skip to main content
10.1145/2531602.2531681acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Teammate inaccuracy blindness: when information sharing tools hinder collaborative analysis

Published: 15 February 2014 Publication History

Abstract

Asynchronous collaborative analysis is important in many fields, but information sharing can be a bottleneck. Tools for annotating, organizing, and summarizing information can help, but their value will likely depend on the accuracy of teammates' information. To document this claim, two experiments examined participants' performance on a complex detective task when they asynchronously received information from a teammate in a collaboration tool or received no such information. We found that receiving a progress report containing accurate information was associated with improved performance (vs. no information shared in a tool) but worse performance when the information was inaccurate. Teammates were evaluated as helpful even when they were not. Our findings point to a phenomenon of teammate inaccuracy blindness that arises when teammates provide inaccurate information. We propose some strategies for helping collaborators avoid or lessen this effect.

References

[1]
Abrams, D., M. Wetherell, S. Cochrane, M.A. Hogg, J.C. Turner. 1990. Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology 29, (1990), 97--119.
[2]
Balakrishnan, A.D., Fussell, S.R., and Kiesler, S. Do visualizations improve synchronous remote collaboration? In Proc. of CHI 2008, (2008), 1227--1236.
[3]
Bier, E.A., Card, S.K., and Bodnar, J.W. Entity-based collaboration tools for intelligence analysis. Visual Analytics Science and Technology, 2008. VAST'08. IEEE Symposium, (2008), 99--106.
[4]
Bruns, H. Working alone together. Coordination in collaboration across domains of expertise. Academy of Management Journal 56, 1 (2013), 62--83.
[5]
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4 (1973), 55--81.
[6]
Chung, H., Yang, S., Massjouni, N., Andrews, C., Kanna, R., and North, C. VizCept: Supporting synchronous collaboration for constructing visualizations in intelligence analysis. Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST), 2010 IEEE Symposium on, IEEE (2010), 107--114.
[7]
Cross, R., & Baird, L. Technology is not enough: Improving performance by building organizational memory. Sloan Management Review (Spring), (2000), 69--78.
[8]
Fisher, K., Counts, S., Kittur, A., and Ave, F. Distributed sensemaking : Improving sensemaking by leveraging the efforts of previous users. Proc. of CHI 2012, ACM Press (2012), 247--256.
[9]
Furtadoa, V., Ayresa, L, de Oliveirac, M., Vasconcelosb, E., Caminhaa, C., D'Orleansa, J., and Belchiora, M. Collective intelligence in law enforcement - The WikiCrimes system. Information Sciences 180, 1 (2010), 4--17.
[10]
Goyal, N., Leshed, G., and Fussell, S. Effects of visualization and note-taking on sensemaking and analysis. In Proc. of CHI 2013. ACM (2013), 2721--2724.
[11]
Hackman, J.R. Collaborative intelligence: Using teams to solve hard problems. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, (2011).
[12]
Hansen, D. L., Schone, P. J., Corey, D., Reid, M., & Gehring, J. Quality control mechanisms for crowdsourcing: peer review, arbitration, & expertise at familysearch indexing. In Proc. CSCW 2013, ACM Press (2013), 649--660.
[13]
Heer, J., Viégas, F.B., and Wattenberg, M. Voyagers and voyeurs: Supporting asynchronous collaborative visualization. Communications of the ACM 52, 1 (2009), 87--97.
[14]
Janis, I. L. Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, (1972).
[15]
Kane, A. A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes 96, 1 (2005), 56--71.
[16]
Kang, R. and Kiesler, S. Do collaborators' annotations help or hurt asynchronous analysis? In Proc. CSCW 2012, ACM Press (2012), 123--126.
[17]
Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., and Haider, H. Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25, (1999), 1534--1555.
[18]
Laughlin, P.R., B.L. Bonner, A.G. Miner, P.J. Carnevale. Frames of reference in quantity estimations by groups and individuals. Organanizatioal Behavior and Human Decision Processes 80, 2 (1999), 103--117.
[19]
Laughlin, P.R., A.L. Ellis. Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22, 3 (1986), 177--189.
[20]
Lojeski, K.S., Reilly, R., and Dominick, P. The role of virtual distance in innovation and success. Proc. Conf on System Sciences (HICSS'06), (2006), 25c--25c.
[21]
McCaffrey, T. Innovation relies on the obscure: A key to overcoming the classic problem of functional fixedness. Psychological Science 23, 3 (2012), 215--218.
[22]
Mednick, S. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review 69, 3 (1962), 220.
[23]
Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. and DeChurch, L.A. Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 94, 2 (2009), 535.
[24]
Munro, A.J., Höök, K., and Benyon, D.R. Personal and social navigation of information space. Springer-Verlag London, (1999).
[25]
Nickerson, R. S. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2 (1998),175--220.
[26]
Nobarany, S., Haraty, M., & Fisher, B. Facilitating the reuse process in distributed collaboration: a distributed cognition approach. In Proc. of CSCW 2012, ACM Press (2012), 1223--1232.
[27]
Pioch, N.J. and Everett, J.O. POLESTAR: collaborative knowledge management and sensemaking tools for intelligence analysts. Proceedings of the 15th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, ACM (2006), 513--521.
[28]
Pirolli, P. and Card, S. The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, (2005), 2--4.
[29]
Pirolli, P. and Russell, D.M. Introduction to special issue on sensemaking. Human Computer Interaction, (2011), 1--8.
[30]
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 2 (2003), 240--267.
[31]
Ren, Y. and Argote, L. Transactive memory systems 1985--2010 : An integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Annals 5, 1 (2011), 189--229.
[32]
SAS Knowledge Base Two-Factor Logistic Model Using Dummy and Effects Coding http://support.sas.com/kb/24/447.html#ex3
[33]
Stasko, J., Goerg, C., and Liu, Z. Jigsaw: Supporting investigative analysis through interactive visualization. Information Visualization 7, 2 (2008), 118--132.
[34]
Stokes, M.E., David, C. S., Koch, G. G. Categorical data analysis using the SAS system (2nd Ed). Cary, NC: SAS.
[35]
Tindale, R. S., Smith, C. M., Dykema-Engblade, A., and Kluwe, K. Good and bad group performance: Same processes--different outcomes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 15, (2012), 603--618.
[36]
Towne, W. B., Kittur, A., Kinnaird, P., & Herbsleb, J. Your process is showing: controversy management and perceived quality in wikipedia. In Proc. of CSCW 2013, ACM Press (2013), 1059--1068.
[37]
Weng, C. and Gennari, J.H. Asynchronous collaborative writing through annotations. In Proc. of CSCW 2004, ACM (2004), 578--581.
[38]
Wright, D. B., & Mathews, S. A., & Skagerberg, E.M. Social recognition memory: The effect of other people's responses for previously seen and unseen items. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 11, 3 (2005), 200--209.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)"How fancy you are to make us use your fancy tool": Coordinating Individuals' Tool Preference over Group BoundariesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36330698:GROUP(1-31)Online publication date: 16-Feb-2024
  • (2023)Intelligence Analysis Shift Work: Sensemaking Processes, Tensions, and TakeawaysProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting10.1177/2169506723119256967:1(741-746)Online publication date: 25-Oct-2023
  • (2023)CoSINT: Designing a Collaborative Capture the Flag Competition to Investigate MisinformationProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3563657.3595997(2551-2572)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Teammate inaccuracy blindness: when information sharing tools hinder collaborative analysis

