Johanne Stege Bjørndahl | Center for Semiotics, Department for Aesthetics and Communication, Aarhus University | The Interacting Minds Centre, Department of Culture and Society, Aarhus University, Denmark | [email protected]
Riccardo Fusaroli | Center for Semiotics, Department for Aesthetics and Communication, Aarhus University | The Interacting Minds Centre, Department of Culture and Society, Aarhus University, Denmark | [email protected]
Kristian Tylén | Center for Semiotics, Department for Aesthetics and Communication, Aarhus University | The Interacting Minds Centre, Department of Culture and Society, Aarhus University, Denmark | [email protected]
Collaborative interaction pervades many everyday practices: work meetings, innovation and product design, education and arts. Previous studies have pointed to the central role of acknowledgement and acceptance for the success of joint action, by creating affiliation and signaling understanding. We argue that various forms of explicit miscommunication are just as critical to challenge, negotiate and integrate individual contributions in collaborative creative activities. Through qualitative microanalysis of spontaneous coordination in collective creative LEGO constructions, we individuate three interactional styles: inclusive, characterized by acknowledgment and praise; instructional, characterized by self-repair; and integrative, characterized by widespread self- and other-repair. We then investigate how different interaction styles leave distinct material traces in the resulting LEGO models. The inclusive interaction style generally results in concatenations of individual contributions with little coherence and core narrative. The instructional style produces coherent, but largely individually driven models. Finally, the integrative style generates more innovative models, synthesizing individual contributions in shared narratives or schemas.
Alac, M., & Hutchins, E. (2004). I see what you are saying: Action as cognition in fMRI brain mapping practice. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3-4), 3–4.
Alibali, M.W., Spencer, R.C., Knox, L., & Kita, S. (2011). Spontaneous gestures influence strategy choices in problem solving. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1138–1144.
Bangerter, A., & Clark, H.H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27(2), 195–225.
Bjørndahl, J.S., Fusaroli, R., Østergaard, S., & Tylén, K. (2014). Thinking together with material representations: Joint epistemic actions in creative problem solving. Cognitive Semiotics, 7(1), 103–123.
Bottger, P.C. (1984). Expertise and air time as bases of actual and perceived influence in problem-solving groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 214.
Brennan, S.E. (2000). Processes that shape conversation and their implications for computational linguistics. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics.
Brennan, S.E., & Schober, M.F. (2001). How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2), 274–296.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E.N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Cahn, J.E., & Brennan, S.E. (1999). A psychological model of grounding and repair in dialog. Paper presented at the
Proc. Fall 1999 AAAI Symposium on Psychological Models of Communication in Collaborative Systems
.
Clark, H.H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H.H., & Brennan, S.E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley (Ed.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Clark, H.H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1–39.
Curhan, J.R., & 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.
Dale, R., Fusaroli, R., Duran, N., & Richardson, D.C. (2013). The self-organization of human interaction. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 591, 43–95.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 392.
Fusaroli, R., Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Rees, G., Frith, C.D., Roepstorff, A., & Tylén, K. (2012). Coming to terms: An experimental quantification of the coordinative benefits of linguistic interaction. Psychological Science, 231, 931–939.
Fusaroli, R., Gangopadhyay, N., & Tylén, K. (2014). The dialogically extended mind: Making a case for language as skilful intersubjective engagement. Cognitive Systems Research, 29–301, 31–39.
Fusaroli, R., Konvalinka, I., & Wallot, S. (2014). Analyzing social interactions: Promises and challenges of cross recurrence quantification analysis. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, 1031, 137–155.
Fusaroli, R., Raczaszek-Leonardi, J., & Tylén, K. (2014). Dialog as interpersonal synergy. New Ideas in Psychology, 321, 147–157.
Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (in press). Investigating conversational dynamics: Interactive alignment, interpersonal synergy, and collective task performance. Cognitive Science.
Galantucci, B., & Roberts, G. (2014). Do we notice when communication goes awry? An investigation of people's sensitivity to coherence in spontaneous conversation. PLoS One, 9(7), e103182.
Garrod, S., & Doherty, G. (1994). Conversation, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition, 53(3), 181–215.
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M.J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(1), 8–11.
Gauntlett, D. (2007). Creative explorations: New approaches to identities and audiences. Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction rituals. Garden City, NY: Aldine Publishing.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.
Hargadon, A.B., & Bechky, B.A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500.
Hutchins, E. (1995a). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hutchins, E. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265–288.
Hutchins, E. (2010). Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 705–715.
Kim, T., Chang, A., Holland, L., & Pentland, A. (2008). Meeting mediator: Enhancing group collaborationusing sociometric feedback. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work.
Koedinger, K.R., Alibali, M.W., & Nathan, M.J. (2008). Trade‐Offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem Solving. Cognitive Science, 32(2), 366–397.
Kurtzberg, T.R., & Amabile, T.M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 285–294.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Marsh, K.L., Richardson, M.J., & Schmidt, R.C. (2009). Social connection through joint action and interpersonal coordination. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11, 320–339.
Michael, J., Bogart, K., Tylén, K., Krueger, J., Bech, M., Rosendahl Østergaard, J., & Fusaroli, R. (2015). Compensatory strategies enhance rapport in interactions involving people with Möbius syndrome.
Mills, G. (2011). The emergence of procedural conventions in dialogue. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston, USA: Cognitive Science Society.
Mills, G. (2014). Dialogue in joint activity: Complementarity, convergence and conventionalization. New Ideas in Psychology, 321, 158–173.
Mills, G., & Healey, P.G.T. (2008). Semantic negotiation in dialogue: The mechanisms of alignment. Proceedings of the 9th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue. Columbus, OH: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Nijstad, B.A., & De Dreu, C.K. (2002). Creativity and group innovation. Applied Psychology, 51(3), 400–406.
Pauhus, P.B., Dzindolet, M.T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L.M. (1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(1), 78–89.
Pickering, M.J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 271, 169–190.
Reich, C.M., Berman, J.S., Dale, R., & Levitt, H.M. (2014). Vocal synchrony in psychotherapy. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 331, 481–494.
Rietzschel, E.F., Nijstad, B.A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 244–251.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S.D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the Computer supported collaborative learning.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 696–735.
Saget, S., & Guyomard, M. (2006). Goal-oriented dialog as a collaborative subordinated activity involving collective acceptance. Brandial’06, 131.
Schegloff, E.A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 101–114.
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 361–382.
Schwartz, D.L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354.
Sutton, R.I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 685–718.
Szary, J., & Dale, R. (2013). Dyadic cooperation enhances retrieval and recall of crossword solutions.
Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
, 3492–3497.
Themistocleous, M., McCabe, R., Rees, N., Hassan, I., Healey, P., & Priebe, S. (2009). Establishing mutual understanding in interaction: An analysis of conversational repair in psychiatric consultations. Communication & Medicine, 6(2), 165–176.
Traum, D.R. (1999). Computational models of grounding in collaborative systems. Paper presented at the Psychological Models of Communication in Collaborative Systems-Papers from the AAAI Fall Symposium.
Tylén, K., & McGraw, J. (2014). Materializing mind: The role of objects in cognition and culture. In M. Gallotti & J. Michael (Eds.), Perspectives on social ontology and social cognition. Springer.
2023. On the social nature of abstraction: cognitive implications of interaction and diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 378:1870
Tylén, Kristian, Riccardo Fusaroli, Sara Møller Østergaard, Pernille Smith & Jakob Arnoldi
2023. The Social Route to Abstraction: Interaction and Diversity Enhance Performance and Transfer in a Rule‐Based Categorization Task. Cognitive Science 47:9
Elder, Chi-Hé & David Beaver
2022. “We’re running out of fuel!”: When does miscommunication go unrepaired?. Intercultural Pragmatics 19:5 ► pp. 541 ff.
Gangopadhyay, Nivedita & Alois Pichler
2021. Texts: A Case Study of Joint Action. SATS 22:2 ► pp. 169 ff.
Roche, Jennifer M., Arkady Zgonnikov & Laura M. Morett
2021. Cognitive Processing of Miscommunication in Interactive Listening: An Evaluation of Listener Indecision and Cognitive Effort. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 64:1 ► pp. 159 ff.
2020. Collaboration. In Encyclopedia of Creativity, ► pp. 161 ff.
McCabe, Rose & Patrick G. T. Healey
2018. Miscommunication in Doctor–Patient Communication. Topics in Cognitive Science 10:2 ► pp. 409 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.