Draft:Team cognition
 | Draft article not currently submitted for review.
This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission. It is not currently pending review. While there are no deadlines, abandoned drafts may be deleted after six months. To edit or make changes to this draft, simply click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. To be accepted, a draft should:
It is strongly discouraged to write about either yourself or your business or employer. If you do so, you must declare it. Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Last edited by Bearcat (talk | contribs) 3 days ago. (Update) |
Comment: In accordance with Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guideline, I disclose that I have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of this article. Hoverflew0909 (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Team cognition is a broad area of research concerned with the cognitive structures, processes, and activities involved when people work interdependently as a team. The term is used across fields including cognitive psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and cognitive engineering.[1][2] Researchers have studied team cognition through constructs including team mental models, transactive memory systems, team situation awareness, strategic consensus, and cognitive processes occurring during team interaction.[3]
There is no single account of where team cognition resides or how it should be represented. Some approaches focus on knowledge held by individual team members and the extent to which this knowledge is shared or distributed across a team. Others conceptualize cognition at the level of the team itself, emphasizing interaction, coordination, or cognition distributed among people, technologies, and the task environment.[4] Reviews of the field therefore generally treat team cognition as encompassing several related but distinct theoretical approaches and constructs.[3]
Research on team cognition has been applied to domains including aviation, military command and control, health care, emergency response, geographically distributed teams, and human–autonomy teaming.[5] A meta-analysis of 65 independent studies found positive relationships between measures of team cognition and team behavioral processes, motivational states, and performance, although the strength of these relationships varied according to how cognition was conceptualized and characteristics of the team and task.[6]
Concept and scope
[edit]Team cognition concerns attempts to explain cognitive phenomena involved in coordinated, interdependent activity that cannot be described solely in terms of the abilities or knowledge of a single team member.[1][2] It does not refer to a single cognitive mechanism. Cross-domain reviews have included team mental models, transactive memory systems, team situation awareness, strategic consensus, and cognitive processes among the constructs studied as team cognition.[3]
One recurring issue concerns whether effective teamwork requires team members to possess similar knowledge. Research on shared cognition examines common or overlapping knowledge structures among members. Janis Cannon-Bowers and Eduardo Salas identified several unresolved questions within this research tradition, including what information must be shared, what constitutes sharing, how sharedness should be measured, and what outcomes it should affect.[7] Other approaches emphasize complementary rather than overlapping knowledge. Transactive memory systems, for example, involve specialization of knowledge among members together with knowledge of where expertise is located within the group.[8]
Terminology surrounding collective forms of cognition has varied across research traditions. Akkerman and colleagues identified overlapping concepts including common ground, shared understanding, collective mind, team mental models, and distributed cognition, and described differences between cognitive and sociocultural approaches to group cognition.[4] Consequently, team cognition is generally used more broadly than an individual construct such as a team mental model or transactive memory system.[9]
Team cognition also overlaps with, but is not synonymous with, other concepts concerned with cognition at collective levels. Collective intelligence generally concerns a group's capacity to perform across a range of tasks.[10] Distributed cognition examines cognitive systems in which cognitive activity can be distributed across people, representations, artifacts, space, and time. Group cognition has also been used for approaches that locate cognitive accomplishments in group interaction itself. These concepts overlap with parts of the team cognition literature but developed from partly distinct theoretical traditions.[4][2]
Historical development
[edit]Research on team cognition developed through several intersecting traditions rather than from a single theoretical origin.[2] In organizational psychology, researchers increasingly examined how knowledge structures, interpretations, and beliefs held across members could influence coordinated work. In human factors, researchers studied cognition, communication, decision-making, and coordination in teams operating complex technological systems. Retrospective accounts of team research identify shared cognition and its measurement as major developments in the study of team performance during the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[5]
Team mental models and shared cognition
[edit]Research on team mental models became prominent during the early 1990s. The concept extended research on the individual mental model to the team level by proposing that members of a team may possess compatible or overlapping representations of task- and team-relevant knowledge. Richard Klimoski and Susan Mohammed's 1994 review examined the content, structure, functions, antecedents, and consequences proposed for team mental models while questioning whether the concept had been defined sufficiently to move beyond metaphor.[11]
Subsequent studies developed methods for eliciting and comparing team members' knowledge structures. By 2010, a 15-year review described team mental models as an established type of team cognition supported by research using multiple methodologies and study designs.[9] Research on shared cognition also raised broader questions about whether similarity between team members should be understood in terms of identical knowledge, compatible knowledge, agreement about selected information, or some other relationship among members' representations.[7]
Transactive and differentiated knowledge
[edit]A related research tradition developed from the concept of transactive memory, introduced in the 1980s to describe how members of close relationships can divide responsibility for remembering information while retaining knowledge of who knows what. The concept was later extended to work groups, organizations, and other teams.[8]
Research on transactive memory systems differs from approaches that focus principally on cognitive similarity because it treats differentiation of knowledge as potentially functional. Team members may specialize in different areas while using a shared understanding of the distribution of expertise to locate and integrate information when needed.[8] The development of transactive memory research therefore broadened accounts of team cognition beyond knowledge that is held in common by all members.
