Skip to main content
Log in

Exploring compatible and incompatible transactions in teams

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports on an exploratory study which set out to explore the role of compatible and incompatible transactions, assimilation, accommodation and contention scheduling in teams by applying schema theory to team communications. Schema theory and in particular the notions of contention scheduling, schema-driven errors and the perceptual cycle model, supports the ideas presented in the distributed situation awareness approach by explaining the way in which previous experience and knowledge amassed by each team member shape their interactions with the world. Understanding the role of schemas and the perceptual cycle model is necessary if the phenomenon of situation awareness is to be exploited positively in the organisation of teams, work and design of socio-technical systems. The findings indicate that team members influence each other’s schemata and that where opposing ideas, or schemata, with regard to what the team ought to do, a process of contention scheduling was applied to establish agreement on a common goal. Team members’ schemata were adapted by the mechanisms of assimilation and accommodation. Schemata were altered as a result of interaction between team members, e.g. their transactions, where each team member tested their ideas on the wider team, thus further developing their understanding of the external environment. These findings indicate that the perceptual cycle model can be scaled up to explain team’s dynamic exploration of, interaction with and adaptation to their environment. Schemata should therefore be explored along with the transactional SA and compatible SA in explaining the emergence of distributed SA in teams.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Artman H, Garbis C (1998) Situation awareness as distributed cognition. In: European conference on cognitive science, 1998 Limerick, Ireland, cognition and cooperation, pp 151–156

  • Bartlett FC (1932) Remembering: a study of experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundy G (1994) Not so friendly fire: considerations for reducing the risk of fratricide newport. Naval War College

  • Dockrell S, O’Grady E, Bennett K, Mullarkey C, Mcconnel R, Ruddy R, Twomey S, Flannery C (2012) An investigation of the reliability of Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) as a method of assessment of children’s computing posture. Appl Ergon 43:632–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grasser AC, Nakamura GV (1982) The impact of schemata on comprehension and memory. In: Bower GH (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jentsch F, Bowers C (2005) Team communication analysis. In: Stanton NA, Hedge A, Brookhuis K, Salas E, Hendrick H (eds) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, pp 50-1–50-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Kylesten B, Nählinder S (2011) The effect of decision-making training: results from a command-and-control training facility. Cogn Technol Work 13(2):93–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone TG, Schapp RE (2002) The “Red Team”. Forging a well-conceived contingency plan. Aerosp Power 16:22–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandler JM (1984) Stories scripts and scenes: aspects of schema theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell R, Nicholas S (2006) Knowledge creation in groups: the value of cognitive diversity, transactive memory, and open-mindedness norms. Electron J Knowl Manag 4:67–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Neisser U (1976) Cognition and reality: principles and implications for cognitive psychology. Freeman, San Fransisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman DA (1981) Categorization of action slips. Psychol Rev 88:1–15

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Norman DA, Shallice T (1986) Attention to action. In: Davidson RJ, Schwartz GE, Shapiro D (eds) Consciousness and self-regulation. Advances in research and theory. Plenum Press, New York, pp 1–18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick J, Ahmed A, Halliday P (2006) Observational assessment of situation awareness: theory and application. Ergonomics 49:393–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J (1961) The genetic approach to the psychology of thought. J Educ Psychol 52:275–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plant KL, Stanton NA (2012) Why did the pilots shut down the wrong engine? Explaining errors in context using schema theory and the perceptual cycle model. Saf Sci 50:300–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plant KL, Stanton NA (2013) The explanatory power of schema theory: theoretical foundations and future applications in ergonomics. Ergonomics 56:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafferty LA, Stanton NA, Walker GH (2012) Human factors of fratricide. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafferty L, Stanton NA, Walker GH (2013) Great expectations: a thematic analysis of situation awareness in fratricide. Saf Sci 56:63–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon PM, Stanton NA, Walker GH, Jenkins DP, Baber C, Mcmaster R (2008) Representing situation awareness in collaborative systems: a case study in the energy domain. Ergonomics 51:367–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon PM, Stanton NA, Walker GH, Baber C, Jenkins DP, Mcmaster R, Young MS (2009) What is really going on? Review of situation awareness models for individuals and teams. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 9:297–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson PM, Verhage AG, Fuld RB (1989) State-space and verbal protocol methods for studying the human operator in process control. Ergonomics 32:1343–1372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shu Y, Furuta K (2005) An inference method of team situation awareness based on mutual awareness. Cognitive model of team cooperation in en-route air traffic control. Cogn Technol Work 7(4):272–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons JE (2003) Managing risks prevents fratricide. Flightfax Army Aviat Risk Manag Inf 31:3

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith K, Hancock PA (1995) Situation awareness is adaptive, externally directed consciousness. Hum Factors 37:137–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soraji Y, Furuta K, Kanno T, Aoyama H, Inoue S, Karikawa D, Takahashi M (2012) Cognitive model of team cooperation in en-route air traffic control. Cogn Technol Work 14(2):93–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton NA, Stammers RB (2008) Bartlett and the future of ergonomics. Ergonomics 51:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Walker GH, Jenkins DP (2006) Distributed situational awareness in dynamic systems: theoretical development and application of an ergonomics methodology. Ergonomics 49:1288–1311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Walker GH, Jenkins DP (2009a) Genotype and phenotype schema and their role in distributed situation awareness in collaborative systems. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 10:43–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Walker GH, Jenkins DP (2009b) Genotype and phenotype schemata as models of situation awareness in dynamic command and control teams. Int J Ind Ergon 39:480–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss R, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker GH, Stanton NA, Chowdhury I (2013) Self explaining roads and situation awareness. Saf Sci 56:18–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner DM (1986) Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of group mind. In: Mullen B, Goethals GR (eds) Theories of group behaviour. Springer, New Youk, pp 185–208

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was undertaken as part of research at the Human Factors Integration Defence Technology Centre and was part-funded by the Human Sciences Domain of the UK Ministry of Defence Scientific Research Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda J. Sorensen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sorensen, L.J., Stanton, N.A. Exploring compatible and incompatible transactions in teams. Cogn Tech Work 17, 367–380 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0335-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0335-1

Keywords

Navigation