Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 12 (3), 307–359. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., & Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bryman, A. (2008). Why do researchers integrate/combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fuse quantitative and qualitative research? In Bergman, M. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Contractor, N., & Su, C. (2011). Understanding groups from a network perspective. In Hollingshead, A. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 284–310). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). Methodological issues in conducting mixed methods research designs. In Bergman, M. M. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 66–83). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Crone, L., & Teddlie, C. (1995). Further examination of teacher behavior in differentially effective schools: Selection and socialization processes. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 30(1), 1–9.Google Scholar

Erzberger, C., & Kelle, U. (2003). Making inferences in mixed methods: The rules of integration. In Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social behavioral research (pp. 457–490). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Fairhurst, G. T., Rogers, L. E., & Sarr, R. A. (1987). Manager-subordinate control patterns and judgements about the relationship. In McLaughlin, M. L. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 395–415). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Goodman, L. A. (1971). The analysis of multidimensional contingency tables: Stepwise procedures and direct estimation methods for building models for multiple classifications. Technometrics, 13, 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haberman, S. J. (1972). Algorithm AS 51: Log-linear fit for contingency tables. Applied Statistics, 21, 218–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Hendrix, C. C., Fournier, D. G., & Briggs, K. (2001). Impact of co-therapy teams on client outcomes and therapist training in marriage and family therapy. Contemporary Family Therapy, 23(1), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyndman, R. J., Einbeck, J., & Wand, M. (2009). The hdrcde package (highest density regions and conditional density estimation). R package version, 3.1.Google Scholar

Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Turner, L. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), pp. 112–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kashy, D. A., & Hagiwara, N. (2012). Analyzing group data. In Hollingshead, A. & Poole, S., (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 311–328). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18(4), 513–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kolbe, M., Burtscher, M. J., & Manser, T. (2013). Co-ACT – A framework for observing coordination behavior in acute care teams, BMJ Quality & Safety, 22, 596–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kvan, T. (2000). Collaborative design: What is it? Automation in Construction 9, 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lienert, G. A. (1971). Die Konfigurationsfrequenzanalyse. I. Ein neuer Weg zu Typen und Syndromen. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 19, 99–115.Google Scholar

Lomb, N. R. (1976). Least-squares frequency analysis of unequally spaced data. Astrophysics and Space Science, 39, 447–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mateescu, M., Klinkhammer, D., Reiterer, H., & Zahn, C. (2015). Influence of Interactive Multi-User Tabletop Technology on Shared Mental Models and Performance: An Experimental Study. Talk at the 17. European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology, Symposium “Dynamics of team cognition and team adaptation I – Focus on team cognition.”Google Scholar

Mateescu, M., Zahn, C., Klinkhammer, D., Rack, O., & Reiterer, H. (2016). Potenziale kollaborativer Medien: Eine empirische Untersuchung am Beispiel interaktiven Tischen. [Potential collaborative media: An empirical study using the example of interactive tables.] Forschungsbeitrag zum 50. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie [Presentation at the 50th Congress of the German Society for Psychology], Leipzig Deutschland (18–22. 9. 2016).Google Scholar

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Olson, B. (1994). Sex and the soaps: A comparative content analysis of health issues. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 840–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olzak, L. A., & Wickens, T. D. (1983). The interpretation of detection data through direct multivariate frequency analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 574–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pearson, K. (1916). On a brief proof of the fundamental formula for testing the goodness of fit of frequency distributions and of the probable error of “p”. Philosophical Magazine, 31, 369–378.Google Scholar

Peng, R., & Hengartner, H. (2002). Quantitative analysis of literary styles. The American Statistician, 56(3), 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar

Rack, O., Ellwart, T., Hertel, G., & Konradt, U. (2011). Team-based rewards in computer-mediated groups. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26 (5), 419–438. doi:10.1108/02683941111139029CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robbins, N. B. (2005). Creating more effective graphs, Hoboken: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported Collaborative Learning. In Sawyer, R. K., (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–474). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Vokey, J. R. (2003). Multiway frequency analysis for experimental psychologists. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology = Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale, 57, 257–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Walter, S. G., & Rack, O. (2010). Eine anwendungsbezogene Einführung in die Hierarchisch Lineare Modellierung (HLM). In Albers, S., Klapper, D., Konradt, U., Walter, A., & Wolf, J. (Eds.). Methoden der empirischen Forschung, S. 293–310. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar

Wickens, T. D. (1993). Analysis of contingency tables with between-subjects variability. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wickham, H. (2006). ggplot: An implementation of the grammar of graphics. R package version 2.0.0.Google Scholar

Witcher, A. E., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Minor, L. C. (2001). Characteristics of effective teachers: Perceptions of preservice teachers. Research in the Schools, 8(2), 45–57.Google Scholar

Zahn, C. (2017). Digital design and learning. Cognitive-constructivist perspectives. In Schwan, S. & Cress, U. (Eds.), The psychology of digital learning: Constructing, exchanging, and acquiring knowledge with digital media (pp. 147–170). Springer International Publishing AG.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zahn, C., Krauskopf, K., Hesse, F. W., & Pea, R. (2009). Participation in knowledge building “revisited”: Reflective discussion and information design with advanced digital video technology. In O’Malley, C., Suthers, D., Reimann, P., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning practices: CSCL2009 Conference Proceedings. (pp. 596–600). New Brunswick, NJ: International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS).Google Scholar

