Compositionality of Team Mental Models in Relation to Sharedness and Team Performance

  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • M. Birna van Riemsdijk
  • Iris C. van de Kieft
  • Maria Gini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7345)


“The better the team mental model, the better the teamwork”, or so is said, in which better model refers to the extent to which the model is shared by the team members. This paper argues that according to circumstances, some components of that model are more relevant with respect to team performance than others. Circumstances change with the dynamics of the environment, the team composition and organization, its members, and the team task. Consequently, a compositional approach to measuring sharedness of team mental models is proposed. A case study illustrates the argument and the approach.


Shared mental model team model measuring 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E., Converse, S.: Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In: Castellan, N.J. (ed.) Individual and Group Decision Making, pp. 221–245. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dignum, V.: A model for organizational interaction: based on agents, founded in logic. Dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eppler, M.J., Mengis, J.: The Concept of Information Overload: A Review of Literature from Organization Science, Accounting, Marketing, MIS, and Related Disciplines. The Information Society 20(5), 325–344 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hindriks, K.V.: Programming rational agents in GOAL. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Tools and Applications, pp. 119–157. Springer, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hübner, J.F., Sichman, J.S., Boissier, O.: A Model for the Structural, Functional, and Deontic Specification of Organizations in Multiagent Systems. In: Bittencourt, G., Ramalho, G.L. (eds.) SBIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2507, pp. 118–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jehn, K.A., Mannix, E.A.: The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. The Academy of Management Journal 44(2), 238–251 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson, M., Jonker, C., van Riemsdijk, B., Feltovich, P.J., Bradshaw, J.M.: Joint Activity Testbed: Blocks World for Teams (BW4T). In: Aldewereld, H., Dignum, V., Picard, G. (eds.) ESAW 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5881, pp. 254–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jonker, C.M., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Vermeulen, B.: Shared Mental Models: A Conceptual Analysis. In: De Vos, M., Fornara, N., Pitt, J.V., Vouros, G. (eds.) COIN 2010. LNCS, vol. 6541, pp. 132–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lim, B., Klein, K.: Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27(4), 403 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mathieu, E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J.: The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(2), 273–283 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
  • M. Birna van Riemsdijk
    • 1
  • Iris C. van de Kieft
    • 1
  • Maria Gini
    • 2
  1. 1.Man-Machine Interaction Group, Faculty of EEEMCSDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of CS&EUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations