Enhancing the motivational affordance of human-computer interfaces in a cross-cultural setting

Increasing globalization has created tremendous opportunities and challenges for organizations and society. Organizations attempt to draw on people’s varied experience, skills, and creativity, regardless of their location; consequently, a broad range of information technologies to better support the collaboration of diverse, and increasingly distributed, sets of participants are ever more utilized. However, research on cross-cultural computer-mediated collaboration has thus far remained sparse. To this end, this research-in-progress paper reports on a study that will examine the effectiveness of modifications of a group collaboration environment’s human–computer interface on group performance, taking into consideration the effects of national culture of the group members. We will test different levels of feedback as a mechanism to increase performance in a controlled laboratory experiment with participants from the USA and East Asia, so as to examine their differential effects across cultures differing widely on the individualism/collectivism dimension. Finally, we will discuss the implications of the findings for the design of the human–computer interface for cross-cultural computer-mediated idea generation and computer-mediated collaboration in general.

[1]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values , 1980 .

[2]  Vincent R. Brown,et al.  Modeling Cognitive Interactions During Group Brainstorming , 1998 .

[3]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. , 1994, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values , 1980 .

[5]  E. Salas,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. , 1991 .

[6]  A. Pinsonneault,et al.  Small Group Brainstorming and Idea Quality , 2001 .

[7]  Vincent R. Brown,et al.  A Simple Dynamic Model of Social Factors in Group Brainstorming , 1996 .

[8]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Process Structuring in Electronic Brainstorming , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[9]  Ping Zhang,et al.  Toward a positive design theory: Principles for designing motivating information and communication technology , 2008 .

[10]  Peter A. Heslin,et al.  Better than Brainstorming? Potential Contextual Boundary Conditions to Brainwriting for Idea Generation in Organizations , 2009 .

[11]  Moez Limayem,et al.  Culture and Anonymity in GSS Meetings , 2005, Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology.

[12]  Venkatesh,et al.  Computer Technology Training in the Workplace: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Effect of Mood. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[13]  George Ditsa,et al.  Information Management: Support Systems and Multimedia Technology , 2003 .

[14]  Roberto J. Mejias,et al.  The Effects of National Culture and Anonymity on Flaming and Criticalness in GSS-Supported Discussions , 2004 .

[15]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Lessons from a Dozen Years of Group Support Systems Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field Findings , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[16]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  Enhancing the Motivational Affordance of Information Systems: The Effects of Real-Time Performance Feedback and Goal Setting in Group Collaboration Environments , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[17]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  On the Measurement of Ideation Quality , 2007, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[18]  J. Valacich,et al.  Idea Generation in Computer-Based Groups: A New Ending to an Old Story , 1994 .

[19]  Mark A. Fuller,et al.  I Know I Can, But Can We? , 2007 .

[20]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  The effects of individual cognitive ability and idea stimulation on idea-generation performance , 2006 .

[21]  T. M. Amabile The social psychology of creativity , 1984 .

[22]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes , 1974 .

[23]  K. Williams,et al.  Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing , 1979 .

[24]  P. Earley Social Loafing and Collectivism: A Comparison of the United States and the People's Republic of China. , 1989 .

[25]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  Culture: a fourth dimension of group support systems , 1994, CACM.

[26]  M. Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. , 1987 .

[27]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[28]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Turning Visitors into Customers: A Usability-Centric Perspective on Purchase Behavior in Electronic Channels , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[29]  Leonard M. Jessup,et al.  The deindividuating effects of anonymity on automated group idea generation. , 1989 .

[30]  O. Bjelland,et al.  An Inside View of IBM's 'Innovation Jam' , 2008 .

[31]  Kipling D. Williams,et al.  PROCESSES Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration , 2022 .

[32]  Laku Chidambaram,et al.  Is Out of Sight, Out of Mind? An Empirical Study of Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Groups , 2005, Inf. Syst. Res..

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

[34]  J. McGrath Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

[35]  H. Triandis The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts , 1989 .