Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 84

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding Collaboration with Virtual Assistants – The Role of Social Identity and the Extended Self

Mirbabaie, Milad, Stieglitz, Stefan, Brünker, Felix, Hofeditz, Lennart, Ross, Björn, Frick, Nicholas R. J.·2021·Business & Information Systems Engineering
DOI 10.1007/s12599-020-00672-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Organizations introduce virtual assistants (VAs) to support employees with work-related tasks. VAs can increase the success of teamwork and thus become an integral part of the daily work life. However, the effect of VAs on virtual teams remains unclear. While social identity theory describes the identification of employees with team members and the continued existence of a group identity, the concept of the extended self refers to the incorporation of possessions into one’s sense of self. This raises the question of which approach applies to VAs as teammates. The article extends the IS literature by examining the impact of VAs on individuals and teams and updates the knowledge on social identity and the extended self by deploying VAs in a collaborative setting. Using a laboratory experiment with N = 50, two groups were compared in solving a task, where one group was assisted by a VA, while the other was supported by a person. Results highlight that employees who identify VAs as part of their extended self are more likely to identify with team members and vice versa. The two aspects are thus combined into the proposed construct of virtually extended identification explaining the relationships of collaboration with VAs. This study contributes to the understanding on the influence of the extended self and social identity on collaboration with VAs. Practitioners are able to assess how VAs improve collaboration and teamwork in mixed teams in organizations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12599-020-00672-x

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Research works printed but not linked: 92

  1. Andres HP, Shipps BP (2019) Team learning in technology-mediated distributed teams. J Inf Syst Educ 21:10
  2. Araujo T (2018) Living up to the chatbot hype: the influence of anthropomorphic design cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions. Comput Hum Behav 85:183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.051 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Aron A, Aron E, Norman C (2003) Self-expansion motivation and including other in the self. In: Fletcher GJO, Clark MS (eds) Blackwell handbook of social psychology: interpersonal processes. Blackwell, Oxford
  4. Bajwa D, Lewis L, Pervan G et al (2007) Organizational assimilation of collaborative information technologies: global comparisons. In: 2007 40th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences · DOI
  5. Bartels J, van Vuuren M, Ouwerkerk JW (2019) My colleagues are my friends: the role of facebook contacts in employee identification. Manag Commun Q 33:307–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318919837944 · DOI
  6. Belk RW (1988) Possessions and the extended self. J Consum Res 15:139. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Benbya H, Leidner D (2018) How Allianz UK used an idea management platform to harness employee innovation. MIS Q Exec 17:900–933
  8. Berg MM (2015) NADIA: a simplified approach towards the development of natural dialogue systems. In: Biemann C, Handschuh S, Freitas A et al (eds) Natural language processing and information systems. Springer, Cham, pp 144–150 · DOI
  9. Bittner E, Oeste-Reiß S, Leimeister JM (2019) Where is the bot in our team? Toward a taxonomy of design option combinations for conversational agents in collaborative work. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences · DOI
  10. Brachten F, Brünker F, Frick NRJ et al (2020) On the ability of virtual agents to decrease cognitive load: an experimental study. Inf Syst E-Bus Manag 18:187–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-020-00471-7 · DOI
  11. Brown R (2000) Social identity theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges. Eur J Soc Psychol 30:745–778. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6%3c745::AID-EJSP24%3e3.0.CO;2-O · DOI · Paper page
  12. Burke P (2006) Identity change. Soc Psychol Q 69:81–96 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Canonico M, Russis LD (2018) A comparison and critique of natural language understanding tools. In: The Ninth International Conference on Cloud Computing, GRIDs, and Virtualization
  14. Cao A, Chintamani KK, Pandya AK, Ellis RD (2009) NASA TLX: software for assessing subjective mental workload. Behav Res Methods 41:113–117. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.1.113 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Carter M, Grover V (2015) Me, my self, and I(T): conceptualizing information technology identity and its implications. MIS Q 39:931–957. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.4.9 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Carter M, Grover V, Clemson University (2015) Me, my self, and I(T): conceptualizing information technology identity and its implications. MIS Q 39:931–957. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.4.9 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Carter M, Grover V, Thatcher JB (2012) Mobile devices and the self: developing the concept of mobile phone identity. In: Lee I (ed) Strategy, adoption, and competitive advantage of mobile services in the global economy. IGI Global, Hershey
  18. Changizi A, Lanz M (2019) The comfort zone concept in a human–robot cooperative task. In: Ratchev S (ed) Precision assembly in the digital age. Springer, Cham, pp 82–91 · DOI
  19. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 52:281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Dahling JJ, Gutworth MB (2017) Loyal rebels? A test of the normative conflict model of constructive deviance. J Organ Behav 38:1167–1182. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2194 · DOI
  21. Davenport T (2018) The AI advantage how to put the artificial intelligence revolution to work, 1st edn. MIT Press, Cambridge · DOI · Paper page
  22. de Vreede G-J, Briggs RO (2005) Collaboration engineering: designing repeatable processes for high-value collaborative tasks. In: Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences – 2005
  23. Demir M, McNeese NJ, Cooke NJ (2020) Understanding human–robot teams in light of all-human teams: aspects of team interaction and shared cognition. Int J Hum Comput Stud 140:102436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102436 · DOI
  24. Dias M, Pan S, Tim Y (2019) Knowledge embodiment of human and machine interactions: robotic-process-automation at the Finland government. In: Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems
  25. Diederich S, Brendel AB, Kolbe LM (2020) Designing anthropomorphic enterprise conversational agents. Bus Inf Syst Eng 62:193–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-020-00639-y · DOI
  26. Dittmar H (2011) Material and consumer identities. In: Schwartz SJ, Luyckx K, Vignoles VL (eds) Handbook of identity theory and research. Springer, New York, pp 745–769 · DOI
  27. Edwards C, Edwards A, Stoll B et al (2019) Evaluations of an artificial intelligence instructor’s voice: social Identity Theory in human–robot interactions. Comput Hum Behav 3:357–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.027 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Ellemers N (2004) Motivating individuals and groups at work: a social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Acad Manage Rev 29:459–478 · doi:10.5465/amr.2004.13670967 · Paper page
  29. Feine J, Gnewuch U, Morana S, Maedche A (2019) A taxonomy of social cues for conversational agents. Int J Hum Comput Stud 132:138–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.07.009 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Franceschi K, Lee RM, Zanakis SH, Hinds D (2009) Engaging group e-learning in virtual worlds. J Manag Inf Syst 26:73–100. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260104 · DOI
  31. Frohberg D, Schwabe G (2006) Skills and motivation in ad-hoc-collaboration. Collect Collab Electron Commer Technol Res. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-61366 · doi:10.5167/uzh-61366
  32. Galy E, Cariou M, Mélan C (2012) What is the relationship between mental workload factors and cognitive load types? Int J Psychophysiol 83:269–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.09.023 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Gnewuch U, Morana S, Maedche A (2017) Towards designing cooperative and social conversational agents for customer service. In: International conference on information systems, p 15
  34. Gnewuch U, Yu M, Maedche A (2020) The effect of perceived similarity in dominance on customer self-disclosure to chatbots in conversational commerce. In: 28th European conference on information systems
  35. Goodbody J (2005) Critical success factors for global virtual teams. Strateg Commun Manag 9:18–21
  36. Guegan J, Segonds F, Barré J et al (2017) Social identity cues to improve creativity and identification in face-to-face and virtual groups. Comput Hum Behav 77:140–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.043 · DOI
  37. 20 years later. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 50th annual meeting - 2006, p 5
  38. Haslam A (2004) Psychology in organizations: the social identity approach, 2nd edn. SAGE, London
  39. Hassell MD, Cotton JL (2017) Some things are better left unseen: toward more effective communication and team performance in video-mediated interactions. Comput Hum Behav 73:200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.039 · DOI
  40. Hofeditz L, Ehnis C, Bunker D et al (2019) Meaningful use of social bots? possible applications in crisis communication during disasters. In: Proceedings of the 27th European conference on information systems
  41. Hu M, Zhang M, Wang Y (2017) Why do audiences choose to keep watching on live video streaming platforms? An explanation of dual identification framework. Comput Hum Behav 75:594–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.006 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Kenny EJ, Briner RB (2013) Increases in salience of ethnic identity at work: the roles of ethnic assignation and ethnic identification. Hum Relat 66:725–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712464075 · DOI
  43. Klimchak M, Ward A-K, Matthews M et al (2019) When does what other people think matter? The influence of age on the motivators of organizational identification. J Bus Psychol 34:879–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9601-6 · DOI
  44. Knijnenburg BP, Willemsen MC (2016) Inferring capabilities of intelligent agents from their external traits. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst 6:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/2963106 · DOI
  45. Knote R, Janson A, Söllner M, Leimeister JM (2019) Classifying smart personal assistants: an empirical cluster analysis. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences · DOI
  46. Kohler F, Matzler, et al (2011) Co-creation in virtual worlds: the design of the user experience. MIS Q 35:773. https://doi.org/10.2307/23042808 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Kozlowski S, Ilgen D (2007) The science of team success. Sci Am Mind 18:54–61. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamericanmind0607-54 · doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0607-54
  48. Lamontagne L, Laviolette F, Khoury R, Bergeron-Guyard A (2014) A framework for building adaptive intelligent virtual assistants. In: Software engineering/811: parallel and distributed computing and networks/816: artificial intelligence and applications. ACTAPRESS, Innsbruck, Austria · doi:10.2316/p.2014.816-018
  49. Leary MR, Tangney JP (2011) Handbook of self and identity, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York
  50. Lee C, Jung S, Kim S, Lee GG (2009) Example-based dialog modeling for practical multi-domain dialog system. Speech Commun 51:466–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2009.01.008 · DOI
  51. Lin C-P (2015) Predicating team performance in technology industry: theoretical aspects of social identity and self-regulation. Technol Forecast Soc Change 98:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.05.017 · DOI
  52. Maniscalco U, Messina A, Storniolo P (2020) The human–robot interaction in robot-aided medical care. In: Zimmermann A, Howlett RJ, Jain LC (eds) Smart innovation, systems and technologies. Springer, Split, pp 233–242
  53. Maras P, Thompson T, Gridley N, Moon A (2018) The “about me” questionnaire: factorial structure and measurement invariance. J Psychoeduc Assess 36:379–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916682909 · DOI
  54. Massey AP, Montoya-Weiss MM, Hung Y-T (2003) Because time matters: temporal coordination in global virtual project teams. J Manag Inf Syst 19:129–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045742 · DOI · Paper page
  55. McTear MF (2017) The rise of the conversational interface: a new kid on the block? In: Future and emerging trends in language technology. Machine learning and big data. Springer, Seville · DOI
  56. Mechling LC, Gast DL, Seid NH (2010) Evaluation of a personal digital assistant as a self-prompting device for increasing multi-step task completion by students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil 45:422–439
  57. Moreno R, Mayer RE, Spires HA, Lester JC (2001) The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cogn Instr 19:177–213. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1902_02 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Morrissey K, Kirakowski J (2013) ‘Realness’ in chatbots: establishing quantifiable criteria. In: Kurosu M (ed) Human–computer interaction. Interaction modalities and techniques. Springer, Berlin, pp 87–96 · DOI
  59. Mueller SK, Mendling J, Bernroider EWN (2019) The roles of social identity and dynamic salient group formations for ERP program management success in a postmerger context. Inf Syst J 29:609–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12223 · DOI
  60. Nasirian F, Ahmadian M (2017) AI-based voice assistant systems: evaluating from the interaction and trust perspectives. In: Americas conference on information systems. p 10
  61. Norman D (2017) Design, business models, and human-technology teamwork: as automation and artificial intelligence technologies develop, we need to think less about human–machine interfaces and more about human–machine teamwork. Res Technol Manag 60:26–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2017.1255051 · DOI
  62. Noyes JM, Bruneau DPJ (2007) A self-analysis of the NASA-TLX workload measure. Ergonomics 50:514–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130701235232 · DOI
  63. O’Leary-Kelly SW, Vokurka RJ (1998) The empirical assessment of construct validity. J Oper Manag 16:387–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00020-5 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Panganiban AR, Matthews G, Long MD (2020) Transparency in autonomous teammates: intention to support as teaming information. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 14:174–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343419881563 · DOI
  65. Pepple DG, Davies EMM (2019) Co-worker social support and organisational identification: does ethnic self-identification matter? J Manag Psychol 34:573–586. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-04-2019-0232 · DOI
  66. Peters G-JY (2018) The alpha and the omega of scale reliability and validity: why and how to abandon Cronbach’s alpha and the route towards more comprehensive assessment of scale quality. Eur Health Psychol 16:56–59. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/h47fv · DOI
  67. Pickard MD, Burns MB, Moffitt KC (2013) A theoretical justification for using embodied conversational agents (ECAs) to augment accounting-related interviews. J Inf Syst 27:159–176. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-50561 · DOI
