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-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:37:56.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - History of Group Interaction Research

from Part I - Background and Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2018

By
Simone Kauffeld  and
Annika L. Meinecke
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. 20 - 42
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

Argote, L., Turner, M. E., & Fichman, M. (1989). To centralize or not to centralize: The effects of uncertainty and threat on group structure and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 58–74. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(89)90058-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950a). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950b). A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction. American Sociological Review, 15, 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1953). The equilibrium problem in small groups. In Parsons, T. C., Bales, R. F., & Shils, E. A. (Eds.), Working papers in the theory of action (pp. 111–161). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.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
Bales, R. F., & Slater, P. E. (1955). Role differentiation in small decision-making groups. In Parsons, T. (Ed.), Family socialization and interaction process (pp. 259–306). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 485–495. doi:10.1037/h0059886CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ballard, D. I., Tschan, F., & Waller, M. J. (2008). All in the timing: Considering time at multiple stages of group research. Small Group Research, 39, 328–351. doi:10.1177/1046496408317036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavelas, A. (1950). Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22, 725–730. doi:10.1121/1.1906679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. J., Meinecke, A. L., Matsuyama, Y., & Lee, C.-C. (2017). Initiating and maintaining collaborations and facilitating understanding in interdisciplinary group research. Small Group Research, 48, 532–543. doi:10.1177/1046496417721746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker-Beck, U. (1997). Soziale Interaktion in Gruppen: Struktur- und Prozessanalyse [Social interaction in groups: Structure and process analysis]. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker-Beck, U. (2001). Methods for diagnosing interaction strategies: An application to group interaction in conflict situations. Small Group Research, 32, 259–282. doi:10.1177/104649640103200301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41–49. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1948.tb01783.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, D. M. (1967). A thematic approach to the analysis of the task‐oriented, small group. Central States Speech Journal, 18, 285–291. doi:10.1080/10510976709362891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A. (2000). The effect of contributing substantively on perceptions of participation. Small Group Research, 31, 528–553. doi:10.1177/104649640003100502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A. (2001). An information-processing approach to participation in small groups. Communication Research, 28, 275–303. doi:10.1177/009365001028003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A. (2002). The analysis of participation in small groups. Methodological and conceptual issues related to interdependence. Small Group Research, 33, 412–438. doi:10.1177/104649640203300402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1997). Participation in small groups. In Burleson, B. R. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 20 (pp. 227–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Boos, M. (1995). Die sequentielle Strukturierung sozialer Interaktion [The sequential structure of social interaction]. In Langenthaler, W. & Schiepek, G. (Eds.), Selbstorganisation und Dynamik in Gruppen (pp. 209–221). Münster, Germany: LIT.Google Scholar
Boos, M. (1996). Entscheidungsfindung in Gruppen. Eine Prozeßanalyse [Decision-making in groups. A process analysis]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.Google Scholar
Borgatta, E. F. (1962). A systematic study of interaction process scores, peer and self-assessments, personality and other variables. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 65, 219–291.Google ScholarPubMed
Borgatta, E. F., & Bales, R. F. (1953). Interaction of individuals in reconstituted groups. Sociometry, 16, 302–320. doi:10.2307/2785935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgatta, E. F., Couch, A. S., & Bales, R. F. (1954). Some findings relevant to the great man theory of leadership. American Sociological Review, 19, 755–758. doi:10.2307/2087923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brauner, E. (1998). Die Qual der Wahl am Methodenbuffet—oder: Wie der Gegenstand nach der passenden Methode sucht [Hard choice at the buffet of methods—or: How a problem is searching for the appropriate method]. In Ardelt, E., Lechner, H., & Schloegl, W. (Eds.), Neue Gruppendynamik. Theorie und Praxis, Anspruch und Wirklichkeit (pp. 176–193). Göttingen, Germany: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie.Google Scholar
Brauner, E. (2006). Kodierung transaktiver Wissensprozesse (TRAWIS): Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Wissenstransfer in Interaktionen [Transactive knowledge coding system: 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
Brown, T. M., & Miller, C. E. (2000). Communication networks in task-performing groups: Effects of task complexity, time pressure, and interpersonal dominance. Small Group Research, 31, 131–157. doi:10.1177/104649640003100201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buengeler, C. K., Klonek, F. E., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Morency, L.-P., & Poppe, R. (2017). Killer apps: Criteria and interdisciplinary opportunities for developing novel team applications. Small Group Research 48, 591–620. doi:10.1177/1046496417721745CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canary, D. J., Brossmann, B. G., & Seibold, D. R. (1987). Argument structures in decision‐making groups. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 53, 18–37. doi:10.1080/10417948709372710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, L. J. (1929). Experimental sociology: A preliminary note on theory and method. Social Forces, 8, 63–74. doi:10.2307/2570053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapple, E. D. (1942). The measurement of interpersonal behavior. Transactions of the New York Academy of Science, 4, 222–233. doi:10.1111/j.2164-0947.1942.tb00852.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapple, E. D. (1949). The Interaction Chronograph: Its evolution and present application. Personnel, 25, 295–307.Google Scholar
Contractor, N. S., & Su, C. (2012). Understanding groups from a network perspective. In Hollingshead, A. B. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 284–310). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., & Todorova, G. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 571–612. doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.590297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowell, L., & Scheidel, T. M. (1961). Categories for analysis of idea development in discussion groups. The Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 155–168. doi:10.1080/00224545.1961.9919360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabbs, J. M., & Ruback, R. B. (1987). Dimensions of group process: Amount and structure of verbal interaction. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123–169). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fairbairn, C. E. (2016). A nested frailty survival approach for analyzing small group behavioral observation data. Small Group Research, 47, 303–332. doi:10.1177/1046496416648778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, B. A. (1970). Decision emergence: Phases in group decision‐making. Speech Monographs, 37, 53–66. doi:10.1080/03637757009375649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsyth, D. R., & Burnette, J. L. (2005). The history of group research. In Wheelan, S. A. (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice (pp. 3–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Frey, L. R. (1996). Remembering and “re-membering”: A history of theory and research on communication and group decision making. In Hirokawa, R. Y. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Communication and decision making (2nd edn., pp. 19–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furr, R. M. (2009). Personality psychology as a truly behavioural science. European Journal of Personality, 23, 369–401. doi:10.1002/per.724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futoran, G. C., Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1989). TEMPO: A time-based system for analysis of group interaction processes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 211–232. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1003_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilson, L. L., Maynard, M. T., Young, N. C. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hakonen, M. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41, 1313–1337. doi:10.1177/0149206314559946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzales, A. L., Hancock, J. T., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language style matching as a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Communication Research, 37, 3–19. doi:10.1177/0093650209351468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouran, D. S. & Baird, J. E. (1972). An analysis of distributional and sequential structure in problem‐solving and informal group discussions. Speech Monographs, 39, 16–22. doi:10.1080/03637757209375734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, J. D., & Weider‐Hatfield, D. (1978). The comparative utility of three types of behavioral units for interaction analysis. Communication Monographs, 45, 44–50. doi:10.1080/03637757809375950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, K., & Power, C. B. (1999). Gender differences in questions asked during small decision-making group discussions. Small Group Research, 30, 235–256. doi:10.1177/104649649903000205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herndon, B., & Lewis, K. (2015). Applying sequence methods to the study of team temporal dynamics. Organizational Psychology Review, 5, 318–332. doi:10.1177/2041386614538276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewes, D. E., & Poole, M. S. (2012). The analysis of group interaction processes. In Hollingshead, A. B. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 358–385). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1980). A comparative analysis of communication patterns within effective and ineffective decision‐making groups. Communication Monographs, 47, 312–321. doi:10.1080/03637758009376040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1988). Group communication research: Considerations for the use of interaction analysis. In Tardy, C. H. (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and instruments for observing, measuring, and assessing communication processes (pp. 229–245). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Hung, H., & Gatica-Perez, D. (2010). Estimating cohesion in small groups using audio-visual nonverbal behavior. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 12, 563–575. doi:10.1109/TMM.2010.2055233CrossRefGoogle 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 team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130–158. doi:10.1177/1046496411429599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klonek, F. E., Quera, V., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). Coding interactions in Motivational Interviewing with computer-software: What are the advantages for process researchers? Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 284–292. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.034CrossRefGoogle 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-2012-001319CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolbe, M., Strack, M., Stein, A., & Boos, M. (2011). Effective coordination in human group decision making: MICRO-CO: A micro-analytical taxonomy for analysing explicit coordination mechanisms in decision-making groups. In Boos, M., Kolbe, M., Kappeler, P., & Ellwart, T. (Eds.), Coordination in human and primate groups (pp. 199–219). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2015). Advancing research on team process dynamics: Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review, 5, 270–299. doi:10.1177/2041386614533586CrossRefGoogle 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
