Generality of a Theory of Collective Induction: Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Interaction,Amount of Potential Information,and Group versus Member Choice of Evidence

In order to assess the generality of a theory of collective induction that has previously been supported for face-to-face interaction (Laughlin and Hollingshead, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1995), three experiments compared face-to-face and computer-mediated interaction for four-person groups for three successive rule induction problems. The predictions of the theory fit the obtained probabilities of group hypotheses for distributions of member hypotheses better than four other plausible models for both face-to-face and computer-mediated groups, over four levels of potential information, and for group versus member choice of evidence. There were comparable numbers of correct hypotheses for face-to-face and computer-mediated interaction, increasing correct hypotheses with increasing potential information, and comparable numbers of correct hypotheses for group versus member choice of evidence. The three experiments indicate the generality of the theory for both traditional face-to-face interaction and computer-mediated interaction, four levels of potential information, and group versus member choice of information. The comparisons of face-to-face and computer-mediated interaction extend the emphasis on social communication processes on decision and idea generation tasks of previous research to social combination processes in the acquisition and processing of new information in cooperative rule learning.     

Anticipated Ongoing Interaction Versus Channel Effects on Relational Communication in Computer-Mediated Interaction

Previous research on the interpersonal tone of computer-mediated communication shows different effects using longitudinal computer-mediated groups than are found in research using one-shot groups, even before the developmental aspects associated with time can accrue. One factor distinguishing these approaches is the anticipation of future interaction experienced by longitudinal groups. This research reports an experiment assessing the relative effects of anticipated future interaction and different communication media (computer-mediated versus face-to-face communication) on the communication of relational intimacy and composure. Asynchronous and synchronous computer conferencing and face-to-face groups were examined. Results show that the assignment of long-term versus short-term partnerships has a larger impact on anticipated future interaction reported by computer-mediated, rather than face-to-face, partners. Evidence also shows that anticipation is a more potent predictor of several relational communication dimensions than is communication condition. Implications for theory and practice are identified.     

Relational Communication in Computer-Mediated Interaction

This study involved an experiment of the effects of time and communication channel—asynchronous computer conferencing versus face-to-face meetings—on relational communication in groups. Prior research on the relational aspects of computer-mediated communication has suggested strong depersonalizing effects of the medium due to the absence of nonverbal cues. Past research is criticized for failing to incorporate temporal and developmental perspectives on information processing and relational development. In this study, data were collected from 96 subjects assigned to computer conferencing or face-to-face zero-history groups of 3, who completed three tasks over several weeks’time. Results showed that computer-mediated groups increased in several relational dimensions to more positive levels and that these subsequent levels approximated those of face-to-face groups. Boundaries on the predominant theories of computer-mediated communication are recommended, and principles from uncertainty reduction and social penetration are discussed.     

Judgment Accuracy and Outcomes in Negotiation: A Causal Modeling Analysis of Decision-Aiding Effects

This study examines how interaction structure (no formal structure versus modified Nominal Group Technique) and communication channels (face-to-face versus computer-mediated) affect negotiation performance by changing negotiation judgment accuracy. Participants assumed the role of a selling division manager or one of two buying division managers and completed an intra-organizational transfer pricing negotiation task in groups of three members each. In half of all groups, members interacted freely without any formal structure; in the other half, members interacted using a two-step, modified Nominal Group Technique. Within each of these two conditions, half the groups met directly and communicated face-to-face; in the other half, members were physically isolated and communicated with the aid of a simultaneous electronic-messaging facility. Results showed that unstructured groups and computer-mediated groups had lower judgment accuracy, obtained lower outcomes, and distributed resources more unequally than structured groups and face-to-face groups, respectively. Further analyses using causal modeling revealed that judgment accuracy played a significant role in determining negotiation outcomes. Specifically, negotiation structure caused increases in both individual and group profits and decreases in inequality of resource distribution by reducing fixed-sum error. Computer-mediated communication increased both fixed-sum error and incompatibility error and these increases explained the effects of communication medium on resource distribution. However, changes in fixed-sum error only partially explained the effects of communication medium on individual and group profits. Changes in incompatibility error did not explain any of the effects of communication medium on profits. These results are discussed in terms of implications for the design and implementation of decision aids for small group negotiation.     

Devil′s Advocacy and Dialectical Inquiry Effects on Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making

For more than 20 years, researchers have investigated the effects of cognitive conflict techniques on the decision making performance of groups and individuals. Past research on two techniques, devil′s advocacy and dialectical inquiry, has shown that both techniques improve group performance over nonconflictual, expert-based approaches. More recently, researchers have begun to investigate how advanced decision and communication technologies can be used to enhance group processing and outcomes. In this paper, we extend both streams of research by reporting the results of a laboratory experiment on the effects devil′s advocacy and dialectical inquiry within face-to-face and computer-mediated groups. The results suggest that groups given the devil′s advocacy treatment developed and considered more alternative solutions to a case problem and selected a higher quality recommendation than those in the dialectical inquiry and expert-based treatments. Computer-mediated groups developed and considered more solution alternatives but required more voting rounds to reach agreement than did face-to-face groups. Computer-mediated groups were more satisfied with the process than face-to-face groups; no differences were found in satisfaction with decision outcome. The implications of the results for future research and practice are discussed.     

Information Suppression and Status Persistence in Group Decision Making The Effects of Communication Media

This experiment investigated the conditions under which a member with information critical for making the best group decision will positively influence the group's final choice. The impact of two factors on group decision quality, information exchange, and perceptions of influence was examined: (a) status differences among members (equal-status vs. mixed-status groups) and (b) communication media (face-to-face vs. computer-mediated communication). Three-person groups were composed such that the critical information required to make the best decision was given only to the low-status member in the mixed-status groups and randomly assigned to one member in the equal-status groups. The results indicated that the mixed-status groups made poorer decisions and made fewer references to critical information than equal-status groups, regardless of the communication medium. Computer-mediated communication suppressed information exchange and the perceived influence of group members, suggesting that the relation between status and communication media is more complex than proposed in past research.     

Group and Interpersonal Effects in International Computer-Mediated Collaboration

Drawing on two recent theories, this article proposes interaction hypotheses involving the joint effects of salient group versus individual identity and long-term versus short-term group membership on the social, interpersonal, and intellectual responses of group members collaborating via computer-mediated communication. Participants from institutions in two countries used computer-mediated communication under various conditions. Results indicate that some conditions of computer-mediated communication use by geographically dispersed partners render effects systematically superior to those obtained in other mediated conditions and greater or lesser than effects obtained through face-to-face interaction.     

Decision Accuracy in Computer-Mediated versus Face-to-Face Decision-Making Teams

Changes in the way organizations are structured and advances in communication technologies are two factors that have altered the conditions under which group decisions are made. Decisions are increasingly made by teams that have a hierarchical structure and whose members have different areas of expertise. In addition, many decisions are no longer made via strictly face-to-face interaction. The present study examines the effects of two modes of communication (face-to-face or computer-mediated) on the accuracy of teams' decisions. The teams are characterized by a hierarchical structure and their members differ in expertise consistent with the framework outlined in the Multilevel Theory of team decision making presented by Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Sego, Hedlund, Major, and Phillips (1995). Sixty-four four-person teams worked for 3 h on a computer simulation interacting either face-to-face (FtF) or over a computer network. The communication mode had mixed effects on team processes in that members of FtF teams were better informed and made recommendations that were more predictive of the correct team decision, but leaders of CM teams were better able to differentiate staff members on the quality of their decisions. Controlling for the negative impact of FtF communication on staff member differentiation increased the beneficial effect of the FtF mode on overall decision making accuracy.     

Just the thought of it!: Effects of anticipating computer-mediated communication on gender stereotyping

A study investigated how anticipated communication mode affects the use of stereotypes in forming impressions and making task assignments. Participants rated male or female targets with whom they envisioned working on a business project using computer-mediated or face-to-face modes of communication. Results indicated that both men and women were characterized more stereotypically when participants anticipated working with them electronically than when they anticipated working with them face-to-face. Furthermore, task assignments were more often gender stereotype consistent when the communication mode was computer-mediated than when it was face-to-face. These findings suggest that the mere anticipation of computer-mediated communication, without the actual the experience of it, is enough to promote stereotypes and biased decision-making.     

Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups

This study examines whether the first group member to advocate a position in the group publically has disproportionate influence on the group decision, and whether group discussion by computer mail or face-to-face determines the extent of the first advocate's influence. Possible explanations of first advocacy influence were tested in an experiment that allowed simultaneous observation of three independent variables: (1) assignment of first advocate (self-selected/randomly assigned), (2) early discussion before advocacy (discussion/no discussion), and (3) mode of communication (face-to-face/electronic mail). It was assumed that a first advocate effect exists if the group choice is closer to the first advocates' stated positions than to the group's average pregroup preferences. An “influence” hypothesis predicts that first advocates who self-select will be closer to the group decision than average pregroup preferences because these are first advocates most likely to persuade other members of the group. A “listening” hypothesis predicts that first advocates who hear an early group discussion will be closer to the group decision than average pregroup preferences because these first advocates are able to anticipate the group decision as a result of listening to what is communicated in group discussion. The results indicated strong support for the “listening” hypothesis. When groups held early discussions before someone advocated a position, the first advocate effect was observed; when groups did not hold early discussions but began their task by having someone advocate a position, there was no first advocate effect. The data suggest that the content and tone of electronic group discussions was qualitatively different from face-to-face group discussions, but the process of group decision making in both conditions was about the same. The implications of these results for group discussion and computer-mediated group decision making in organizations are discussed.     

All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams

This study examines the development of trust and cooperation in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Fifty-two, three-person teams worked on a mixed-motive task over a 3-week period using computer-mediated or face-to-face interaction. Results showed that trust started lower in computer-mediated teams but increased to levels comparable to those in face-to-face teams over time. Furthermore, this pattern of results also held for teams that switched from face-to-face to electronic media and vice versa. Content analysis showed that high levels of inflammatory remarks were associated with slow trust development in computer-mediated teams. The results challenge prevailing assumptions about how trust develops in distributed teams and suggest modifications to established theories of computer-mediated communication.     

A case study on support for students' thinking through computer-mediated communication

This is a case study on support for thinking through computer-mediated communication. Two graduate students were supervised in their research using computer-mediated communication, which was asynchronous and written; the supervisor was not present. The students' reports pointed out there was more planning and editing and low interactivity in this approach relative to face-to-face communication. These attributes were confirmed by their supervisor's report. The students also suggested that the latter was effective in support of a production stage of thinking in research, while the former approach was effective in support of examination of thinking. For distance education to be successful, an appropriate combination of communication media must consider students' thinking stages. Finally, transient and permanent effects should be discriminated in computer-mediated communication.     

The Rank-Order Effect in Group Decision Making

Many studies indicate that group discussion candisproportionately reflect information known by all group members,at the expense of information known to only one group member, andthis is associated with suboptimal group decisions (Stasser &Titus, 1985). The present study examined the impact of threeprocedural factors on information sharing and quality of groupdecision: (a) group decision procedure (an instruction to "rankorder the alternatives" vs "choose the best alternative"), (b)information access during group discussion (reliance on memory vscomplete access), and (c) communication technology (computer vsface to face). Three-person groups worked on an investment decisionthat was structured as a hidden-profile task where criticalinformation was distributed unevenly prior to group discussion. Thedata provided support for a rank-order effect: Groups instructedto rank order the alternatives, compared to groups instructed tochoose the best alternative, were more likely to fully consider allof the alternatives, exchange information about unpopularalternatives, and make the best decision. But these effects onlyoccurred in face-to-face groups. In computer-mediated groups, therewas general information suppression and no effect of group decisionprocedure. Access to information during group discussion increaseddiscussion of both unique and common information, in theface-to-face conditions, but had no effect on group decisionquality. Taken together, the data suggest that procedural aspectsof group discussion may help overcome the impact of prediscussionpreferences on information processes and group decision.     

多决策方法多交流方式的群体决策比较

采用人员选拔的实验室模拟实验,以160名被试组成40个4人群体,对4种决策方法和2类交流方式的群体决策进行了比较。结果发现（1）决策方法和交流方式对于讨论过程的信息交流具有显著影响;（2）以计算机为中介进行决策的被试知觉到的任务难度要高于面对面决策条件;决策方法对于群体成员有关实验任务难度知觉具有主效应;交流方式和决策方法对于群体决策过程满意感和结果满意感没有显著影响;（3）在以投票轮次来表明群体达成一致意见所需时间上,决策方法对于投票轮次具有显著影响。恶魔式辩护、辨证式查询两种方法下所需的投票轮次多于专家意见法和自由讨论法的投票轮次。     

Organizational context and face-to-face interaction: Influences on the development of trust and collaborative behaviors in computer-mediated groups

Using adaptive structuration theory as a framework [DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147], we examined the influence of organizational context (competitive versus cooperative) and introductory meeting communication medium (face-to-face versus electronic) on the development of trust and collaborative behaviors of dyads communicating electronically. Based on a sample of 208 senior business students operating in computer-mediated (CM) dyads while performing a strategic decision-making simulation, we found that context, introductory communication medium, and time interacted to influence trust and collaborative behaviors. The pattern of development of trust and collaborative behaviors differed for the same introductory communication medium in different context conditions. Further, the level of trust and collaboration for dyad members in the competitive/electronic introductory meeting condition lagged significantly behind those in the other conditions. The findings suggest that introductory face-to-face interaction plays a more important role in facilitating the development of trust and collaboration in a CM environment when the context is competitive.     

When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams

The purpose of this investigation was to examine whether temporal scope—the extent to which teams have a past or expect to have a future together—affects face-to-face and computer-mediated teams’ ability to communicate effectively and make high quality decisions. Results indicated that media differences existed for teams lacking a history, with face-to-face teams exhibiting higher openness/trust and information sharing than computer-mediated teams. However, computer-mediated teams with a history were able to eliminate these differences. These findings did not extend to team-member exchange (TMX). Although face-to-face teams exhibited higher TMX compared to computer-mediated teams, the interaction of temporal scope and communication media was not significant. In addition, openness/trust and TMX were positively associated with decision-making effectiveness when task interdependence was high, but were unrelated to decision-making effectiveness when task interdependence was low.     

Group Productivity and Telematic Communication

Abstract

Evidence offered by Bottger and Yetton has suggested that group performance is a function of member abilities and strategies to use them. This model completed previous ones offered by Steiner and Davis which were developed under the assumption that group communication occurs in a face-to-face situation. However, since the 1980s, a considerable amount of research has focused upon new ways of communication through new technologies. Findings from psychosocial studies suggest that the use of computers for communication changes group processes and outcomes. In this context, a new research question emerges, which is concerned with group performance as a function of the communication channel. New models should be developed for a better understanding of group performance in mediated communication context. This study presents results from a laboratory experiment comparing three communication media: face-to-face, electronic mail, and video-conference, in a multi-decision task (“moon survival”). Its main objective has been to replicate Bottger and Yetton's model but to incorporate the communication channel mentioned above as a moderator variable of group performance. Variables considered have been input variables (members' resources for achieving task); process variables (group composition according to consensus reached, adequate use of resources, and quality of conflict management), and group performance. Our results show the existence of different patterns for predicting group performance according to the communication channel employed. In this sense, in a face-to-face situation groups perform mainly on the basis of their members' knowledge of the task, as in Steiner's model. The performance of video-conference groups was due to the decision schemes, that is, how groups use their resources (the Davis model). Bottger and Yetton's model has been partially replicated in electronic mail situations. The management of the process is crucial for explaining group performance, but it may be necessary to code it in a different way. Therefore, the positive conflict management will be different from face-to-face and video-conference.     

Computer-mediated communication and time pressure induce higher cardiovascular responses in the preparatory and execution phases of cooperative tasks

The cardiovascular (CV) response to social challenge and stress is associated with the etiology of cardiovascular diseases. New ways of communication, time pressure and different types of information are common in our society. In this study, the cardiovascular response to two different tasks (open vs. closed information) was examined employing different communication channels (computer-mediated vs. face-to-face) and with different pace control (self vs. external). Our results indicate that there was a higher CV response in the computer-mediated condition, on the closed information task and in the externally paced condition. These role of these factors should be considered when studying the consequences of social stress and their underlying mechanisms.     

Does the Order of Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication Matter in Diverse Project Teams? An Investigation of Communication Order Effects on Minority Inclusion and Participation

Purpose  

This study investigated whether meeting electronically first using computer-mediated communication (CMC) before meeting face-to-face (FTF) increases the inclusion of a female group member in a predominantly male project team.     

面对面和计算机群体决策在观点产生上的比较

以144名被试组成32个群体,通过实验室模拟实验,对群体规模、群体类型和交流方式等3个变量在观点产生的数量和质量等指标上进行了比较。结果表明：（1）在所有实验条件下,CM（以计算机为中介的）决策群体都比FTF（面对面的）决策群体产生了更多数量的有效观点;CM名义群体比FTF名义群体产生了更多数量的有效观点。有效观点和创新观点产生的数量,主要受产生式障碍和评价恐怖的影响。（2）交流方式影响群体创新观点的数量,但对观点产生的深度和广度没有影响。群体规模和群体类型影响观点产生的深度和广度。名义群体比互动群体产生范围更广的观点。一般来说,名义群体比互动群体产生的观点深度高。匿名性和平行沟通是促进群体成员产生大量创新观点的主要原因。（3）相对于传统的FTF头脑风暴法,运用电子头脑风暴法的群体成员对自己或群体所产生的观点用于解决实际问题的信心不足。