Zahn, C., Pea, R., Hesse, F. W., & Rosen, J. (2010). Comparing simple and advanced video tools as supports for complex collaborative design processes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 403–440. doi:10.1080/10508401003708399CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allison, P. D., & Liker, J. K. (1982). Analyzing sequential categorical data on dyadic interaction: A comment on Gottman. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 393–403. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.393CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakeman, R. (1978). Untangling streams of behavior: Sequential analyses of observation data. In Sackett, G. P. (Ed.), Observing behavior (Vol. 2, Data collection and analysis methods, pp. 63–78). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar

Bakeman, R. (2000). Behavioral observations and coding. In Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. K. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 138–159). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bakeman, R. (2004). Sequential analysis. In Lewis-Beck, M., Bryman, A. E., & Liao, T. F. (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods (Vol. 3, pp. 1024–1026). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Bakeman, R. (2010). Reflections on measuring behavior: Time and the grid. In Walford, G., Viswanathan, M., & Tucker, E. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of measurement (pp. 221–237). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakeman, R., Adamson, L. B., & Strisik, P. (1995). Lags and logs: Statistical approaches to interaction (SPPS version). In Gottman, J. M. (Ed.), The analysis of change (pp. 279–308). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bakeman, R., Deckner, D. F., & Quera, V. (2005). Analysis of behavioral streams. In Teti, D. M. (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in developmental science (pp. 394–420). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd edn.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakeman, R., McArthur, D., & Quera, V. (1996). Detecting group differences in sequential association using sampled permutations: Log odds, kappa, and phi compared. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 446–457. doi:10.3758/BF03200524CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1992). SDIS: A sequential data interchange standard. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 24, 554–559. doi:10.3758/BF03203604CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1995a). Analyzing interaction: Sequential analysis with SDIS and GSEQ. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1995b). Log-linear approaches to lag-sequential analysis when consecutive codes may and cannot repeat. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 272–284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.272CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2008). ActSds and OdfSds: Programs for converting INTERACT and The Observer data files into SDIS timed-event sequential data files. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 869–872. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.869CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2012). Behavioral observation. In Cooper, H. (Ed.-in-Chief), Camic, P., Long, D., Panter, A., Rindskopf, D., & Sher, K. J. (Assoc. Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology: Vol. 1. APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Psychological research: Foundations, planning, methods, and psychometrics (pp. 207–225). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2017). GSEQ 5.1 [Computer software and manual]. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from www.gsu.edu/~psyrab/gseq/gseq.html.Google Scholar

Bakeman, R., Quera, V., & Gnisci, A. (2009). Observer agreement for timed-event sequential data: A comparison of time-based and event-based algorithms. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 137–147. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.1.137CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakeman, R., Quera, V., McArthur, D., & Robinson, B. F. (1997). Detecting sequential patterns and determining their reliability with fallible observers. Psychological Methods, 2, 357–370. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.2.4.357CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakeman, R., Robinson, B. F., & Quera, V. (1996). Testing sequential association: Estimating exact p values using sampled permutations. Psychological Methods, 1, 4–15. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buder, E. H., Warlaumont, A. S., Oller, D. K., & Chorna, L. B. (2010). Dynamic indicators of mother-infant prosodic and illocutionary coordination. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2010, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Chorney, J. M., Garcia, A. M., Berlin, K., Bakeman, R., & Kain, Z. N. (2010). Time-window sequential analysis: An introduction for pediatric psychologists. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35(10), 1061–1070. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsq022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dale, R., Warlaumont, A. S., & Richardson, D. C. (2011). Nominal cross recurrence as a generalized lag sequential analysis for behavioral streams. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 21, 1153–1161. doi:10.1142/S0218127411028970CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gottman, J., Notarius, C., Gonso, J., & Markman, H. (1976). A couple’s guide to communication. Champaign, IL: Research Press.Google Scholar

Gottman, J. M., & Roy, A. K. (1990). Sequential analysis: A guide for behavioral research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, S., & Oliver, C. (1997). A graphical method to aid the sequential analysis of observational data. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 29, 563–573. doi:10.3758/BF03210609CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klonek, F., Quera, V., Burba, M., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Group interactions and time: Using sequential analysis to study group dynamics in project meetings. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20(3), 209–222. doi:10.1037/gdn0000052CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mangold, P. (2006). Getting better results in less time: When using audio/video recordings in research applications makes sense. Paper presented at the 3rd Congress of the European Society on Family Relations, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar

Martin, P., & Bateson, P. (2007). Measuring behaviour: An introductory guide (3rd edn.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, R. G. Jr. (1966). Simultaneous statistical inference. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Noldus Information Technology (2003). The Observer: Professional system for collection, analysis, presentation and management of observational data [Reference manual, Version 5.0]. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Author.Google Scholar

Quera, V. (2008). RAP: A computer program for exploring similarities in behavior sequences using random projections. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 21–32. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.1.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quera, V., & Bakeman, R. (2000). Quantification strategies in behavioral observation research. In Thompson, T., Felce, D., & Symons, F. (Eds.), Behavioral observation: Technology and applications in developmental disabilities (pp. 297–315). Baltimore, MAD: Brookes Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Quera, V., Bakeman, R., & Gnisci, A. (2007). Observer agreement for event sequences: Methods and software for sequence alignment and reliability estimates. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 39–49. doi:10.3758/BF03192842CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Reynolds, H. T. (1977). The analysis of cross-classifications. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Rowland, S. B. (1995). Effects of adolescent mother-infant and grandmother-infant interaction on infant attention: A normative study of an African American sample. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta.Google Scholar

Sackett, G. P. (1979). Lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity in behavioral interaction research. In Osofsky, J. D. (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (pp. 623–649). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar

Stewart, W. J. (1994). Introduction to the numerical solution of Markov chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Wickens, T. D. (1982). Models for behavior. Stochastic processes in psychology. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar

Yoder, P., & Symons, F. (2010). Observational measurement of behavior. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar

Anolli, L., Duncan, S. J., Magnusson, M. S., & Riva, G. (2005). The hidden structure of interaction: From neurons to culture patterns. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar

Borrie, A., Jonsson, G. K., & Magnusson, M. S. (2002). Temporal pattern analysis and its applicability in sport: An explanation and exemplar data. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(10), 845–852.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Burgoon, J. K., Wilson, D., Hass, M., & Schuetzler, R. (2016). Interactive deception in group decision-making: New insights from communication pattern analysis. In Magnusson, M. S., Burgoon, J. K., & Casarrubea, M. (Eds.), Discovering hidden temporal patterns in behavior and interaction: T-pattern detection and analysis with THEME™ (pp. 37–62). Totowa, NJ, US: Humana Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3249-8_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Casarrubea, M., Jonsson, G. K., Faulisi, F., Sorbera, F., Di Giovanni, G., Benigno, A., … Magnusson, M. S. (2015). T-pattern analysis for the study of temporal structure of animal and human behavior: A comprehensive review. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 23, 934–946. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.09.024.Google Scholar

Castañer, M., Camerino, O., Anguera, M. T., & Jonsson, G. K. (2016). Paraverbal communicative teaching T-patterns using SOCIN and SOPROX observational systems. In Magnusson, M. S., Burgoon, J. K., & Casarrubea, M. (Eds.), Discovering hidden temporal patterns in behavior and interaction: T-pattern detection and analysis with THEME™ (pp. 83–100). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3249-8_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Devlin, K. (2003). Mathematics: The science of patterns: The search for order in life, mind, and the universe. New York, NY: Henry Holt.Google Scholar

Duncan, S. D. Jr., & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods and theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Gabin, B., Camerino, O., Anguera, M. T., & Castañer, M. (2012). Lince: Multiplatform sport analysis software. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4692–4694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hardway, C. L. & Duncan, S. D. Jr. (2005). Me first! Structure and dynamics of a four-way family conflict. In Anolli, L., Duncan, S. D. Jr., & Magnusson, M. (Eds.), The hidden structure of social interaction: From neurons to culture patterns. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar

Hirschenhauser, K., Frigerio, D., Grammer, K., & Magnusson, M. S. (2002). Monthly patterns of testosterone and behavior in prospective fathers. Hormones And Behavior, 42(2), 172–181. Retrieved February 14, 2018, from https://doi.org/10.1006/hbeh.2002.1815.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Magnusson, M. S. (1981). Temporal configuration analysis: Detection of a meaningful underlying structure through artificial categorization of a real-time behavioral stream. Workshop on Artificial Intelligence Uppsala University. (Part of a 1983 Doctoral Thesis at the Psychological laboratory), University of Copenhagen. Download from http://hbl.hi.is, www.dropbox.com/s/g0iag0fhv4ubmlm/Magnusson%20Uppsala%201981%20paper.pdf.Google Scholar

Magnusson, M. S. (1983). Theme and syndrome: Two programs for behavior research. In Edwards, D. & Hoeskuldsson, A. (Eds.), Symposium in applied statistics (pp. 17–42). Copenhagen: NEUCC, RECKU & RECAU.Google Scholar

Magnusson, M. S. (1996). Hidden real-time patterns in intra- and inter-individual behavior: Description and detection. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12(2), 112–123. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.12.2.112CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Magnusson, M. S. (2000). Discovering hidden time patterns in behavior: T-patterns and their detection. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 32(1), 93–110. doi:10.3758/BF03200792CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Magnusson, M. S. (2004). Repeated patterns in behavior and other biological phenomena. In Griebel, U. & Oller, D. K. (Eds.) (2004). Evolution of communication systems: A comparative approach (pp. 111–128). Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Magnusson, M. S. (2005). Understanding social interaction: Discovering hidden structure with model and algorithms. In Anolli, L., Duncan, S. D. Jr., & Magnusson, M. S. (Eds.), The hidden structure of social interaction: From neurons to culture patterns (pp. 3–22). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar

Magnusson, M. S. (2006). Structure and communication in interaction. In Riva, G., Anguera, M. T., Wiederhold, B. K., & Mantovani, F. (Eds.), From communication to presence: Cognition, emotions and culture towards the ultimate communicative experience. Festschrift in honor of Luigi Anolli (pp. 127–46). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar

Magnusson, M. S. (2016). Time and self-similar structure in behavior and interactions: From sequences to symmetry and fractals. In Magnusson, M. S., Burgoon, J. K., & Casarrubea, M. (Eds.), Discovering hidden temporal patterns in behavior and interaction: T-pattern detection and analysis with THEME™ (pp. 3–35). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3249-8_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Magnusson, M. S. (2017a). Why search for hidden repeated temporal behavior patterns: T-pattern analysis with Theme. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapy, 2, 128. https://doi.org/10.15344/2017/2456-3501/128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Magnusson, M. S. (2017b). Theme user manual. Download from http://patternvision.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Theme-Manual-7-June-2017.pdf.Google Scholar

Magnusson, M. S., & Beaudichon, J. (1997). Détection de “marqueurs” dans la communication référentielle entre enfants [Detection of “markers” in referential communication among children]. In Bernicot, J., Caron-Pargue, J., & Trognon, A., (Eds.), Conversation, interaction et fonctionnement cogniti [Conversation, interaction and cognitive functioning] (pp. 315–335). Nancy, France: Presse Universitaire de Nancy.Google Scholar