Landsberger, H. A. (1955). Interaction process analysis of the mediation of labor-management disputes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 552–558. doi:10.1037/h0043533CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leavitt, H. J. (1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 46, 38–50. doi:10.1037/h0057189CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Hung, H., & Keyton, J. (2017). New frontiers in analyzing dynamic group interactions: Bridging social and computer science. Small Group Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1046496417718941CrossRefGoogle 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
Lei, Z., Waller, M. J., Hagen, J., & Kaplan, S. (2016). Team adaptiveness in dynamic contexts: Contextualizing the roles of interaction patterns and in-process planning. Group & Organization Management, 41, 491–525. doi:10.1177/1059601115615246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2012). A history of small group research. In Kruglanski, A. W. & Stroebe, W. (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 383–405). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Löfstrand, 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, 291–297. doi:10.1080/03637757509375904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, R. D. (1961). Dimensions of individual performance in small groups under task and social-emotional conditions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 674–682. doi:10.1037/h0041180CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathieu, J. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Ilgen, D. R. (2017). A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 452–467. doi:10.1037/apl0000128CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
McGrath, J. E. (1997). Small group research, that once and future field: An interpretation of the past with an eye to the future. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 7–27. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.1.1.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, J. E., & Altermatt, T. W. (2001). Observation and interaction over time: Some methodological and strategic choices. In Hogg, M. A. & Tindale, S. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 525–556). Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 95–105. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, R. A., & Seibold, D. R. (2012). Coding group interaction. In Hollingshead, A. B. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 329–357). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meyers, R. A., Seibold, D. R., & Brashers, D. (1991). Argument in initial group decision‐making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 47–68. doi:10.1080/10570319109374370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. C. (1939). An experiment in the measurement of social interaction in group discussion. American Sociological Review, 4, 341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreland, R. L., Fetterman, J. D., Flagg, J. J., & Swanenburg, K. L. (2010). Behavioral assessment practices among social psychologists who study small groups. In Agnew, C. R., Carlston, D. E., Graziano, W. G., & Kelly, J. R. (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research (pp. 28–53). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, C. G. (1966). Task effects on group interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 545–554. doi:10.1037/h0023897CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newstetter, W. I. (1937). An experiment in the defining and measuring of group adjustment. American Sociological Review, 2, 230–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paletz, S. B. F., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Assessing group-level participation in fluid teams: Testing a new metric. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 522–536. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0070-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among pre-school children. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27, 243–269. doi:10.1037/h0074524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parten, M. B. (1933a). Leadership among preschool children. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27, 430–440. doi:10.1037/h0073032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parten, M. B. (1933b). Social play among preschool children. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 136–147. doi:10.1037/h0073939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Poole, M. S. (1981). Decision development in small groups I: A comparison of two models. Communication Monographs, 48, 1–24. doi:10.1080/03637758109376044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Dobosh, M. (2010). Exploring conflict management processes in jury deliberations through interaction analysis. Small Group Research, 41, 408–426. doi:10.1177/1046496410366310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S., Keyton, J., & Frey, L. (1999). Group communication methodology: Issues and considerations. In Frey, L., Gouran, D., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 92–112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Poole, M. S., McPhee, R. D., & Seibold, D. R. (1982). A comparison of normative and interactional explanations of group decision‐making: Social decision schemes versus valence distributions. Communication Monographs, 49, 1–19. doi:10.1080/03637758209376067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989). Decision development in small groups IV: A typology of group decision paths. Human Communication Research, 15, 323–356. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1989.tb00188.