). The breakdown of coordinated decision making in distributed systems. Human Factors, 52, 173–188. doi:10.1177/0018720810372104CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bendersky, C., Bear, J., Behfar, K. J., Weingart, L. R., Todorova, G., & Jehn, K. A. (2014). Identifying gaps between the conceptualization of conflict and its measurement. In Ashkanasy, N., Ayoko, O., & Jehn, K. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research in conflict management (pp. 79–89). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781781006948Google Scholar
Chan, J., Paletz, S. B. F., & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Analogy as a strategy for supporting complex problem solving under uncertainty. Memory and Cognition, 40, 1352–1365. doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0227-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analysis of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The role and impact of mental simulation in design. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 327–344. doi:10.1002/acp.1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coan, J. A., & Gottman, J. M. (2007). The Specific Affect (SPAFF) coding system. In Coan, J. A. & Allen, J. J. B. (Eds.) Handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment (pp. 106–123), New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottman, J. M., & Notarius, C. I. (2000). Decade review: Observing marital interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 927–947. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00927.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557. doi:10.2307/2393737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187–242. doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(03)25005-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238–251. doi:10.2307/3069453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S. (2006). Self-directed work groups and team competence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 1–21. doi:10.1348/096317905X53237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130–158. doi:10.1177/1046496411429599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T., & Poole, M. S. (2000). Do conflict management styles affect group decision making? Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Human Communication Research, 26, 558–590. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00769.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neff, R., Jankovic, S., Wolf, M., Tacey, P., Paletz, S. B. F., & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Affect and conflict in student engineering teams. Poster presented at the International Society for the Psychology of Science and Technology Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Paletz, S. B. F., Chan, J., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). Uncovering uncertainty through disagreement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 387–400. doi:10.1002/acp.3213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paletz, S. B. F., Schunn, C. D., & Kim, K. H. (2013). The interplay of conflict and analogy in multidisciplinary teams. Cognition, 126, 1–19. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.020CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved February 14, 2018, from http://liwc.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/LIWC2015_LanguageManual.pdf. doi:10.15781/T29G6Z.Google Scholar
Smith, C. P. (2000). Content analysis and narrative analysis. In Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 313–335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Srikanth, K., Harvey, S., & Peterson, R. (2016). A dynamic perspective on diverse teams: Moving from the dual-process model to a dynamic coordination-based model of diverse team performance. Academy of Management Annals, 10, 453–493. doi:10.1080/19416520.2016.1120973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the ‘‘causes’’ of performance: A general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 13, 414–432. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(75)90060-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todorova, G., Bear, J. B., & Weingart, L. R. (2014). Can conflict be energizing? A study of task conflict, positive emotions, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 451–467. doi:10.1037/a0035134CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vuchinich, S. (1987). Starting and stopping spontaneous family conflicts. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 591–601. doi:10.2307/352204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingart, L. R., Behfar, K. J., Bendersky, C., Todorova, G., & Jehn, K. A. (2015). The directness and oppositional intensity of conflict expression. Academy of Management Review, 40, 235–262. doi:10.5465/amr.2013-0124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yao, J., Brett, J., & Zhang, Z. X. n.d. Multi-issue offers: A low-trust path to joint gains in negotiations. Paper presented at the International Association for Conflict Management conference, Berlin, Germany, July 2017.Google Scholar
Yao, J., Zhang, Z. X., & Brett, J. (2017). Understanding trust development in negotiations: An interdependent approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(5), 712–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adair, W. L., & Brett, J. M. (2005). The negotiation dance: Time, culture, and behavioral sequences in negotiation. Organization Science, 16(1), 33–51. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adair, W. L., Okumura, T., & Brett, J. M. (2001). Negotiation behavior when cultures collide: The United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 371–385. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.371CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curhan, J., & Pentland, A., (2007). Thin slices of negotiation: Predicting outcomes from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 802–811. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.802CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Dreu, C., Evers, A. Beersma, B., Klewer, E., Nauta, A. (2001). A theory based measure of conflict management in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(6), 645–668. doi:10.1002/job.107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, A. F. 2012. PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. (White paper). Retrieved February 16, 2018, from www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D., & Cook, W. L. 2006. Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kong, D. T., Dirks, K., & Ferrin, D. (2014). Interpersonal trust within negotiations: Meta-analytic evidence, critical contingencies, and direction for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1235–1255. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.0461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, M. (2009). The intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of anger on negotiation strategies: A cross-cultural investigation. Human Communication Research, 35(1), 148–169. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.01342.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olekalns, M. Brett, J. M., & Weingart, L. R. 2004. Phases, transitions and interruptions: The processes that shape agreement in multi-party negotiations. International Journal of Conflict Management: Special Issue on Processes in Negotiation, 14(3), 191–211. doi:10.1108/eb022898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2000). Understanding optimal outcomes: The role of strategy sequences in competitive negotiations. Human Communication Research, 26(4), 527–57. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00768.xGoogle Scholar
Pruitt, D. G. 1981. Negotiation Behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pruitt, D., & Rubin, J. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Weingart, L. R., Thompson, L. L., Bazerman, M. H., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Tactical behavior and negotiation outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1(1), 7–31. doi:10.1108/eb022839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillars, A. L. (1980). The sequential and distributional structure of conflict as a function of attributions concerning the locus of causality and stability of conflicts. In Nimmo, D. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 4 (pp. 217–235). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. [VTCS applied to discussions of college roommates]Google Scholar
Sillars, A. L., Pike, G. R., Jones, T. S., & Redmon, K. (1983). Communication and conflict in marriage. In Bostrom, R. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 7 (pp. 414–429). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [First application to marital conflict]Google Scholar