Distributed and macrocognitive perspectives
[edit]Other traditions have examined cognition as distributed across people and the environments in which they work. Distributed cognition treats cognitive activity as potentially distributed among individuals, external representations, technological artifacts, and other features of an activity system. This perspective has been particularly influential in studies of teams working with complex technologies and information systems.[4]
Macrocognition focuses on cognitive activity in complex and naturalistic settings rather than primarily in controlled laboratory tasks. Work on macrocognition in teams has examined collaborative decision-making, sensemaking, planning, problem solving, knowledge construction, and the development of shared understanding in settings characterized by uncertainty, dynamic information, and time pressure.[12]
Interactive Team Cognition
[edit]Interactive Team Cognition (ITC) was proposed by Nancy J. Cooke and colleagues as an explicitly interaction-centered account of team cognition. The theory was developed partly in response to approaches that operationalized team cognition through the similarity or distribution of knowledge structures measured in individual team members.[13]
ITC proposes that team cognition is an activity rather than a static property or product, should be studied at the team level, and is inseparable from the context in which team interaction occurs.[13] The approach therefore emphasizes observable patterns of interaction, including communication and coordination, as manifestations of cognitive activity. Cooke later characterized ITC as a dynamic perspective in which cognition resides in interaction rather than exclusively in knowledge possessed by individual members.[14] ITC is one theoretical approach within the broader team cognition literature; reviews of the field also retain knowledge-based, transactive, situation-awareness, and other approaches.[3]
Major constructs and approaches
[edit]Team mental models
[edit]Team mental models are organized representations of task- or team-relevant knowledge that are shared or compatible to some degree across members.[9] Research has distinguished between mental models concerning taskwork, such as equipment, procedures, strategies, and environmental conditions, and those concerning teamwork, such as members' roles, responsibilities, capabilities, and patterns of interaction.[9]
Theories of team mental models generally propose that compatible knowledge structures can help members anticipate one another's information requirements and actions. Research has therefore examined both the accuracy of members' knowledge and the degree of similarity or convergence among their representations. An experimental study by Mathieu and colleagues, for example, found relationships among shared task- and team-related mental models, team processes, and performance.[15]
The term shared, however, has been operationalized in different ways, and reviews have cautioned against assuming that complete similarity among members is necessary or desirable in every team.[7][9]
Transactive memory systems
[edit]A transactive memory system describes a division of cognitive labor in which members develop specialized areas of knowledge while also learning about the distribution of expertise within the group. Rather than requiring members to possess the same information, the approach emphasizes a team's capacity to encode, locate, retrieve, and integrate knowledge distributed across members.[8]
Transactive memory therefore differs from accounts focused primarily on cognitive similarity. A team may develop an effective transactive memory system because its members know different things, provided that the team can identify and coordinate access to the relevant expertise. Research on transactive memory has been conducted in close relationships, laboratory groups, work teams, organizations, and technology-mediated groups.[8]
Team situation awareness
[edit]Team situation awareness extends research on situation awareness from individuals to teams. It concerns team members' knowledge of task-relevant conditions in a changing environment and, depending on the theoretical account, how that awareness is distributed or shared among members.
Reviews of team cognition have treated team situation awareness and team mental models as related but distinguishable constructs. Team mental models typically concern relatively enduring knowledge structures, whereas situation awareness concerns representations of the current and anticipated state of a task environment.[16] Accounts of team situation awareness also differ concerning how much information must be common across members and whether team-level awareness can be represented by aggregating measures obtained from individuals.
Interaction-centered approaches
[edit]Interaction-centered approaches examine cognitive activity through the patterns of communication and coordination produced while a team performs its task. Interactive Team Cognition is the most explicit theoretical formulation of this position.[13]
These approaches shift measurement away from treating team cognition solely as a property inferred from individual knowledge. Communication sequences, timing, coordination patterns, information exchange, and changes in interaction over time can instead be analyzed as team-level cognitive activity.[14] Interaction-centered approaches overlap with aspects of distributed cognition and macrocognition, although the theoretical traditions are not interchangeable.[2]
Measurement
[edit]Methods for measuring team cognition vary according to the theoretical construct being studied. Wildman, Salas, and Scott's cross-domain review identified methods applied to team mental models, transactive memory systems, team situation awareness, strategic consensus, and cognitive processes, and evaluated them according to their theoretical assumptions, resource requirements, obtrusiveness, reliability, and predictive validity.[3]
Early methodological work on team knowledge emphasized that measurement requires decisions about both the characteristics of knowledge being studied and how data obtained from individuals are transformed into team-level measures. Relevant characteristics include whether knowledge is relatively general or situation-specific, homogeneous or differentiated across members, and stable or changing over time.[17]
Research on team mental models commonly elicits representations from individual team members and assesses their content, accuracy, structure, or similarity. Methods have included questionnaires and rating scales, pairwise similarity judgments, card-sorting procedures, concept mapping, and network-based representations of knowledge.[17][3] These methods do not necessarily measure the same property: some assess the amount or accuracy of knowledge, while others represent relationships among concepts or calculate similarity between members.
Measures of transactive memory systems commonly assess the specialization and distribution of expertise as well as members' awareness of who possesses particular knowledge.[8] Team situation awareness has been studied using probes, questionnaires, observer ratings, communication analysis, and other methods adapted from research on individual situation awareness.[3]
Interaction-centered approaches instead analyze data produced during task performance. Measures can include communication sequences, coordination patterns, timing, and other forms of behavioral interaction.[14] These approaches can allow cognition to be examined dynamically and with less reliance on interrupting team members to obtain self-reports or explicit measures of their knowledge.
Measurement choices therefore reflect assumptions about the nature of team cognition. A measure of similarity among individual mental models, for example, represents a different conception of team cognition from a measure of specialization within a transactive memory system or a measure of communication dynamics during interaction.[3] Reviews consequently caution against treating different team-cognition measures as interchangeable.
Relationship to teamwork and performance
[edit]Team cognition is commonly studied as part of broader explanations of teamwork and team effectiveness. Cognitive constructs have been treated as antecedents of coordination, as emergent states that develop through teamwork, and as processes that change during task performance.[6][2] These different formulations affect how relationships between cognition, team behavior, and performance are conceptualized.
DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus conducted a meta-analysis of 231 correlations from 65 independent studies examining team cognition in relation to behavioral processes, motivational states, and performance. They found positive relationships among these categories and reported that measures of team cognition accounted for additional variance in performance beyond behavioral and motivational factors.[6] The strength of these relationships varied according to the form, content, and emergence of cognition and according to task interdependence and team type.[6]
This literature does not imply that one form of cognitive organization is optimal for all teams. Different tasks may require different combinations of common knowledge, differentiated expertise, situation awareness, and interaction. Theoretical approaches therefore differ in the extent to which effective teamwork is explained through similarity among members, specialization of knowledge, dynamic information exchange, or combinations of these mechanisms.[7][8][3]
Applications
[edit]Aviation and military systems
[edit]Research on team cognition has frequently examined complex operational teams in which members must coordinate specialized roles and information under workload, uncertainty, or time pressure. Aviation and military command-and-control environments have therefore been recurring settings for research on shared knowledge, communication, situation awareness, and team interaction.[5][1] Such settings have also contributed to methodological developments involving simulation, synthetic task environments, and measures of team communication.[5]
Health care
[edit]Team-cognition concepts have been applied to health care teams, including work on team mental models, transactive memory systems, and team training. Simulation-based research has examined how shared task experiences may support common representations of procedures and roles while also allowing members to learn about the specialized expertise available within a clinical team.[18]
Emergency response
[edit]Emergency response teams present additional challenges because personnel from different professional backgrounds may need to coordinate rapidly in temporary or changing team configurations. A scoping review of emergency-response research found variation in how team cognition was defined and operationalized within the domain.[19]
Distributed and technology-mediated teams
[edit]Changes in communication technologies and organizational structures have extended research on team cognition to geographically distributed and virtual teams. This work examines how communication media, information systems, and external representations influence the distribution and coordination of knowledge. It also intersects with research on distributed cognition and human–computer interaction, in which technological artifacts may form part of the broader cognitive system through which team activity is accomplished.[2]
Human–autonomy teaming
[edit]Team research has increasingly examined human–autonomy teams, in which humans work interdependently with autonomous computational agents toward shared objectives. A review by O'Neill and colleagues identified 76 empirical studies of human–autonomy teaming and examined factors including agent characteristics, team composition, task characteristics, training, transparency, reliability, and communication.[20] Research in this area has drawn on concepts from the broader teamwork and team-cognition literature while examining how team processes change when an autonomous system performs an interdependent role.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- 1 2 3 Cooke, Nancy J.; Gorman, Jamie C.; Winner, Jennifer L. (2007). "Team Cognition". In Durso, Francis T.; Nickerson, Raymond S. (eds.). Handbook of Applied Cognition (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. pp. 239–268. doi:10.1002/9780470713181.ch10.
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Salas, Eduardo; Fiore, Stephen M.; Letsky, Michael P., eds. (2012). Theories of Team Cognition: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203813140. ISBN 978-0-415-87413-7.
