Behavior Research Methods

https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01799-3

Self-report and facial expression indicators of team cohesion

development
Justin W. Bonny1 

Accepted: 14 January 2022

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2022

Abstract
Ad hoc teams are formed to complete tasks across formal and informal environments. More effective teams tend to report
higher cohesion, more strongly identifying as a group. Dynamic theories of team processes suggest that cohesion changes as
teams form and perform to achieve a goal. The present research examined approaches for rapidly measuring team dynamics
to investigate how cohesion developed in newly formed teams as they completed a series of video game matches. Self-report
ratings of cohesion were collected via manikin-based measures designed to be rapidly completed. In addition, the emotion
valence and arousal of facial expressions of teammates were estimated via video recordings. Results suggested that percep-
tions of cohesion rapidly changed as teams completed video game matches. The present study indicates that manikin-based
self-report measures and emotion valence of facial expressions are dynamic and could be used as behavioral indicators of
team cohesion development.

Keywords  Video games · Teams · Cohesion · Emotion · Facial expressions

Introduction manikin-based self-report scales and the facial expressions

Small teams play a key role in the effectiveness of many
professional and sports organizations (Elbardissi et al., 2013;
Huckman et al., 2009). Composed of two or more interde-
pendent individuals that interact to achieve common goals
(Mathieu et al., 2019), previous research suggests that effec-
tive teams tend to have higher cohesion in addition to higher
performance (Beal et al., 2003; Carron, Bray, & Eys, 2002a;
Zaccaro et al., 1995). Cohesion refers to the extent to which
individuals are drawn together as a group (Festinger, 1950;
Mullen & Copper, 1994) and has been found to change as
teams accumulate experience performing a task (Harrison
et al., 1998). With evidence of dynamic changes in team
processes, monitoring the cohesion of teams while perform-
ing could allow for issues to be quickly identified as teams
work towards completing a goal. However, current measures
of cohesion typically require the use of long-form question-
naires, which are limited in their use as real-time indica-
tors of cohesion. Recent studies examining the use of brief,
* Justin W. Bonny
justin.bonny@morgan.edu
1
Department of Psychology, Morgan State University, 1700
East Cold Spring Lane, Baltimore, MD, USA
of teammates offer potential methods for developing indica-
tors of team cohesion in near real time. Questions remain
regarding whether such measures are sensitive to longitu-
dinal changes as teams form and gain experience working
together and reflect self-reported team cohesion. The goals
of the present study were to examine whether manikin-
based ratings and facial expressions of teammates changed
as newly formed teams accumulated experience and reflected
team cohesion rather than external factors.
Dynamics of team processes
Cohesion likely varies as a team works towards a goal. The
input-process-output (IPO) model of team functioning pro-
poses that task and teammate characteristics (input) influ-
ence team communication and coordination as members
perform the task (process) to achieve the objective (output;
Gino et al., 2010; Hackman & Morris, 1975; Kozlowski
& Ilgen, 2006). It has been extended to incorporate the
dynamic and cyclical nature of team functioning (Ilgen et al.,
2005; Marks et al., 2001). Team processes are modeled as
phasic, with multiple IPO episodes occurring as a team
forms and completes goals in order to achieve the task objec-
tive (Ilgen et al., 2005). The outcomes of the previous phase

