Frontiers in Psychological and Behavioral Science          
Frontiers in Psychological and Behavioral Science(FPBS)
ISSN:2309-012X(Print)       ISSN:2309-0138(Online)
Virtual Small Group Dynamics:a Quantitative Experimental Framework
Full Paper(PDF, 639KB)
We present a research framework consisting of a standard chat environment and a set of analytical tools, able to detect some relevant characteristics of the group dynamics of interacting people. The analysis is independent of the semantic content of the exchanged messages, and the standardized interface avoids hard-to-detect non-verbal communications, still providing the expression of emotional contents. This study proposes a quantitative approach to the investigation of the cognitive small group dynamics, considering the personal representation of the others, and communication dynamics. We developed a framework for the analysis that merges the complex network theory with concepts from social psychology and sociophysics. The focus of the framework is a quantitative investigation of how people explore and build their cognitive representation of the social space. Moreover two different experimental tasks have been proposed in order to investigate the role of some ecological constraints on the cognitive heuristics used by the subjects. The results show how people behave differently with respect to the task they are facing. In particular the absolute and the relative frequencies of the messages and their qualitative aspects significantly differ between the two conditions, as so as the cognitive strategies used by subjects to assess the affinity with the others.
Keywords:Virtual Dynamics; Small Group; Social Psychology; Complex Systems
Author: Andrea Guazzini1, Alessandro Cini2, Rosapia Lauro-Grotto3, Franco Bagnoli4
1.Institute of Informatics and Telematics - IIT - CNR, via G. Moruzzi,1 - 56124 Pisa, Italy
2.Centre for the study of Complex Dynamics CSDC, University of Florence, Via Sansone, n1 - 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Polo Scientifico, Italy
3.Department of Psychology, University of Florence, Complesso di San Salvi, Padiglione 26 - 50135 Firenze, Italy
4.Department of Energetics, University of Florence, Via S. Marta, 3, 50139 Firenze, Italy
  1. Gallese, V. Intentional attunement: A neurophysiological perspective on social cognition. Brain Res. Cog. Brain Res., 1079: 15-24, 2006.
  2. Gallese, V., Keysers, C. and Rizzolatti, G. A unifying view of the basis of social cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8: 396-403, 2004.
  3. Lewin, K. Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row. 1951.
  4. Bavelas, A. Communication in task-oriented groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22: 271282, 1950.
  5. Luce, R., D. Connectivity and generalized cliques in sociometric group structure. Psychometrika, 15, 169-190, 1950.
  6. Leavitt, H. J. Some effects of communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46:38-50, 1950.
  7. Smith, S. L. Communication Pattern and the Adaptability of Task-oriented Groups: an Experimental Study. Cambridge, MA: Group Networks Laboratory, Research Laboratory of Electronics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1950.
  8. Shaw, M. E. Communication networks. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 111147, 1964.
  9. Flament, C. Reseaux de Communication et Structures de Groupes. Paris:Dunod,1965.
  10. Castellano, C., Fortunato, S. and Loreto,V. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 591, 2009.
  11. Boccaletti, S., V. Latora, Y. Moreno, M. Chavez, & D. U. Hwang. Physics Reports 424(4-5), 175, 2006.
  12. Bordia, P. Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: A Synthesis of the Experimental Literature. The Journal of Business Communication, 34, no. 1: 99- 120, 1997.
  13. Mislove,K.P.Gummadi,&P.Druschel.ExploitingsocialnetworksforInternet search. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets- V), Irvine, CA, 2006.
  14. Newman,M.E.J. and Girvan, M. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review E, 69, 2004.
  15. Freeman, L. C. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40 : 35-41, 1977.
  16. Freeman, L. C. Centrality in social networks: I. Conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1: 215-239, 1979.
  17. Freeman, L. C., Stephen P. Borgatti & Douglas R. White. Centrality in valued graphs: A measure of betweenness based on network flow. Social Networks 13: 141-154, 1991.
  18. Leskovec J, Huttenlocher D, Kleinberg J., Predicting positive and negative links in online social networks, ACM WWW Int Conf on World Wide Web. (2010).
  19. L. Festinger, S. Schachter, K. Back, Social Pressures in Informal Groups: a Study of Human Factors in Housing., Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press, 1950.
  20. G. Gigerenzer, G. Goldstein, The recognition heuristic: A decade of research,Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 6, 1, 100121 (2011).
  21. A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Science, 185, 1124-1130 (1974); D. Kahneman, A. Tversky and P. Slovic, eds., Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics & Biases, (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1982).
  22. W. R., Bion, Group dynamics: a review, International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 33, 1952.
  23. S. Fortunato and C. Castellano, Community structure in graphs, Springer’s Encyclopedia of Complexity and System Science (Springer, Berlin, 2010) pp. 1141– 1162.
  24. J. Zhang, D.A. Norman, Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks, Cognitive Science, 18, 87-122 (1994).
  25. F., Bagnoli, T., Carletti, D., Fanelli, A., Guarino, A., Guazzini, Meet, Discuss and Trust each other: large versus small groups, In R. Serra et al.editors. artificial life and evolutionary computation, 213-224, 2009.
  26. F., Bagnoli, T., Carletti, D., Fanelli, A., Guarino, A., Guazzini, Modeling mutual affinity in opinion dynamics, Phys. Rev. E, 76, 066105, 2007.