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Wildman, Jessica L.; Salas, Eduardo; Scott, Charles P. R. (2014). "Measuring Cognition in Teams: A Cross-Domain Review". Human Factors. 56 (5): 911–941. doi:10.1177/0018720813515907. PMID 25141596.
- 1 2 3 4 Akkerman, Sanne; Van den Bossche, Piet; Admiraal, Wilfried; Gijselaers, Wim; Segers, Mien; Simons, Robert-Jan; Kirschner, Paul (2007). "Reconsidering group cognition: From conceptual confusion to a boundary area between cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives?". Educational Research Review. 2 (1): 39–63. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2007.02.001.
- 1 2 3 4 Salas, Eduardo; Cooke, Nancy J.; Rosen, Michael A. (2008). "On Teams, Teamwork, and Team Performance: Discoveries and Developments". Human Factors. 50 (3): 540–547. doi:10.1518/001872008X288457. PMID 18689065.
- 1 2 3 4 DeChurch, Leslie A.; Mesmer-Magnus, Jessica R. (2010). "The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis". Journal of Applied Psychology. 95 (1): 32–53. doi:10.1037/a0017328. PMID 20085405.
- 1 2 3 4 Cannon-Bowers, Janis A.; Salas, Eduardo (2001). "Reflections on shared cognition". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 22 (2): 195–202. doi:10.1002/job.82.
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ren, Yuqing; Argote, Linda (2011). "Transactive Memory Systems 1985–2010: An Integrative Framework of Key Dimensions, Antecedents, and Consequences". Academy of Management Annals. 5 (1): 189–229. doi:10.5465/19416520.2011.590300.
- 1 2 3 4 5 Mohammed, Susan; Ferzandi, Lori; Hamilton, Katherine (2010). "Metaphor No More: A 15-Year Review of the Team Mental Model Construct". Journal of Management. 36 (4): 876–910. doi:10.1177/0149206309356804.
- ↑ Woolley, Anita Williams; Aggarwal, Ishani; Malone, Thomas W. (2015). "Collective Intelligence and Group Performance". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 24 (6): 420–424. doi:10.1177/0963721415599543.
- ↑ Klimoski, Richard; Mohammed, Susan (1994). "Team Mental Model: Construct or Metaphor?". Journal of Management. 20 (2): 403–437. doi:10.1177/014920639402000206.
- ↑ Letsky, Michael P.; Warner, Norman W.; Fiore, Stephen M.; Smith, C. A. P., eds. (2008). Macrocognition in Teams: Theories and Methodologies. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-7325-5.
- 1 2 3 Cooke, Nancy J.; Gorman, Jamie C.; Myers, Christopher W.; Duran, Jasmine L. (2013). "Interactive Team Cognition". Cognitive Science. 37 (2): 255–285. doi:10.1111/cogs.12009. PMID 23167661.
- 1 2 3 Cooke, Nancy J. (2015). "Team Cognition as Interaction". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 24 (6): 415–419. doi:10.1177/0963721415602474.
- ↑ Mathieu, John E.; Heffner, Tonia S.; Goodwin, Gerald F.; Salas, Eduardo; Cannon-Bowers, Janis A. (2000). "The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance". Journal of Applied Psychology. 85 (2): 273–283. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273. PMID 10783543.
- ↑ Mohammed, Susan; Hamilton, Katherine; Sánchez-Manzanares, Miriam; Rico, Ramón (2017). "Team Cognition". In Salas, Eduardo; Rico, Ramón; Passmore, Jonathan (eds.). The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes. Wiley Blackwell. pp. 369–392. doi:10.1002/9781118909997.ch16.
- 1 2 Cooke, Nancy J.; Salas, Eduardo; Cannon-Bowers, Janis A.; Stout, Renée J. (2000). "Measuring Team Knowledge". Human Factors. 42 (1): 151–173. doi:10.1518/001872000779656561. PMID 10917151.
- ↑ Fernandez, Rosemarie; Shah, Sachita; Rosenman, Elizabeth D.; Kozlowski, Steve W. J.; Parker, Sarah Henrickson; Grand, James A. (2017). "Developing Team Cognition: A Role for Simulation". Simulation in Healthcare. 12 (2): 96–103. doi:10.1097/SIH.0000000000000200. PMID 28704287.
- ↑ Moon, Jukrin; Peres, S. Camille; Sasangohar, Farzan (2017). "Defining Team Cognition in Emergency Response: A Scoping Literature Review". Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 61 (1). doi:10.1177/1541931213601702.
- ↑ O'Neill, Thomas; McNeese, Nathan; Barron, Amy; Schelble, Beau (2022). "Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature". Human Factors. 64 (5): 904–938. doi:10.1177/0018720820960865. PMC 9284085. PMID 33092417.
Category:Cognition Category:Teams Category:Industrial and organizational psychology