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

influence the input and processes of the subsequent phase
(Marks et al., 2001). Cohesion is considered to be an emer-
gent state in the IPO model, capturing member attitudes,
emotions, and task context, changing as teams perform and
can be included as input in subsequent phases (Marks et al.,
2001). The dynamic nature of cohesion as an emergent state
indicates that it likely varies as teams accumulate experience
and progress through IPO episodes. As such, it is predicted
that real-time measures of team functioning that are associ-
ated with cohesion will change as teams are performing to
achieve the task objective.
A relatively unexplored question is how ad hoc team
cohesion develops in near real time while completing an
exercise. Past research has typically examined the develop-
ment of team cohesion across large temporal scales, such
as weeks-long projects (Chang & Bordia, 2001; Terborg
et al., 1976). In comparison, ad hoc groups of members
that are assembled for a specific, time-limited situation are
prevalent in multiple fields including trauma units (Rob-
erts et al., 2014), military units (Ben-Shalom et al., 2005),
and emergency response coalitions (McMaster & Baber,
2012). As present measures of team cohesion typically rely
on members having collaborated for an extended period of
time (Brawley et al., 1987), it is unclear the extent to which
cohesion is relatively static or dynamically changing as an
ad hoc team forms and performs to reach a goal. This is
particularly important when considering that teams can be
relatively diverse when it comes to strategizing and execut-
ing to reach a goal (Ancona, 1990). The goal of the present
research was to examine how cohesion unfolds and changes
in real time while ad hoc teams complete an exercise.
Manikin‑based scales and team cohesion
To evaluate cohesion as teams are completing an exercise,
near-real-time measures are required. Current widely used
measures, such as the Group Environment Questionnaire,
typically present a set of items to each team member to com-
plete after a group activity (Brawley et al., 1987; Eys et al.,
2007). This format is not well suited for rapid responses
(e.g., large number of response items) while an activity is
underway. As such, current self-report measures of team
cohesion are limited in their ability to examine how cohe-
sion varies during a team exercise.
Brief self-report measures have been effectively utilized
to assess components of emotion responses to stimuli. Spe-
cifically, single-item self-assessment manikins have been
found to be reliable and valid real-time measures of facets of
emotion, including arousal, valence, and dominance (Brad-
ley & Lang, 1994). Manikin-based scales differ from more
commonly used rating scales in that they are designed to
visually, rather than verbally, represent a continuous psycho-
logical dimension (Morris, 1995). As applied to dimensions
13
Behavior Research Methods
of emotion, such as valence, a series of human-like figures
includes iconic depictions associated with valence such as a
frown or smile and raised or un-raised cheeks. After being
provided with instructions about the manikins and what the
visualizations represent, respondents are then presented with
the scales and asked to select the manikin item that best
matches the psychological construct of interest. Responses
on these scales have been found to align with physiological
recordings, providing evidence that these brief self-report
measures can be used to assess near-real-time emotion
responses (Lang et al., 1993).
An exploratory study used a set of manikin measures to
assess team cohesion in near real time. Specifically, Bonny
(2018) constructed a group-based manikin scale based on
three-factor models of cohesion, proposed by Festinger
(1950) and supported by meta-analyses investigating con-
nections between team cohesion and performance (Mullen
& Copper, 1994). Utilizing parallels to physical forces, team
cohesion has been argued to be composed of multiple com-
ponents: interpersonal attraction (the extent to which mem-
bers are drawn together), task commitment (the degree to
which members pursue goal-related tasks), and group pride
(the extent to which members support and take pleasure in
the success of team; Festinger, 1950; Mullen & Copper,
1994). The manikin scale was designed to visually depict
groups of individuals that varied across these dimensions.
In addition, the scale was designed to be rapidly completed
by team members, in line with the dynamic IPO model
(Ilgen et al., 2005; Marks et al., 2001). Results indicated
that the manikin scale responses were correlated with estab-
lished post hoc measures of cohesion and changed during
the team-based tasks. This suggested that, like emotion,
manikin-based measures could be used to track changes in
group-based constructs, such as cohesion. However, Bonny
(2018) was limited in the number of participants collected
from ad hoc groups. Further research was required to iden-
tify whether such manikin-based measures were, indeed,
valid indicators of team cohesion.
Expressed emotions and team dynamics
Evidence suggests that the facial expressions of teammates
can relate to aspects of team dynamics. Indeed, connections
with emotions expressed by teammates have been observed
with team performance (Chikersal et al., 2017; Moll et al.,
2010) and ratings of cohesion (Mønster et al., 2016). A ben-
efit of using such measures over self-report scales is the abil-
ity to record data in real time without any response require-
ment from teammates. Facial expressions of co-located
teammates may serve as a nonverbal communication channel
regarding team processes. Displays of emotion, including
facial expressions, gaze direction, and motor actions among
members, can become coordinated and converge while
Behavior Research Methods
teams are interacting to complete a task (Parkinson, 2020).
Additionally, the composition of affective states of groups
is proposed to be dynamic (Kelly & Barsade, 2001). The
amount of positive versus negative emotion self-reported
by members of small teams has been found to be connected
with performance (Jung, 2016), and the amount of positive
emotion displayed by soccer players during matches cor-
related with team outcomes (Moll et al., 2010). As models
of team dynamics distinguish between cohesion and perfor-
mance, an outstanding question is to what extent the emotion
expressed by members can be used to predict the cohesion,
in addition to the performance, of the team.
A concern regarding the use of group measures of psy-
chophysiological signals, such as synchrony, to infer team
dynamics is whether the source of said synchrony is the
team. Factors external to a team could lead to similarities
in such measures, resulting in incorrect conclusions about
team dynamics (Burgess, 2013). For example, team mem-
bers similarly displaying smiles could be mistaken as evi-
dence of a cohesive team when it was instead due to external
influences, such as watching the same event occur on a video
screen. A previous study by Mønster et al. (2016) included a
method to address these concerns. In the study, small teams
were given a construction task where they were asked to pro-
duce as many items as possible while physiological signals
were recorded. To evaluate the extent to which physiologi-
cal measures were sensitive to team dynamics, team-wide
scores were calculated in two conditions, using members
of the same team (real team) and members from different
teams (pseudo team). In this design, similar values for scores
calculated for groups composed of members of the same and
different teams would indicate that team synchrony was due
to external factors, in line with Burgess (2013). In the study,
of the measures recorded, synchrony in electromyography
activity from the zygomaticus major (muscle involved in
face smiles) and electrodermal activity (skin conductance)
was greater for the real compared to pseudo teams. This
suggested that these physiological signals were sensitive to
team membership. Furthermore, teams displaying greater
synchrony in muscle activity associated with smiles during
the task self-reported higher post hoc ratings of team cohe-
sion (Mønster et al., 2016). This suggested that physiological
signals associated with smiling could indicate team dynam-
ics. Emotion displayed via facial expressions has also been
found to correlate with aspects of team performance. In a
study by Chikersal et al. (2017), dyads were video-recorded
during completion of a series of tasks. Using facial recog-
nition software, the valence of facial expressions of each
partner was extracted, ranging from positive (e.g., happy)
to negative (e.g., sad). When examining task performance,
dyads with higher synchrony in facial expressions tended to
have higher performance (Chikersal et al., 2017). Both stud-
ies indicated that facial expressions of emotion, specifically
the valence expressed by teammates, may correlate with
aspects of team effectiveness.
Present study
The present research examined whether cohesion manikin
scale ratings and facially expressed emotions of teammates
change with accumulated experience and indicate post hoc
team cohesion. Groups of participants were recruited to
complete a series of team-based video game matches. In
this game, players controlled virtual cars as they “hit” a ball
around an arena, attempting to score on the opponent team's
goal. This type of team-based video game was selected for
three main reasons. First, team-based video games have been
used in previous research to study team dynamics (Bonny,
2018; Freeman & Wohn, 2019). Second, despite being a
game played by maneuvering a virtual car via a control-
ler, the mechanics of the game were similar to the sport of
soccer, which has been studied in previous team research
(e.g., Moll et al., 2010). Third, although a team-based game,
individual players had much freedom regarding whether to
coordinate their actions with their teammates or act indepen-
dently. To characterize teams in the present study with past
research, the dimensional scale models of team structure was
used (Hollenbeck et al., 2012). The framework proposes that
teams can be distinguished by three dimensions: skill dif-
ferentiation, authority differentiation, and temporal stability.
Within this framework, the ad hoc teams in the present study
were low in temporal stability (formed to complete a single
session), low in skill differentiation (each member could per-
form the same set of actions in the video game), and low in
authority differentiation (there was no pre-designated team
leader).
A set of brief cohesion manikin scales (Bonny, 2018) was
modified and administered to participants after each video
game match was completed. These modifications included
the addition of a social bonding item and a group viability
item in response to weak correlations observed in Bonny
(2018) between cohesion manikin scale responses and
Group Environment Questionnaire scales reflecting social
integration of the team and a gap in the measure for assess-
ing the likelihood of individuals remaining as a team (Bell
& Marentette, 2011). In addition to manikin scales, the pre-
sent study collected estimates of the valence and arousal of
facial expressions of teammates. Past studies observed that
synchrony in muscle activity related to smiles of team mem-
bers was correlated with cohesion (Mønster et al., 2016) and
that estimated valence of expressed emotions was associated
with performance (Chikersal et al., 2017). Participants were
video-recorded while completing the game, and software
was used to estimate the valence (ranging from positive to
negative) and arousal (ranging from activated to subdued)
13

of facial expressions, in line with the circumplex model of
emotion (Lang et al., 1993).
Two types of team measures were calculated to examine
the sensitivity of manikin and facial expression measures
of teammates to changes in team dynamics: the mean level
and the variability of measures across members. Previous
research has used the mean of team member traits to exam-
ine how the level of the trait being expressed on the team
relates to team functioning (Terborg et al., 1976). Team vari-
ability, specifically the normalized mean Euclidean distance
(MEDn) score, has been used to characterize the diversity
of a team with regard to a particular trait, with lower scores
indicating greater teammate similarity (Biemann & Kear-
ney, 2010). Although higher similarity scores for real ver-
sus pseudo teams would not be sufficient evidence to reject
external factors as the source (cf. Burgess, 2013), the lack of
such differences would indicate that the manikin and facial
expression measures were not sensitive to factors internal to
teams. To further test whether such measures were indicators
of team cohesion, a questionnaire that has been previously
observed to correlate with team cohesion and effectiveness,
the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ; Brawley et al.,
1987; Carron et al., 1985; Carron, Colman, et al., 2002b; Eys
et al., 2007), was administered after participants completed
all video game matches. The GEQ scales assess multiple
aspects of team cohesion, specifically whether members felt
that they were part of the group and whether all members
coalesced into a group around completing the task at hand as
well as social interactions (Brawley et al., 2002). Evidence
of correlations between self-report ratings and facial expres-
sion measures and GEQ scales would further support such
measures as being indicators of team cohesion development.
Three predictions were made. It was hypothesized that if
manikin-based and facial expression measures were influ-
enced by team dynamics, they would be more similar among
members of the same versus opposing teams (Hypothesis
1) and would change as teams gained experience playing
the video game (Hypothesis 2). To test the sensitivity of
measures to team membership, for each testing session, two
teams of participants competed against each other via the
team-based video game. Third, it was hypothesized that if
manikin-based and facial expression measures reflected team
cohesion, they would correlate with team cohesion measured
via traditional questionnaires administered after completing
the video game matches (Hypothesis 3).
Method
Participants
A total of 249 individuals participated on teams in the pre-
sent research. Data from one additional participant, who was
13
Behavior Research Methods
a member of a team, were removed from further analysis due
to missing data. A power analysis based on a correlation,
r = .174, observed by Mønster et al. (2016) between self-
report ratings regarding member positive affect towards the
group and greater zygomaticus muscle activity, associated
with smiling, indicated that statistical power of .80 would
be achieved with a sample size of 254. The mean age of par-
ticipants was 38.41 years (SD = 12.92, Min = 18, Max = 65),
with a total of 147 identifying their gender as female (100 as
male, 1 as transgender, and 1 as other), and, regarding self-
identified race and ethnicity, 4 as Asian (no Hispanic), 140
as Black (6 as Hispanic), 101 as White (2 as Hispanic), and
4 as multiracial (1 as Hispanic). A total of 213 participants
reported playing video games during a typical week, and 65
reported having either played or watched the targeted video
game Rocket League (43 having played; 184 having no expe-
rience with the game). The research protocol was approved
by local and US federal independent review boards.
Software and materials
A camcorder (Sony Handycam CX405) was placed on a
tripod in front of each participant, focusing on the upper
body, including their face. During the study, the camcorder
recorded participants using standard definition resolution
(1280 × 768 pixels). Participants were seated around a square
table with their teammates. In the same room was the oppo-
nent team, seated in a similar configuration. A fabric curtain
separated the two teams such that members could not view,
but could hear audio from, the opposing team.
Each participant had a gaming-ready laptop computer
(39.6 cm diagonal screen; 1920 × 1080-pixel resolution)
to complete the team-based video game. A game control-
ler (Microsoft Xbox One) was used to play the game. An
adjacent touchscreen laptop computer was used to complete
self-report measures during the study.
The team-based video game was a car-based soccer game,
Rocket League (Psyonix LLC). The game was based on the
sport of soccer, but with remote-controlled vehicles replac-
ing human players. Each player drove a virtual car around
a virtual field to hit a large soccer ball into an opponent’s
goal, and keep it out of their own goal. Verbal and written
instructions were provided to participants on how to play the
game prior to the start of the first game match.
Procedure
At the start of a testing session, two teams of participants
were formed with the same number of members, ranging
from two to four. Each team competed against each other
during the session. Prior to team assignment, participants
reported on average how much time per week they had
played Rocket League over the past two years (0 = I have
Behavior Research Methods
Fig. 1  Anchor images and accompanying statements for each item of the cohesion assessment manikin (CAM) scales. Instructions for the scale
emphasized that participants select which item image (ranging from 1 to 7) best reflected how they felt about their team at the current moment
never played this game, 1 = 5 minutes, 2 = 15 minutes, 3 = 45
minutes, 4 = 1 hour, 5 = 2 hours, 6 = 5 hours, 7 = 10 hours,
8 = 15 hours, 9 = more than 15 hours) and how familiar they
were with the other participants present during the study
session using a modified inclusion of the other in the self
scale with low familiarity indicated by two non-overlapping
circles (1) to two circles almost completely overlapping (7;
Aron et al., 1992; Gächter et al., 2015). For each session,
participants were sorted into two teams to minimize inter-
team differences in Rocket League experience and intra-team
member familiarity. A total of 72 teams took part in the
study (N four-person teams = 40; N three-person teams = 26;
N two-person teams = 6). After providing instructions for
the video game, participants were informed that the team
that accrued the most goals during the session would earn
a bonus of $5 each (all participants received $95 cash for
their participation). Participants were given a paper packet
of instructions for completing the manikin measures and for
how to play the team-based video game.
Next, the researchers set each camcorder to start record-
ing and the first match was started. Participants then com-
pleted a total of four matches of the team-based video game.
Each match had five minutes of game time. The game timer
was paused when a goal was scored, and the team with the
most goals at the end of the match was declared the win-
ner. In cases where a tie occurred at the end of the match,
teams completed overtime where the first goal would end
the match. At the end of each match, participants were
able to view the performance statistics of their team and
the opponent team. Afterwards, the researchers instructed
participants to complete the cohesion assessment manikin
(CAM) scales based on how they felt about their team at that
moment. After the fourth match, the camcorders were turned
off and participants were asked to complete self-report meas-
ures of cohesion. Participants were then informed of which
team earned the bonus incentive. The testing session lasted
approximately 80 minutes.
Team measures
Goals scored
For each team and match, the number of goals scored by a
team was recorded to assess team performance. In addition,
the total number of goals scored across all matches was cal-
culated as an indicator of overall team performance.
Cohesion assessment manikin scales (CAM)
A set of pictographic self-report scales was developed to
rapidly assess cohesion during the research session. Based
on a previous study (Bonny, 2018), the cohesion assessment
manikin (CAM) scales were developed to include one-item
unipolar measures for components of team cohesion. A
total of five scales were designed to reflect interpersonal
attraction, task commitment, group pride, social bonding,
and group viability [see Fig. 1; see Bonny (2022b) for par-
ticipant instructions and full measure]. For each scale, a
set of seven images each containing manikin figures and
symbols was used to display an aspect of cohesion, ranging
from high cohesion to low cohesion. Prior to the team-based
tasks, participants were presented with written instructions
13

providing a description of each scale. During the group task,
each scale was presented individually on a computer screen,
with the images arranged horizontally and a response prompt
displayed at the top. Accompanying the high and low anchor
for each scale were short phrases presented to remind par-
ticipants of the spectrum of the scale. The mean rating of
all scales was calculated and used during analyses. Ratings
were aligned with other cohesion measures, with higher
scores indicating greater reported cohesion.
Group Environment Questionnaire
Team cohesion was assessed using a modified version of
the GEQ, which has been previously found to be reliable
and valid (Brawley et al., 2002). The four scales of the GEQ
include perceptions of the group integrating around the task-
ing at hand (group integration—task; GIT), extent to which
the group coalesced around social aspects of the group
(group integration—social; GIS), individual drive to com-
plete the task (attractions towards the group—task; ATGT),
and individual interest in socially affiliating with group
members (attractions towards the group—social; ATGS).
To account for the ad hoc nature of the teams in the present
study, statements within the original scale were adjusted,
similar to previous research (Bonny, 2018). The scores for
each scale were calculated for each participant using mean
question responses. To create a team-level score, the mean of
member responses was calculated for each GEQ scale, with
higher scores indicating greater team cohesion.
Measures of facial emotion expression
Video recordings of each team member were analyzed using
the FaceReader 8.0 video software package (Noldus Infor-
mation Technology). The software uses facial recognition
algorithms to estimate the presence and absence of facial
action units and calculate the emotion being displayed by
an individual, in alignment with the Facial Action Coding
System (Ekman & Friesen, 1971). Each video was down-
sampled to 30 frames per second (FPS; every other frame
of the original 60-FPS video). No other video editing was
performed. For each analyzed video frame, the software
package estimated the level of arousal and valence present
in the facial expression using facial action units. Although
the software provided estimates of multiple facial action
units, arousal and valence were selected in line with previ-
ous research by Chikersal et al. (2017) and the circumplex
model of emotion (Bradley & Lang, 1994), and to reduce the
number of statistical tests compared to including all facial
action unit scores. Scores for valence ranged from −1 to 1,
negative to positive, respectively, and arousal scores ranged
from 0 to 1, subdued to activated, respectively. When the
software failed to estimate a measure, a value of “fit failed”
13
Behavior Research Methods
was returned. This meant that the software was not able to
estimate a facial expression for the video frame, not that
a “neutral” expression was detected. Reasons for software
failure to estimate emotion states for a video frame included
parts of the face being occluded and talking.
For team-level measures to be calculated for a video
frame, each member of a team required emotion state esti-
mates.1 There were multiple frames for which at least one
member was missing an emotion estimate due to a failed fit
by the software. Across all 72 teams and matches, there were
a total of 3,800,442 video frames analyzed by the software
(number of frames per team, per session: M = 52,783.92,
SD = 5194.15, Min = 40,854, Max = 68,335). Of all frames
collapsed across all teams, a total of 2,533,129 frames had
values estimated for valence and arousal of all team members
(66.65% of total frames). Within each team, the percentage
of frames that had estimated values for all members varied
(M = 66.54%, SD = 25.25%, Min = 2.53%, Max = 99.00%).
Team‑level measure scores
To assess team-level measures, two scores were calculated
for CAM and facial expression measures. To align with
the single set of CAM ratings collected per match, facial
expression measures were averaged for each match. For
facial expression measures, video frames without an emotion
measure for each team member were dropped from further
analysis. For one team, during the third match, zero frames
were retained and emotion measures were not calculated.
The following team scores were calculated for each match:
mean CAM, mean valence, mean arousal, MEDn CAM,
MEDn valence, MEDn arousal, goals scored (see Table 1
for definitions; calculation formulas can be found in the Sup-
plementary Materials). The diversity, and in turn similarity,
in CAM and facial expression scores was calculated using
the adjusted MEDn, reflecting the disparity between val-
ues of team members with smaller values indicating greater
similarity (a value of zero indicating that the same values
were provided by all members) and larger values indicating
greater disparity (Biemann & Kearney, 2010).
Results
All analyses were conducted using associated R packages
via two-tailed tests (α = .05). Graphs were produced using
the ggplot2 R package (Wickham  2016). For analyses
including multiple regressions, Cohen's f2 was calculated
1
  Note that for the team with one participant missing data, each of
the remaining team members was required to have an emotion meas-
ure to be included in analysis.
Behavior Research Methods