Magnusson, M. S., Burgoon, J. K., & Casarrubea, M. (2016). Discovering hidden temporal patterns in behavior and interaction: T-pattern detection and analysis with THEME™. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3249-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Montagner, H. (1971). Les communications interindividuelles dans les sociétés de guêpes [Interindividual communication in societies of wasps]. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique: Intercommunications Chez les Animaux, 3–4, 281–296.Google Scholar

Montagner, H. (2012). L’enfant et la communication: Comment gestes, attitudes, vocalisations deviennent des messages [Child and communication: How gestures, postures, vocalizations become messages]. Collection: Enfances [Collections: Childhood]. Paris, France: Dunod.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nicol, A. U., Segonds-Pichon, A., & Magnusson, M. S. (2015). Complex spike patterns in olfactory bulb neuronal networks. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 239, 11–17. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.09.016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Physiology or Medicine (1973). Press Release. Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2014. Retrieved February 14, 2018, from www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1973/press.html.Google Scholar

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior (1st edn.). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Teerikorpi, P., & Baryshev, Y. (2002). Discovery of cosmic fractals. United States of America: World Scientific.Google Scholar

Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1963.tb01161.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asparouhov, T., Hamaker, E., & Muthén, B. (2017). Dynamic structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25, 359–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1406803CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2008). Multilevel mixture models. In Hancock, G. R. & Samuelsen, K. M. (Eds.), Advances in latent variable mixture models (pp. 27–51). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Auld, F. Jr., & White, A. M. (1956). Rules for dividing interviews into sentences. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 42, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1956.9713040CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Back, M. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2010). The social relations model: How to understand dyadic processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(10), 855–870. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00303.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (Vol. 2nd). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Bales, R. F., Cohen, S. P., & Williamson, S. A. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Balkwell, J. W. (1994). Status. In Foschi, M. & Lawler, E. J. (Eds.), Group processes: Sociological analyses (pp. 119–148). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar

Bonito, J. A. (2001). An information-processing approach to participation in small groups. Communication Research, 28(3), 275–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A. (2002). The analysis of participation in small groups: Methodological and conceptual issues related to interdependence. Small Group Research, 33(4), 412–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640203300402CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A. (2007). A local model of information sharing in small groups. Communication Theory, 17(3), 252–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00295.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A., Ervin, J. N., & Staggs, S. M. (2016). Estimation and application of the latent group model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20(3), 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000044CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1997). Participation in small groups. In Burleson, B. R. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 20 (Vol. 20, pp. 227–261). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Bonito, J. A., & Meyers, R. A. (2011). Examining functional communication as egocentric or group-centric: Application of a latent group model. Communication Monographs, 78(4), 463–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2011.618138CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A., & Ruppel, E. K. (2011). An application of the socioegocentric model to information-sharing discussions: In search of group-level communication influences. Communication Research, 38(3), 356–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210377195CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A., Ruppel, E. K., & Keyton, J. (2012). Reliability estimates for multilevel designs in group research. Small Group Research, 43(4), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412437614CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A., & Sanders, R. E. (2009). A different approach to answering a good question: A response to Hewes’s models of communication effects on small group outcomes. Human Communication Research, 35(2), 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01351.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A., & Sanders, R. E. (2011). The existential center of small groups: Member’s conduct and interaction. Small Group Research, 42(3), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410385472CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100105CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corman, S. R., & Kuhn, T. (2005). The detectability of socio-egocentric group speech: A quasi-Turing test. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111849CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cornwell, B. (2015). Social sequence analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coulter, P. (1989). Measuring inequality: A methodological handbook. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (1983). Introduction. In Craig, R. T. & Tracy, K. (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy (pp. 10–22). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Dansereau, F. (2006). Avoiding the “fallacy of the wrong level”: A within and between analysis (WABA) approach. Group & Organization Management, 31(5), 536–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106291131CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2002). Task versus relationship conflict: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2002(1), B1–B6. https://doi.org/10.5465/APBPP.2002.7516590CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, J. A. (1993). Principles and contrasting systems of discourse transcription. In Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Ervin, J. N., Bonito, J. A., & Keyton, J. (2017). Convergence of intrapersonal and interpersonal processes across group meetings. Communication Monographs, 84(2), 200–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2016.1185136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fisek, M. H., & Ofshe, R. (1970). The process of status evolution. Sociometry, 33(3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786161CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Folger, J. P., Hewes, D. E., & Poole, M. S. (1984). Coding social interaction. In Dervin, B. & Voight, M. J. (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (pp. 115–161). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (2002). Modeling the personality of dyads and groups. Journal of Personality, 70(6), 901–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gottman, J. M., & Roy, A. K. (1990). Sequential analysis: A guide for behavorial researchers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gouran, D. S., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1996). Functional theory and communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups: An expanded view. In Hirokawa, R. Y. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (pp. 55–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Morgan, P. C. (Ed.) pp. (41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 47–58. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(195001)6:1%3C47::AID-JCLP2270060111%3E3.0.CO;2-I3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heck, R. H., & Thomas, S. L. (2015). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques: MLM and SEM approaches using Mplus (3rd edn.). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hewes, D. E. (1996). Small group communication may not influence decision making: An amplification of socio-egocentric theory. In Hirokawa, R. Y. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd edn., pp. 179–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hewes, D. E. (2009). The influence of communication processes on group outcomes: Antithesis and thesis. Human Communication Research, 35(2), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01347.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hirokawa, R. Y. (1982). Group communication and problem-solving effectiveness I: A critical review of inconsistent findings. Communication Quarterly, 30(2), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378209369440CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hirokawa, R. Y. (1988). Group communication and decision-making performance: A continued test of the functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 14(4), 487–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00165.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hirokawa, R. Y. (1990). The role of communication in group decision-making efficacy: A task-contingency perspective. Small Group Research, 21(2), 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496490212003CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd edn). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5, 43–46.Google Scholar

Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar

Kameda, T., Ohtsubo, Y., & Takezawa, M. (1997). Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence: An illustration in a group decision-making context. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 73(2), 296–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.296CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 451–477). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google ScholarPubMed

Kenny, D. A., & Garcia, R. L. (2012). Using the actor–partner interdependence model to study the effects of group composition. Small Group Research, 43(4), 468–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412441626CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (1986). Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 422–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.422CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Keyton, J. (1991). Evaluating individual group member satisfaction as a situational variable. Small Group Research, 22(2), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496491222004CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In Frey, L. R., Gouran, D. S., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192–224). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Waller, M. J., Wacker, J., Grande, B., Burtscher, M. J., & Spahn, D. R. (2014). Monitoring and talking to the room: Autochthonous coordination patterns in team interaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1254–1267. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037877CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larson, J. R. (1997). Modeling the entry of shared and unshared information into group discussion: A review and BASIC language computer program. Small Group Research, 28(3), 454–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496497283007CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). A sequential analysis of procedural meeting communication: How teams facilitate their meetings. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(4), 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2013.844847CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lei, Z., Waller, M. J., Hagen, J., & Kaplan, S. (2016). Team adaptiveness in dynamic contexts: Contextualizing the roles of interaction patterns and in-process planning. Group & Organization Management, 41(4), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115615246CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, F., Duncan, T. E., & Hops, H. (2001). Examining developmental trajectories in adolescent alcohol use using piecewise growth mixture modeling analysis. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2001.62.199CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Littlepage, G. E., Schmidt, G. W., Whisler, E. W., & Frost, A. G. (1995). An input-process-output analysis of influence and performance in problem-solving groups. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69(5), 877–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.877CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (2010). Extending the conversational argument coding scheme: Argument categories, units, and coding procedures. Communication Methods and Measures, 4(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312451003680467CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nguyen, V.-A., Boyd-Graber, J., Resnik, P., Cai, D. A., Midberry, J. E., & Wang, Y. (2014). Modeling topic control to detect influence in conversations using nonparametric topic models. Machine Learning, 95(3), 381–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-013-5417-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parker, K. C. (1988). Speaking turns in small group interaction: A context-sensitive event sequence model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 965–971. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.965CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pavitt, C. (2014). An interactive input–process–output model of social influence in decision-making groups. Small Group Research, 45(6), 704–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414548353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pavitt, C., & Johnson, K. K. (1999). An examination of the coherence of group discussions. Communication Research, 26(3), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pavitt, C., & Johnson, K. K. (2002). Scheidel and Crowell revisited: A descriptive study of group proposal sequencing. Communication Monographs, 69(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750216535CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poole, M. S. (1998). The small group should be the fundamental unit of communication research. In Trent, J. S. (Ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the 21st century (pp. 94–97). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar

Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. E. (2000). Organizational change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research. Oxford, UK, and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Putnam, L. L., & Jones, T. S. (1982). The role of communication in bargaining. Human Communication Research, 8(3), 262–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1982.tb00668.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Pickles, A. (2004). Generalized multilevel structural equation modeling. Psychometrika, 69(2), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295939CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sackett, G. P. (1979). The lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity in behavioral interaction research. In Osofsky, J. D. (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (Vol. 1, pp. 623–649). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar

Seibold, D. R., & Meyers, R. A. (2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38(3), 312–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407301966CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shelly, R. K., & Troyer, L. (2001). Emergence and completion of structure in initially undefined and partially defined groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(4), 318–332. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090157CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Skvoretz, J. (1988). Models of participation in status-differentiated groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith-Lovin, L., Skvoretz, J., & Hudson, C. G. (1986). Status and participation in six-person groups: A test of Skvoretz’s comparative status model. Social Forces, 64(4), 992–1005. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/64.4.992CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Soller, A. (2004). Understanding knowledge-sharing breakdowns: A meeting of the quantitative and qualitative minds. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00081.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Soller, A., & Lesgold, A. (2003). A computational approach to analyzing online knowledge sharing interaction. In U. Hoppe, F. Verdejo, & J. Kay (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Shaping the future of learning through intelligent technologies (pp. 253–260). Amsterdam, NL: IOS Press.Google Scholar

