Computer-Mediated Collaborative Reasoning and Intelligence Analysis

  • Douglas Yeung
  • John Lowrance
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3975)


Problems of bias in intelligence analysis may be reduced by the use of web-based cognitive aids. We introduce a framework spanning the entire collaborative thought process using the Angler and SEAS (Structured Evidential Argumentation System) applications. Angler encourages creative brainstorming while SEAS demands analytical reasoning. The dual nature of this approach suggests substantial benefits from using computer-mediated collaborative and structured reasoning tools for intelligence analysis and policymaking.

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) may be impacted by many factors, including group dynamics and cultural and individual differences between participants. Based on empirical research, potential enhancements to Angler and SEAS are outlined, along with experiments to evaluate their worth. The proposed methodology may also be applied to assess the value of the suggested features to other such CMC tools.


Electronic Communication Social Presence Collaborative Process Scenario Planning Computer Mediate Communication 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Murray, K., Lowrance, J., Appelt, D., Rodriguez, A.: Fostering collaboration with a semantic index over textual contributions. In: AI Technologies for Homeland Security, Papers from the 2005 AAAI Spring Symposium, vol. 3, pp. 99–106 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lowrance, J.D., Harrison, I.W., Rodriguez, A.C.: Structured argumentation for analysis. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Systems Research, Informatics, and Cybernetics: Focus Symposia on Advances in Computer-Based and Web-Based Collaborative Systems, Baden-Baden, Germany (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heuer Jr, R.J.: Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency. In: Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, Washington, D.C (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lord, C., Ross, L., Lepper, M.: Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 2098–2109 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Popp, R.L.: Exploiting AI, information and computational social science technology to understand the adversary. In: Slide presentation. 2005 AAAI Spring Symposium: AI Technologies for Homeland Security (March 2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crook, R.H., Healy, C.C., O’Shea, D.W.: The linkage of work achievement to self-esteem, career maturity, and college achievement. Journal of Vocational Behavior 25(1), 70–79 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mutran, E.J., Reitzes, D.J., Bratton, K.A., Fernandez, M.E.: Self-esteem and subjective responses to work among mature workers: similarities and differences by gender. Journal of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 52(2), 89–96 (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sussman, S.W., Sproull, L.: Straight talk: Delivering bad news through electronic communication. Information Systems Research 10, 150–166 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reed, M.B., Aspinwall, L.G.: Self-affirmation reduces biased processing of health-risk information. Motivation and Emotion 22, 99–132 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steele, R.D.: The new craft of intelligence. Advance review draft, OSS Inc. (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kean, T.H., Hamilton, L.H., Ben-Veniste, R., Kerrey, B., Fielding, F.F., Lehman, J.F., Gorelick, J.S., Roemer, T.J., Gorton, S., Thompson, J.R.: The 9-11 commission report: Final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the United States. Retrieved September 13, 2005 from National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Web site (2004),
  12. 12.
    Wegner, D.M.: Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review 101, 34–52 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Asch, S.E.: Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In: Guetzkow, H. (ed.) Groups, leadership, and men, pp. 177–190. Carnegie Press, Pittsburgh (1951)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sherif, M.: The psychology of social norms. Harper Brothers, New York (1936)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W.R., Sherif, C.W.: Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robber’s Cave experiment. University of Oklahoma Book Exchange, Norman, OK (1961)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tajfel, H., Turner, J.: The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Worchel, S., Austin, W.G. (eds.) Psychology of Intergroup Relations, pp. 7–24. Nelson, Chicago (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Janis, I.: Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1972)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bond, R., Smith, P.B.: Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin 119(1), 111–137 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., Newcomb, T.: Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 47, 382–389 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zimbardo, P.G.: The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order vs. deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In: Arnold, W.J., Levine, D. (eds.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol. 17, pp. 237–307. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln (1969)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pennebaker, J.W.: Confession, inhibition, and disease. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 22, 211–244 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sheese, B.E., Brown, E.L., Graziano, W.G.: Emotional expression in cyberspace: Searching for moderators of the Pennebaker Disclosure Effect via e-mail. Health Psychology 23, 457–464 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rourke, L., Anderson, T.: Exploring social communication in computer conferencing. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 13(3), 259–275 (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Williams, K.D., Cheung, C.K.T., Choi, W.: Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(5), 748–762 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Campbell, J.A.: Communication apprehension and participation in videoconferenced meetings. In: Proceedings of the 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Wellington, New Zealand (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lowry, P.B., Nunamaker Jr, J.F.: Synchronous, distributed collaborative writing for policy agenda setting using Collaboratus, an Internet-based collaboration tool. In: Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ahuja, M.K., Galvin, J.E.: Socialization in Virtual Groups. Journal of Management 29(2), 161–185 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McKenna, K.Y.A., Green, A.S.: Virtual group dynamics. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice 6(1), 116–127 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Corbitt, G., Gardiner, L.R., Wright, L.K.: A comparison of team developmental stages, trust and performance for virtual versus face-to-face teams. In: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kersten, G.E., Koszegi, S.T., Vetschera, R.: The effects of culture in computer-mediated negotiations. The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 5(2), 1–28 (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nowson, S., Oberlander, J., Gill, A.J.: Weblogs, genres, and individual differences. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Stresa, Italy (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Coman, E., Rauh, C.: The impact of imagination on computer mediated telepresence. In: Presence panel: Information Systems Division, International Communication Association, San Diego, CA (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nowak, K.L.: Sex categorization in computer mediated communication (CMC): Exploring the utopian promise. Media Psychology 5, 83–103 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Olaniran, B.: Individual differences and computer mediated communication: The role of perception. The Electronic Journal of Communication 3, 2 (1993)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Suh, K.-W., Couchman, P.K., Park, J.-W., Hasan, H.: The application of activity theory to WMC. In: Hasan, H., Gould, E., Verenikina, I. (eds.) Information Systems and Activity Theory, Expanding the Horizon, vol. 3, pp. 122–140. University of Wollongong Press, Wollongong (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mani, I., Klein, G.L.: Evaluating intelligence analysis arguments in open-ended situations. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, McLean, VA (2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Williams, K.D., Govan, C.L., Croker, V., Tynan, D., Cruickshank, M., Lam, A.: Investigations into differences between social- and cyberostracism. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice 6(1), 65–77 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Orlikowski, W.J., Yates, J., Okamura, K., Fujimoto, M.: Shaping electronic communication: The metastructuring of technology in use. Center for Coordination Science Technical Report #155 (1994)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Harber, K.D., Pennebaker, J.W.: Overcoming traumatic memories. In: Christianson, S.A. (ed.) The Handbook of Emotion and Memory Research; Theory and Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1992)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    King, W.J.: Human-computer dyads? A survey of nonverbal behavior in human-computer systems. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Perceptual User Interfaces, Los Alamitos, CA (1997)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yeung, D.C., Yoshida, N.: Algorithms for identifying cognitive biases. Unpublished manuscript (2005)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yeung, D.C., Lowrance, J.D.: Sociopsychological assessment of an information campaign EZ. In: SEAS Multi-dimensional Templates (2005), Available at,

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas Yeung
    • 1
  • John Lowrance
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyRutgers University – NewarkNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Artificial Intelligence CenterSRI InternationalMenlo ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations