2019
DOI: 10.1037/amp0000419
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Teams of psychologists helping teams: The evolution of the science of team training.

Abstract: Team training contributes to improved performance, reduced errors, and even saving lives—and it exists today because psychologists collaborated across domains to contribute their expertise. Our objective was to highlight the salient role of multidisciplinary collaboration in the success of team training, an area driven by psychologists responding to real-world problems. In this article, we deliver (a) a historical account of team training research, acknowledging critical turning points that shaped the science;… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
43
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
1
43
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Third, non-factorable information indicates that information is subadditive, for example, found with economies of scope (e.g., one train can carry both passengers and freight more efficiently than two trains); with risk in an investment portfolio being less than each investment separately [28]; and, with mergers that decrease risk ( [29]; e.g., the United Technologies and Raytheon merger in 2019; in [30]). These findings, agreeing with human team research [31], indirectly suggest that a team's entropy production is separated into structural and operational streams; that is, the more stable and well-fitted is the structure of a team, the less entropy it produces [23], allowing more free energy directed, say, to explore and to find solutions to problems; e.g., patents.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 71%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Third, non-factorable information indicates that information is subadditive, for example, found with economies of scope (e.g., one train can carry both passengers and freight more efficiently than two trains); with risk in an investment portfolio being less than each investment separately [28]; and, with mergers that decrease risk ( [29]; e.g., the United Technologies and Raytheon merger in 2019; in [30]). These findings, agreeing with human team research [31], indirectly suggest that a team's entropy production is separated into structural and operational streams; that is, the more stable and well-fitted is the structure of a team, the less entropy it produces [23], allowing more free energy directed, say, to explore and to find solutions to problems; e.g., patents.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…The movement towards autonomy begins with a return to the whole. We apply two ideas from traditional social science to our concept of autonomous systems: the separation between structure [23] and function [31]. With this separation in mind, we consider whether the separation of the structure of autonomous human-machine participants for a team in their interactions during their performance affords their team an advantage.…”
Section: Discussion Of the Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The participants in teams can be counted, but measuring weight and mass have little impact on team autonomy; and, the entropy of a team’s configurations can be measured as well as the flow of information and energy that produces teamwork, but is that sufficient? Using the transformation of water to ice as an analogy initially showed promise for a system’s reduction of configurational entropy generalized to HMTs (agreeing with [ 5 ]), but it was insufficient, leading us from hurricanes to bio-crystals and living engines to better capture the thermodynamics of teams. However, these methods ignore a chief characteristic of humans: imagination [ 28 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Science has advanced our knowledge of human teams [ 4 ]; from them, first, we know that individuals working interdependently in teams are more productive than the same individuals who comprise an independently working team. From Salas’ research team (i.e., [ 5 ]), second, we know that when survival is at stake, well-trained human teams function most effectively with “interrelated knowledge, skills and attitudes... [but while teams can function] with great efficiency... poor teamwork can have devastating results” (e.g., plane crashes, friendly fire, surgical complications; [ 5 ], p. 279). Third, also from Salas, we know that task-work skills (e.g., a copilot’s duties) should be separated from teamwork skills (e.g., a copilot’s ability to communicate).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Team science is an approach to science involving teams of researchers from different disciplines, with distinct substantive expertise, or with distinct methodological orientations. Team science, particularly across disciplines, has produced increasing knowledge in psychology and the social sciences over the past few decades; it has numerous benefits, including the possibility of addressing complex problems unable to be addressed by individual investigators or disciplines, and the acceleration of the translation of knowledge from laboratory to clinic and community (Bisbey, Reyes, Traylor, & Salas, ; Tebes & Thai, ).…”
Section: Diversity‐science‐informed Guidelines For Research On Race Amentioning
confidence: 99%