Zietlow, P. H., & Sillars, A. L. (1988). Life stage differences in communication during marital conflicts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 223–245. doi:10.1177/026540758800500206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, T. N., Campbell, S. M., & Fincham, F. D. (1995). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 328–341. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Attributions and behavior in marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 613–628. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.613CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burggraf, C. S., & Sillars, A. L. (1987). A critical examination of sex differences in marital communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 276–294. doi:10.1080/03637758709390233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canary, D. J., Cunningham, E. M., & Cody, M. J. (1988). Goal types, gender, and locus of control in managing interpersonal conflict. Communication Research, 15, 426–446. doi:10.1177/009365088015004005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloven, D. H., & Roloff, M. E. (1991). Sense-making activities and interpersonal conflict: Communicative cures for the mulling blues. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 134–158. doi:10.1080/10570319109374376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohan, C. L., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Negative life events, marital interaction, and the longitudinal course of newlywed marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 114–128. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Comstock, J., & Strzyzewski, K. (1990). Interpersonal interaction on television: Family conflict and jealousy on primetime. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 34, 263–282. doi:10.1080/08838159009386742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, D. S., Christensen, A., & Fincham, F. D. (1999). Predicting marital satisfaction from behavior: Do all roads really lead to Rome? Personal Relationships, 6, 369–387. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00198.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interactions: Experimental investigations. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hahlweg, K. (2004). Kategoriensystem für Partnerschaftliche Interaktion (KPI): Interactional coding system (ICS). In Kerig, P. K. & Baucom, D. H. (Eds.), Couple observational coding systems (pp. 122–142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hellmuth, J. C., & McNulty, J. K. (2008). Neuroticism, marital violence, and the moderating role of stress and behavioral skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 166–180. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.166CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyman, R. E., Weiss, R. L., & Eddy, J. M. (1995). Marital Interaction Coding System: Revision and empirical evaluation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 737–746. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(95)00003-GCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keck, K. L., & Samp, J. A. (2007). The dynamic nature of goals and message production as revealed in a sequential analysis of conflict interaction. Human Communication Research, 33, 27–47. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00287.xGoogle Scholar
McNulty, J. D., & Russell, V. M. (2010). When “negative” behaviors are positive: A contextual analysis of the long-term effects of problem-solving behaviors on changes in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 587–604. doi:10.1037/a0017479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNulty, J. K. (2008). Neuroticism and interpersonal negativity: The independent contributions of perceptions and behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1439–1450. doi:10.1177/0146167208322558CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Expectancy confirmation in appraisals of marital interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 764–775. doi:10.1177/0146167202289006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Positive expectations in the early years of marriage: Should couples expect the best or brace for the worst? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 729–743. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.729CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2007). Stress crossover in newlywed marriage: A longitudinal and dyadic perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 594–607. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00394.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., Yokochi, Y., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., & Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68, 235–258. doi:10.1080/03637750128061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overall, N. C., Hammond, M. D., McNulty, J. K., & Finkel, E. J. (2016). Power in context: Relationship and situational power interact to predict men’s aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 195–217. doi:10.1037/pspi0000059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pike, G. R., & Sillars, A. L. (1985). Reciprocity of marital communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 303–324. doi:10.1177/0265407585023005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S., Holmes, M., & Desanctis, G. (1991). Conflict management in a computer-supported meeting environment. Management Science, 37, 926–953. doi:10.1287/mnsc.37.8.926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhee, H-S., Pirkul, H., Jacob, V., & Barhki, R. (1995). Effects of computer-mediated communication on group negotiation: An empirical study. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Wailea, HI.Google Scholar
Shearman, S. M., Dumlao, R., & Kagawa, N. (2011). Cultural variations in accounts by American and Japanese young adults: Recalling a major conflict with parents. Journal of Family Communication, 11, 105–125. doi:10.1080/15267431.2011.554499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillars, A. L. (1981). Attributions and interpersonal conflict resolution. In Harvey, J. H., Ickes, W. J. & Kidd, R. F. (Eds.), New directions in attribution research, Volume 3 (pp. 279–305). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sillars, A. L. (1985). Interpersonal perception in relationships. In Ickes, W. J. (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 277–305). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillars, A. L. (1986). Procedures for coding interpersonal conflict: The Verbal Tactics Coding Scheme (VTCS). Unpublished manuscript, University of Montana.Google Scholar
Sillars, A. L., Coletti, S. F., Parry, D., & Rogers, M. A. (1982). Coding verbal conflict tactics: Nonverbal and perceptual correlates of the “avoidance-distributive-integrative” distinction. Human Communication Research, 9, 83–95. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1982.tb00685.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillars, A., Holman, A., Richards, A., Jacobs, K., Koerner, A., & Reynolds-Dyk, A. (2014). Conversation and conformity orientations as predictors of observed conflict tactics in parent-adolescent discussions. Journal of Family Communication. 14, 16–31. doi:10.1080/15267431.2013.857327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillars, A., & Overall, N. C. (2017). Coding observed interaction (pp. 199–216). In VanLear, C. A. & Canary, D. J. (Eds.), Researching communication interaction behavior: A sourcebook of methods and measures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillars, A. L., Pike, G. R., Jones, T. S., & Murphy, M. A. (1984). Communication and understanding in marriage. Human Communication Research, 3, 317–350. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1984.tb00022.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillars, A. L., Weisberg, J., Burggraf, C. S., & Zietlow, P. H. (1990). Communication and understanding revisited: Married couples’ understanding and recall of conversations. Communication Research, 17, 500–502. doi:10.1177/009365090017004006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillars, A. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (1994). Communication strategies in conflict and mediation. In Wiemann, J. & Daly, J. A. (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 163–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Boos, M., & Cornelius, C. (2001). Bedeutung und Erfassung konversationaler Kohärenz in direkter und computervermittelter Kommunikation [Meaning and Measurement of Conversational Coherence in Direct and Computer-mediated Communication]. In Hesse, F.W. & Friedrich, H.F. (Eds.). Partizipation und Interaktion im virtuellen Seminar (pp. 55–80). Muenster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Cornelius, C., & Boos, M. (2003). Enhancing mutual understanding in synchronous computer-mediated communication by training: Trade-offs in judgmental tasks. Communication Research, 30, 147–177. doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boos, M., Riethmüller, M., & Cornelius, C. (2013). Sozialer Einfluss in Chat‐Gruppen: Geschlechtsspezifische Auswirkungen auf konversationale Partizipation und Kohärenz [Social influence in chat groups: Gender-specific effects on conversational participation and coherence]. Gruppendynamik & Organisationsberatung, 44, 445‐460. doi.org/10.1007/s11612-013-0226-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappella, J. N. (1994). The management of conversational interaction in adults and infants. In Knapp, M. L. & Miller, G. R. (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 380–418). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cornelius, C. (1996). Themenentwicklung in Gruppendiskussionen [Topic development in group discussions]. University of Konstanz: Unpublished Diploma Thesis.Google Scholar
Cornelius, C. (2001). Gegenseitiges Verständnis in Computerkonferenzen. Voraussetzungen und Folgen konversationaler Kohärenz in Entscheidungsfindungsgruppen im Medienvergleich [Mutual understanding in computer conferences: Conditions and effects of conversational coherence in decision-making groups]. Muenster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Cornelius, C., & Boos, M. (1999). Es lohnt sich, kohärent zu sein! [It is worthwile to be coherent!] In Reips, U.-D. (Ed.), Aktuelle Online Forschung – Trends, Techniken, Ergebnisse [Current internet science – trends, techniques, results]. Zürich, Switzerland: Online Press. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from http://iscience.deusto.es/archive/reips/books/tband99/pdfs/a_h/cornelius.pdfGoogle Scholar
Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Crow, B. K. (1983). Topic shifts in couples’ conversations. In Craig, R. T. & Tracy, K. (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy (pp. 136–156). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd edn.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Grosz, B. J. (1977). The representation and use of focus in a system for understanding dialogs. Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 67–76). Cambridge, Massachusetts. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/77-1/Papers/009.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hewes, D. E. (1996). Small group communication may not influence decision making. An amplification of socio-egocentric theory. In Hirokawa, R. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (pp. 179–211). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1972). Einfache Sozialsysteme [Simple social systems]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 1, 51–65. doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-1972-0105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcomb, T. M. (1959). Individual systems of orientation. In Koch, S. (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science, Vol. 3 (pp. 384–422). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ng, S. H., & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pavitt, C., & Johnson, K. K. (1999). An examination of the coherence of group discussions. Communication Research, 26, 303–321. doi.org/10.1177/009365099026003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piontkowski, U., Oehlschlegel-Haubrock, S., & Hoelker, P. (1997). Annaeherung oder Abgrenzung? [Approximation or avoidance?] Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 26, 128–138. doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-1997-0204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichman, R. (1978). Conversational coherency. Cognitive Science, 2, 283–327. doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0204_1Google Scholar
Tracy, K. (1985). Conversational coherence: A cognitively grounded rules approach. In Street, R. L. & Cappella, J. N. (Eds.), Sequence and pattern in communicative behaviour (pp. 30–49). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Tschan, F. (1995). Communication enhances small group performance if it conforms to task requirements: The concept of ideal communication cycles. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 371–393. doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1703_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. New York, NY: Longmann.Google Scholar
Willke, H. (1978). Elemente einer Systemtheorie der Gruppe: Umweltbezug und Prozesssteuerung [Elements of a systems theory of groups: Environment relationship and process steering]. Soziale Welt, 29, 343–357. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from www.jstor.org/stable/40877230Google Scholar
Kolbe, M., Burtscher, M. J., & Manser, T. (2013). Co-ACT: A framework for observing coordination behaviour in acute care teams. BMJ Quality & Safety, 22, 596–605. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D. V., & Feinstein, A. R. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43, 551–558. doi:org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90159-MCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feinstein, A. R., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43, 543–549. doi:org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-LCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, G., Flin, R., McGeorge, P., Glavin, R., Maran, N., & Patey, R. (2004). Rating non-technical skills: Developing a behavioral marker system for use in anaesthesia. Cognition, Technology and Work, 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawande, A. A., Zinner, M. J., Studdert, D. M., & Brennan, T. A. (2003). Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery, 133, 614–621. doi:10:1067/msy.2003.169CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grote, G., Kolbe, M., Zala-Mezö, E., Bienefeld-Seall, N., & Künzle, B. (2010). Adaptive coordination and heedfulness make better cockpit crews. Ergonomics, 52, 211–228. doi:10.1080/00140130903248819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolbe, M., Burtscher, M. J., & Manser, T. (2011). Analyzing communication to understand how healthcare action teams coordinate. Paper presented at the 5th International Workshop on Behavioral Science Applied to Acute Care Teams, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Kolbe, M., Burtscher, M. J., Wacker, J., Grande, B., Nohynkova, R., Manser, T., … Grote, G. (2012). Speaking-up is related to better team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions: An observational study. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 115, 1099–1108. doi:10.1213/ANE.0b013e318269cd32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Waller, M. J., Wacker, J., Grande, B., Burtscher, M., & Spahn, D. (2014). Monitoring and talking to the room: Autochthonous coordination patterns in team interaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1254–1267. doi:org/10.1037/a0037877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolbe, M., Künzle, B., Zala-Mezö, E., Wacker, J., & Grote, G. (2009). Measuring coordination behaviour in anaesthesia teams during induction of general anaesthetics. In Flin, R. & Mitchell, L. (Eds.), Safer surgery. Analysing behaviour in the operating theatre (pp. 203–221). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observers agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manser, T., Howard, S. K., & Gaba, D. M. (2008). Adaptive coordination in cardiac anaesthesia: A study of situational changes in coordination patterns using a new observation system. Ergonomics, 51, 1153–1178. doi:10.1080/00140130801961919CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazzocco, K., Petitti, D. B., Fong, K. T., Bonacum, D., Brookey, J., Graham, S., … Thomas, E. J. (2009). Surgical team behaviors and patient outcomes. Am J Surg, 197(5), 678–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412. doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.574506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, S. H., Yule, S., Flin, R., & McKinley, A. (2011). Towards a model of surgeons’ leadership in the operating room. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20, 570–579. doi:10.1136/bmjqs.2010.040295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundstrom, E., de Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams. Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, E. J., Sexton, J. B., & Helmreich, R. L. (2004). Translating teamwork behaviours from aviation to healthcare: Development of behavioural markers for neonatal resuscitation. Qual Saf Health Care, 13(suppl 1), i57–i64. doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.009811CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., Vetterli, M., Gurtner, A., Hunziker, S., & Marsch, S. U. (2011). Developing observational categories for group process research based on task and coordination-requirement analysis: Examples from research on medical emergency-driven teams. In Boos, M., Kolbe, M., Kappeler, P., & Ellwart, T. (Eds.), Coordination in human and primate groups (pp. 93–118). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Undre, S., Sevdalis, N., & Vincent, C. (2009). Observing and assessing surgical teams: The Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTAS). In Flin, R. & Mitchell, L. (Edsr.), Safer surgery. Analysing behaviour in the operating theatre (pp. 83–101). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Weiss, M., Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Dambach, M., Marty, A., Spahn, D. R., & Grande, B. (2014). Agency and communion predict speaking up in acute care teams. Small Group Research, 45, 290–313. doi:10.1177/1046496414531495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, M., Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Spahn, D. R., & Grande, B. (2017a). We can do it! Inclusive leader language promotes voice behavior in multi-professional teams. The Leadership Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, M., Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Spahn, D. R., & Grande, B. (2017b). Why didn’t you say something? Using after-event reviews to affect voice behavior and hierarchy beliefs in multi-professional action teams. European Journal of Work and Organization Psychology, 26(1), 66–80. doi:org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1208652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. L., Lasky, R. E., Dannemiller, J. L., Andrei, A. M., & Thomas, E. J. (2010). Teamwork behaviours and errors during neonatal resuscitation. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19(1), 60–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yule, S., Flin, R., Paterson-Brown, S., & Maran, N. (2006). Non-technical skills for surgeons in the operating room: A review of the literature. Surgery, 139, 140–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seelandt, J. C., Tschan, F., Keller, S., Beldi, G., Jenni, N., Kurmann, A., Candinas, D., & Semmer, N. K. (2014). Assessing distractors and teamwork during surgery: Developing an event-based method for direct observation. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23, 918–929. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-002860CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis; a method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar
Barsade, S. G., & Knight, A. P. (2015). Group affect. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 21–46. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedwell, W. L., Ramsay, P. S., & Salas, E. (2012). Helping fluid teams work: A research agenda for effective team adaptation in healthcare. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 2(4), 504–509. doi:10.1007/s13142-012-0177-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feuerbacher, R. L., Funk, K., Spight, D. H., Diggs, B. S., & Hunter, J. G. (2012). Realistic distractions and interruptions that impair simulated surgical performance by novice surgeons. Archives of Surgery, 147(11), 1026–1030. doi:doi:10.1001/archsurg.2012.1480CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flin, R. (2013). Non-technical skills for anaesthetists, surgeons and scrub practitioners (ANTS, NOTSS, and SPLINTS). Retrieved February 16, 2018, from http://patientsafety.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/non_technical_skills_for_anaesthetists_surgeons_and_scrub_practitioners.pdfGoogle Scholar
Futoran, G. C., Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1989). TEMPO: A time-based system for analysis of group interaction process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(3), 211–232. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1003_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, A. N., Sevdalis, N., & Vincent, C. (2006). Measuring intra-operative interference from distraction and interruption observed in the operating theatre. Ergonomics, 49, 589–604. doi:10.1080/00140130600568899CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodge, B., & Thompson, J. F. (1990). Noise pollution in the operating theatre. Lancet, 335(8694), 891–894. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(90)90486-OCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, J. D. (2015). Noise in the operating room. Survey of Anesthesiology, 59(1), 60. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000000319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, S., Tschan, F., Beldi, G., Kurmann, A., Candinas, D., & Semmer, N. K. (2016). Noise peaks influence communication in the operating room. An observational study. Ergonomics, 59(12), 1541–1552. doi:10.1080/00140139.2016.1159736CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolbe, M., Künzle, B., Zala-Mezo, E., Wacker, J., & Grote, G. (2009). Measuring coordination behavior in anaesthesia teams during induction of general anaesthetics. In Flin, R. & Mitchell, L. (Eds.), Safer surgery: Analysing behavior in the operating theatre (pp. 203–222). London, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Kurmann, A., Peter, M., Tschan, F., Muhlemann, K., Candinas, D., & Beldi, G. (2011). Adverse effect of noise in the operating theatre on surgical-site infection. British Journal of Surgery, 98(7), 1021–1025. doi:10.1002/bjs.7496CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazzocco, K., Petitti, D. B., Fong, K. T., Bonacum, D., Brookey, J., Graham, S., Lasky, R. E., Sexton, J. B., & Thomas, E. J. (2009). Surgical team behaviors and patient outcomes. American Journal of Surgery, 197(5), 678–685. doi:S0002-9610(08)00459-5 [pii] 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.03.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sevdalis, N., Davis, R., Koutantji, M., Undre, S., Darzi, A., & Vincent, C. A. (2008). Reliability of a revised NOTECHS scale for use in surgical teams. American Journal of Surgery, 196(2), 184–190. doi:0.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.08.070CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sevdalis, N., Healey, A. N., & Vincent, C. A. (2007). Distracting communications in the operating theatre. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 13(3), 390–394. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00712.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sevdalis, N., Undre, S., McDermott, J., Giddie, J., Diner, L., & Smith, G. (2014). Impact of intraoperative distractions on patient safety: a prospective descriptive study using validated instruments. World Journal of Surgery, 38(4), 751–758. doi:10.1007/s00268-013-2315-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tschan, F., Holzer, E., Semmer, N. K., Keller, S., Zimmermann, J., Huber, S. A., Beldi, G., & Stolz, M. (2016). Adjustable Field Notes – A 5$ iPad application to observe team interactions. Paper presented at the 10th International Meeting for Behavioral Science in Surgery & Acute Care Settings, November 11–12, 2016, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Tschan, F., Seelandt, J., Keller, S., Semmer, N. K., Kurmann, A., Candinas, D., & Beldi, G. (2015). Impact of case-relevant and case-irrelevant communication within the surgical team on surgical site infection. British Journal of Surgery. doi:10.1002/bjs.9927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Undre, S., Sevdalis, N., & Vincent, C. (2009). Observing and assessing surgical teams: The Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTASS). In Flin, R. & Mitchell, L. (Eds.), Safer surgery. Analysing behaviour in the operating theatre (pp. 83–102). London, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Wadhera, R. K., Parker, S. H., Burkhart, H. M., Greason, K. L., Neal, J. R., Levenick, K. M., Wiegmann, D. A., & Sundt, T. M. 3rd. (2010). Is the “sterile cockpit” concept applicable to cardiovascular surgery critical intervals or critical events? The impact of protocol-driven communication during cardiopulmonary bypass. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 139(2), 312–319. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.10.048CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Way, T. J., Long, A., Weihing, J., Ritchie, R., Jones, R., Bush, M., & Shinn, J. B. (2013). Effect of noise on auditory processing in the operating room. Journal of the American College of Surgery, 216(5), 933–938. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yule, S., Flin, R., Maran, N., Rowley, D., Youngson, G., & Paterson-Brown, S. (2008). Surgeons’ non-technical skills in the operating room: Reliability testing of the NOTSS behavior rating system. World Journal of Surgery, 32(4), 548–556. doi:10.1007/s00268-007-9320-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zheng, B., Fung, E., Fu, B., Panton, N. M., & Swanstrom, L. L. (2015). Surgical team composition differs between laparoscopic and open procedures. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, 29(8), 2260–2265. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3938-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, S., & Kou, C. Y. (2013). Collective engagement in creative tasks: The role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 346–386. doi:10.1177/0001839213498591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950). A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction. American Sociological Review, 15, 257–263. doi:10.2307/2086790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F., & Cohen, S. P. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Collins, A., & Loftus, E. (1975) The spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, S. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, S. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392–403. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahy, P. J. (2006). Online and face-to-face group interaction processes compared using Bales’ Interaction Process Analysis (IPA). European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-learning, 1. Retrieved July 7, 2016 from www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Patrick_J_Fahy.htmGoogle Scholar
George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 439–477. doi:doi.org/10.1080/078559814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9–41. doi:10.2307/256496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creative become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17, 484–500. doi:doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, S., Currall, S. C., & Hammer, T. (in press). Decision diversion in diverse teams: Findings from inside a corporate boardroom. Academy of Management Discoveries. doi:10.5465/amd.2015.0129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M. H., & Poole, M. S. (2003). Idea-generation in naturally occurring contexts. Human Communication Research, 29, 560–591. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00856.xGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130–158. doi:doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtzberg, T. R. & Amabile, T. M. (2000). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 285–294. doi:doi-org.ucd.idm.oclc.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_06CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observers agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691–710. doi:10.5465/AMR.1999.2553248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litchfield, R. (2008). Brainstorming reconsidered: A goal-based view. Academy of Management Review, 33, 649–668. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.32465708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long-Lingo, E., & O’Mahony, S. (2010). Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 47–81. doi:doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.1.47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. 2005. What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 31–55. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGrath, J. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. 1996. Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402–433. doi:10.5465/AMR.1996.9605060217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23–32. doi:dx.doi.org.ucd.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemeth, C. J. (1997). Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review, 40, 59–74. doi:doi.org/10.2307/41165922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborn, A. (1953). Applied imagination. New York, NY: Scribner.Google Scholar
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 76–87. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacramento, C. A, Dawson, J. F., & West, M. A. (2008). Team creativity: More than the sum of its parts? In Mumford, M. D., Hunter, S. T., & Bedell-Avers, K. E. (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues, vol. 7: Multi-level issues in creativity and innovation (pp. 269–287). Bingley, UK: Emerald Books.Google Scholar
Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2006). Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1080–1093. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1080CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2007). Group decision making under conditions of distributed knowledge: The information asymmetries model. Academy of Management Review, 32, 459–479. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.24351441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97–125. doi:10.1037/h0033951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wilde, T. R. W., Ten Velden, F. S., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2017). The neuropeptide oxytocin enhances information sharing and group decision making quality. Nature: Scientific Reports, 7, 40622. doi:10.1038/srep40622Google ScholarPubMed
Greitemeyer, T., Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., & Frey, D. (2006). Information sampling and group decision making: The effects of an advocacy decision procedure and task experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 31–42. doi:10.1037/1076-898x.12.1.31Google ScholarPubMed
Kolb, M. R., & van Swol, L. M. (2016). Manipulating a synchronous or separatist group orientation to improve performance on a hidden profile task. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. doi:10.1177/1368430216647188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, J. R. Jr., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1994). Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 446–461. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightle, J. P., Kagel, J. H., & Arkes, H. R. (2009). Information exchange in group decision making: The hidden profile problem reconsidered. Management Science, 55, 568–581. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1080.0975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, L., Yuan, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2012). Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 54–75. doi:10.1177/1088868311417243CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maciejovsky, B., & Budescu, D. V. (2013). Markets as a structural solution to knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 154–167. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Microsoft. (2016). Microsoft Office Excel.Google Scholar
Nevicka, B., Ten Velden, F. S., De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2011). Reality at odds with perceptions. Psychological Science, 22, 1259–1264. doi:10.1177/ 0956797611417259CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sassenberg, K., Landkammer, F., & Jacoby, J. (2014). The influence of regulatory focus and group vs. individual goals on the evaluation bias in the context of group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 153–164. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.05.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz-Hardt, S., Giersiepen, A., & Mojzisch, A. (2016). Preference-consistent information repetitions during discussion: Do they affect subsequent judgments and decisions? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 41–49. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.01.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz-Hardt, S., & Mojzisch, A. (2012). How to achieve synergy in group decision making: Lessons to be learned from the hidden profile paradigm. European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 305–343. doi:10.1080/10463283.2012.744440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohrab, S. G., Waller, M. J., & Kaplan, S. (2015). Exploring the hidden-profile paradigm: A literature review and analysis. Small Group Research, 46, 489–535. doi:10.1177/1046496415599068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasser, G., Abele, S., & Parsons, S. V. (2012). Information flow and influence in collective choice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 619–635. doi:10.1177/1368430212453631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasser, G., & Davis, J. H. (1981). Group decision making and social influence: A social interaction sequence model. Psychological Review, 88, 523–551. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.6.523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426–434. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 67–78. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304–313. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2003.9682897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasser, G., Vaughan, S. I., & Stewart, D. D. (2000). Pooling unshared information: The benefits of knowing how access to information is distributed among group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 102–116. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Document Foundation. (2017). LibreOffice Calc. Retrieved from www.libreoffice.orgGoogle Scholar
Thürmer, J. L., Wieber, F., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2015). A self-regulation perspective on hidden-profile problems: If–then planning to review information improves group decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28, 101–113. doi:10.1002/bdm.1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winquist, J. R., & Larson, J. R. Jr. (1998). Information pooling: When it impacts group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 371–377. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brauner, E. (2006). Kodierung transaktiver Wissensprozesse (TRAWIS). Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Wissenstransfer in Interaktionen [Transactive Knowledge Coding System (TRAWIS): A schema for the assessment of knowledge transfer in interactions]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie [Journal of Social Psychology], 37, 99–112. [Available in English from the author] http://dx.doi.org/10.1024/0044-3514.37.2.99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brauner, E. (2002). Transactive knowledge systems in groups and organizations. Habilitationsschrift, Germany: Humboldt-University in Berlin.Google Scholar
Brauner, E., Kauffeld, S., Siem, B. & Buschek, S. (unpublished data). Competencies in transactive knowledge systems in groups of practitioners. Process analyses with the Cassel Competence Grid and Transactive Knowledge Coding (TRAWIS).Google Scholar
Landis, R. D., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996). Socially shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group performance. In Nye, J. L. & Brower, A. M. (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 57–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piontkowski, U., Böing-Messing, E., Hartmann, J., Keil, W., & Laus, F. (2003). Transaktives Gedächtnis, Informationsintegration und Entscheidungsfindung im Medienvergleich [Transactive memory, knowledge integration, and decision making in a comparison of media]. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 15, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1026//1617-6383.15.2.60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stachowski, A. A., Kaplan, S. A., & Waller, M. J. (2009). The benefits of flexible team interaction during crisis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1536–1543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegner, D. M. (1995). A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition, 13, 319–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.1995.13.3.319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegner, D. M., Giuliano, T., & Hertel, P. T. (1985). Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In Ickes, W. I. (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 253–276). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackham, N., Honey, P., & Colbert, M. (1971). Developing interactive skills. Guilsborough, Northants: Wellens Publishing.Google Scholar
Rackham, N., & Morgan, T. (1977). Behaviour analysis in training. Maidenhead, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Book Co Ltd.Google Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1035–1056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1035CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evison, R., & Ronaldson, J. B. (1975). A behaviour category instrument for analysing counselling interactions. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 3(1), 82–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069887508256301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farley, S., Nicolson, R., Rackham, N., Evison, R., & Dawson, J. (2016). The Behaviour in Teams (BIT) approach to providing team process feedback in meetings: A pilot study and research proposal. The Institute of Work Psychology International Conference, June, 23–21, 2016. Sheffield, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Futoran, G. C., Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1989). TEMPO: A time-based system for analysis of group interaction process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(3), 211–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1003_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabelica, C., Van den Bossche, P., De Maeyer, S., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). The effect of team feedback and guided reflexivity on team performance change. Learning and Instruction, 34, 86–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabelica, C., Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 123–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82(1), 11–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.1.11-19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hey, A. H., Pietruschka, S., Bungard, W., & Joens, I. (2000). Feedback as a supporting system for work groups. In Vartiainen, M., Avallone, F., & Anderson, N. (Eds.), 67 Innovative theories, tools, and practices in work and organizational psychology (pp. 125–140). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.Google Scholar
Heyns, R. W., & Zander, A. F. (1953). Observation of group behavior. In Festinger, L. & Katz, D. (Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral sciences (pp. 381–417). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Hughes, A. M., Gregory, M. E., Joseph, D. L., Sonesh, S. C., Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Benishek, L.E., King, H.B., & Salas, E. (2016). Saving lives: A meta-analysis of team training in healthcare. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(9), 1266–1304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000120CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Scott DeRue, D., Barnes, C. M., & Jundt, D. (2013). Functional versus dysfunctional team change: Problem diagnosis and structural feedback for self-managed teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S. (2006). Self‐directed work groups and team competence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(1), 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317905X53237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43(2), 130–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konradt, U., Schippers, M. C., Garbers, Y., & Steenfatt, C. (2015). Effects of guided reflexivity and team feedback on team performance improvement: The role of team regulatory processes and cognitive emergent states. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(5), 777–795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1005608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leshed, G., Perez, D., Hancock, J. T., Cosley, D., Birnholtz, J., Lee, S., McLeod, P. L., & Gay, G. (2009). Visualizing real-time language-based feedback on teamwork behavior in computer-mediated groups. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 537–546). ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
London, M., & Sessa, V. I. (2006). Group feedback for continuous learning. Human Resource Development Review, 5(3), 303–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484306290226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4845785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, T., Rackham, N., & Hudson, H. (1974). DIS: Three years on. Industrial and Commercial Training, 6(6), 248–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb003406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackham, N. (1988). SPIN Selling. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rackham, N., & Carlisle, J. (1978a). The effective negotiator-Part I: The Behaviour of Successful Negotiators. Journal of European Industrial Training, 2(6), 6–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb002297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackham, N., & Carlisle, J. (1978b). The effective negotiator-Part 2: Planning for negotiations. Journal of European Industrial Training, 2(7), 2–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb002302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackham, N., Honey, P., & Colbert, M. (1971). Developing interactive skills. Guilsborough, Northants: Wellens Publishing.Google Scholar
Rackham, N., & Morgan, T. (1977). Behaviour analysis in training. Maidenhead, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Book Co Ltd.Google Scholar
Vik, G. N. (2001). Doing more to teach teamwork than telling students to sink or swim. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 112–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/108056990106400413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meneses, R., Ortega, R., Navarro, J., & de Quijano, S. D. (2008). Criteria for assessing the level of group development (LGD) of work groups: Groupness, entitativity, and groupality as theoretical perspectives. Small Group Research, 39, 492–514. doi:10.1177/1046496408319787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navarro, J., Meneses, R., Miralles, C., Moreno, D. I., & Loureiro, V. (2015). What distinguish teams from social aggregates? A tool to assess the group development. Anales de Psicología, 31, 921–929. doi:10.6018/analesps.31.3.183831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems. Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25. doi:10.1002/bs.3830030103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2002). The relation between allocentrism and perceptions of ingroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1528–1537. doi:10.1177/014616702237580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336–355. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.336CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Lickel, B. (1998). Perceiving social groups: The importance of the entitativity continuum. In Sedikides, C. & Schopler, J. (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47–74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–43. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2008). Teamdiagnose und Teamentwicklung [Team diagnosis and team development]. In Jöns, I. (Eds.), Erfolgreiche Gruppenarbeit. Konzepte, Instrumente, Erfahrungen [Successful group work. Concepts, instruments, experiences] (pp. 30–41). Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
Kozlowsky, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lickel, D., Hamilton, D., Lewis, A., Sherman, S., Wieczorkowska, G., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.223CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Meneses, R., & Navarro, J. (2015). ¿Cómo mejorar la eficacia de los equipos a través de los procesos grupales? Un ejemplo en la industria automotriz. [How to improve the effectiveness of teams through group processes? An example in the automotive industry]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 36, 224–229.Google Scholar
Moreland, R. L., & McMinn, J. G. (2004). Entitativity and social integration: Managing beliefs about the reality of groups. In Yzerbyt, V., Judd, C., & Corneille, O. (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 311–325). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Navarro, J., Meneses, R., Nadal, M., & Landsberger, E. (2016). Desarrollo y desempeño en equipos de proyecto: Validez incremental de la escala de desarrollo grupal [Team development and team performance: Incremental validity of the group development scale]. Anuario de Psicología, 46, 8–16. doi:10.1016/j.anpsic.2016.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherif, M. (1967). Social interaction. Process and products. Selected papers by Muzafer Sherif. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. (2005). Team Diagnostic Survey. Development of an instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 373–398. doi:10.1177/0021886305281984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, M., & Lyubovnikova, J. (2012). Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landscape needs a better map. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 25–28. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01397.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheelan, S., Davidson, B., & Tilin, F. (2003). Group development across time: Reality or illusion?. Small Group Research, 34, 223–245. doi:10.1177/1046496403251608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheelan, S., & Hochberger, J. (1996). Validation studies of the group development questionnaire. Small Group Research, 27, 143–170. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.55.3.179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheelan, S. A. (1994). Group processes: A development perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Wheelan, S. A., Verdi, A. F., & McKeage, R. (1994). The group development observation system: Origins and application. Philadelphia, PA: PEP Press.Google Scholar
Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Küfner, A. C. P., & Back, M. (2016). PILS – Personality Interaction Laboratory Study. Retrieved January 1, 2018, from osf.io/q5zwp.Google Scholar
Back, M. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2010). The Social Relations Model: How to understand dyadic processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 855–870. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00303.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Back, M. D., & Nestler, S. (2016). Accuracy of judging personality. In Hall, J. A., Mast, M. Schmid, & West, T. V. (Eds.). The social psychology of perceiving others accurately (pp. 98–124). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316181959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2009). Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 533–548. doi:10.1037/a0016229CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakeman, R. (2000). Behavioral observation and coding. In Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 138–159). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996481Google Scholar
