Context analysis

In order to try to counteract our tendency towards fundamental attribution error, it may be helpful to explicitly pay attention to the context in which an event takes place. 

When this attention to context is active during a live event it is often referred to as situational awareness. So, context analysis in reflection is a form of retrospective situational awareness, in which you seek to become aware of contextual factors that you didn't notice at the time in the light of your knowledge about the outcome of the event.

Rewarding–Threatening

People will behave differently if they perceive a situation to be threatening than if they perceive it to be rewarding. They will behave differently if they are more aware of potential losses than potential gains (which they usually are). This could trigger patterns of approach or avoidance behaviours.

• What potential threats or losses might you or others have perceived in the situation?

• What potential rewards or gains might you or others have perceived in the situation?

See David Rock's SCARF model of common threat/reward domains that influence our behaviour (status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, fairness — although if you replace 'fairness' with 'equity' you get SCARE which is perhaps more pertinent). 

Look out for threat responses

• Fight — try to neutralise the threat by attacking

• Fawn — try to neutralise the threat by distracting, flattering or submitting

• Flee — try to avoid the threat by running away (literally or psychologically)

• Freeze — try to avoid the threat by becoming inactive and hoping it goes away

Collaborative–Competitive

People will treat each other differently if they perceive each other as competitors or collaborators in a particular setting (e.g. where there are limited resources).

• To what extent were you in competition with others? Did everyone appear to have the same perspective?

• How would you or others have behaved differently if the situation had been explicitly competitive or collaborative?

Public–Private

People may behave differently when they feel they are being observed than when they feel unobserved.

• To what extent might you or others have been 'putting on a show' for an audience?

• Would you or others have behaved differently if someone else had been watching/not watching?

Familiar–Novel

When people perceive a situation to be familiar they are more likely to act in accordance with associated meaning schemas (habitual behaviours). When they perceive a situation to be novel they may be more tentative which could be interpreted as reluctance. This will often depend on an individual's preference for familiarity or novelty and will impact levels of confidence.

• How much previous exposure have you or others had to similar situations?

• To what extent were you or others finding your way or travelling well-trodden paths?

Formal–Informal

When people are in a situation in which there are formal rules/roles, cultural expectations and behavioural norms, they tend to behave differently than they would when they are 'being themselves'.

• What were the explicit and unspoken rules of the situation?

• To what extent can the behaviours displayed in that context be taken as representative of the authentic behaviours of the people involved?

Stable–Chaotic

People's behaviours will change depending on whether they perceive a situation to be stable and predictable or fluid and unpredictable. This will depend on their ability to detect and adapt to changes.

• To what extent were you or others aware of and able to respond to changes in the situation?

• What might have happened if the situation had/hadn't changed?

Contextual gradients

This describes the extent to which the context gives more power or freedom to certain individuals over others. Several different gradients may be simultaneously present in a particular context.

• Physical - spatial arrangements affecting positioning, visibility, centrality (e.g. stage, lectern, seating arrangements, avatar size, avatar positioning, audio volume)

• Technological - bandwidth, reliability, advancement (better kit)

• Familiarity - the extent to which individuals have previous experience with the context

• Socio-cultural - power hierarchies, cultural capital (status & reputation)

• Psychological - personality differences (extraversion-introversion), self-esteem, self-efficacy

• Cognitive - neurodiversity, brain-based differences in perception, processing and expression

• Competence - expertise, experience

Contextual communication affordances

The context in which communication happens will have an impact on the type and quality of communication through various contextual affordances. These affordances will determine, for example, the extent to which individuals are able to exchange combinations of cognitive, affective and behavioural information.

Contextual affordances include:

• Modality - the available channels for transmitting information to our senses - auditory, visual, tactile, spatial, olfactory

• Capacity - the amount of information that can be transmitted within a particular channel

• Purity - the amount of noise or competing signals

• Openness  - the extent to which potential communicants are free to join

• Retentiveness - the extent to which communicants are free to leave

• Interactivity - the extent to which information can be exchanged between two or more communicants - unidirectional, bidirectional, multidirectional

• Contemporaneity - the extent to which interactive communication happens at the same time - simultaneous synchronous, turn-based synchronous, asynchronous

• Ephemerality - the extent to which communication can be stored and reviewed

• Anonymity - the extent to which communicants can hide aspects of their identities from each other

Common ground and contextual leverage

For communication or any collaborative action to be possible, there has to be some form of common ground between participants.

Common ground consists of:

• Common context (contextual overlap) - the extent to which participants perceive themselves to be in the same context or have similar perceptions of contextual affordances and gradients

• Common language (symbolic overlap) - the extent to which participants share a set of communicative symbols (e.g. same vocabulary, jargon, etc.) 

• Common grammar (semantic overlap) - the extent to which participants share a set of rules that determine how communicative symbols (including actions) are arranged to convey meaning 

• Common meanings (conceptual overlap) - the extent to which participants share the same conceptual frameworks underlying the symbol set (e.g. same meanings) especially for more abstract communication content

• Common experiences (cultural overlap) - degree of similarity in backgrounds between participants increases the likelihood of correspondence between conceptual frameworks

• Common engagement (motivational overlap) - the extent to which participants have similar degrees of investment in the process

• Common goals (intentional overlap) - the extent to which participants have a sense of shared purpose and priorities

Contextual leverage is the extent to which individuals rely on contextual common ground to in order to collaborate and communicate effectively. 

• Low leverage joint action relies less on context and is more likely in contexts that are less familiar to participants. There may be more explicit exploration of shared meaning and intentions. This might include scene setting, providing detailed background information, including definitions of terminology, etc.

• High leverage joint action relies heavily on assumed common contextual awareness. Meaning is conveyed with maximum efficiency but the communication and behaviours may appear ambiguous or meaningless to those without that awareness. Examples include, in-jokes, jargon, ironic communication.