Group Level Versus Society Level of Computing

  • Dipta MahardhikaEmail author
  • Taro Kanno
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9737)


In this paper, a meso-level of computing is added to the four-level model by Whitworth [1]. This meso-level is called group-level computing. It exists between the individual level and society level. The main difference between group-level and society-level of computing is the social tie involved between the members. One function of the social tie is to give a regulation for the interaction between the members. One implication to design and development of systems is that group-level computing will need to consider a group-cognition model, instead of individual cognition model. For the society level, the design should focus on creating a regulation of its member behavior and interaction, since there is no social tie to regulate their interaction.


Group-level computing Society-level computing Social tie Group cognition 


  1. 1.
    Whitworth, B., Ahmad, A.: The Social Design of Technical Systems: Building Technologies for Communities. The Interaction Design Foundation, Denmark (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bunge, M.: Social Science Under Debate: A Philosophical Perspective. University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, Toronto (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Forsyth, D.R.: Group Dynamics. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, Belmont (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lickel, B., Hamilton, D.L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S.J., Uhles, A.N.: Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78, 223–246 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buck, R., Losow, J.I., Murphy, M.M., Costanzo, P.: Social facilitation and inhibition of emotional expression and communication. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63, 962–968 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., Hamilton, K.: Metaphor no more: a 15-year review of the team mental model construct. J. Manag. 36, 876–910 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Antheunis, M.L., Valkenburg, P.M., Peter, J.: The quality of online, offline, and mixed-mode friendships among users of a social networking site. Cyberpsychology J. Psychosoc. Res. Cybersp. 6, art. 6 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chant, S.R., Ernst, Z.: Group intention as equilibria. Philos. Stud. 133, 95–109 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Kanno, T., Furuta, K., Kitahara, Y.: A model of team cognition based on mutual beliefs. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 14, 38–52 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mahardhika, D., Kanno, T., Furuta, K.: Team cognition model based on mutual beliefs and mental subgrouping. J. Interact. Sci. 4, 1 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salas, E., Sims, D.E., Burke, C.S.: Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Res. 36, 555–599 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suler, J.: The online disinhibition effect. Int. J. Appl. Psychoanal. Stud. 2, 184–188 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Udris, R.: Cyberbullying among high school students in Japan: development and validation of the online disinhibition scale. Comput. Hum. Behav. 41, 253–261 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cognitive Systems Engineering Lab., Department of Systems Innovation, Graduate School of EngineeringThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations