Skilled and Unaware: The Interactive Effects of Team Cognition, Team Metacognition, and Task Confidence on Team Performance

Hamilton, Katherine; Mancuso, Vincent; Mohammed, Susan; Tesler, Rachel; McNeese, Michael D.

doi:10.1177/1555343417731429

Cited by 17 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(109 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This overconfidence bias combined with low SA leads to the worst outcomes. Hamilton et al (2017) present data that partially support this model. They showed that objective and subjective SA each contribute separately to performance.…”

Section: The Combined Effect Of Objective and Subjective Sasupporting

confidence: 67%

“…Sulistyawati et al (2011) found that overconfidence in SA decreased survivability in a military aviation study, with SAGAT scores plus overconfidence bias accounting for 57% of the variance in performance. Hamilton et al (2017) also found that both objective SA and subjective SA were independently relevant for team performance. These studies support Christ, McKeever, and Huff (1994) and Endsley and Jones (1997) who depict objective SA and SA confidence level as working together to affect decision making and performance (Figure 1).…”

Section: The Combined Effect Of Objective and Subjective Samentioning

confidence: 78%

“…In addition to SART, several other subjective SA rating scales have been developed more recently that have been compared with objective measures of SA (Table 3). MARS was found not to be significantly correlated with SAGAT in two studies (Hamilton et al, 2017;Lo, Sehic, Brookhuis, & Meijer, 2016). Other studies found more positive correlations between objective and subjective measures of SA.…”

Section: Other Subjective Metricsmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Other studies examined subjective SA on a simple rating scale and/or a person's confidence in their own SA (Table 2). Subjective SA was shown to be highly correlated with confidence in SA in two studies (Endsley et al, 1998;Hamilton, Mancuso, Mohammed, Tesler, & McNeese, 2017).…”

Section: Confidence In Sa and Subjective Samentioning

confidence: 97%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Divergence of Objective and Subjective Situation Awareness: A Meta-Analysis

Endsley

2019

Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of 37 studies that included both objective and subjective measures of situation awareness (SA) was conducted. Objective and subjective measures of SA were found to diverge across a wide range of measurement techniques. Reasons for these differences include a lack of meta-awareness about one’s own SA, poor SA/confidence calibration, and confounds with workload among some measures. A model that shows how objective and subjective SA combine to affect performance is presented.

show abstract

Section: The Combined Effect Of Objective and Subjective Sasupporting

confidence: 67%

Section: The Combined Effect Of Objective and Subjective Samentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Other Subjective Metricsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Confidence In Sa and Subjective Samentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Divergence of Objective and Subjective Situation Awareness: A Meta-Analysis

Endsley

2019

Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the importance of team information processing during complex and dynamic events has been widely acknowledged (Gutwin & Greenberg, ; Rico et al, ; Roth, Multer, & Raslear, ; Waller, Gupta, & Giambatista, ), research has focused mostly on constructs related to communication or information sharing as emergent states or outcomes of team processes; for example, literature on team situation awareness has suggested that actual situation knowledge interacts with subjective confidence in predicting team functioning in dynamic environments (Hamilton, Mancuso, Mohammed, Tesler, & McNeese, ). Little is known about how multidisciplinary teams process information in order to create a shared understanding of a dynamic situation and make decisions in response to it.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information sharing and decision‐making in multidisciplinary crisis management teams

Uitdewilligen

Waller

2018

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryMultidisciplinary crisis management teams consist of highly experienced professionals who combine their discipline-specific expertise in order to respond to critical situations characterized by high levels of uncertainty, complexity, and dynamism. Although the existing literatures on team information processing and decision-making are mature, research specifically investigating multidisciplinary teams facing crisis situations is limited; however, given increasingly turbulent external environments that produce complex crisis situations, increasing numbers of organizations are likely to call upon multidisciplinary teams to address such events. In this paper, we investigate information processing and decision-making behaviors in an exploratory study of 12 organizational multidisciplinary crisis management teams. We identify three types of information sharing and track the emergence of distinct communicative phases as well as differences between high-and low-performing teams in the occurrence of sequences of information sharing behaviors. We close by discussing implications for research in this area and for managers of crisis management teams.

show abstract

Situational States Influence on Team Workload Demands in Cyber Defense Exercise

Ask

Sütterlin

Knox

et al. 2021

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cyber operations are increasingly automated processes that can occur at computational speed with the intent of reducing, or denying time for good decision making or time to ground communication between human agents. There is a lack of performance measures and metrics in cyber operation settings. One potential setting describing human performance could be emotional stability under stress. Measures of higher individual affective variability indicate more emotional adaptability and allows for measuring individuals as dynamic systems. Previous research in other security-sensitive high-stake situations has shown that individuals with less emotional adaptability display maladaptive behaviors while individuals with more emotional adaptability can adapt more efficiently to changing situations, show more confidence in their own abilities and skills, and display better performance. We hypothesized that measurements of affective variability during a cyber defense exercise will be associated with team workload demands. Data was collected from 13 cadets during the Norwegian Defence Cyber Academy's annual Cyber Defense Exercise. Three indicators of individual affective variability were measured daily with the Self-Assessment Manikin and compared to scores on the Team Workload Questionnaire. We found that affective variability was negatively associated with team workload demands. Participants with higher affective variability, as measured by the Self-Assessment Manikin, will impose less workload demands on the team, which can lead to better outcomes. This is the first study to assess how individual emotional adaptability affects team dynamics in a cyber defense setting. Future research should include variable measurements as they may have better explanatory power for performance measurements.

show abstract

Skilled and Unaware: The Interactive Effects of Team Cognition, Team Metacognition, and Task Confidence on Team Performance

Cited by 17 publications

References 48 publications

The Divergence of Objective and Subjective Situation Awareness: A Meta-Analysis

The Divergence of Objective and Subjective Situation Awareness: A Meta-Analysis

Information sharing and decision‐making in multidisciplinary crisis management teams

Situational States Influence on Team Workload Demands in Cyber Defense Exercise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About