Table 1  Team scores calculated for each video game match

Team score Description

Mean CAM The mean of member mean CAM scores ( CAMn  ) for a team, where CAMn is the mean of member ratings
for each CAM scale (attraction, pride, commitment, future, social)
Mean valence of facial expressions The mean of frame team mean valence scores ( Valencef  ), where Valencef  is the mean of team member
valence scores for a specific frame
Mean arousal of facial expressions The mean of frame team mean arousal scores ( Arousalf  ), where Arousalf is the mean arousal scores of
team members for a specific frame
MEDn CAM The MEDn of member mean CAM scores ( CAMn  ) for a team, where CAMn is the mean of member ratings
for each CAM scale (attraction, pride, commitment, future, social)
MEDn valence of facial expressions The mean of frame team MEDn valence scores (Valence MEDnf), where Valence MEDnf is the MEDn of
team member valence scores for a specific frame
MEDn arousal of facial expressions The mean of frame team MEDn arousal scores (Arousal MEDnf), where Arousal MEDnf is the MEDn of
team member arousal scores for a specific frame
Goals scored Total number of goals scored by team members

CAM cohesion assessment manikin, MEDn mean Euclidean distance normalized

to estimate effect size. When included in analyses, linear
mixed models were calculated using the lme4 R package
(Bates et al., 2015), with degrees of freedom estimated using
Satterthwaite's method via the lmerTest R package (Kuznet-
sova et al., 2017). To estimate the practical significance of
predictors in linear mixed models, the effect size f2 was
computed using the marginal pseudo R2 estimated via the
MuMIn R package (Barton, 2018). Marginal pseudo R2 esti-
mates the amount of variance accounted for by fixed effects,
independently of random effects (Nakagawa & Schielzeth,
2013). To estimate f2 for a predictor, marginal pseudo R2 was
calculated when the predictor was and was not included in
the model (Matsuno & Fujita, 2018; Selya et al., 2012).The
datasets used for analyses can be accessed via the following
online repository: Bonny (2020a).
When comparing competing teams across sessions, the
difference between teams was significantly greater than zero
for mean Rocket League experience (Wilcoxon V = 210,
p < .001), M = 0.66, SD = 0.83, Min = 0, Max = 2.25, which
includes 18 sessions where there was no difference, and mar-
ginally significant for mean teammate familiarity (Wilcoxon
V = 15, p = .059), M = 0.04, SD = 0.12, Min = 0, Max = 0.50,
which includes 31 sessions where there was no difference.
Initial models investigating changes in team mean CAM and
facial expression scores included these as statistical control
variables.
research reporting the psychometric properties of cohesion
measures have typically used questionnaires collected after
teams have finished completing their task. A Cronbach's
alpha of .92 was observed with fourth-match CAM ratings,
indicating that acceptable inter-item reliability was achieved
(GEQ scale reliability: ATGT = .75, ATGS = .66, GIT = .71,
GIS = .72). Test-retest reliability of CAM scales was
assessed using intra-class coefficients (ICC) calculated via
a two-way mixed model to indicate the agreement between
the average responses (ICC 3A,k; Koo & Li, 2016; Shrout
& Fleiss, 1979). The use of average responses was selected
since the CAM responses were intended to measure the level
of cohesion throughout a session. Using the “psych” R-pack-
age, ICC(3A,k) coefficients for all scales (attraction = .79,
commitment = .81, pride = .78, social = .90, future = .89)
were acceptable, indicating adequate test-retest reliability.
To estimate how quickly participants completed the CAM
scales, in addition to rating values, the response times for
providing CAM ratings after each scale was presented to
the participants were collected during testing sessions.
The mean response time of a single CAM scale was 7.27
s (SD = 17.17) with a 95% confidence interval of 6.84 to
7.69 s.
Sensitivity of CAM and facial expression measures
to team membership

Cohesion assessment manikin scale reliability
To assess inter-item reliability of the CAM scales, individual
ratings provided after the fourth video game match were ana-
lyzed and compared to GEQ scale reliability scores. Fourth-
match CAM scales were analyzed due to temporal prox-
imity to the collection of GEQ ratings and since previous
An initial set of analyses was used to assess whether team
CAM and facial expression scores were sensitive to team
membership and accumulated team experience. Within the
context of the present research, it was predicted that MEDn
scores, which reflect similarity across teammates, for CAM
and facial expression measures would differ when com-
posed of members from the same versus competing teams.

13
 Behavior Research Methods

Alternatively, if MEDn scores reflected factors that were not

specific to the group, such as viewing the same game match
in real time, they would be similar regardless of team mem-
bership. To test these possibilities, two sets of MEDn scores
were calculated: measures from participants on the same team
(real teams) versus those from participants that were team-
mates and some members of the opposing team (pseudo teams;
four-member teams: two from each; three-member teams:
two teammates and one opponent; two-member teams: one
from each). Like past research that utilized a similar approach
(Mønster et al., 2016), it was hypothesized that MEDn scores
from measures that reflected team dynamics would be lower
for real compared to pseudo teams. Second, it was predicted
that measures that were influenced by team dynamics would
change as teams gained experience.
Similarity scores were analyzed using linear mixed mod-
els for each measure from each match. To examine emotions
expressed during each match, the mean MEDn score for each
group of individuals was calculated across all video frames
for a match. Additionally, to account for differences due to
team size, the number of members was entered as a control
variable. A 2 (team condition: real, pseudo) by 4 (match: 1,
2, 3, 4) by 3 (team size: 2, 3, 4) design with an interaction
between team condition and match (random intercept for ses-
sion) was evaluated for each measure. No significant interac-
tions (ps > .6) or main effect of team size (ps > .07) were
observed for any dependent variables; subsequent models
removed these terms. For CAM MEDn scores, significant
effects were observed for team condition, F(1,540) = 10.92,
p < .001, f2 = .01, and match, F(3,540) = 9.62, p < .001,
f2 = .04. For both valence and arousal MEDn scores, signifi-
cant effects of team condition, valence, F(1,537.99) = 10.97,
p < .001, f2 = .01, arousal, F(1,537.98) = 8.59, p < .001, f2 = .01,
and match, valence, F(3,538.05) = 13.91, p < .001, f2 = .05,
Fig. 2  Team similarity scores (MEDn) by teammate condition, calcu-
arousal, F(3,538.06) = 3.09, p = .03, f2 = .01, were observed. lated with real and pseudo teammates across matches for each meas-
For all measures, MEDn scores were lower for real com- ure. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals
pared to pseudo teams (see Fig. 2). When focusing only on
real teams, pairwise post hoc comparisons (Tukey-adjusted
p-values) indicated that MEDn scores of later matches tended mixed models. To examine the impact of team perfor-
to be lower than those of earlier matches, with the exception of mance on such measures, the number of goals scored by
arousal MEDn scores (adj. ps < .05; CAM: match 1 vs. match a team for each match was included as a predictor. Mod-
4; valence: match 1 vs. match 2, match 1 vs. match 3, match els included a main effect of match (1, 2, 3, 4) and goals
1 vs. match 4). Overall, these results indicated that MEDn scored, and team size (size: 2, 3, 4), mean team Rocket
scores for CAM and facial expression measures were sensi- League experience, and mean team familiarity as control
tive to whether calculations were made with members from variables (random intercept for session). No significant
the same team and, for CAM and valence measures, changes effects were observed for mean team Rocket League expe-
in accumulated team experience. rience (ps > .14) or mean team familiarity (ps > .57).
For team size, no significant effect was observed for CAM
Changes in mean CAM and facial expression and valence scores (ps > .4); a significant main effect was
measures with experience observed for arousal, F(2,36.08) = 3.27, p = .05, f2 = .08,
but post hoc comparisons were not significant (adj. ps
Experience-dependent changes in CAM and facial expres- > .05). Subsequent models removed these terms. Sig-
sion measures were examined using team means via linear nificant main effects of match were observed for CAM,

13
Behavior Research Methods
Fig. 3  Cohesion assessment manikin (CAM) and emotion expression
scores for teams as teams completed game matches. Error bars reflect
95% confidence intervals
F(3,251.83) = 6.09, p < .001, f 2  = .04, and valence,
F(3,250.91) = 5.37, p < .001, f 2 = .03, but not arousal,
F(3,251.1) = 1.70, p = .17, f2 = .01 (see Fig. 3). Post hoc
pairwise comparisons indicated that CAM scores tended
to be higher for later compared to earlier matches (adj.
ps < .05 for match 1 vs. match 3, match 1 vs. match 4);
a reverse pattern was observed for valence scores (adj.
ps < .05 for match 1 vs. match 3, match 1 vs. match 4).
For goals scored, significant effects were observed with
CAM scores, F(1,262.80) = 53.50, p < .001, f2 = .13, and
valence scores, F(1,259.85) = 23.38, p < .001, f 2 = .05,
but not arousal scores, F(1,260.65) = .59, p = .44, f2 < .01;
higher goals scored was associated with higher CAM
scores (standardized estimate = .34, SE = .05) and valence
scores (standardized estimate = .22, SE = .05). Overall,
these results indicated that CAM and valence mean scores
were sensitive to changes in accumulated team experience
and performance during each match.
A follow-up analysis was performed to further examine
how team behaviors during matches affected CAM ratings.
Recall that participants completed CAM ratings after each
match, by which time the outcome of the match was dis-
played, including the number of goals their team scored.
A linear mixed model included CAM mean scores as the
dependent variable with a random intercept for session.
Predictor variables included mean valence and arousal
scores, and goals scored as well as interactions with, and
main effect of, match; team size was included as a control
variable. No significant interaction effects and main effect
of team size were observed (ps > .4) and were removed
from a subsequent model. Significant main effects of
valence, F(1,286.28) = 18.49, p < .001, f 2 = .07, goals
scored, F(1,270.09) = 36.60, p < .001, f2 = .06, and match,
F(3,252.36) = 9.77, p < .001, f 2 = .08, but not arousal,
F(1,286.50) = 1.11, p = .29, f2 = .01, were observed.
Relation between match measures and post‑session
cohesion scores
The next set of analyses examined the extent to which the
means of teammate CAM, arousal, and valence scores were
related to GEQ scores collected after the team task was com-
peted. To capture the extent to which members rated cohe-
sion and displayed arousal and valence via facial expressions
across the entire session, the mean of said measures was
calculated by collapsing across all matches. Additionally,
the total number of goals scored by teams across all four
matches was calculated. Correlation analyses using Pear-
son correlation coefficients revealed significant positive
correlations between CAM and valence team mean scores
and the team mean of each GEQ scale (see Table 2). A sig-
nificant correlation between the GEQ GIS scale and team
arousal mean was observed. Overall, these results suggested
that teams with members that had higher CAM ratings and
expressed higher levels of valence (i.e., greater positivity)
across a session reported higher cohesion.
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used
to further examine the relative connections between CAM,
facial expression, goals scored, and GEQ scales. CAM,
valence, arousal scores, total goals scored, and team size
were simultaneously entered as predictors of GEQ scores
(each was scaled and centered to reduce multicollinearity;
variance inflation factors, VIFs, for individual predictors
ranged from 1.15 to 1.26 across models). Significant effects
of CAM, Pillai's trace = .63, F(4,62) = 26.63, p < .001, and
valence, Pillai's trace = .18, F(4,62) = 3.43, p = .01, were
observed; no significant effects were observed for arousal,
Pillai's trace = .04, F(4,62) = .71, p = .59, total goals, Pil-
lai's trace = .05, F(4,62) = .77, p = .55, or group size, Pillai's
13
 Behavior Research Methods

Table 2  Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients between CAM, facial expression, and GEQ team measures
Team measure M SD Median Min Max 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1-CAM mean 5.95 .79 6.05 3.34 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
2-Valence mean .03 .13 .02 -.28 .39 .305** --- --- --- --- --- ---
3-Arousal mean .34 .03 .34 .26 .40 .130 .350** --- --- --- --- ---
4-ATGT mean 7.80 .91 8.06 5.06 9 .708*** .277* .073 --- --- --- ---
5-ATGS mean 5.91 .91 6.20 2.95 7.25 .670*** .348** .205 .704*** --- --- ---
6-GIT mean 7.16 .94 7.18 4.35 8.70 .648*** .365** .045 .692*** .577*** --- ---
7-GIS mean 5.38 1.12 5.53 2.25 7.69 .606*** .476*** .235* .605*** .762*** .565*** ---
8-Total goals 12.9 8.04 10.50 1 39 .341** .140 -.035 .263* .242* .301* .119

CAM cohesion assessment manikin, GEQ Group Environment Questionnaire, ATGT​individual attractions towards the group—task, ATGS indi-
vidual attractions towards the group—social, GIT group integration—task, GIS group integration—social
*
  p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Table 3  Pearson correlations (r) between GEQ and CAM match scores and tests comparing correlation strength between CAM scores for earlier
matches and the fourth match
GEQ Scale r CAM - 1 r CAM - 2 r CAM - 3 r CAM - 4 r CAM - 1 vs. r r CAM - 2 vs. r r CAM - 3
CAM - 4 CAM - 4 vs. r CAM
-4

ATGT​ .483*** .644*** .674*** .748*** adj. p = .01* adj. p = .09 adj. p = .09
ATGS .476*** .586*** .634*** .717*** adj. p = .02* adj. p = .07 adj. p = .09
GIT .372** .631*** .647*** .673*** adj. p = .01* adj. p = .63 adj. p = .64
GIS .549*** .577*** .508*** .560*** adj. p = .91 adj. p = .85 adj. p = .41
*
  p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

