Nancy Cooke

Team communication content can provide insights into teammates’ coordination processes and perceptions of one another. Using a simulated aircraft reconnaissance team task testbed, we investigate how personifying and objectifying communication content relate to people’s trust in and anthropomorphism of machine teammates and to overall team performance. A total of 44 participants were paired and assigned to one of two unique team roles alongside a synthetic pilot agent. Instances of verbal personifications and objectifications that occurred during the task were captured and compared to team performance, as well as questionnaire responses related to participants’ trust in, and anthropomorphizing of, the synthetic pilot. Verbal personifications were not correlated with trust and anthropomorphism but converged for the two human roles over time, along with a convergence in trust towards the synthetic agent. Verbal objectifications, on the other hand, were negatively correlated with perceived trustworthiness and anthropomorphism of a teammate. Neither verbal personifications nor objectifications were found to be related to team performance. Our findings suggest that people verbally personify machines to ease communication, and that the same processes that underlie tendencies to verbally personify and objectify machines are related to those that influence trust and anthropomorphism.

Artificial social intelligence (ASI) agents have great potential to aid the success of individuals, human–human teams, and human–artificial intelligence teams. To develop helpful ASI agents, we created an urban search and rescue task environment in Minecraft to evaluate ASI agents’ ability to infer participants’ knowledge training conditions and predict participants’ next victim type to be rescued. We evaluated ASI agents’ capabilities in three ways: (a) comparison to ground truth—the actual knowledge training condition and participant actions; (b) comparison among different ASI agents; and (c) comparison to a human observer criterion, whose accuracy served as a reference point. The human observers and the ASI agents used video data and timestamped event messages from the testbed, respectively, to make inferences about the same participants and topic (knowledge training condition) and the same instances of participant actions (rescue of victims). Overall, ASI agents performed better than human observers in inferring knowledge training conditions and predicting actions. Refining the human criterion can guide the design and evaluation of ASI agents for complex task environments and team composition.

Teams are a fundamental aspect of life—from sports to business, to defense, to science, to education. While the cognitive sciences tend to focus on information processing within individuals, others have argued that teams are also capable of demonstrating cognitive capacities similar to humans, such as skill acquisition and forgetting (cf., Cooke, Gorman, Myers, & Duran, 2013; Fiore et al., 2010). As artificially intelligent and autonomous systems improve in their ability to learn, reason, interact, and coordinate with human teammates combined with the observation that teams can express cognitive capacities typically seen in individuals, a cognitive science of teams is emerging. Consequently, new questions are being asked about teams regarding teamness, trust, the introduction and effects of autonomous systems on teams, and how best to measure team behavior and phenomena. In this topic, four facets of human-autonomy team cognition are introduced with leaders in the field providing in-depth articles associated with one or more of the facets: (1) defining teams; (2) how trust is established, maintained, and repaired when broken; (3) autonomous systems operating as teammates; and (4) metrics for evaluating team cognition across communication, coordination, and performance.

Cognition in work teams has been predominantly understood and explained in terms of shared cognition with a focus on the similarity of static knowledge structures across individual team members. Inspired by the current zeitgeist in cognitive science, as well as by empirical data and pragmatic concerns, we offer an alternative theory of team cognition. Interactive Team Cognition (ITC) theory posits that (1) team cognition is an activity, not a property or a product; (2) team cognition should be measured and studied at the team level; and (3) team cognition is inextricably tied to context. There are implications of ITC for theory building, modeling, measurement, and applications that make teams more effective performers.