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psathas, G. (1960). Phase movement and equilibrium tendencies in interaction process in psychotherapy groups. Sociometry, 23, 177–194. doi:10.2307/2785681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, G. P. (1979). The lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity in behavioral interaction research. In Osofsky, J. D. (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (pp. 623–649). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Salas, E., Shuffler, M. L., & DiazGranados, D. (2010). Team Dynamics at 35,000 Feet. In Salas, E. & Maurino, D. (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (2nd edn., pp. 249–292). Burlington, MA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, N. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Meetings as networks: Applying social network analysis to team interaction. Communication Methods and Measures, 7, 26–47. doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.760729CrossRefGoogle 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. doi:10.1080/19312458.2011.651346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid Mast, M., Gatica-Perez, D., Frauendorfer, D., Nguyen, L., & Choudhury, T. (2015). Social sensing for psychology: Automated interpersonal behavior assessment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 154–160. doi:10.1177/0963721414560811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, K., Liskin, O., Paulsen, H., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). Media, mood, and meetings: Related to project success? ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 15(4), 21. doi:10.1145/2771440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seibold, D. R., Lemus, D. R., & Kang, P. (2010). Extending the conversational argument coding scheme in studies of argument quality in group deliberations. Communication Methods and Measures, 4, 46–64, doi:10.1080/19312451003680525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stachowski, A. A., Kaplan, S. A., & Waller, M. J. (2009). The benefits of flexible team interaction during crises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1536–1543. doi:10.1037/a0016903CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stech, E. L. (1970). An analysis of interaction structure in the discussion of a ranking task. Speech Monographs, 37, 249–256. doi:10.1080/03637757009375674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinzor, B. (1949). The development and evaluation of a measure of social interaction. Part 1 The development and evaluation for reliability. Human Relations, 2, 103–121. doi:10.1177/001872674900200202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, R. J., Salas, E., & Carson, R. (1994). Individual task proficiency and team process behavior: What’s important for team functioning? Military Psychology, 6, 177–192. doi:10.1207/s15327876mp0603_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talland, G. A. (1955). Tasks and interaction process: Some characteristics of therapeutic group discussion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, 105–109. doi:10.1037/h0046576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, S., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 2–24. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01396.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trujillo, N. (1986). Toward a taxonomy of small group interaction-coding systems. Small Group Research, 17, 371–394. doi:10.1177/104649648601700401Google Scholar
Tschan, F. (2000). Produktivität in Kleingruppen: Was machen produktive Gruppen anders und besser? [Productivity in small groups]. Bern, Switzerland: Hans Huber.Google Scholar
Tschan, F. (2002). Ideal cycles of communication (or cognitions) in triads, dyads, and individuals. Small Group Research, 33, 615–643. doi:10.1177/1046496402238618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Kleij, R., Schraagen, J. M., Werkhoven, P., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2009). How conversations change over time in face-to-face and video-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 40, 355–381. doi:10.1177/1046496409333724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waller, M. J., Gupta, N., & Giambatista, R. C. (2004). Effects of adaptive behaviors and shared mental models on control crew performance. Management Science, 50, 1534–1544. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1040.0210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waller, M. J., Okhuysen, G. A., & Saghafianm, M. (2016). Conceptualizing emergent states: A strategy to advance the study of group dynamics. The Academy of Management Annals, 10, 561–598. doi:10.1080/19416520.2016.1120958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingart, L. R. (1997). How did they do that? The ways and means of studying group processes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 189–239.Google Scholar
Wheelan, S. A., McKeage, R. L., Verdi, A. F., Abraham, M., Krasick, C., & Johnston, F. (1994). Communication and developmental patterns in a system of interacting groups. In Frey, L. R. (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups (pp. 153–180). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wittenbaum, G. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2008). Small-group research in social psychology: Topics and trends over time. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 187–203. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00065.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrightstone, J. W. (1934). An instrument for measuring group discussion and planning. The Journal of Educational Research, 27, 641–650. doi:10.1080/00220671.1934.10880446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoder, P., & Symons, F. (2010). Observational measurement of behavior. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Zijlstra, F. R. H., Waller, M. J., & Phillips, S. I. (2012). Setting the tone: Early interaction patterns in swift-starting teams as a predictor of effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 749–777. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.690399CrossRefGoogle 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
×