Stapleton, L. M., Yang, J. S., & Hancock, G. R. (2016). Construct meaning in multilevel settings. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 41(5), 481–520. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998616646200CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stasser, G., & Taylor, L. A. (1991). Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.675CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14(3), 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1403&4_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stasser, G., & Vaughan, S. I. (1996). Models of participation during face-to-face unstructured discussion. In Witte, E. H. & Davis, J. H. (Eds.), Understanding group behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 165–192). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Tschan, F. (1995). Communication enhances small group performance if it conforms to task requirements: The concept of ideal communication cycles. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(3), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1703_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Lange, P. A. M., & Balliet, D. (2015). Interdependence theory. In Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Simpson, J. A., & Dovidio, J. F. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 65–92). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14344-003CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weingart, L. R., Brett, J. M., Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2007). Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 994–1010. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.994CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Weingart, L. R., Prietula, M. J., Hyder, E. B., & Genovese, C. R. (1999). Knowledge and the sequential processes of negotiation: A Markov chain analysis of response-in-kind. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(4), 366–393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wickham, R. E., & Knee, C. R. (2012). Interdependence theory and the actor–partner interdependence model: Where theory and method converge. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(4), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312447897CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., & Botero, I. C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71(3), 286–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000299894CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., Paulus, P. B., Hirokawa, R. Y., Ancona, D. G., Peterson, R. S., … Yoon, K. (2004). The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups. Small Group Research, 35(1), 17–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403259459CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zijlstra, F. R. H., Waller, M. J., & Phillips, S. I. (2012). Setting the tone: Early interaction patterns in swift-starting teams as a predictor of effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(5), 749–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.690399CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aisenbrey, S., & Fasang, A. E. (2010). New life for old ideas: The “second wave” of sequence analysis: Bringing the “course” back into the life course. Sociological Methods and Research, 38, 420–462. doi:10.1177/0049124109357532CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 485–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bavelas, J., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in groups, London, UK: Tavistock.Google Scholar

Brzinsky-Fay, C., & Kohler, U. (2010). New developments in sequence analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 38, 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124110363371CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brzinsky-Fay, C., Kohler, U., & Luniak, M. (2006). Sequence analysis with Stata. Stata Journal, 6, 435–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Butts, C. T. (2008). A relational event framework for social action. Sociological Methodology, 38, 155–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cornwell, B. (2015). Social sequence analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gabadinho, A., Ritschard, G., Müller, N. S., & Studer, M. (2011). Analyzing and visualizing state sequences in R with TraMineR. Journal of Statistical Software, 40, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Gouhier, T. C., & Guichard, F. (2014). Synchrony: Quantifying variability in space and time. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5, 524–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hollenstein, T. (2007). State space grids: Analyzing dynamics across development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 384–396. doi:10.1177/0165025407077765CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmes, M., & Poole, M. S. (1991). The longitudinal analysis of interaction. In Montgomery, B. & Duck, S. (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 286–302). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar

Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.) (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Kruskal, J. B. (1983). Sequence comparison. In Sankoff, D. & Kruskal, J. B. (Eds.), Time warps, string edits, and macromolecules: The theory and practice of sequence comparison (pp. 1–21). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Lewis, M. D., Lamey, A. V., & Douglas, L. (1999). A new dynamic systems method for the analysis of early socioemotional development. Developmental Science, 2, 457–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (2010). Extending the conversational argument coding scheme: Argument categories, units, and coding procedures. Communication Methods and Measures, 4, 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Murase, T., Asencio, R., DeChurch, L. A., Contractor, N., Mathieu, J. E., & Poole, M. S. (2015, November). The effect of synchronization of group processes on multiteam system effectiveness. Group Communication Division, National Communication Association Conference, Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar

Pilny, A., Schecter, A., Poole, M. S., & Contractor, N. (2016). An illustration of the relational event model to analyze group interaction processes. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20, 181–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poole, M. S., & Holmes, M. E. (1995). Decision development in computer-assisted group decision making. Human Communication Research, 22, 90–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poole, M. S., Lambert, N., Murase, T., Asencio, R., & McDonald, J. (2017). Sequential analysis of processes. In Langley, A. & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.), Sage handbook of process organization studies (pp. 254–270). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Poole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989). Decision development in small groups IV: A typology of decision paths. Human Communication Research, 15, 323–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. E. (2000). Organizational change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rogers, L. E., & Cummings, J. A. (2017). Relational communication control. In VanLear, C. A. & Canary, D. J. (Eds.) Researching interactive communication behavior (pp. 93–106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Seibold, D. R., & Weger, H. W. (2017). The conversational argument coding scheme. In VanLear, C. A., & Canary, D. J. (Eds.), Researching interactive communication behavior: A sourcebook of methods and measures (pp. 159–174). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tschan, F. (1995). Communication enhances small group performance if it conforms to task requirements: The concept of ideal communication cycles. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

VanLear, C. A., & Canary, D. J. (2017). Researching interactive communication behavior: A sourcebook of methods and measures. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, UK: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Auld, F. Jr., & White, A. M. (1956). Rules for dividing interviews into sentences. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 42, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1956.9713040CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Beck, S. J., & Keyton, J. (2009). Perceiving strategic meeting interaction. Small Group Research, 40, 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408330084CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A. (2001). An information-processing approach to participation in small groups. Communication Research, 28, 275–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A. (2003). A social relations analysis of participation in small groups. Communication Monographs, 70, 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363775032000133755CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A., Keyton, J., & Ervin, J. N. (2017). Role-related participation in product design teams: Individual- and group-level trends. Communication Research, 44(2), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215618759CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A., & Meyers, R. A. (2011). Examining functional communication as egocentric or group-centric: Application of a latent group model. Communication Monographs, 78, 463–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2011.618138CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burscher, B., Odijk, D., Vliegenthart, R., Rijke, M., & de Vreese, C. H. (2014). Teaching the computer to code frames in news: Comparing two supervised machine learning approaches to frame analysis. Communication Methods and Measures, 8, 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2014.937527CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burscher, B., van Spanje, J., & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). Owning the issues of crime and immigration: The relation between immigration and crime news and anti-immigrant voting in 11 countries. Electoral Studies, 38, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carletta, J. (2007). Unleashing the killer corpus: Experiences in creating the multi-everything AMI Meeting Corpus. Language Resources and Evaluation, 41, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-007-9040-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carletta, J., Ashby, S., Bourban, S., Flynn, M., Guillemot, M., Hain, T., … Wellner, P. (2006). The AMI meeting corpus: A pre-announcement. In Renals, S. & Bengio, S. (Eds.), Machine learning for multimodal interaction (Vol. 3869, pp. 28–39). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11677482_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64, 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, J. A. (1993). Principles and contrasting systems of discourse transcription. In Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Ervin, J. N., Bonito, J. A., & Keyton, J. (2017). Convergence of intrapersonal and interpersonal processes across group meetings. Communication Monographs, 84, 200–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2016.1185136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feinerer, I., & Hornik, K. (2017). tm: Text Mining Package (Version R package version 0.7–1). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tmGoogle Scholar

