Utility Importance of groups Importance of communications as an integral part of computing systems Interpersonal computing is a growth area in computer systems Groups are important, but not perfect Unaided groups don't live up to their potential Current technology constrains what groups can do Science Lewin: Nothing is as practical as a good theory Reversed: Nothing generates theory as a well as useful application Malone: Challenge is to develop general theories of coordination that transcend type of actor Both goals require an interdisciplinary enterprise Computer Supported Cooperative Work as Sub-field in CHI

Way to pool resources to tackle problems that are too large or complex for an individual to solve Effort - e.g., construction gang, large software development projects Expertise - e.g., teaching this course, executive team Interests - e.g., school board, Congress Perspective/Point of view - e.g., human subjects review board In many task groups do better than the individuals comprising them E.g., Learning Interacting groups learn concepts more quickly and use different strategies (e.g focus) Students often learn better thru cooperative learning teams in schools than through individual instruction Mechanisms for why groups are better than individuals Aggregation of resources -- energy, ideas, points of view, etc Error checking Cognitive division of labor (e.g., in learning tasks, group is able to hold the hypotheses tried and their outcomes Synergy Groups are valuable

Building information systems that help groups of people accomplish their goals Applying knowledge from Computer science Telecommunications Organizational behavior Small group research Individual cognition and motivation Task domains But the reference disciplines are inadequate to the task & the practitioners don't look deeply enough Understanding the “impact” of information systems on the way groups work, play, & live What is CSCW

What is CSCW (conceptual)

Core social science knowledge relevant to CSCWdesign Much CSCW design is ad hoc, based on personal experiences & limited observation (e.g., contextual inquiry) This approach ignores a wealth of relevant core social science knowleged –Small group tradition in social psychology Context-less group. IPO framework Small theories of relevant phenomena –Not A THEORY of the group –Social psychology tradition in organizational behavior Teams in organizational context –What can the theory offer? Identifies leverage points Insight into design solutions But not a blueprint for design

Case 1: Social loafing People work less hard when they are working together than working alone or side-by-side –Physical tasks –Cognitive tasks

Karau & Williams, 1997 Subject perform a brainstorming task, working side-by-side Vary individual vs. collective work Individual: Put ideas in separate boxes Collective: Put ideas in common box Vary group cohesion Friends vs strangers Vary perceived ability of others in groups Low: “I’m lousy at this type of task” High: Irrelevant comments or “I’m generally good at this type of task” Karau, S. & Williams, K. The Effects of Group Cohesiveness on Social Loafing and Social Compensation Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. June 1997 Vol. 1, No. 2,

Social loafing reduced if Task is attractive Task is simple Group is attractive Individual's output is visible Expect others to perform poorly Own contribution is unique Research is done in field setting Individual is socialized to be altruistic (?): Women, eastern cultures, young children Theory must account for these facts about social loafing

Individual effort Individual performance Group performance Group outcomes Individual outcomes Valance of outcome Motivational force X= Individual effort Individual performance Individual outcomes Assumption that individuals work to the extent that they think their effort will lead to some valued outcome Being in a group may shift beliefs about the necessity of one's output, the efficacy of one's output, and the desirability of the outcome Social loafing: The theory

Exercise On the Internet, people under- contribute resources to the “groups” they belong to –Amazon reviews –Posts to bboards on listservs (10/1 lurker to poster ratios) –Free-riding on Napsters/Gnetella (70% share no songs; top 1% of sites deliver 30% of song) Given what you know about social loafing, are there any design changes you can make that would lower the free-riding rates? Concretely, redesign

Applying the theory to design Discussion

How would you handle: Who can join: –Screen on domain expertise –Prior relationships What can get talked about: Moderation vs. lack of moderation How should people be identified: Anonymity vs. aliases vs. real identities How large can the group get? –Unlimited vs. capping vs. splitting

How would you exploit: Identifiability? Attractiveness of task? Attractiveness of group? Group size? Uniqueness of contribution? Expectation that others will perform poorly? Self-selection?

Social science typical shows bivariate (or low order) relationships among variables, all else being equal Design demands understanding the complex of relationships Implications Need for intellectual tools for modeling/simulating complex systems. (But there is a problem is testing the models) Current social science provides inspiration, but no simple heuristic for translation to design Why isn’t the theory more useful?

CSCW tool is attempting to optimize multiple outcomes simultaneously Each desired outcome is multiply caused Each system feature may have effects on multiple psychological states and group processes System features Psychological states/ Group process Desired outcomes F1 F2 S1 S2 O1 O2 Inherent difficulties in applying group theory to design