Social: Social Cognition and Teamwork - Foundations for Designing User-Centered Systems - page 235

shows that there are problems in these measures (i.e., units are unclear), that it is
not an easy measure to create, and that even discussions about social distance can
help us understand ourselves and users better.
More recently, social distance has come to be regarded as a continuum rather
than discrete levels, stretching from an in-group bias—people just like me—to an
out-group bias—people not at all like me (Eveland et al. 1999 ; Perloff 1993 ).
Developments in network theory (see Chap. 9 ) also suggest that social distance is
a function of the ties between group members rather than just their individual
characteristics (Ethington 1997 ; Granovetter 1973 ; Wetherell et al. 1994 ). Nev-
ertheless, the concept of a social distance continuum is a useful way of capturing
the influence of culture, particularly as it relates to the development of out-group
biases. It is worth noting that many people draw a distinction between social
distance and psychological distance (Ginges and Eyal 2009 ), arguing that there are
salient differences between the interactions of individuals who may belong to
particular groups (psychological distance), and group-level interactions, where
group identity is primary (social distance).
Smaller social distances are generally preferable because they make it easier for
team members to both receive support from, and give support to each other,
thereby making participation in the group more likely. Conversely, larger social
distances increase the likelihood of team members acting against other team
members or other groups.
8.3.6 Spatial Distance
Organizations are increasingly using teams that are distributed geographically and
temporally. One part of the team can work on a task and, at the end of their day,
pass it to a group in another time zone who are just starting their working day.
Getting people to perform successfully in this way requires careful planning,
because geographic distances between group members mediate the development of
familiarity (Ethington 1997 ), and thus affect group cohesiveness. Notions of
familiarity, in turn, act reciprocally to help create communities of practice (Seely
Brown and Duguid 1991 ). Distortions to the perception of space, however, can
also distort both the sense of accountability and attachment to others (Grossman
1996 ).
Spatial relationships influence decisions to participate. If group members are
close to us this encourages participation in local activities. The scale of importance
varies by task, but in collaboration by researchers, for example, 30 m is an
important distance, above which much less collaboration happens (Kraut et al.
1990 ). Increasing distance will also decrease participation because increased
distance weakens our relationship to others. There are both short distance
(10-100 m) and large distance (time zone) effects. This may change as ways of
connecting change and network bandwidth increases.