International Doctoral Consortium on Intellectual Capital Management

The 5th International Doctoral
Consortium
on Intellectual Capital Management
Faculté Jean-Monet, Orsay University, France

Collaboration in virtual
communities:
A neuroscience approach

Thierry Nabeth
Research Advisor:
Professor Ahmed Bounfour
29 Mai 2012 International Doctoral Consortium on ICM 1

Index
• Rethinking collaboration & «sociality»
– «Sociality»: an element of organizational performance
– Models of Collaboration & of the social process
– Approaches for investigating collaboration & “sociality”?
• Using social neuroscience for investigating online
collaboration & sociality
– What is neuroscience
– Research in social neuroscience (topics & examples)
• Proposed research
– Background
– Objective
– Research questions
– Suggested experiments?
• Online identity perception (impression, trust).
• Motivation (testing the reward system in online interaction)


Rethinking
Collaboration & « sociality »
Collaboration & the social process is increasingly recognized as an important
factor of organizational performance in the Knowledge Society.
It is also becoming prominent
(cf. social media, open innovation, etc.).

The “utilitarian” model of collaboration (cf. social exchange theory)
is replaced by more “humane” ones.

The evolution of the vision of the world
The world is predictable The world is uncertain
The world is relatively closed, The world is open,
static, and can be controlled and in perpetual evolution
( it is a “machine”) ( it is an “ecosystem”)
The organization is a competitive The organization is collaborative and
environment, driven by search for able to get the best from the collective
efficiency via well defined practices, expertise of its employees.
and automation.

The social process is perceived as The social process is a core process
distracting (hurting productivity), or of the organization that contributes to
at best something useful but difficult many functions (circulation of
apprehend and to manage. knowledge; motivation, etc.)


New theory of the firm:
“Sociality” as an Organizational Advantage
Kogut and Zander recently have proposed “that a firm be understood
as a social community specializing in the speed and efficiency in the
creation and transfer of knowledge”. … Organizations have some
particular capabilities for creating and sharing knowledge that giving
them distinctive advantage.
This stands in stark contrast with the more established transaction cost
theory grounded in the assumption of human opportunism and the
resulting condition of market failure.

Janine Nahapiet; Sumantra Ghoshal (1998). Social capital, intellectual
capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management
Review 23 (2):242-266


The
The value of socialization: An illustration
(in a previous research based on the capturing & analysis of social signal) … we found
that the best predictors of productivity were a team’s energy and engagement outside
formal meetings.
Drawing on that insight, we advised the center’s manager (of a bank’s call center) to
revise the employees’ coffee break schedule so that everyone on a team took a break
at the same time. That would allow people more time to socialize with their
teammates, away from their workstations. Though the suggestion flew in the face of
standard efficiency practices, the manager was baffled and desperate, so he tried it.
And it worked: AHT (average handle time) fell by more than 20% among lower-performing
teams and decreased by 8% overall at the call center. Now the manager is changing
the break schedule at all 10 of the bank’s call centers (which employ a total of 25,000
people) and is forecasting $15 million a year in productivity increases. He has also
seen employee satisfaction at call centers rise, sometimes by more than 10%.

Alex “Sandy” Pentland (2012). The New Science of Building Great Teams;
Harvard Business Review, April 2012.


The “socialization” of organizations
Organizations (in particular of knowledge intensive organizations) are now
generally very aware of the advantage of the social process as a means to
contribute to their performance. They are keen at embracing approaches helping
to develop it.

This interest can be observed in:
• The development on the Internet as a social space (cf. social media) to
be used to engage into interaction with many actors. (customers)
• The development of enterprise social networking as a way to support
and accelerate the circulation of tacit knowledge and the collaboration in the
organization.
• The adoption of new collective intelligence processes. Examples include
crowdsourcing for supporting open innovation.

Note: IBM is for instance promoting the concept of “social business” (which
consists in incorporating sociality at the core of the business process) as the next
step in the overall evolution of business.


Modeling collaboration & the social process
Collaboration is utilitarian Collaboration is in human nature

People interact with others as a Sociality is an inner component of
means of accomplishing their human nature (Man is a social
objectives. animal).
What drives their behavior is the The new perspective in collaboration
optimization of individual benefit. & social interaction: It is more about
human social cognition.

Social exchange theory
Social cognition theories
It is about a calculation :
Rewards – Cost
Looking at:
• Costs: effort put into a relationship
• Rewards: elements of a Trust, identity, perception, reputation,
relationship that have positive reciprocity, altruism, social reward,
value social motivation, fairness, empathy,
…


Questioning the “utilitarian” model

The rational view (e.g. social exchange theory), that has often been
used to model collaborative systems, appears to be too simplistic and
probably incorrect: Social interaction can not be reduced to a cost
benefit analysis, and sociality involves mechanisms hardwire in the
human brain that are even unconscious.

Questioning “scientific selfishness”
Diverse business and social production models begin to challenge
efficiency, efficacy, and growth-oriented effects of “scientific”
selfishness.
(Yochai Benkler CSCW 2012 keynote speech)


Challenging the view of human rationality
people are rational agents?
This view is being challenged:
Homo
economicus People are largely influenced by:
greed selfishness
rationality
individualistic  their instinct. (Akerlof & Shiller’s
“Animal Spirits”)
People are rational, and self-
their Intuitions (Daniel
interested actors which behavior
Kahneman’s “thinking fast and
is determined by the optimization
slow”)
of their benefit via cost / benefit
calculations. cognitive biases (Dan Ariely’s
“predictably irrational”)
(classical economics theories)


Towards a more “humanistic” model

The human brain is wired to be social (Man is a social animal).
More realistic models should be able to better take into account the
complexity of the social process, and its “humanity” dimension.

Cooperation is part of human nature
Co-operation and virtue are just as deep rooted parts of human nature as
selfishness
(The Origins of Virtue, Matt Ridley, 1996)

Man is a cooperative specie
The strong interdependence showed between humans, even with nonkin,
might have been a key element of our evolutionary success. An example might
be the high levels of cooperation that humans express with each other, which
are unmatched in the animal world.
Caldú, X., & Dreher, J.-C. (2007).


The human brain is wired to be social
(Man is a social animal)
Cooperation is rewarding. (reward system in the brain)
In a recent neuroimaging study, fair offers led to higher happiness ratings and
increased activity in several reward regions of the brain compared with unfair
offers of equal monetary value. Other neuroimaging studies have similarly
shown activation in reward regions in response to cooperative partners or
cooperative play.
Tabibnia, G., & Lieberman, M. D. (2007).

Social isolation is a «killer»
The effects of isolation in humans have much in common with the effects of isolation
found in nonhuman social species. Researchers found increased activation of the
brain’s stress systems, vascular resistance, and blood pressure, as well as decreased
inflammatory control, immunity, sleep salubrity, and expression of genes regulating
glucocorticoid responses and oxidative stress. In sum, the health, life, and genetic
legacy of members of most social species are threatened when they find themselves on
the social perimeter.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Ortigue, S. (2010).


Some modern perspectives & research
on collaboration & socialization
• Alex Pentland: The importance of “social signals” in
human interaction (cf. Honest signals).
• Yochai Benkler: thinking altruism, fairness, … are
challenging the “utilitarian” approach of collaboration
(cf. The Pinguin & the Laviathan)
• Paul Zak: Collaboration can be even be biological with
Oxytocin, the “trust hormone”. Biology of human
interaction.

Some of them revisiting:
• Adam Smith, (1759/1790). The Theory of Moral Sentiments


Approaches for investigating
Collaboration & “sociality”?
Traditional methods in cognitive psychology, psycho sociology as well as
anthropology, can be used to investigate modern perspective of collaboration.

New methods of have now emerged allowing new insight:
• Computational Social Science: consists in using computer for the
capture & analysis of social structures and activities so as to reveal
patterns of individual or group behavior. (cf. the work of Alex Pentland on
the capture & analysis of social signals; or the computer based social
network analysis)
• Agent-based modeling. Based on the construction and execution of
computational models of autonomous agents, it can be used to test
conceptual models of social interaction.
• Social neuroscience methods: is related to research and
understanding of the functioning brain and neural circuitry, via the
physiological observation (e.g. electrodermal measurements; brain
imaging techniques, etc.) and their analysis.