trace = .09, F(8,126) = .78, p = .62. When examining effects
for each GEQ scale, to estimate the impact of CAM and
valence scores, the change in multiple R2 was calculated
as the difference in R2 when removing each predictor from
the full model, with f2 calculated as a standardized effect
size. For all GEQ scales, CAM scores were a significant
predictor, with teams reporting higher mean CAM scores
across the session also having higher GEQ scores: ATGT
(full model R2 = .53), F(1,65) = 69.31, p < .01, Δ R2 = .39,
f 2 = .80, ATGS (full model R 2 = .50), F(1,65) = 57.96,
p < .01, Δ R2 = .30, f2 = .60, GIT (full model R2 = .48),
F(1,65) = 52.24, p < .01, Δ R2 = .25, f 2 = .48, GIS (full
model R2 = .51), F(1,65) = 48.46, p < .01, Δ R2 = .23, f2 = .47.
Valence scores were a significant predictor for GEQ GIS
scores, F(1,65) = 12.30, p < .01, Δ R2 = .07, f2 = .14; no
significant effects were observed for ATGT, F(1,65) =.56,
p = .46, Δ R2 < .01, f2 = .01, ATGS, F(1,65) =2.91, p = .09, Δ
R2 = .01, f2 = .02, or GIT, F(1,65) = 3.83, p = .05, Δ R2 = .04,
f2 = .07. This indicated that teams that maintained more posi-
tive facial expressions across the session tended to report
that their team had higher social cohesion.
A series of tests were used to explore how the strength of
correlations between self-report measures, GEQ and CAM
scales, may have changed from earlier to later matches.
Specifically, the correlations between CAM team mean
scores for each match (1, 2, 3, 4) and each GEQ scale
were calculated (see Supplementary Material for correla-
tions between all match measures and GEQ scales: Bonny
(2022a)). A set of Williams tests were then used to evaluate
whether CAM match 4 scores correlated more strongly with
GEQ scales compared to CAM scores collected during ear-
lier matches. To control for multiple comparisons, p-values
were adjusted using the false discovery rate. For ATGT,
ATGS, and GIT scales, correlations with CAM match 4
scores were significantly greater than with CAM match 1
scores; no significant differences in CAM score correlations
across matches were observed with GIS scores (see Table 3).
Discussion
In the present study, the degree to which brief manikin
scales and facially expressed emotions of teammates were
indicators of cohesion was examined. To do so, CAM scales
were collected and the facial expressions of participants
were recorded while newly formed teams completed mul-
tiple matches of a team-based video game. When examin-
ing sensitivity to team membership, CAM ratings and the

13
Behavior Research Methods
valence and arousal of facial expressions were more similar
for teams composed of real versus competing teammates.
Across matches, the mean CAM ratings and valence of
team member expressions varied with accumulated experi-
ence and were significantly related to self-reported measures
of cohesion collected after completing the session. These
results provide evidence that CAM ratings and the valence
of facial expressions were indicators of team cohesion.
Sensitivity of indicator measures to team
membership
Similarity scores for both CAM ratings and the valence and
arousal of facial expressions were sensitive to team member-
ship. In a previous study, greater synchrony in muscle activ-
ity related to smiles was observed when including mem-
bers from the same compared to different teams (Mønster
et al., 2016). Although team similarity instead of synchrony
metrics were used in the present study, CAM, valence, and
arousal diversity scores (MEDn) were greater when calcu-
lated using members of different as opposed to same teams,
in support of Hypothesis 1. This result was particularly nota-
ble since members of the opposing team were still part of
the same testing session and were observing, hearing, and
playing the same team-based video game matches. The pres-
ence of a difference in MEDn scores for real and pseudo
teams indicated that CAM and facial expression measures
were influenced by team dynamics. Corroborating evidence
for CAM and valence scores was provided by two additional
findings: changes in mean CAM and valence scores with
experience and correlations with GEQ measures.
Changes in CAM and facial expression valence
scores as teams accumulated experience
A main objective of the present research was to examine how
CAM ratings and the valence and arousal of facial expres-
sions of newly formed teams changed as they performed
together. When examining teams across game matches, the
mean of CAM scores increased, and, although the valence
of facial expressions decreased, no significant changes
were observed for arousal, in partial support of Hypothesis
2. The significant effect of facially expressed valence, but
not arousal, is similar to a previous study that observed a
stronger effect when manipulating the positive versus neg-
ative valence compared to higher versus lower energy of
small groups while performing a task (Barsade, 2002). In
addition to main effects of experience, teams that scored
more goals during matches tended to have higher valence
scores during matches and report higher CAM scores after
matches. Overall, these results indicated the following longi-
tudinal patterns. Initially, during the first game match, mem-
bers of teams varied in mean CAM ratings and the level of
valence displayed, but tended to, overall, have moderate rat-
ings and express higher positivity. As teams completed game
matches, they tended to provide higher CAM ratings and
become more neutral in the valence of facial expressions.
The observed changes in CAM ratings and valence of
facial expressions indicated that the dynamics of ad hoc
teams changed rapidly during testing sessions. For both
measures, significant differences in team mean scores were
observed between the first and fourth rounds (as well as third
with valence), suggesting that the largest changes occurred
early in the testing sessions. With regard to facial expres-
sions, the longitudinal changes build upon previous studies
that investigated synchrony in facial expressions of dyads
and small teams while performing a task (Chikersal et al.,
2017; Mønster et al., 2016). This aligns with past studies
which observed effects indicative of experience-dependent
changes in team facial expressions. For example, in Mønster
et al. (2016), teams of three members completed a series of
production tasks before deciding whether to adopt a new
routine to produce the item. Synchrony in smile-related
motor activity was associated with the decision, with groups
displaying lower synchrony more likely to adopt the new
routine. Building on this research, the present study indicates
that the level of positivity expressed by small teams changes
as they gain more experience performing together.
Evidence that CAM scores were indicators
of cohesion
Connections observed with post-session cohesion question-
naires indicated that CAM ratings reflected aspects of team
cohesion. When examining the psychometric properties of
the scales, individual participant CAM ratings were found to
have high inter-item reliability. When calculating the mean
CAM scores of teams across matches, significant positive
correlations were observed with all GEQ scales, in support
of Hypothesis 3. These correlations were strong, and session
CAM scores remained significant predictors of all scales
when accounting for total goals scored and the valence and
arousal of facial expressions. When combined with evidence
that scores were more similar for real versus pseudo teams,
these results suggest that responses made via manikin-based
CAM scales were related to aspects of team cohesion.
Ratings collected early in the testing session via CAM
scales predicted responses on a post hoc cohesion question-
naire. When comparing the strength of correlations with
GEQ scales and team CAM scores from each match, the cor-
relations with match 4 were significantly stronger than those
from match 1 for ATGT, ATGS, and GIT scales. The lack of
other significant differences in match-level correlations sug-
gests that, for these GEQ scales, CAM scores from as early
as the second match were relatively strong predictors of post
hoc cohesion ratings. In contrast, no significant variation in
13

correlation strength by match was observed with the GIS
scale. This suggests that CAM scores collected after the first
match had a relation of similar strength to GIS scores com-
pared to those collected after the fourth match, just before
the GEQ was administered. Overall, this pattern of correla-
tions suggests that collecting brief, self-report ratings early
on as an ad hoc team is performing can predict the cohesion
the team achieves by the end of the task. Whereas traditional
measures of cohesion, such as the GEQ and the team climate
inventory (Anderson & West, 1998), typically assume a pro-
longed period of interaction between members, connections
were observed after about ten minutes of team interaction.
This suggests that the CAM scales can be used to predict
the cohesion of teams whose members have little experience
working together. Combined with the brief amount of time
required to complete them, around seven seconds for each
item, these results indicate that the CAM scales can be used
to monitor changes in team cohesion, especially when new
teams are formed.
Evidence that valence scores were indicators
of cohesion
The results of the present study suggest that the level of posi-
tivity in the facial expressions of members was linked with
the social cohesion of a team. The mean valence of team
facial expressions across the session was associated with all
GEQ scores in the present study, in support of Hypothesis 3.
In contrast, the mean arousal of facial expressions across the
session was significantly correlated with only the GIS scale.
When entered as predictors of GEQ scale scores, along with
CAM scores and total goals scored, mean valence scores
only accounted for unique variance in a single GEQ scale,
GIS. The GIS scale contains items that reflect the social
bonding of teammates as a single unit (Brawley et al., 2002).
Overall, teams that displayed facial expressions that con-
tained more positivity over the course of the study session
were more likely to report, after finishing playing the game,
that they shared a social bond with their teammates.
Connections observed with CAM scores suggests that the
valence of facial expressions could be used as a real-time
indicator of team cohesion. Longitudinal models suggested
that the mean valence of facial expressions during matches
was affected by experience and correlated with CAM rat-
ings. It is important to note that the correlation was small,
suggesting that the mean facially expressed valence of team-
mates only accounted for a portion of variance in CAM rat-
ings. However, it was a unique predictor of GIS scores, in
addition to CAM scores. This builds upon previous observa-
tions that teams who self-reported more positive emotions
while performing reported higher team performance (Jung,
2016), and soccer teams with players who displayed greater
positive emotion during shootouts were more likely to win
13
Behavior Research Methods
matches (Moll et al., 2010). The inclusion of CAM ratings
in the present study provides novel evidence that the valence
of facial expressions of co-located teammates was related to
social bonding aspects of team cohesion.
The observed changes in CAM and valence measures sug-
gest that cohesion can rapidly change with experience. This
builds upon previous research that has observed changes in
cohesion as teams performed over several days and weeks
(Harrison et al., 1998; Terborg et al., 1976). This aligns with
temporally dynamic theories of team processes (Kozlowski
& Chao, 2012) and highlights the need for further research
to examine the extent to which cohesion fluctuates as teams
perform over extended periods of time.
It is important to note that, despite some strong connec-
tions observed with post hoc questionnaires of cohesion,
there was still variance in GEQ scales unaccounted for by
CAM and valence measures. This indicates that other fac-
tors, in addition to CAM and valence scores, were related
to GEQ scores. Furthermore, portions of variance in CAM
scores collected after each match were unaccounted for by
facial expression scores and goals scored. Like GEQ scores,
this suggests that other factors influenced CAM ratings. In
summary, although significant connections were observed
with CAM, valence, and GEQ scores, the results highlight
that these measures were multiply determined. This suggests
that CAM and valence of facial expression measures should
be used as indicator metrics, alongside the traditional long-
form cohesion questionnaires.
Limitations and future directions
Overall, teams in the present research reported relatively
high cohesion. For the questionnaires of team cohesion,
scores for CAM and GEQ measures had sample mean
and median scores higher than the midpoint of possible
responses. Despite these high ratings, improvements in
CAM scores were still observed as teams completed video
game matches. However, the high cohesion observed raises
questions as to whether the results of the present study
would extend to contexts where teams report lower cohesion.
Subsequent research can build upon the present study
in multiple ways. Although the team-based video game
involved a virtual task, team members completed the game
in the same physical location. Given the ability of team-
based video games to be completed by remotely located
players, future studies can examine the extent to which
facial expression-based measures are associated with
the cohesion of teams that interact virtually. The type of
pseudo team comparisons can be expanded as well. The
present study created pseudo teams using players who
directly competed within a session. A strength of this
design was that all members experienced the same tem-
poral sequence of events during a match. However, this
Behavior Research Methods
could have led to greater diversity in pseudo team meas-
ures than if members were not competing. For example,
when one team scored a goal, those members may have
had greater valence in facial expressions, with the oppos-
ing team having lower valence; this could have resulted in
greater valence diversity on a pseudo team composed of
both members than if they were not competing. A prelimi-
nary analysis suggested that pseudo teams from across and
within the same session did not vary statistically (see Sup-
plementary Materials), but it is limited due to the design
of the study. Future research can select a team-based task
that allows for teams to work towards the objective at the
same time, but are not directly competing.
The type of teams formed was low in temporal stabil-
ity, skill differentiation, and authority differentiation in the
dimensional scaling framework (Hollenbeck et al., 2012),
and teams were lab-based, not field-based (Bell, 2007).
Future research should examine CAM and facial expression
measures in teams that vary along these dimensions outside
of the lab. For example, organized team sports involve com-
petitive play (e.g., basketball) and can have higher temporal
stability, authority differentiation, and skill differentiation.
Subsequent studies can investigate CAM and facial expres-
sion metrics in these team settings and then extend and adapt
the approach to noncompetitive play environments such
as medical and manufacturing teams. By doing so, future
research can examine the extent to which CAM and facially
expressed valence scores are general indicators of cohesion
or specific to certain types of teams and tasks.
The approach of the present study for assessing expressed
emotion was to estimate facial expressions from video
recordings using facial recognition software. The large
number of video recording frames that required removal
when estimating facial expression measures raises ques-
tions about the use of the method with field-based teams.
For these frames, emotion measures were missing for at least
one team member. This precluded the calculation of time-
series-based scores, such as synchrony, in addition to team
mean and similarity, to compare these metrics as indicators
of team dynamics. Current facial expression algorithms are
poor at estimating emotion when individuals are conversing,
have portions of the face occluded by clothing or hands, or
are facing away from the camera (Min et al., 2011). Future
studies that combine multimodal data sources may be able
to provide more complete emotion expression measures.
Including estimates of expressed emotion from other modali-
ties, such as tone of voice, could also help improve estimates
of emotion (Busso et al., 2004) and mitigate concerns that
focusing only on facial displays of emotion may not provide
accurate estimates of the emotion state of a person (Bar-
rett et al., 2019). Previous research has calculated expressed
emotions of team members in near real time (Samrose
et al., 2018). Taking a similar approach, future research can
evaluate whether real-time measures of expressed emotion
predict the development of cohesion.
Acknowledgements  The author would like to thank Keona Smith for
their assistance with data collection.
Funding  The research described herein was sponsored by the US Army
Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Department
of the Army (Grant No. W911NF-19-1-0123). The views expressed
in this document are those of the author and do not reflect the offi-
cial policy or position of the Department of the Army, DOD, or the
US Government. The US Government is authorized to reproduce and
distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copy-
right notation herein.
References
Ancona, D. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival
in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2),
334–365. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​256328
Anderson, N., & West, M. (1998). Measuring climate for work
group innovation: Development and validation of the Team
Climate Inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19,
235–258. 63(4), 596–612. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​(SICI)​1099-​
1379(199805)​19:​3<​235::​AID-​JOB83​7>3.​0.​CO;2-C
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other
in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-​3514.​63.4.​596
Barrett, L. F., Adolphs, R., Marsella, S., Martinez, A. M., & Pollak,
S. D. (2019). Emotional Expressions Reconsidered: Challenges
to Inferring Emotion From Human Facial Movements. Psycho-
logical Science in the Public Interest, 20(1), 1–68. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1177/​15291​00619​832930
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and
Its Influence on Group Behavior Part of the Human Resources
Management Commons, and the Organizational Behavior
and Theory Commons. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47,
644–675.
Barton, K. (2018). Package “MuMIn: Multi-model inference” for R.
In R Package Version 1.40.4. https://​cran.r-​proje​ct.​org/​packa​ge=​
MuMIn
Bates, D. M., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fit-
ting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical
Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​18637/​jss.​v067.​i01
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003).
Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarifica-
tion of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6),
989–1004. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0021-​9010.​88.6.​989
Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of
team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 92(3), 595–615. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0021-​9010.​92.3.​595
Bell, S. T., & Marentette, B. J. (2011). Team viability for long-term and
ongoing organizational teams. Organizational Psychology Review,
1(4). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​20413​86611​405876
Ben-Shalom, U., Lehrer, Z., & Ben-Ari, E. (2005). Cohesion dur-
ing military operations. Armed Forces & Society, 32(1), 63–79.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00953​27X05​277888
Biemann, T., & Kearney, E. (2010). Size does matter: How varying
group sizes in a sample affect the most common measures of
group diversity. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 582–
599. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10944​28109​338875
13

