Media and Group Cohesion: Relative Influences on Social Presence, Task Participation, and Group Consensus

Organizations deploy advanced communication media such as audio and videoconferencing to enhance and extend group communication interactions. However, established groups (i.e., groups with a history of working together) can view and use the same technology differently from groups without any past experiences of working together. This study examines the relative influences of media condition and group cohesion on social presence, task participation, and group consensus. Results from a controlled laboratory experiment with 45 triads of college students working on a decision-making task showed that media condition (audio conferencing vs. desktop videoconferencing) has significantly smaller influences on social presence and task participation than group cohesion in established groups. The study found that influence of group cohesion over social presence is additive, rather than substitutive, to that of media condition. The study also established that task participation played a more important role than social presence in determining the degree of consensus among group members in computer-mediated communication environments.

[1]  Harrie C. M. Vorst,et al.  Group Cohesion, Task Performance, and the Experimenter Expectancy Effect , 1978 .

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

[3]  N. Kerr,et al.  Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects , 1983 .

[4]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

[5]  C. Higgins,et al.  Gender differences in work-family conflict. , 1991 .

[6]  V. Tschuschke,et al.  Empirical Analysis of Group Development , 1989 .

[7]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[8]  Allen S. Lee.  Electronic Mail as a Medium for Rich Communication: An Empirical Investigation Using Hermeneutic Interpretation , 1994, MIS Q..

[9]  J. Valacich,et al.  Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. , 1993 .

[10]  C. Steinfield,et al.  A Social Influence Model of Technology use , 1990 .

[11]  M. Markus.  Electronic Mail as the Medium of Managerial Choice , 1994 .

[12]  R. Johnson,et al.  The picture communication symbols , 1993 .

[13]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Group Cohesiveness and Quality of Decision Making , 1994 .

[14]  B. E. Wynne,et al.  An experiment assessing group support system and facilitator effects on meeting outcomes , 1995 .

[15]  Deborah H. Gruenfeld,et al.  Groups, Tasks, and Technology , 1993 .

[16]  W. Hagstrom,et al.  TWO DIMENSIONS OF COHESIVENESS IN SMALL GROUPS. , 1965, Sociometry.

[17]  J. Webster,et al.  Making Connections: Complementary Influences on Communication Media Choices, Attitudes, and Use , 2000 .

[18]  Raghu Nath,et al.  The Influence of Group Cohesiveness on Some Changes Induced by Flexitime: A Quasi-Experiment , 1984 .

[19]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Media Selection and Managerial Characteristics in Organizational Communications , 1990 .

[20]  Jane S. Webster,et al.  Rational and social theories as complementary explanations of communication media choices: two polic , 1995 .

[21]  H. Klein,et al.  Two Investigations of the Relationships among Group Goals, Goal Commitment, Cohesion, and Performance , 1995 .

[22]  David Karl Meader.  Supporting distributed, design discussions : a study of video effects on engagement and critical discussion in desktop, multimedia conferencing , 1995 .

[23]  John M. Jermier,et al.  Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement , 1978 .

[24]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change , 1995 .

[25]  L. Festinger,et al.  ON RESISTANCE TO PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATIONS. , 1964, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[26]  C Loehlin John,et al.  Latent variable models: an introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis , 1986 .

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

[28]  Donelson R. Forsyth,et al.  Group dynamics, 2nd ed. , 1990 .

[29]  Wynne W. Chin.  Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling by , 2009 .

[30]  R. Rice.  Task Analyzability, Use of New Media, and Effectiveness: A Multi-Site Exploration of Media Richness , 1992 .

[31]  Laku Chidambaram,et al.  Relational Development in Computer-Supported Groups , 1996, MIS Q..

[32]  Robert P. Bostrom,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Group Decision Support Systems on Group Development , 1990, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[33]  Randy Hirokawa.  Group Communication and Decision-Making Performance: A Continued Test of the Functional Perspective. , 1988 .

