31
fictional recipients from both route and survey perspectives. Individuals from the United States referred more to street names than the Dutch, whereas the Dutch relied more on landmark information. In addition, US participants used more cardinal descriptors, whereas the Dutch ignored them almost completely. This research suggests that people from different cultures adopt a large variety of wayfinding strategies. It also is worth noting that both are Western cultures, which are generally considered to be quite similar. Cultural differences in wayfinding strategies definitely require more study in the future.
Gender Differences in Wayfinding
Gender differences in wayfinding have been a topic of thorough research throughout the years. Voyer et al. (1995) conducted a meta-analysis of 286 studies regarding these differences and reported significant distinctions between males and females in this regard. Males were more adept at tasks that required mental rotation skills (78 studies reported a male advantage), spatial perception (92 studies reported a male advantage), and spatial visualization (116 studies reported a male advantage).
Hund and Gill (2014) studied wayfinding tasks involving route and survey cues. They noticed that wayfinding task completion time between these two varied significantly with females (who were more effective with route cues), but not with males. This suggests that females prefer route cues over survey cues. Similar results were also reported in other studies (e.g., Galea and Kimura, 1993; Ward et al., 1986). Differences between males and females have also been reported regarding pointing accuracy in both indoors and outdoors environments (Holding and Holding, 1989; Lawton, 1996), suggesting differences in sense of direction. Kim et al. (2007) stated that females may be more efficient at two-dimensional matrix tasks when landmark instructions are provided. Additionally, the research presented in this dissertation suggests that gender differences diminish while performing collaborative wayfinding tasks (Publication IV).
3.4 COLLABORATIVE WAYFINDING
Collaborative wayfinding has been studied relatively infrequently.
Dickinson and McIntyre (1997) have created a general model for teamwork that can also be applied to collaborative wayfinding tasks. This model consists of the seven core components of teamwork found in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Model for collaboration (Dickinson and McIntyre, 1997).
Dickinson and McIntyre (1997) defined communication as “the exchange of information between two or more team members.” The function of communication in collaboration is to transfer, clarify, or acknowledge information. It is considered the link between other aspects of teamwork, and it is commonly believed to be a critical aspect of a functioning team (Cooke, Salas and Cannon-Bowers, 2000). Kraiger and Wenzel (1997) stated a team performs more proficiently overall when team members understand their individual responsibilities in communication and the team’s communication is well coordinated with concise statements, questioning, and confirmation. Team orientation includes team members’ attitudes towards one another and the task (Boswell, 2001). Stout et al. (1999) referred to team orientation in their research on shared mental models (SMMs) and their importance to successful collaboration. SMMs provide the team with a “common understanding of who is responsible for what task and what the information requirements are for each team member” (Boswell, 2001).
Team leadership refers to the “direction and coordination of activities of the team members” (Boswell, 2001). Leadership is not restricted to just one team member, but can be spread throughout the whole team. Prince et al. (1997) commented that consistent, identifiable behavior is key to successful leadership, and it improves the team’s performance as a whole and on an individual level. Monitoring happens when a team member is aware of other team members’ activities. It is a crucial element in the adjustment and adaptation of team strategies. Feedback is the “critical discussion of performance among team members” (Boswell, 2001). Feedback is an honest evaluation and critique of both individual performances and the team’s performance as a whole, as conducted by team members. Feedback is a critical component in teamwork; it generally improves coordination and
……………
33
generates trust among team members (Tannenbaum, Smith-Jentsch and Behson, 1998). Particularly leaders who recognize their own faults and flaws often inspire similar behavior among their team members.
Constructive peer criticism and its acceptance may also increase team performance.
Backup happens when team members help other team members with their current assignments. This activity requires cross-training among the team’s members (Cannon-Bowers, Salas and Converse, 1993). When team members understand their own responsibilities and the responsibilities of other members, they are more likely to contribute to the team under stressful conditions (Boswell, 2001). Coordination ties together the rest of the components in the model. Boswell (2001) defined coordination as the synchronization of the team’s efforts and abilities to achieve a common goal.
Coordination can also be defined as the team’s achievement of a higher
“degree of shared mental model” (Boswell, 2001). Higher-level SMM makes critical components such as feedback and backup automatic (Stout et al., 1999).
In conclusion, teamwork and collaboration require efficient communication, but also a combination of planning, leadership, and team and individual goals. Successful backup and feedback components lend the team greater coordination and efficiency (Boswell, 2001). Coordination happens when the team communicates successfully and when the other components of the collaboration model are successfully adopted into the teamwork. This general model by Dickinson and McIntyre is also suitable for collaborative wayfinding tasks, and its components are applicable to the wayfinding experiments introduced in this dissertation (publications II, III, IV, and VII).
All the components discussed here are present in these tasks, communication being the most important aspect. In addition, leadership is evident in these use scenarios even when there are only two collaborators.
Boswell (2001) suggested that, by combining generalized models of wayfinding with the model of teamwork provided by Dickinson and McIntyre (1997), one could have a model that supports the behavioral requirements of collaborative wayfinding in disparate contexts, including VEs. Boswell introduced a model for collaborative wayfinding (Figure 13) that included a story generation pattern, which functions as a “connection between wayfinding and collaboration” (Boswell, 2001). This model was modified from Chen and Stanney’s (1999) model for collaborative wayfinding, in which the communication part needed defined in more detail. In Boswell’s story generation phase, the team develops a list of goals, expectations, and actions that then guide the team through the wayfinding task. In this phase, the team reviews the available materials, decides on the following actions, and identifies the objectives to reach a goal. Stout et al.
(1999) called this a team experience, and it is tied to the shared experience between team members.
Figure 13. Model for collaborative wayfinding (Boswell, 2001).