Bonny, J. W. (2018). Preliminary evaluation of a brief team cohesion
manikin scale. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonom-
ics Society 2018 Annual Meeting, 747–751.
Bonny, J. W. (2022a). Self-report and facial expression indicators of
team cohesion development. OSF. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17605/​OSF.​
IO/​RVCDB
Bonny, J. W. (2022b). Cohesion assessment manikin scale materials.
OSF. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17605/​OSF.​IO/​NBTWS
Bradley, M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assess-
ment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(I), 49–59. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/​0005-​7916(94)​90063-9
Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1987). Assessing
the cohesion of teams: Validity of the group environment ques-
tionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 275–294. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1123/​jsp.9.​3.​275
Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V, & Widmeyer, N. W. (2002). The group
environment questionnaire: Test manual. Fitness Information
Technology.
Burgess, A. P. (2013). On the interpretation of synchronization in EEG
hyperscanning studies: A cautionary note. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 7, 881. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fnhum.​2013.​00881
Busso, C., Deng, Z., Yildirim, S., Bulut, M., Lee, C. M., Kazemzadeh,
A., Lee, S., Neumann, U., & Narayanan, S. (2004). Analysis of
emotion recognition using facial expressions, speech and multi-
modal information. ICMI’04 - Sixth International Conference on
Multimodal Interfaces. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​10279​33.​10279​68
Carron, A., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. (1985). The development
of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group
Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7(3),
244–266. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1123/​jsp.7.​3.​244
Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M. A. A. (2002a). Team cohe-
sion and team success in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(2),
119–126. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02640​41023​17200​828
Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002b).
Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta analysis. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 168–188. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1123/​jsep.​24.2.​168
Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the
group cohesion-group performance relationship. Small Group
Research, 32(4), 379–405. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10464​96401​
03200​401
Chikersal, P., Tomprou, M., Kim, Y., Woolley, A., & Dabbish, L.
(2017). Deep structures of collaboration: Physiological correlates
of collective intelligence and group satisfaction. Proceedings of
the 20th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative
Work and Social Computing (CSCW 2017), 873–888. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1145/​29981​81.​29982​50
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Facial Action Coding System:
A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Movement. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​
h0030​377
Elbardissi, A. W., Duclos, A., Rawn, J. D., Orgill, D. P., & Carty, M.
J. (2013). Cumulative team experience matters more than indi-
vidual surgeon experience in cardiac surgery. Journal of Thoracic
and Cardiovascular Surgery, 145(2), 328–333. https://d​ oi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​jtcvs.​2012.​09.​022
Eys, M. A., Carron, A. V, Bray, S. R., & Brawley, L. R. (2007). Item
wording and internal consistency of a measure of cohesion: The
Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 29, 395–402. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1123/​jsep.​29.3.​395
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological
Review, 57(5), 271–282. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​h0056​932
Freeman, G., & Wohn, D. Y. (2019). Understanding eSports Team
Formation and Coordination. Computer Supported Cooperative
Work, 28, 95–126. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10606-​017-​9299-4
13
Behavior Research Methods
Gächter, S., Starmer, C., & Tufano, F. (2015). Measuring the closeness
of relationships: A comprehensive evaluation of the “inclusion of
the other in the self” scale. PLoS ONE, 10(6). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1371/​journ​al.​pone.​01294​78
Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Todorova, G. (2010). First,
get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indi-
rect experience on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 102–115. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​obhdp.​2009.​11.​002
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction
process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and pro-
posed integration. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
8(C), 45–99. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0065-​2601(08)​60248-8
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational
demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level
diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 41(1), 96–107. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​256901
Hollenbeck, J. R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M. E. (2012). Beyond
team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualiza-
tion for team description. Academy of Management Review, 37(1),
82–106. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​amr.​2010.​0181
Huckman, R. S., Staats, B. R., & Upton, D. M. (2009). Team famili-
arity, role experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian
software services. Management Science, 55(1), 85–100. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1287/​mnsc.​1080.​0921
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(1), 517–543. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev.​psych.​56.​091103.​070250
Jung, M. F. (2016). Coupling interactions and performance: Predicting
team performance from thin slices of conflict. ACM Transactions
on Computer-Human Interaction, 23(3), 1–32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1145/​27537​67
Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small
groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 86(1), 99–130. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​obhd.​
2001.​2974
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. Jour-
nal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.j​ cm.​
2016.​02.​012
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Chao, G. T. (2012). The dynamics of emer-
gence: Cognition and cohesion in work teams. Managerial and
Decision Economics, 33(5–6), 335–354. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​
mde.​2552
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness
of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 7(3), 77–124. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1529-​1006.​2006.​
00030.x
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017).
lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal
of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–19. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 8637/j​ ss.​
v082.​i13
Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradley, M. M., & Hamm, A. O. (1993).
Looking at pictures: Affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral
reactions. Psychophysiology, 30(3), 261–273. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1111/j.​1469-​8986.​1993.​tb033​52.x
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally
based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of
Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​
AMR.​2001.​48457​85
Mathieu, J. E., Gallagher, P. T., Domingo, M. A., & Klock, E. A.
(2019). Embracing Complexity: Reviewing the Past Decade of
Team Effectiveness Research. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 17–46. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev-​orgps​ych-​012218-​015106
Behavior Research Methods
Matsuno, T., & Fujita, K. (2018). Body inversion effect in monkeys.
PLoS ONE. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​02043​53
McMaster, R., & Baber, C. (2012). Multi-agency operations: Coopera-
tion during flooding. Applied Ergonomics, 43(1), 38–47. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apergo.​2011.​03.​006
Min, R., Hadid, A., & Dugelay, J. L. (2011). Improving the recognition
of faces occluded by facial accessories. 2011 IEEE International
Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition and
Workshops, FG 2011. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​FG.​2011.​57714​39
Moll, T., Jordet, G., & Pepping, G. J. (2010). Emotional contagion
in soccer penalty shootouts: Celebration of individual success is
associated with ultimate team success. Journal of Sports Sciences,
28(9), 983–992. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02640​414.​2010.​484068
Mønster, D., Håkonsson, D. D., Eskildsen, J. K., & Wallot, S. (2016).
Physiological evidence of interpersonal dynamics in a cooperative
production task. Physiology and Behavior, 156, 24–34. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​physb​eh.​2016.​01.​004
Morris, J. D. (1995). Observations: SAM: The Self-Assessment
Manikin - An efficient cross-cultural measurement of emotional
response. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(6), 63–68.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohe-
siveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin,
115(2), 210–227. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0033-​2909.​115.2.​210
Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method
for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models.
Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133–142. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1111/j.​2041-​210x.​2012.​00261.x
Parkinson, B. (2020). Intragroup Emotion Convergence: Beyond Con-
tagion and Social Appraisal. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 24(2), 121–140. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10888​68319​
882596
Roberts, N. K., Williams, R. G., Schwind, C. J., Sutyak, J. A., McDow-
ell, C., Griffen, D., Wall, J., Sanfey, H., Chestnut, A., Meier, A. H.,
Wohltmann, C., Clark, T. R., & Wetter, N. (2014). The impact of
brief team communication, leadership and team behavior training
on ad hoc team performance in trauma care settings. American
Journal of Surgery, 207(2), 170–178. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
amjsu​rg.​2013.​06.​016
Samrose, S., Zhao, R., White, J., Li, V., Nova, L., Lu, Y., Ali, M. R., &
Hoque, M. E. (2018). CoCo: Collaboration Coach for Understand-
ing Team Dynamics during Video Conferencing. Proceedings of
the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Tech-
nologies. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​31611​86
Selya, A. S., Rose, J. S., Dierker, L. C., Hedeker, D., & Mermelstein, R.
J. (2012). A practical guide to calculating Cohen’s f 2, a measure
of local effect size, from PROC MIXED. Frontiers in Psychology.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2012.​00111
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in
assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0033-​2909.​86.2.​420
Terborg, J. R., Castore, C., & DeNinno, J. A. (1976). A longitudinal
field investigation of the impact of group composition on group
performance and cohesion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34(5), 782–790. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-​3514.​
34.5.​782
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis.
Springer-Verlag New York
Zaccaro, S. J., Gualtieri, J., & Minionis, D. (1995). Task cohesion as
a facilitator of team decision making under temporal urgency.
Military Psychology, 7(2), 77–93. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1207/​s1532​
7876m​p0702_3
Open Practices Statement  The data and materials for all experiments
are available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​17605/​OSF.​IO/​RVCDB and https://​
doi.​org/​10.​17605/​OSF.​IO/​NBTWS and none of the experiments were
preregistered.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13