[34]  S. Green,et al.  The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group process , 1980 .

[35]  Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama,et al.  Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical Social Theory and the Contextuality of Meaning , 1997, MIS Q..

[36]  Robert B. Kozma,et al.  Implications of instructional psychology for the design of educational television , 1986 .

[37]  Nancy J. Evans,et al.  The Group Attitude Scale , 1986 .

[38]  A. Lott,et al.  Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: a review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[39]  W. Orlikowski,et al.  Genres of Organizational Communication: A Structurational Approach to Studying Communication and Media , 1992 .

[40]  L. James,et al.  Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .

[41]  Charles G. Halcomb,et al.  The influence of task type, group structure and extraversion on uninhibited speech in computer-mediated communication , 1990 .

[42]  Michael A. Hogg,et al.  The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity , 1992 .

[43]  A. Richardsen,et al.  Cohesion as a Basic Bond in Groups , 1983 .

[44]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory: , 1982 .

[45]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  Using IT to Reengineer Business Education: An Exploratory Investigation of Collaborative Telelearning , 1995, MIS Q..

[46]  Leslie A. Hayduk.  Structural equation modeling with LISREL: essentials and advances , 1987 .

[47]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[48]  B. Tuckman.  DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[49]  M. Abel.  Experiences in an exploratory distributed organization , 1990 .

[50]  Joann Keyton,et al.  Redefining Cohesiveness in Groups , 1990 .

[51]  Laku Chidambaram,et al.  How Much Bandwidth Is Enough? A Longitudinal Examination of Media Characteristics and Group Outcomes , 1999, MIS Q..

[52]  Janet Fulk,et al.  Social construction of communication technology , 1993 .

[53]  R. Daft,et al.  Information Richness. A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organization Design , 1983 .

[54]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory , 1982 .

[55]  K. Weick.  Technology as equivoque: sensemaking in new technologies , 1990 .

[56]  C. R. Evans,et al.  Group Cohesion and Performance , 1991 .

[57]  J. Walther.  Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations over Time , 1995 .

[58]  Wynne W. Chin.  The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. , 1998 .

[59]  Albert V. Carron,et al.  Group Cohesion Effects in Exercise Classes , 1994 .

[60]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[61]  Randy Hirokawa,et al.  A descriptive investigation of the possible communication‐based reasons for effective and ineffective group decision making , 1983 .

[62]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[63]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Evaluating new media systems , 1984 .

[64]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  What mix of video and audio is useful for small groups doing remote real-time design work? , 1995, CHI '95.

[65]  A. Giddens.  The Constitution of Society , 1985 .

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

[67]  Michael Ahearne,et al.  Moderating Effects of Goal Acceptance on the Relationship between Group Cohesiveness and Productivity , 1997 .

[68]  M. Feldman,et al.  Electronic Mail and Organizational Communication: Does Saying Hi Really Matter? , 1998 .

[69]  Gerald M. Phillips,et al.  Teaching group discussion via computer‐mediated communication , 1989 .

[70]  D. Rutter,et al.  The Role of Visual Communication in Social Exchange , 1976 .

[71]  D. Straub,et al.  Knowledge Worker Communications and Recipient Availability: Toward a Task Closure Explanation of Media Choice , 1998 .

[72]  P. E. Mudrack,et al.  Group Cohesiveness and Productivity: A Closer Look , 1989 .

[73]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for Information Systems , 1987, MIS Q..

[74]  John R. Carlson,et al.  Channel Expansion Theory and the Experiential Nature of Media Richness Perceptions , 1999 .

[75]  Ricky W. Griffin,et al.  The Social Information Processing Model of Task Design: A Review of the Literature , 1983 .

[76]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  Extensions to media richness theory: a test of the task-media fit hypothesis , 1994, 1994 Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[77]  L. Hayduk.  Structural equation modeling with LISREL , 1987 .

[78]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication , 1986 .