Bettencourt, B. A., Talley, A., Benjamin, A. J., & Valentine, J. (2006). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 751–777. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.751CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. (2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 599–614. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.599CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cairns, R. B., & Green, J. A. (1979). How to assess personality and social patterns: Observations or ratings. In Cairns, R. B. (Ed.), The analysis of social interactions: Methods, issues, and illustrations (pp. 209–226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cuperman, R., & Ickes, W. (2009). Big Five predictors of behavior and perceptions in initial dyadic interactions: Personality similarity helps extraverts and introverts, but hurts “disagreeables.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (4), 667. doi:10.1037/a0015741CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1977). Facial action coding system. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Funder, D. C., Furr, R. M., & Colvin, C. R. (2000). The Riverside Behavioral Q-sort: A tool for the description of social behavior. Journal of Personality, 68, 451–489. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furr, R. M., & Funder, D. C. (2009). Behavioral observation. In Robins, R. W., Fraley, C., & Krueger, R. F. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 273–291). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Geukes, K., Breil, S. M., Hutteman, R., Nestler, S., Küfner, A. C. P., & Back, M. D. (2017). Explaining the longitudinal interplay of personality and social relationships in the laboratory and in the field: The PILS and CONNECT study. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Geukes, K., Hutteman, R., Nestler, S., Küfner, A. C. P., & Back, M. (2016, August 24). CONNECT. Retrieved February 16, 2018, from osf.io/2pmcrGoogle Scholar
Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Hutteman, R., Dufner, M., Küfner, A. C. P., Egloff, B., Denissen, J. J. A., & Back, M. D. (2017). Puffed up but shaky selves: State self-esteem level and variability in narcissists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 769–786. doi:10.1037/pspp0000093CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Hutteman, R., Küfner, A. C. P., & Back, M. D. (2017). Trait personality and state variability: Predicting individual differences in within- and cross-context fluctuations in affect, self-evaluations, and behavior in everyday life. Journal of Research in Personality, 69, 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Küfner, A. C. P., & Back, M. (2016, July 1). PILS – Personality Interaction Laboratory Study. Retrieved February 16, 2018, from osf.io/q5zwpGoogle Scholar
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kirschbaum, C., Pirke, K. M., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1993). The ‘Trier Social Stress Test’—a tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology, 28, 76–81. doi:10.1159/000119004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leckelt, M., Küfner, A. C., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2015). Behavioral processes underlying the decline of narcissists’ popularity over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109 (5), 856–871. doi:10.1037/pspp0000057CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leising, D., & Bleidorn, W. (2011). Which are the basic meaning dimensions of observable interpersonal behavior? Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 986–990. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nestler, S., Grimm, K. J., & Schönbrodt, F. D. (2015). The social consequences and mechanisms of personality: How to analyse longitudinal data from individual, dyadic, round-robin, and network designs. European Journal of Personality, 29, 272–295. doi:10.1002/per.1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In Grove, W. M. & Ciccetti, D. (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Vol. 2. Personality and psychopathology (pp. 89–113). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Humbad, M. N., Donnellan, M. B., Klump, K. L., & Burt, S. A. (2011). Development of the Brief Romantic Relationship Interaction Coding Scheme (BRRICS). Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 759–769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025216CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burt, S. A., Wildey, M. N., & Klump, K. L. (2015). The quality of the interparental relationship does not moderate the etiology of child conduct problems. Psychological Medicine, 45, 319–332. doi:10.1017/S003329171400138XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughlin, J. P., Huston, T. L., & Houts, R. M. (2000). How does personality matter in marriage? An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 326–336. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.326CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chow, C. M., & Ruhl, H. (2018). Congruity of observed social support behaviors and couple relationship quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 62–71. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, A., Eldridge, K., Catta-Preta, A. B., Lim, V. R., Santagata, R. (2006). Cross-cultural consistency of the demand/withdraw interaction pattern in couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1029–1044. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00311.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2006). Relationship satisfaction. In Vangelisti, A. L. & Perlman, D. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp. 579–594). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspective: The Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale. Child Development, 63, 558–572. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01646.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyman, R. E. (2004). Rapid Marital Interaction Coding System (RMICS). In Kerig, P. K. & Baucom, D. H. (Eds.), Couple observational coding systems (pp. 67–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Julien, D., Markman, H. J., & Lindahl, K. M. (1989). A comparison of global and microanalytic coding systems: Implications for future trends in studying interactions. Behavioral Assessment, 11, 81–100. doi:10.1007/BF00962701Google Scholar
Labreton, J. M., Burgess, J. R. D., Kaiser, R. B., Atchley, E. K., & James, L. R. (2003). Variance hypothesis and interrater reliability and agreement: Are ratings from multiple sources really dissimilar? Organizational Research Methods, 6, 80–128. doi:10.1177/1094428102239427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28. doi:10.2307/350547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, R. L., & Tolman, A. O. (1990). The Marital Interaction Coding System – Global (MICS-G): A global companion to the MICS. Behavioral Assessment, 12, 271–294.Google Scholar
Wildey, M. N., Donnellan, M. B., Klump, K. L., & Burt, S. A. (submitted). Using multiple methods to evaluate associations between externalizing psychopathology, personality, and relationship quality: A replication and extension. Journal of Personality Disorders.Google Scholar
Ericson, P. M., & Rogers, L. E. (1973). New procedures for analyzing relational communication. Family Process, 12, 245–267. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1973.00245.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, V., & Rogers, L. E. (2004). Analyzing relational communication. In Rogers, L. E. & Escudero, V. (Eds.), Relational communication: An interactional perspective to the study of process and form. (pp. 3–21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Friedlander, M. L., & Heatherington, L. (1989). Analyzing relational control in family therapy interviews. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 139–148. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.36.2.139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, L. E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Relational communication analysis: New measurement procedures. Human Communication Research, 1, 222–239. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00270.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayers, J., & Miura, S. Y. (1981). Construct and predictive validity of instruments for coding relational control. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York, NY: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Cecil, D. W., & von Friederichs-Fitzwater, M. (2004). Relational control in physician-patient interaction. In Rogers, L. E. & Escudero, V. (Eds.), Relational communication: An interactional perspective to the study of process and form (pp. 179–195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Erchul, W. P. (1978). A relational communication analysis of control in school consultation. Professional School Psychology, 2, 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairhurst, G. T. (2004). Organizational relational control research: Problems and possibilities. In Rogers, L. E. & Escudero, V. (Eds.), Relational communication: An interactional perspective to the study of process and form (pp. 197–215). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Friedlander, M. L. (1993). Does complementarity promote or hinder client change in brief therapy? A review of the evidence from two theoretical perspectives. The Counseling Psychologist, 21, 457–486. doi:10.1177/0011000093213010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedlander, M. L., Siegel, S. M., & Brenock, K. (1989). Parallel processes in counseling and supervision: A case study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 149–157. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.36.2.149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedlander, M. L., Wildman, J., & Heatherington, L. (1991). Interpersonal control in structural and Milan systemic family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 395–408. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1991.tb00909.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaul, R., Simon, L., Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., & Cutler, C. (1991). Correspondence of family therapists’ perceptions with FRCCCS coding rules for triadic interactions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 379–393. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1991.tb00908.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heatherington, L. (1988). Coding relational control in counseling: Criterion validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1987). Family Relational Communication Control Coding System. Unpublished manuscript. Williams College, Williamstown, MA.Google Scholar
