Argument and Decision Making in Computer‐Mediated Groups

Following Gouran (1994), the authors proposed four hypotheses that predict the probability of computer-mediated groups (CMGs) endorsing proposals based on (a) the number of reasons offered for them, (b) the number of members advancing these reasons, (c) the net number of positive reactions to the reasons advanced, and (d) the development of support for the reasons. Results from 11 groups that had long collaborated exclusively through computer-mediated means indicated that members in support of a proposal relative to those in opposition as well as the development of their arguments were significant predictors of decision outcomes. Moreover, the number of responses for/against a proposal and the difference in the positive and negative reactions to decision proposals were good independent predictors of decision outcomes.

[1]  Russell Spears,et al.  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION, DEINDIVIDUATION AND GROUP DECISION-MAKING , 1991 .

[2]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  The structuration of group decisions. , 1996 .

[3]  L. Frey.  Group communication in context : studies of natural groups , 1994 .

[4]  M. E. Shaw.  Group dynamics : the psychology of small group behavior , 1971 .

[5]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[6]  Barry O'Neill,et al.  The Group problem solving process : studies of a valence model , 1982 .

[7]  Michael J. Lovaglia,et al.  Leadership Status, Gender, Group Size, and Emotion in Face-to-Face Groups , 1998 .

[8]  Michael Reynolds,et al.  Decision-making using computer conferencing: a case study , 1994, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[9]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Getting a Clue , 1996 .

[10]  J. H. Davis.  Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. , 1973 .

[11]  Renee A. Meyers,et al.  Testing persuasive argument theory's predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence , 1989 .

[12]  J. Walther.  Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1992 .

[13]  Dale E. Brashers,et al.  Majority‐minority influence: identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument‐outcome links , 2000 .

[14]  Richard A. Guzzo,et al.  Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[15]  M. E. Shaw,et al.  When Compatibility Interferes with Group Effectiveness , 1982 .

[16]  Dennis S. Gouran,et al.  The handbook of group communication theory & research , 1999 .

[17]  Garold Stasser,et al.  Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. , 1991 .

[18]  J. Valacich,et al.  Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups , 1990 .

[19]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  A comparison of normative and interactional explanations of group decision‐making: Social decision schemes versus valence distributions , 1982 .

[20]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Argument structures in decision‐making groups , 1987 .

[21]  Dennis S. Gouran.  Exploiting the Predictive Potential of Structuration Theory , 1990 .

[22]  Khosrow Jahandarie,et al.  Spoken and Written Discourse: A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective , 1999 .

[23]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[24]  E. Berscheid,et al.  Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior. 3rd ed. , 1981 .

[25]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making , 1988, MIS Q..

[26]  Steven J. Karau,et al.  Gender and the emergence of leaders : a meta-analysis , 1991 .

[27]  R. Gallupe,et al.  Unblocking brainstorms. , 1991, The Journal of applied psychology.

[28]  S. R. Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. , 1986 .

[29]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group processes in computer-mediated communication☆ , 1986 .

[30]  Russell Spears,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication, De-Individuation and Group Decision-Making , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[31]  Merrill Warkentin,et al.  Virtual Teams versus Face-to-Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-based Conference System* , 1997 .

[32]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Communication and influence in group decision making. , 1996 .

[33]  Noshir Contractor,et al.  Theoretical frameworks for the study of structuring processes in group decision support systems: adaptive structuration theory and self-organizing systems theory , 1993 .

[34]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[35]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  The Effects of Information Technology and the Perceived Mood of the Feedback Giver on Feedback Seeking , 1993, Inf. Syst. Res..

[36]  Andrew J. Flanagin,et al.  Computer-Mediated Group Work: The Interaction of Sex and Anonymity , 2002, Commun. Res..

[37]  M. S. Poole,et al.  Communication and Group Decision-Making , 1986 .

[38]  Robert D. McPhee.  Response to Hoffman and Kleinman , 1994 .

[39]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Argument in initial group decision‐making discussions: Refinement of a coding scheme and a descriptive quantitative analysis , 1991 .

[40]  Dale E. Brashers,et al.  Argument in group decision making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument‐outcome link , 1998 .

[41]  Bryan L. Bonner,et al.  The Effects of Extroversion on Influence in Ambiguous Group Tasks , 2000 .