Fushiki, T. (2011). Estimation of prediction error by using K-fold cross-validation. Statistics and Computing, 21, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-009-9153-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gorisch, J., Wells, B., & Brown, G. J. (2012). Pitch contour matching and interactional alignment across turns: An acoustic investigation. Language and Speech, 55, 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911428874CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gouran, D. S., Hirokawa, R. Y., Julian, K. M., & Leatham, G. B. (1993). The evolution and current status of the functional perspective on communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups. In Anderson, J. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 16 (pp. 573–600). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21, 267–297. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pan/mps028CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 47–58. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(195001)6:1%3C47::AID-JCLP2270060111%3E3.0.CO;2-I3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guidelines for Dialogue Act and Addressee Annotation Version 1.0. (2005). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from http://groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/ami/corpus/Guidelines/dialogue_acts_manual_1.0.pdfGoogle Scholar

Hain, T., Wan, V., Burget, L., Karafiat, M., Dines, J., Vepa, J., & Lincoln, M. (2007). The AMI system for the transcription of speech in meetings. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2007. ICASSP 2007 (Vol. 4, p. IV-357–IV-360). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2007.366923Google Scholar

Hand, D. J. (2006). Classifier technology and the illusion of progress. Statistical Science, 21, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1214/088342306000000060Google Scholar

Interdisciplinary Insights into Group and Team Dynamics. (2017). Special Issue: Small Group Research, 48, 519–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ivezić, Ž., Connolly, A. J., VanderPlas, J. T., & Gray, A. (2014). Statistics, data mining, and machine learning in astronomy: A practical Python guide for the analysis of survey data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2013). An introduction to statistical learning: with applications in R (1st edn. 2013, Corr. 6th printing 2016 edition). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jarnow, J. (2016). Why our crazy-smart AI still sucks at transcribing speech. Retrieved March 16, 2017, from www.wired.com/2016/04/long-form-voice-transcription/Google Scholar

Jurka, T. P., Collingwood, L., Boydstun, A. E., Grossman, E., & van Atteveldt, W. (2014). RTextTools: Automatic text classification via supervised learning (Version R package version 1.4.2). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RTextToolsGoogle Scholar

Keyton, J., & Beck, S. J. (2009). The influential role of relational messages in group interaction. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13, 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013495CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lambert, B. L. (2001). Automatic content analysis of pharmacist-patient interactions using the Theme Machine document clustering system. In West, M. (Ed.), Progress in communication sciences, Volume 17: Applications of computer content analysis (pp. 103–122). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar

Maas, A. L., Qi, P., Xie, Z., Hannun, A. Y., Lengerich, C. T., Jurafsky, D., & Ng, A. Y. (2017). Building DNN acoustic models for large vocabulary speech recognition. Computer Speech & Language, 41, 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2016.06.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meyer, D., Hornik, K., & Feinerer, I. (2008). Text mining infrastructure in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 25, 1–54. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i05Google Scholar

Meyers, R. A. (1989). Testing persuasive argument theory’s predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence. Communication Monographs, 56, 112–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758909390254CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (2010). Extending the conversational argument coding scheme: Argument categories, units, and coding procedures. Communication Methods and Measures, 4, 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312451003680467CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nguyen, V., Boyd-Graber, J., Resnik, P., Cai, D. A., Midberry, J. E., & Wang, Y. (2014). Modeling topic control to detect influence in conversations using nonparametric topic models. Machine Learning, 95, 381–421. doi:10.1007/s10994-013-5417-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poole, M. S., & Folger, J. P. (1981). A method for establishing the representational validity of interaction coding systems: Do we see what they see? Human Communication Research, 8, 26–42. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1981.tb00654.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Putnam, L. L., & Stohl, C. (1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context. Communication Studies, 41, 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979009368307CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reidsma, D., Heylen, D., & Op Den Akker, R. (2009). On the contextual analysis of agreement scores. In Kipp, M., Martin, J., Paggio, P., & Heylen, D. (Eds.), Multimodal corpora: From models of natural interaction to systems and applications (pp. 122–137). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1809277.1809288CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scheerhorn, D., Geist, P., & Teboul, J. B. (1994). Beyond decision making in decision-making groups: Implications for the study of group communication. In Frey, L. R. (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups. (pp. 247–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1403&4_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taboada, M., Brooke, J., Tofiloski, M., Voll, K., & Stede, M. (2011). Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis. Computational Linguistics, 37, 267–307. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00049CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tsai, Y. (1977). Hierarchical structure of participation in natural groups. Behavioral Science, 22(1), 38–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830220106CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., Paulus, P. B., Hirokawa, R. Y., Ancona, D. G., Peterson, R. S., & Yoon, K. (2004). The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups. Small Group Research, 35, 17–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403259459CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boos, M. (1992). A typology of case studies. In Súilleabháin, M. Ó., Stuhler, E. A., & de Tombe, D. J. (Eds.), Research on cases and theories, Vol. 1 (pp. 5–16). Mering: Hampp.Google Scholar

