A similar trend is seen in the second group of the Moncton event. One can see that throughout phase 1 the interactions are rather unbalanced with the bulk of the interactions being directed to and from players 1 and 2. Unlike the Ottawa group this dynamic persists well into phase two and only during phase three do we see the appearance of a much more balanced interaction map. At this point we see direct interactions between all members. Discussions become more collaborative and group interactions become dominant. As for groups where all members are unfamiliar with each other. We see that interactions are quite balanced throughout with members favoring group interactions to directed interactions.
 
(at this point I was also considering including interaction maps for a group of all strangers to show how/if they differ from unbalanced groups like the two above).  
 
Research Question #4 Evaluate whether relationships and connections have strengthened over the course of the event.
 
To determine whether relationships have strengthened over the course of the event, participants were asked to rate their collaboration with their teammates over the course of the game. The following scale was used and the results can be found in the subsequent tables.
 
0          We did not work together
1          Awareness of individual, little communication
2          Provide information to each other, formal communication
3          Share information, frequent communication, some shared decision making
4          Share ideas, frequent communication
5          Frequent communication characterized by mutual trust, contributes to consensus
 
 
Moncton Group #1
 
Halifax Group #1
 
P1
P2
P3
X
 
 
P1
P2
P3
P4
P1
X
4
5
X
 
P1
X
5
5
5
P2
5
X
5
X
 
P2
1
X
3
3
P3
5
5
X
X
 
P3
4
4
X
5
Moncton Group #2
 
P4
3
2
3
X
 
P1
P2
P3
X
 
Halifax Group #2
P1
X
2
2
X
 
 
P1
P2
P3
 
P2
3
X
3
X
 
P1
X
2
0
X
P3
5
5
X
X
 
P2
4
X
4
X
P3
3
3
X
X
 
 
 
 
3.6
Ottawa Group #1
 
Ottawa Group #3
 
P1
P2
P3
 
 
P1
P2
P3
P1
X
4
4
 
P1
X
2
5
P2
4
X
4
 
P2
5
X
5
P3
5
5
X
 
P3
5
5
X
Ottawa Group #2
 
 
 
P1
P2
P3
 
 
 
 
4.58
P1
X
5
5
 
 
P2
5
X
5
 
 
P3
5
5
X
 
 
 
These results show that overall players believed they collaborated well with each other. The average score on 5 was 4.1.
 
These self-reported values alone however are not enough to determine whether relationships were strengthened over the course of the game. For this, one must re-analyze the results from research questions 1, 2 and 3 about the quantity and quality of interactions over the course of the game as well as the interaction dynamics that appear.
 
Referring to graphs 1, 2 and 3, one can see instantly that over the course of a simulation gaming event the interactions increase over time with some intermittent dips. One can infer from this that participants are becoming more comfortable and confident interacting with their participants which shows that their connections are indeed improving.
 
Referring to Table 1 from research question 2, there is a clear evolution that can be seen from participants over the course of the game. Early phases tend to be quite formal and result in less personal discussions. This is coupled with closed off body language such as crossed arms. As the phases progress however, participants become friendlier with one another and become comfortable sharing their perspectives and ideas. Discussions outside of the artifact of the game arise and players body language becomes much friendlier with increased eye contact and less examples of crossed arms.
 
This is further corroborated by the data from research question 3. Even players with strong bonds with another teammate tend to open up to the entire group and favor group discussions rather than simply interacting with players that they have strong prior bonds with. Looking back at Figures 3 and 4 one can see that player new edges appear linking participants without prior familiarity.