Social influence effects on remote group interactions

This paper discusses the results of an experiment exploring the effects of information technology intervention on decision making groups. Specifically, the study examines the effects communication modality {remote vs. face-to-face) and information load on the types of social influence used by group members and the amount of group polarization or choice shift exhibited by group members. The findings suggest that face-to-face groups use more informational influ­ ence than remote groups and that this difference increases as information load increases. Also, face-to-face groups experienced greater choice shift than remote groups at high information loads.

[1]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[2]  Hoi K. Suen,et al.  Analyzing Quantitative Behavioral Observation Data. , 1992 .

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

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

[5]  D. Myers,et al.  The group polarization phenomenon. , 1976 .

[6]  Richard T. Watson,et al.  An Experimental Investigation Of The Effect Of A Group Decision Support System On Normative Influence In Small Groups , 1991, ICIS.

[7]  Hoi K. Suen,et al.  Analyzing Quantitative Behavioral Observation Data , 1989 .

[8]  P. R. Laughlin,et al.  Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. , 1986 .

[9]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

[10]  James D. McKeen,et al.  Enhancing Computer-Mediated Communication: An experimental investigation into the use of a Group Decision Support System for face-to-face versus remote meetings , 1990, Inf. Manag..

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

[12]  Charles E. Miller,et al.  Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. , 1987 .

[13]  M. Kaplan.  Discussion Polarization Effects in a Modified Jury Decision Paradigm: Informational Influences , 1977 .

[14]  G. D. Weeks,et al.  Cooperative versus Conflictive Problem Solving in Three Telecommunication Modes , 1976 .

[15]  Henry Mintzberg.  The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact. , 1975 .

[16]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences , 1988, MIS Q..

[17]  M. Deutsch,et al.  A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[18]  M. O. Pendergast.  Interprogram communication for PC/LAN-based collaborative applications: Plexnet, a session level communications system , 1990 .

[19]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Computer-Based Support for Group Problem-Finding: An Experimental Investigation , 1988, MIS Q..

[20]  George P. Huber,et al.  Issues in the Design of Group Decision Support Systems , 1984, MIS Q..

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

[22]  A. Vinokur,et al.  Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization , 1977 .

[23]  Leonard M. Jessup,et al.  The Effects of Anonymity on GDSS Group Process with an Idea-Generating Task , 1990, MIS Q..