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CSCW '14: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing
    February 2014
    1600 pages
    ISBN:9781450325400
    DOI:10.1145/2531602
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 15 February 2014

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. asynchronous collaboration
    2. collaborative analysis
    3. groups
    4. information sharing
    5. problem solving
    6. sensemaking
    7. teams

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    CSCW'14
    Sponsor:
    CSCW'14: Computer Supported Cooperative Work
    February 15 - 19, 2014
    Maryland, Baltimore, USA

    Acceptance Rates

    CSCW '14 Paper Acceptance Rate 134 of 497 submissions, 27%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 2,235 of 8,521 submissions, 26%

    Upcoming Conference

    CSCW '25

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)10
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 27 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)"How fancy you are to make us use your fancy tool": Coordinating Individuals' Tool Preference over Group BoundariesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36330698:GROUP(1-31)Online publication date: 16-Feb-2024
    • (2023)Intelligence Analysis Shift Work: Sensemaking Processes, Tensions, and TakeawaysProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting10.1177/2169506723119256967:1(741-746)Online publication date: 25-Oct-2023
    • (2023)CoSINT: Designing a Collaborative Capture the Flag Competition to Investigate MisinformationProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3563657.3595997(2551-2572)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2023
    • (2023)CrowdIDEA: Blending Crowd Intelligence and Data Analytics to Empower Causal ReasoningProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3581021(1-17)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
    • (2023)Advice in Crisis: Principles of Organizational and Entrepreneurial ResilienceJournal of Organization Design10.1007/s41469-022-00128-411:4(145-168)Online publication date: 17-Jan-2023
    • (2021)Supporting Collaborative Sequencing of Small Groups through Visual AwarenessProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/34492505:CSCW1(1-29)Online publication date: 22-Apr-2021
    • (2019)Dropping the Baton?Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/33592383:CSCW(1-26)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2019
    • (2019)Collaborative Practices with Structured DataProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3290605.3300330(1-14)Online publication date: 2-May-2019
    • (2018)Inaccuracy Blindness in Collaboration Persists, even with an Evaluation PromptProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3173574.3174068(1-9)Online publication date: 21-Apr-2018
    • (2017)Intelligent Interruption Management using Electro Dermal Activity based Physiological Sensor for Collaborative SensemakingProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/31309171:3(1-21)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2017
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media