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1990). Complementarity and symmetry in family therapy communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 261–268. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.37.3.261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (2004). From dyads to triads, and beyond: Relational control in individual and family therapy. In Rogers, L. E. & Escudero, V. (Eds.), Relational communication: An interactional perspective to the study of process and form (pp. 103–129). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Muñiz de la Peña, C., Friedlander, M. L., Escudero, V., & Heatherington, L. (2012). How do therapists ally with adolescents in family therapy? An examination of relational control communication in early sessions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 339–351. doi:10.1037/a0028063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, L. E. (1979). Relational communication control coding manual. (Available from L. E. Rogers, Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112).Google Scholar
Rogers, L. E., & Escudero, V. (Eds.) (2004a). Relational communication: An interactional perspective to the study of process and form. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rogers, L. E., & Escudero, V. (2004b). Relational communication patterns in marital interaction. In Rogers, L. E. & Escudero, V. (Eds.), Relational communication: An interactional perspective to the study of process and form (pp. 83–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rogers, L. E., & Millar, F. (1979). Domineeringness and dominance: A transactional view. Human Communication Research, 5, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S. M., Friedlander, M. L., & Heatherington, L. (1992). Nonverbal relational control in family communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 117–139. doi:10.1007/BF00990326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, S. R., Hills, H. I., Kilmartin, C. T., DeVries, H., Lanier, K., Nelson, B. N., … Meyer, C. W. III, (1988). The dynamic relations among interpersonal behaviors: A test of complementarity and anticomplementarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 789–810. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.798CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal basis of psychiatry. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Tracey, T. J., Heck, E. J., & Lichtenberg, J. W. (1981). Role expectations and symmetrical/complementary therapeutic relationships. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 18, 338–344. doi:10.1037/h0088384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiles, W. B. (1992). Describing talk: A taxonomy of verbal response modes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Anderson, T., Knobloch-Fedders, L., Stiles, W. B., Ordonez, T., & Heckman, B. D. (2012). The power of subtle interpersonal hostility in psychodynamic psychotherapy: A speech acts analysis. Psychotherapy Research, 22, 348–362. doi:10.1080/10503307.2012.658097CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bales, R. F. Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.Google Scholar
Cansler, D. C., & Stiles, W. B. (1981). Relative status and interpersonal presumptuousness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 459–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cape, J. D., & Stiles, W. B. (1998). Verbal exchange structure of general practice consultations with patients presenting psychological problems. Journal of Health Psychology, 3, 5–21. doi:10.1177/135910539800300101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caro, I. (1993). Actos de habla de pacientes y terapeutas: Un análisis de la terapia lingüística de evaluación a través de los Modos de Respuesta Verbal [Patients’ and therapists’ speech acts: The linguistic therapy of evaluation analyzed through the Verbal Response Modes]. In Caro, I. (Ed.), Psicoterapia e investigación de procesos [Psychotherapy and process research]. Valencia, Spain: Promolibro (Colección de Psicología Teorética).Google Scholar
Caro, I., & Stiles, W. B. (1997). Vamos a traducir los MRV (let’s translate the VRM): Linguistic and cultural inferences drawn from translating a verbal coding system from English into Spanish. Psychiatry, 60, 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, R., Hill, C. E., Stiles, W. B., Friedlander, M. L., Mahrer, A. R., & Margison, F. R. (1987). Primary therapist response modes: Comparison of six rating systems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 218–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, G., & Dooley, D. (1976). A framework for help-intended interpersonal communication. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 13, 106–117. doi:10.1037/h0088322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henricks, W. H., & Stiles, W. B. (1989). Verbal processes on psychological radio call-in programs: Comparison with other help-intended interactions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20, 315–321. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.20.5.315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinkle, S., Stiles, W. B., & Taylor, L. A. (1988). Verbal processes in a labour/management negotiation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 123–136. doi:10.1177/0261927X8800700203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meeuwesen, L. (Ed. and Trans.) (1984). Handleiding voor een taxonomie van verbale antwoordwijzen: Een beschrijving en bewerking van Stiles “Verbal Response Modes (V.R.M.)”. Vakgroep Klinische Psychologie, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Meeuwesen, L., Schaap, C., & van der Staak, C. (1991). Verbal analysis of physician-patient communication. Social Science & Medicine, 32, 1143–1150. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(91)90091-PCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, N. L., & Stiles, W. B. (1986). Verbal familiarity in American presidential nomination acceptance speeches and inaugural addresses (1920–1981). Social Psychology Quarterly, 49, 72–81. doi:10.2307/2786858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlinsky, D. E., Grawe, K., & Parks, B. K. (1994). Process and outcome in psychotherapy – Noch einmal. In Bergin, A. E. & Garfield, S. L. (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th edn., pp. 270–376). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Shaikh, A., Knobloch, L. M., & Stiles, W. B. (2001). The use of a verbal response mode coding system in determining patient and physician roles in medical interviews. Health Communication, 13, 49–60. doi:10.1207/S15327027HC1301_05CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stiles, W. B. (1978a). Manual for a taxonomy of verbal response modes. Chapel Hill: Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Stiles, W. B. (1978b). Verbal response modes and dimensions of interpersonal roles: A method of discourse analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiles, W. B. (1981). Classification of intersubjective illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 10, 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiles, W. B. (1986). Development of taxonomy of verbal response modes. In Greenberg, L. S. & Pinsof, W. M. (Eds.), The psychotherapeutic process: A research handbook (pp. 161–199). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Stiles, W. B., Lyall, L. M., Knight, D. P., Ickes, W., Waung, M., Hall, C. L., & Primeau, B. E. (1997). Gender differences in verbal presumptuousness and attentiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 759–772. doi:10.1177/0146167297237009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiles, W. B., & Shapiro, D. A. (1995). Verbal exchange structure of brief psychodynamic-interpersonal and cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 15–27. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.63.1.15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stiles, W. B., Shapiro, D. A., & Firth-Cozens, J. A. (1988). Verbal response mode use in contrasting psychotherapies: A within-subjects comparison. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 727–733.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stiles, W. B., Shuster, P. L., & Harrigan, J. A. (1992). Disclosure and anxiety: A test of the fever model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 980–988. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.980CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stiles, W. B., Walz, N. C., Schroeder, M. A. B., Williams, L. L., & Ickes, W. (1996). Attractiveness and disclosure in initial encounters of mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Social and Personal Relations, 13, 305–314. doi:10.1177/0265407596132009CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×