Understanding how individual traits influence team performance is valuable, but these traits are not always directly observable. Prior research has inferred traits like trust from behavioral data. We analyze conversational data to identify team traits and their correlation with teaming outcomes. Using transcripts from a Minecraft-based search-and-rescue experiment, we apply topic modeling and clustering to uncover key interaction patterns. Our findings show that variations in teaming outcomes can be explained through these inferences, with different levels of predictive power derived from individual traits and team dynamics.

Existing approaches to Theory of Mind (ToM) in Artificial Intelligence (AI) overemphasize prompted, or cue-based, ToM, which may limit our collective ability to develop Artificial Social Intelligence (ASI). Drawing from research in computer science, cognitive science, and related disciplines, we contrast prompted ToM with what we call spontaneous ToM -- reasoning about others' mental states that is grounded in unintentional, possibly uncontrollable cognitive functions. We argue for a principled approach to studying and developing AI ToM and suggest that a robust, or general, ASI will respond to prompts \textit{and} spontaneously engage in social reasoning.

We explore the use of aggregative crowdsourced forecasting (ACF) as a mechanism to help operationalize ``collective intelligence'' of human-machine teams for coordinated actions. We adopt the definition for Collective Intelligence as: ``A property of groups that emerges from synergies among data-information-knowledge, software-hardware, and individuals (those with new insights as well as recognized authorities) that enables just-in-time knowledge for better decisions than these three elements acting alone.'' Collective Intelligence emerges from new ways of connecting humans and AI to enable decision-advantage, in part by creating and leveraging additional sources of information that might otherwise not be included. Aggregative crowdsourced forecasting (ACF) is a recent key advancement towards Collective Intelligence wherein predictions (X\% probability that Y will happen) and rationales (why I believe it is this probability that X will happen) are elicited independently from a diverse crowd, aggregated, and then used to inform higher-level decision-making. This research asks whether ACF, as a key way to enable Operational Collective Intelligence, could be brought to bear on operational scenarios (i.e., sequences of events with defined agents, components, and interactions) and decision-making, and considers whether such a capability could provide novel operational capabilities to enable new forms of decision-advantage.

Optimization of human-AI teams hinges on the AI's ability to tailor its interaction to individual human teammates. A common hypothesis in adaptive AI research is that minor differences in people's predisposition to trust can significantly impact their likelihood of complying with recommendations from the AI. Predisposition to trust is often measured with self-report inventories that are administered before interactions. We benchmark a popular measure of this kind against behavioral predictors of compliance. We find that the inventory is a less effective predictor of compliance than the behavioral measures in datasets taken from three previous research projects. This suggests a general property that individual differences in initial behavior are more predictive than differences in self-reported trust attitudes. This result also shows a potential for easily accessible behavioral measures to provide an AI with more accurate models without the use of (often costly) survey instruments.

A widely cited explanation for how humans think about trustworthiness posits that people consider three factors, or traits, of a person (or agent) when they evaluate trustworthiness: ability, benevolence, and integrity [20]. It is common practice for intelligent agent researchers to adapt a psychometric inventory of this three-factor model of trustworthiness for assessing users' perceived trustworthiness of agents [19]. In theory, administering the inventory prior to an interaction allows researchers to assess the role of anticipated agent trustworthiness in users' behavior, while post hoc administration allows researchers to assess whether particular elements of an interaction, perhaps an experimental manipulation, impacted users' opinions of the agent. In practice, however, people frequently misuse information when they form judgments and make decisions [11, 17]. For example, a person who is momentarily happy (sad), perhaps from reminiscing about a positive (negative) event from their recent past, is likely to rate their life satisfaction as higher (lower) than if you asked them when they were in a neutral state [25]. Regardless of the saliency of information, the normative approach is to always use it the same way.

Behavioral scientists have classically documented aversion to algorithmic decision aids, from simple linear models to AI. Sentiment, however, is changing and possibly accelerating AI helper usage. AI assistance is, arguably, most valuable when humans must make complex choices. We argue that classic experimental methods used to study heuristics and biases are insufficient for studying complex choices made with AI helpers. We adapted an experimental paradigm designed for studying complex choices in such contexts. We show that framing and anchoring effects impact how people work with an AI helper and are predictive of choice outcomes. The evidence suggests that some participants, particularly those in a loss frame, put too much faith in the AI helper and experienced worse choice outcomes by doing so. The paradigm also generates computational modeling-friendly data allowing future studies of human-AI decision making.