  68. Plotnick L, Hiltz SR, Privman R (2016) Ingroup dynamics and perceived effectiveness of partially distributed teams. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 59:203–229. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2016.2583258 · DOI
  69. Porck JP, Matta FK, Hollenbeck JR et al (2019) Social identification in multiteam systems: the role of depletion and task complexity. Acad Manage J 62:1137–1162. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0466 · DOI
  70. Quarteroni S (2018) Natural language processing for industry: ELCA’s experience. Inform Spektrum 41:105–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00287-018-1094-1 · DOI
  71. Rubio S, Díaz E, Martín J, Puente JM (2004) Evaluation of subjective mental workload: a comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods. Appl Psychol 53:61–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00161.x · DOI · Paper page
  72. Russel S, Norvig P (2016) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. Addison Wesley, Munich
  73. Schultze U (2010) Embodiment and presence in virtual worlds: a review. J Inf Technol 25:434–449. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2010.25 · doi:10.1057/jit.2010.25 · Paper page
  74. Scott C, Lundstrom WJ (1990) Dimensions of possession satisfactions: a preliminary analysis. J Satisf Dissatisfaction Complain Behav 3:100–1004
  75. Seeber I, Bittner E, Briggs RO, et al (2018) Machines as teammates: a collaboration research agenda. In: Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii international conference on system sciences · DOI
  76. Seeber I, Waizenegger L, Seidel S et al (2020b) Collaborating with technology-based autonomous agents: issues and research opportunities. Internet Res 30:1–18. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3504587 · DOI
  77. Shamekhi A, Liao QV, Wang D, et al (2018) Face value? Exploring the effects of embodiment for a group facilitation agent. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems · DOI
  78. Sivadas E, Machleit KA (1994) A scale to determine the extent of object incorporation in the extended self. Mark Theory Appl 5:143–149
  79. Spohrer J, Banavar G (2015) Cognition as a service: an industry perspective. AI Mag 36:71–86. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v36i4.2618 · DOI
  80. Stets JE, Biga CF (2003) Bringing identity theory into environmental sociology. Soc Theory 21:398–423. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9558.2003.00196.x · DOI · Paper page
  81. Stieglitz S, Brachten F, Kissmer T (2018) Defining bots in an enterprise context. In: International conference on information systems
  82. Tian K, Belk RW (2005) Extended self and possessions in the workplace. J Consum Res 32:297–310. https://doi.org/10.1086/432239 · DOI · Paper page
  83. Vahtera P, Buckley PJ, Aliyev M et al (2017) Influence of social identity on negative perceptions in global virtual teams. J Int Manag 23:367–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2017.04.002 · DOI
  84. Van Ostrand A, Wolfe S, Arredondo A et al (2016) Creating virtual communities that work: best practices for users and developers of e-collaboration software. Int J E-Collab 12:41–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJeC.2016100104 · DOI
  85. Verhagen T, van Nes J, Feldberg F, van Dolen W (2014) Virtual customer service agents: using social presence and personalization to shape online service encounters. J Comput Mediat Commun 19:529–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12066 · DOI · Paper page
  86. Vignoles VL, Schwartz SJ, Luyckx K (2011) Introduction: toward an integrative view of identity. In: Schwartz SJ, Luyckx K, Vignoles VL (eds) Handbook of identity theory and research. Springer, New York, NY, pp 1–27
  87. Waizenegger L, Seeber I, Dawson G, Desouza KC (2020) Conversational agents – exploring generative mechanisms and second-hand effects of actualized technology affordances. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences · DOI
  88. Wang W (2017) Smartphones as social actors? social dispositional factors in assessing anthropomorphism. Comput Hum Behav 68:334–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.022 · DOI
  89. Wang W, Siau K (2018) Artificial intelligence: a study on governance, policies, and regulations. In: MWAIS 2018 proceedings
  90. Yan JK, Leidner DE, Benbya H (2018) Differential innovativeness outcomes of user and employee participation in an online user innovation community. J Manag Inf Syst 35:900–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1481669 · DOI
  91. You S, Robert LP Jr (2018) Emotional attachment, performance, and viability in teams collaborating with embodied physical action (EPA) robots. J Assoc Inf Syst 19:377–407. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00496 · DOI · Paper page
  92. Young-Jae C, Baek S, Ahn G et al (2020) Compensating for the loss of human distinctiveness: the use of social creativity under human–machine comparisons. Comput Hum Behav 103:80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.027 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Mirbabaie, M., Stieglitz, S., Brünker, F., Hofeditz, L., Ross, B., & Frick, N. R. J.
Venue
Business & Information Systems Engineering
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-12-01
Volume
63
Issue
1
Pages
21-37
ISSN
  • 2363-7005
  • 1867-0202
DOI
10.1007/s12599-020-00672-x
Cited by
84
References
12
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Universität Duisburg-Essen

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.