Cover not available
Article published In:
Coordination, Collaboration and Cooperation: Interdisciplinary perspectives
Edited by Federica Amici and Lucas M. Bietti
[Interaction Studies 16:3] 2015
► pp. 553–560

Insights into coordination, collaboration, and cooperation from the behavioral and cognitive sciences

A commentary

| Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Moscow State Linguistic University |

The study of coordination, collaboration, and cooperation brings to the fore a number of questions concerning the cognitive status of the various forms of behaviors that are involved. In this article, we will briefly consider coordination, collaboration, and cooperation in terms of their respective time courses and how they relate to such topics as intentionality, consciousness, role perspective, mental models, and mental simulation. Taken together, the study of coordination, collaboration, and cooperation provides a rich area for interaction between the behavioral and cognitive sciences.

Keywords: intentionality, consciousness, role perspective, mental models, mental simulation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Time scales
  • 3.Interrelations
  • 4.Intentionality
  • 5.Consciousness
  • 6.Perspective
  • 7.Mental simulation and mental models
  • 8.Context
  • Acknowledgement
  • References
Published online: 31 December 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.3.09cie
References
Barsalou, L.W
(1999) Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 221, 577–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B
(2007) Experimental methods for simulation semantics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M.J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp. 277–301). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carver, T., & Pikalo, J
(Eds.) (2008) Political language and metaphor: Interpreting and changing the world. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A
(2007) Frames, idealized cognitive models, domains. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 170–187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M
(1991) Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperPerennial.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J
(1996) Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freedman, N
(1972) The analysis of movement behavior during the clinical interview. In A.W. Siegman & B. Pope (Eds.), Studies in dyadic communication (pp. 153–175). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J
(1990) Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 191, 283–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G., & Schenkein, J
(1977) Some sequential negotiations in conversation: Unexpanded and expanded versions of projected action sequences. Sociology, 11(1), 87–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kappeler, P.M., & van Schaik, C.P
(2006) Cooperation in primates and humans. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Louwerse, M.M., Dale, R., Bard, E.G., & Jeuniaux, P
(2012) Behavior matching in multimodal communication is synchronized. Cognitive Science, 36(8), 1404–1426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandler, G
(2005) The consciousness continuum: From “qualia” to “free will”. Psychological Research, 691, 330–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oben, B
(2015) Modelling interactive alignment: A multimodal and temporal account. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, KU Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S.D (1995) The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G
(2011) Genre between the humanities and the sciences. In M. Callies, W.R. Keller, & A. Lohöfer (Eds.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences (pp. 21–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Filho, Edson
2019. Team Dynamics Theory: Nomological network among cohesion, team mental models, coordination, and collective efficacy. Sport Sciences for Health 15:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Filho, Edson & Gershon Tenenbaum
2020. Team Mental Models. In Handbook of Sport Psychology, ► pp. 611 ff. DOI logo
Hagum, Cathrine Nyhus, Espen Tønnessen, Marie Aarrestad Nesse & Shaher A. I. Shalfawi
2023. A Holistic Analysis of Team Dynamics Using Relational Coordination as the Measure regarding Student Athlete Total Load: A Cross-Sectional Study. Sports 11:5 ► pp. 104 ff. DOI logo
Shi, Yan, Bo Zou & Roberto S. Santos
2021. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: How do academic entrepreneurs deal with identity conflict?. Review of Managerial Science 15:8 ► pp. 2165 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 may 2023. 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.