Skip to main content

Table 2 The summary of key model variables/processes, assumptions and corresponding parameters in ABMS

From: A multilevel and dynamic model of intragroup conflict and decision making: application of agent-based modeling

Model variables/ProcessesAssumptionsCorresponding parameters in ABMS
1. Members
1.1 A set of individual proposals to 10 problem aspects of a taskMembers possess a set of initial proposals to 10 problem aspects and update their proposals according to the temporal outcome of team consensus due to the feedback loopAn initial normal distribution function with the mean of 0.5 and a standard deviation in one of three scenarios (high/medium/low scale, namely a 0.5/0.3/0.1 standard deviation) to represent functional diversity
1.2 A set of expertise perception of “who knows what,” including self- and others-perceptionMembers possess a set of initial expertise perception of “who knows what” (Wegner 1987) and update their perception according to the temporal outcome of team consensus due to the feedback loopRandom variables between 0 and 1; the higher the value, the higher perception of expertise
The initial accuracy of expertise recognition in one of three scenarios (high/medium/low scale, namely 75%/50%/25%) to represent expertise perception
1.3 A set of job-related knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSAs) to 10 aspects of a taskMember possess a set of fixed job-related KSAs to 10 problem aspectsRandom variables between 1 and 100; the higher the value, the higher KSAs to a problem aspect.
The variables used to determine who the absolute experts are for the 10 problem aspects
2. Dyadic interactions
2.1 Proposal evaluationMembers compare own proposals against the presented one and evoke dyadic task/relationship conflict if there exists a disagreement about the proposals or the perception of expertiseMembers (except the proposer) compare the variance between own proposal and the presented one
Members opt to support or reject the presented proposal depending on the proposal discrepancy (<  0.5) and the relative levels of perceived expertise to the specific problem aspect
If members do not support the presented proposal, dyadic task conflict as well as relationship conflict will be evoked
3. Team interactions
3.1 Problem aspect identificationIn each round of discussion, 10 problem aspects of a task are identified one by oneIn each round of discussion, a team identifies 10 problem aspects one by one
In total, 10 problem aspects of a task are identified in each round
3.2 Proposal elaborationFor each problem aspect, a team randomly assigns a member to elaborate his/her proposal to the identified problem aspectA team member is randomly assigned to present his/her proposal to the identified problem aspect for others’ evaluation (as described in 2.1)
3.3 Team consensusTeam decision-making process follows the consensus approach (McGrath 1984) to determine a joint decision whether or not to support the presented proposal to the specific problem aspectA team will support the presented proposal to the specific problem aspect if more than half of members opt for the proposal (due to dyadic interactions as described in 2.1)
A team will reject the presented proposal to the specific problem aspect if less than half of members opt for the proposal (due to dyadic interactions as described in 2.1)
3.4 Intragroup conflictIntragroup conflict originates from lower-level processes and manifests across levels to make an impact on team functioning (Korsgaard et al. 2008; Kozlowski and Klein 2000)In each round of discussion, the magnitude of team-level task conflict is measured by averaging individually accumulated number of task conflicts due to dyadic interactions, and divided by the maximum number of possible task conflicts
The relationship of intragroup task conflict, intragroup trust and intragroup relationship conflict follows the study by Simons and Peterson (2000) and the magnitude of team-level relationship conflict is then computed accordingly
4. Team outcomes
4.1 Decision commitmentDecision commitment is one of key criteria to measure the success of team decision-makingThe relationship of intragroup task conflict, relationship conflict, and decision commitment follows the study by Parayitam and Dooley (2009) and the magnitude of decision commitment is then computed accordingly in the final round of discussion (i.e., when time steps = 20)
4.2 Decision qualityDecision quality is one of key criteria to measure the success of team decision-makingOperationalized in terms of the final accuracy of expertise recognition
Measured as the percentage of the number of perceived experts correctly matching to the absolute experts out of 10 problem aspects in the final round
The value in the range of 0% to 100%; the higher the value, the higher decision quality
4.3 Decision consensusDecision consensus is one of key criteria to measure the success of team decision-makingMeasured as the total number of supported proposals (out of 10 problem aspects) in the final round
The value in the range of 0 to 10; the higher the value, the higher decision consensus