The “Humanization”
of Management Science
More generally, there is a trend in « Management Science » is at
incorporating « humanity » in the core of its reflection: In the knowledge
society, the human dimension (emotion, biases, “irrationality”, etc.) should
not be considered as a flaw to get rid of (cf. Taylorism of the industrial
revolution) but should be an inherent component of the organization to be
leveraged or to be accommodated.

Examples of research directions:
• Sociality
– The study of the social process is receiving a considerable level of attention (social networking analysis; social
media; social business; … in the new economy everybody is “social”).
• Human (Ir)rationality
– People (and organizations) are not rational agents making optimal decision.
– They are subject to a number of cognitive biases.
• Emotion
– Emotion is now considered in relation to organizational performance (well being or stress of employees).
• Etc.


Social neurocience
Observing the brain and other
neurophysiological indicators as a method for
investigating and understanding the
functioning of the social process

What is Neuroscience?

Neuroscience:
Neuroscience relates to the scientific study of the nervous system and
the brain.

Cognitive neuroscience:
Cognitive neuroscience is an academic field concerned with the
scientific study of biological substrates underlying cognition, with a
specific focus on the neural substrates of mental processes.

Social neuroscience:
Social neuroscience is an interdisciplinary field devoted to
understanding how biological systems implement social processes
and behavior, and to using biological concepts and methods to
inform and refine theories of social processes and behavior.


Instrument: fMRI
Functional magnetic resonance imaging

Measures brain activity by detecting
associated changes in blood flow
(via the measure of oxygen).

Advantage: hight space resolution
Limitation: low time resolution (s)


Instrument: EEG (Electroencephalography)

Electroencephalography (EEG) is the
recording of electrical activity along
the scalp.

Advantage: hight time resolution (ms)
Limitation: low space resolution


Instrument: Other

Other investigation instruments can also be used such as:

• Electrodermal measurements
• Other imaging methods such as Positron-Emission Tomography
(PET),
• Observation of pupil dilatation
• Eye-tracking
• Blood analysis, for instance for measuring the level of hormones
(e.g. Oxytocin)
• Gene analysis
• Etc.


Advantages & Limitation

• Less subject to • Still at an early stage
psychological biases • Expensive and heavy (cf.
• Observe phenomenon fMRI hardware)
unobservable by other • Can be imprecise (it is still
methods an indirect method)
• Etc. • Ethical issues
• …


What is Social Neuroscience Investigating?

Among the questions that social neuroscientists are actively
investigating are:
• the effects of social factors on brain and biological functioning;
• the supposed existence of specialized circuits for social functions;
• the nature of interdependencies between genes and social
environments;
• and the biological mechanisms underlying social cognition and
emotions, social connections, social interactions, and group
processes.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Ortigue, S. (2010). Social Neuroscience : How a
Multidisciplinary Field Is Uncovering the Biology of Human Interactions. Cerebrum
(pp. 1-12).


Social cognitive process

More specifically, social cognitive
neuroscience can be used to investigate
the functioning of:
• trust, impression, reputation
• empathy, mentalizing, emotion,
• altruism, generosity
• fairness, reciprocity, revenge, norms
• attention


Researches on Collaboration
Using Neuroscience
Social neuroscience has been used for investigating many aspects that
intervenes in “collaboration” at large (i.e. not only online) such as:
altruism, competition, conflict, cultural difference, empathy, fairness,
leadership, mentalizing, perception, reciprocity, the role of hormones
(cf. oxyticin), social reward, trust, etc..
Cf. Slide: “Short bibliography on collaboration”

However significant work would be needed to adapt their finding in the
context of online interaction
(which is actually one of the key question of asynchronous online
collaboration & socialization).
Note: Also, several researches on collaboration (and competition) consist
in experimentation of prisoner's dilemma game (experimental
economics) that are based on monetary evaluation (money is used in
the experimentation), which may not be most pertinent angle for
approaching the more complex social processes.


Social Neuroscience on Collaboration
Some examples
Let’s looking at some more concrete examples.

The following slides will list researches in neurosciences
that are more specifically focused on the social
perspective of online interaction, and notably at
investigating the functioning of online social systems
(such as Facebook).


Example: Internet & the structure of the brain

Objective: Gary Small and colleagues have explored how the time
spend on the internet is changing the very structure of their brain
(Small, Moody, Siddarth & Bookheimer 2009).

Experimentation: Practically they have used functional MRI scanning to
observe the difference in activation patterns when performing novel
Internet search between groups of 24 subjects having a minimal or a
significant Internet search engine experience.

Results: They observed that the "Net Savvy group" demonstrated
significant increases in signal intensity in additional regions of the
brain such as in the ones controlling of decision making or complex
reasoning.
They concluded that experience in search may alter the brain’s
responsiveness insome of the brain neural circuits.


Example: Social network activities
& hormones level (oxytocin)
Objective: The neuroeconomist Paul Zak has explored the influence of
online social related activities on people hormonal level, and therefore
on arousal or on mood.

Experimentation: To do this he has measured the level of hormones
such as oxytocin (associated to generosity and trust), cortisol and
ACTH (associated to biological stress) of people twitting (Penenberg
2010).

Results: The blood analysis shown an example in which 10 minutes after
the starting of twitting, oxytocin levels spiked more than 10 %, and the
stress hormones went down to more between 10% and 15%.


Example: affective experience of Facebook

Objective: Maurizio et al. (2011) have studies the affective experience
evoked by SNSs.

Experimentation: Specifically, they have recorded skin conductance,
blood volume pulse, electroencephalogram, electromyography,
respiratory activity, and pupil dilation of a group of subjects (30
students) "exposed" to their personal Facebook account and to other
contexts (relaxation and stressful conditions) for a comparison.

Results: They found via the analysis of the psychophysiological data and
pupil dilation that the Facebook experience was significantly different
from the other stress


Example: Facebook experience
Emotional response
Objective: Kevin Wise and others measured emotional responses of a
group of participants (29 participants) browsing Facebook. They
investigated the difference between passive social browsing (i.e.,
newsfeeds) and extractive social searching (i.e., friends’ profiles).

Experimentation: They using of a set of body sensors (i.e. skin-
conductance) and facial electromyogram (EMG) (Wise, Alhabash and
Park. 2010).

Results: They found that social searching (browsing profiles) was more
pleasant and more used than social browsing (browsing information).


Example: neural basis of first impression
(verbal versus nonverbal)
Objective: Kuzmanovic et al. (2012) used neuroscience methods to
investigate the neural basis of first impression and more specifically
the difference in the processing of verbal and nonverbal social
information.

Experimentation: 18 participants were exposed to verbal stimuli (i.e.
sentences) and nonverbal stimuli (3 second video clips) of other
persons and their reaction was recorded using fMRI and analysed
(using MATLAB).

Results: They found that the processing of nonverbal information was
more strongly associated with affective processing (cf. amygdala)
whereas verbal information was associated with 'more deliberate'
social inferential processing (precuneus and posterior cingulate
cortex).


Example: functioning of reciprocation
in an interaction
Objective: Phan et al. (2011) have explored the functioning of
reciprocation in an interaction.

Experimentation: They have measured using fMRI the brain responses
of 36 subjects engaged in a repeated trust game experiment
(participants played the role of an investor who must decide whether
to invest 20 monetary units).

Results: They have observed a signal of reciprocity in the ventral
striatum in response to partners who have consistently returned the
investment.


Proposed research

Using neuroscience to investigate
Online collaboration & the social
process

Background

The social process is increasingly recognized as a key
determinant of the performance of the firm in the
knowledge economy. Some management science experts
(cf. Kogut) are even proposing that a firm should be
understood as a “social community”.
The development of the social technologies in the enterprise
acknowledges the reality of the recognition of the vision of
a more sociable enterprise (cf. IBM Social Business) by
organizations, and also contribute to its realization.


Background (2)

Yet, at the same time it remains difficult for organizations to
fully understand what are the main determinants of
sociality.
• For instance how to assess the reality of the value of
processes that are largely informal?
• What are the elements on which intervene in this sociality,
and how strongly is it “implanted” in the organization?
• How to manage this sociality?


Using social neuroscience
to investigate the social process
Neuroscience, by providing the possibility to “sneak” directly in
people brain, is offering a new perspective for investigating
some of human informal processes.
Neuroscience allows us to observe phenomenon that “no one has
seen before”: what is happening in people head when they are
engaged in an interaction.

Star Trek
Space: The final frontier
These are the voyages of the Starship, Enterprise
Its 5 year mission
To explore strange new worlds
To seek out new life and new civilizations
To boldly go where no man has gone before


Proposed researches
This research is aimed at a first exploration of using neuroscience to
investigate the social process in online social environment. More
specifically, the objective is to explore the implications and
consequences of “computer mediation” in the social process.

In a first stage, two subjects are been considered for this exploration:

1° Online identity perception:
• Identity is a very important in relation to the construction of trust.

2° Motivation to engage in an online social interaction:
• The level of participation of the members of a virtual community
represent one of the more important element of success.


Experiment 1: Online identity perception
(impression, trust).
Background: Identity is an critical ingredient in the social process, since
it is used in the formation of trust which play an important role in the
establishment and the development of a relationship. Identity may also
represent a significant element in people desire to engage and pursuit
a relationship.

Objective: The objective of this first experiment is to investigate using
how people identity is perceived online, and its implication on trust
(first impression, lasting impression), habituation (reduction of
perceived social distance), leadership, etc.

Experiment: Observe a group of subjects in different online social
contexts accessing identity information (people profiles, activity
stream, interactions with others, popularity) of a group of users (that
they know or do not known).


Experiment 2: Motivation to engage in an
online social interaction
Background: A very important aspect in collaboration and social
exchange in a serious context is related to the willingness of people to
participate. The recent development of the use of social media seems
to indicate that complex psychological factors (e.g. addiction)
intervene in people engagement.

Objective: The objective is to investigate the motivational aspects that
are involved in people adopting and using online social systems.
Elements & factors that can be investigated include: the reward
system, stimulation, personality trait, perception of self-efficacy, etc.

Experiment: Observe a group of subjects in different online social
contexts, the different elements contributing to their motivation, and in
particular look at how the brain reward system is activated (e.g. social
interaction, fulfillment, etc.) when conducting an online social
activities.


Some references
Akerlof, George & Robert J. Shiller (2009) “Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy,
and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Ortigue, S. (2010). Social Neuroscience : How a Multidisciplinary Field Is Uncovering the
Biology of Human Interactions. Cerebrum (pp. 1-12).
Caldú, X., & Dreher, J.-C. (2007). Hormonal and genetic influences on processing reward and social
information. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1118, 43-73.
Kuzmanovic B, Bente G, von Cramon DY, Schilbach L, Tittgemeyer M, Vogeley K. (2012). Imaging first
impressions: Distinct neural processing of verbal and nonverbal social information. Neuroimage
60(1):179-188
Maurizio, Mauri; Pietro Cipresso, Anna Balgera, Marco Villamira, Giuseppe Riva (2011). Why Is Facebook
So Successful? Psychophysiological Measures Describe a Core Flow State While Using Facebook.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2011; 14 (12): 723
Phan, K., Sripada, C., Angstadt, M. & McCabe, K. (2011). Reputation for reciprocity engages the brain
reward center. Proceedings for the National Academy of Science 2011: 107 (29):13099-13104
Ridley M. 2010. The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves. New York: HarperCollins. 448 pp.
Small GW, Moody TD, Siddarth P, Bookheimer SY. (2009). Your brain on Google: patterns of cerebral
activation during internet searching. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 17 (2) : 116-26.
Tabibnia, G., & Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Fairness and cooperation are rewarding: evidence from social
cognitive neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1118, 90-101.
Wise K., S. Alhabash and H. Park. (2010). Emotional Responses during Social Information Seeking on
Facebook. CyberPsychology and Behavior
Zak, P.J. 2011. Moral Markets. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 77(2): 212-233.
http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/published-works/cns-publications


Short bibliography on collaboration
Barraza, J. a, & Zak, P. J. (2009). Empathy toward strangers triggers oxytocin release and subsequent generosity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, 182-9.
doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04504.x
Bruneau, E. G., Dufour, N., & Saxe, R. (2012). Social cognition in members of conflict groups: behavioural and neural responses in Arabs, Israelis and South Americans to each
other’s misfortunes. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 367(1589), 717-30. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0293
Cacioppo, J. T., & Ortigue, S. (2010). Social Neuroscience : How a Multidisciplinary Field Is Uncovering the Biology of Human Interactions. Cerebrum (pp. 1-12).
Caldú, X., & Dreher, J.-C. (2007). Hormonal and genetic influences on processing reward and social information. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1118, 43-73.
doi:10.1196/annals.1412.007
Cikara, M., Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. (2011). Us and Them: Intergroup Failures of Empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 149-153.
doi:10.1177/0963721411408713
Cooper, J. C., Kreps, T. a, Wiebe, T., Pirkl, T., & Knutson, B. (2010). When giving is good: ventromedial prefrontal cortex activation for others’ intentions. Neuron, 67(3), 511-21.
Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.06.030
Decety, J., Jackson, P. L., Sommerville, J. a, Chaminade, T., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2004). The neural bases of cooperation and competition: an fMRI investigation. NeuroImage, 23(2),
744-51. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.05.025
Goleman, D., & Boyatzis, R. (2008). Social intelligence and the biology of leadership. Harvard business review, 86(9), 74-81, 136. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18777666
Hamann, K., Warneken, F., Greenberg, J. R., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Collaboration encourages equal sharing in children but not in chimpanzees. Nature, 476(7360), 328-31.
Nature Publishing Group. doi:10.1038/nature10278
Krueger, F., McCabe, K., Moll, J., Kriegeskorte, N., Zahn, R., Strenziok, M., Heinecke, A., et al. (2007). Neural correlates of trust. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 104(50), 20084-9. doi:10.1073/pnas.0710103104
Lebreton, M., Barnes, A., Miettunen, J., Peltonen, L., Ridler, K., Veijola, J., Tanskanen, P., et al. (2009). The brain structural disposition to social interaction. The European journal
of neuroscience, 29(11), 2247-52. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06782.x
Ortigue, S., Sinigaglia, C., Rizzolatti, G., & Grafton, S. T. (2010). Understanding actions of others: the electrodynamics of the left and right hemispheres. A high-density EEG
neuroimaging study. PloS one, 5(8), e12160. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012160
Phan, K. L., Sripada, C. S., Angstadt, M., & McCabe, K. (2010). Reputation for reciprocity engages the brain reward center. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 107(29), 13099-104. doi:10.1073/pnas.1008137107
Rilling, J., Gutman, D., Zeh, T., Pagnoni, G., Berns, G., & Kilts, C. (2002). A neural basis for social cooperation. Neuron, 35(2), 395-405. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12160756
Rilling, J. K., Dagenais, J. E., Goldsmith, D. R., Glenn, A. L., & Pagnoni, G. (2008). Social cognitive neural networks during in-group and out-group interactions. NeuroImage,
41(4), 1447-61. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.044
Rilling, J. K., Demarco, A. C., Hackett, P. D., Thompson, R., Ditzen, B., Patel, R., & Pagnoni, G. (2012). Effects of intranasal oxytocin and vasopressin on cooperative behavior
and associated brain activity in men. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(4), 447-61. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.07.013
Tabibnia, G., & Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Fairness and cooperation are rewarding: evidence from social cognitive neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
1118, 90-101. doi:10.1196/annals.1412.001
Tennie, C., Frith, U., & Frith, C. (2010). Reputation management in the age of the world-wide web. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(11), 482-8. Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.003
Woolley, A. W., Hackman, J. R., Jerde, T. E., Chabris, C. F., Bennett, S. L., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2007). Using brain-based measures to compose teams: how individual capabilities
and team collaboration strategies jointly shape performance. Social neuroscience, 2(2), 96-105. doi:10.1080/17470910701363041


Thank you

Thierry Nabeth
nabeth.thierry@gmail.com


International Doctoral Consortium on Intellectual Capital Management

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to International Doctoral Consortium on Intellectual Capital Management

Similar to International Doctoral Consortium on Intellectual Capital Management (20)

More from Thierry Nabeth

More from Thierry Nabeth (12)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

International Doctoral Consortium on Intellectual Capital Management