Bratman, M. E. (1992). Shared cooperative activity. The Philosophical Review, 101(2), 327–341. doi:10.2307/2185537CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaption: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1189–1297. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1189CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cacciabue, P. C., & Hollnagel, E. (1994). Simulation of cognition: Applications. In Hoc, J.-M., Cacciabue, P. C., & Hollnagel, E. (Eds.), Expertise and technology. Cognition & human-computer cooperation (pp. 55–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Myers, C. W., & Duran, J. L. (2013). Interactive team cognition. Cognitive Science, 37, 255–285. doi:255-285.10.1111/cogs.12009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Kiekel, P. A., & Bell, B. (2004). Advances in measuring team cognition. In Salas, E. & Fiore, S. M. (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 83–106). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10690-005CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419–1452. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00386CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fiore, S., Rosen, M., Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., Letsky, M., & Warner, N. (2010). Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: Predicting processes in complex collaborative contexts. Human Factors, 52(2), 203–224. doi:10.1177/0018720810369807CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fruhen, L. S., Flin, R., & McLeod, R. (2014). Chronic unease for safety in managers: A conceptualisation. Journal of Risk Research, 17(8), 869–979. doi:10.1080/13669877.2013.822924CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grote, G., Weichbrodt, J.C., Günter, H., Zala-Mezö, E., & Künzle, B. (2009). Coordination in high-risk organizations: The need for flexible routines. Cognition, Technology & Work, 11, 17–27. doi:10.1007/s10111-008-0119-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klein, G., Ross, K. G., Moon, B. M., Klein, D. E., Hoffman, R. R., & Hollnagel, E. (2003). Macrocognition. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 18(3), 81–85. doi:10.1109/MIS.2003.1200735CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Künzle, B., Zala-Mezö, E., Wacker, J., Kolbe, M., Spahn, D. R., & Grote, G. (2010). Leadership in anaesthesia teams: The most effective leadership is shared. Quality & Safety in Healthcare, 19, 1–6. doi:10.1136/qshc.2008.030262Google ScholarPubMed

Letsky, M., Warner, N., Fiore, S. M., Rosen, M. A., & Salas, E. (2007). Macrocognition in complex team problem solving. Proceedings of the 12th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (12th ICCRTS), Newport, RI, June 2007. Washington, DC: US Department of Defense Command and Control Research Program.Google Scholar

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Patterson, E. S., Miller, J. E., Roth, E. M., & Woods, D. D. (2010). Macrocognition: Where do we stand? In Patterson, E. S. & Miller, J. E. (Eds.), Macrocognition metrics and scenarios: Design and evaluation for real-world teams (pp. xxiii–xxxi). Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar

Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents. Living with high-risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Ritz, F. (2012). Organizational trust and trust in automated systems as predictors for safety related team performance: Results from a cross-cultural study. In Salvendy, G. & Karwowski, W. (Eds.), Advances in human factors and ergonomics 2012, 14 Volume Set: Proceedings of the 4th AHFE Conference 21–25 July 2012 (pp. 7249–7258). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar

Ritz, F., Kleindienst, C., Brüngger, J., & Koch, J. (2015). Coping with unexpected safety-critical situations through adaptation: A concept for resilient (simulator) team training. 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, AHFE 2015, Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 1865–1871.Google Scholar

Ritz, F., & Koch, J. (2015). Die Entwicklung sicherheitsgerichteten Führungsverhaltens zur Bewältigung von kritischen Systemzuständen durch Leitwarten-Teams in der Kerntechnik [The development of safety-oriented leadership behavior to handle critical system conditions by control room teams in nuclear power engineering]. In Grandt, M. & Schmerwitz, S. (Eds.), Kooperation und kooperative Systeme in der Fahrzeug- und Prozessführung [Cooperation and cooperative systems in vehicle and process management] (pp. 171–186). Bonn, DE: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrt.Google Scholar

Rosen, M. A., Fiore, S. M., Salas, E., Letsky, M., & Warner, N. (2008). Tightly coupling cognition: Understanding how communication and awareness drive coordination in teams. The International C2 Journal, 2(1), 1–29.Google Scholar

Savioja, P., Norros, L., Salo, L., & Aaltonen, I. (2014). Identifying resilience in proceduralised accident management activity of NPP operating crews. Safety Science, 68, 258–274. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.04.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stachowski, A., Kaplan, S. A., & Waller, M. J. (2009). The benefits of flexible team interaction during crises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1536–1543. doi:10.1037/a0016903CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675–735. doi:10.1017/S0140525X05000129CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Vidal, M. C. R., Carvalho, P. V. R., Santos, M. S., & dos Santos, I. J. L. (2009). Collective work and resilience of complex systems. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 22, 516–527. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2009.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Waller, M. J. (1999). The timing of adaptive group responses to nonroutine events. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 127–137. doi:10.2307/257088CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Waller, M. J., Gupta, N., & Giambatista, R. C. (2004). Effects of adaptive behaviors and shared mental models on control crew performance. Management Science, 50(11), 1534–1544. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1040.0210CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th edn.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Zala-Mezö, E., Wacker, J., Künzle, B., Brüesch, M., & Grote, G. (2009). The influence of standardisation and task load on team coordination patterns during anaesthesia inductions. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 18(2), 127–130. doi:10.1136/qshc.2007.025973CrossRefGoogle Scholar