collaboration in virtual communities: a neuroscience approach

29 Mai 2012 International Doctoral Consortium on ICM 1

Collaboration in virtual communities:A neuroscience approach

The 5th International Doctoral Consortiumon Intellectual Capital ManagementFaculté Jean-Monet, Orsay University, France

Thierry Nabeth

Research Advisor:Professor Ahmed Bounfour


• 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)

Index

RethinkingCollaboration & « 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 world is predictableThe world is relatively closed,

static, and can be controlled( it is a “machine”)

The world is uncertainThe world is open,

and in perpetual evolution( it is an “ecosystem”)

The organization is a competitive environment, driven by search for efficiency via well defined practices, and automation.

The organization is collaborative and able to get the best from the collective expertise of its employees.

The social process is perceived as distracting (hurting productivity), or at best something useful but difficult apprehend and to manage.

The social process is a core process of the organization that contributes to many functions (circulation of knowledge; motivation, etc.)

The evolution of the vision of the world


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.


Sociality is an inner component of human nature (Man is a social animal).The new perspective in collaboration & social interaction: It is more about human social cognition.

People interact with others as a means of accomplishing their objectives.What drives their behavior is the optimization of individual benefit.

Modeling collaboration & the social process

Collaboration is utilitarian Collaboration is in human nature

Social exchange theory

It is about a calculation :Rewards – Cost• Costs: effort put into a relationship• Rewards: elements of a

relationship that have positive value

Social cognition theories

Looking at:

Trust, identity, perception, reputation, reciprocity, altruism, social reward, social motivation, fairness, empathy, …


Questioning the “utilitarian” model

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)

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.


Challenging the view of human rationality

Homoeconomicus

greed selfishnessrationality

individualistic

People are rational, and self-interested actors which behavior is determined by the optimization of their benefit via cost / benefit calculations.

(classical economics theories)

This view is being challenged:

People are largely influenced by:

their instinct. (Akerlof & Shiller’s “Animal Spirits”)their Intuitions (Daniel Kahneman’s “thinking fast and slow”)cognitive biases (Dan Ariely’s “predictably irrational”)

people are rational agents?


Towards a more “humanistic” model

Cooperation is part of human natureCo-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 specieThe 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).More realistic models should be able to better take into account the complexity of the social process, and its “humanity” dimension.


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

Some modern perspectives & researchon 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.


Approaches for investigatingCollaboration & “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.


• 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.

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:

Social neurocience

Observing the brain and other neurophysiological indicators as a method for

investigating and understanding the functioning of the social process


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.

What is Neuroscience?


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

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

Instrument: fMRIFunctional magnetic resonance imaging


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 psychological biases

• Observe phenomenon unobservable by other methods

• Etc.

• Still at an early stage• Expensive and heavy (cf.

fMRI hardware)• Can be imprecise (it is still

an indirect method)• Ethical issues• …


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.

What is Social Neuroscience Investigating?

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


• trust, impression, reputation

• empathy, mentalizing, emotion,

• altruism, generosity

• fairness, reciprocity, revenge, norms

• attention

Social cognitive process

More specifically, social cognitive neuroscience can be used to investigate the functioning of:


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.

Researches on CollaborationUsing Neuroscience


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).

Social Neuroscience on CollaborationSome examples


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: Internet & the structure of the brain


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: Social network activities& hormones level (oxytocin)


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: affective experience of Facebook


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: Facebook experienceEmotional response


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: neural basis of first impression(verbal versus nonverbal)


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.

Example: functioning of reciprocationin an interaction

Proposed research

Using neuroscience to investigate Online collaboration & the social

process


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


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?

Background (2)


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.

Using social neuroscienceto investigate the social process

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


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.

Proposed researches


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.

Experiment 1: Online identity perception (impression, trust).

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).


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.

Experiment 2: Motivation to engage in an online social interaction

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.

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 BehaviorZak, P.J. 2011. Moral Markets. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 77(2): 212-233.

http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/published-works/cns-publications

Some references

http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/published-works/cns-publications


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.1412.007Cikara, M., Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. (2011). Us and Them: Intergroup Failures of Empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 149-153.

doi:10.1177/0963721411408713Cooper, 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.2010.06.030Decety, 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.2004.05.025Goleman, 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/18777666Hamann, 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/nature10278Krueger, 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.0710103104Lebreton, 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.xOrtigue, 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.0012160Phan, 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.1008137107Rilling, 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/12160756Rilling, 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.2008.03.044Rilling, 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.2011.07.013Tabibnia, 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.1412.001Tennie, 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.2010.07.003Woolley, 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

Short bibliography on collaboration


Thank you

Thierry Nabeth [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

collaboration in virtual communities: a neuroscience approach

Business

social capital

social processcollaboration

social space

social community

social process approaches

social media tobe

social exchange theoryis

perceived asthe social