cscl conference 9th of july 2011 hong kong

Trustworthy in the eye of the beholder? - Cognitive perspective on profile info in Virtual Teams

page 1

Trustworthy in the eye of the beholder?-

A cognitive perspective on personal profile information

in virtual project teamsEllen Rusman1, Jan van Bruggen1, Peter Sloep1,Rob Koper, Martin Valcke2

1) CELSTEC, Open University of the Netherlands, The Netherlands2) Department of Educational studies, Ghent University, Belgium

CSCL conference

9th of July 2011

Hong Kong


page 2

Personal profile information


page 3

So

urc

e:

cen

tre

fo

r e

ffe

ctiv

e o

rga

nis

atio

ns

htt

p:/

/ww

w.m

ars

ha

ll.u

sc.e

du

/we

b/C

EO

.cfm

?d

oc_

id=

51

81


page 4

Peter Steiner, 1993, The New Yorker

http://www.zazzle.nl/virtuele_teamappreciatie


page 5

Able?

Willing to help?

Honest?Open?

Friendly?

Integer?

Available?

Bro

n:

htt

p:/

/ww

w.ibti

mes.

com

/data

/blo

gs_

edit

or/

care

ere

alis

m/d

esi

gn-h

all-

mir

ror-

94

17

5.jpg


page 6

Workexperience

Photo

Education

Age

Interests

Hobbies

Family situation

Character traits

Personal motivation for project

Availability

Recommendations

Position

Nationality

Cognitive perspective on personal profiles


page 7

Thank you for your attention !

Want to know more?

Please talk to me now, or later via: [email protected]

or take a look at my PhD thesis on:

http://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/3411

CELSTEC, Open University of the Netherlands


page 8

Method

• Questionnaire: 226 respondents with virtual project experience selected the 10 information elements they considered most important to form an initial trustworthiness assessment from the results of their own brainstorm and a pre-defined list (with 143 elements)

• They were asked to provide an explanation of their selection:

• What are the facts you can derive from this information?

• Why is this information valuable for your assessment of the trustworthiness of your team members? What do you derive from this information?


page 9

Method (2)

• Use of frequencies to determine 15 most common mentioned information elements

• Coding of explanations with TrustWorthinessANtecedent schema (TWAN)

• Coding unit: explanation, different multiple-codes/per explanation allowed, no double codes/per explanation allowed

• Initial set of explanations (10%) coded by 2 coders. Interrater-reliability: 0.79 (good to excellent). Excluded one category (Other) to calculate alpha as the two coders consistently understood this category differently

• Use frequencies and percentages of ‘code-use’ to determine whether and how often antecedents are mentioned in explanations and whether respondents associate similar antecedents with similar information elements


page 10

Results


page 11

Example citations


page 12

Conclusions

• Participants prefer information elements which provide multiple cues for multiple antecedents

• Antecedents of competence, commitment, responsibility, availability and communality are most often referred to in initial phase

• Participants did not seem to prefer information elements which provided unique cues for an antecedent

• Information preferences can not all be cognitively explained (e.g. photo)

Can guide the design of artifacts to get acquainted and inform trustworthiness assessments

Coding scheme can function as an analysis framework for interpersonal trust related problems in collaborative settings


page 13

Thank you for your attention !

Any questions or suggestions?

[email protected]

Take a look at my PhD thesis on:

http://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/3411

CELSTEC, Open University of the Netherlands

cscl conference 9th of july 2011 hong kong

Documents