Getting a Clue

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has been viewed as overcoming process losses in groups by fostering equal particpation in discussions. This study examines antecedents of participation and tests the hypothesis that the benefit of the equalization effect depends on how information is distributed within the group. Fifty-four 3-person groups worked on a problem-solving task either in computer conferences or inface-to-face meetings. Additional pieces of information (clues) were distributed equally across members orto single members. In contrast to ideas that electronic communication reduces inhibitions, participation in CMC was associated with individual differences in extraversion. In addition; despite more equal participation in CMC, individuals dondated in both media. Media had few effects on information sharing or performance, although CMC groups were less satisfied with the process. Results of this and other studies of group problem solving suggest that patterms of interaction andperformance in computer-mediated groups do not depart substantiallyfrom face-to-face groups, although CMC may introduce new process losses.

[1]  M. E. Shaw.  A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of complex problems. , 1932 .

[2]  Satterthwaite Fe.  An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. , 1946 .

[3]  Frederick F. Stephan,et al.  The Distribution of Participation in Small Groups: An Exponential Approximation , 1952 .

[4]  Edgar F. Borgatta,et al.  Interaction of individuals in reconstituted groups. , 1953 .

[5]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[6]  L. R. Hoffman,et al.  Differences and disagreement as factors in creative group problem solving. , 1962, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[7]  H. Triandis,et al.  Member Heterogeneity and Dyadic Creativity , 1965 .

[8]  Elizabeth G. Cohen,et al.  Modification of Interracial Interaction Disability: An Application of Status Characteristic Theory , 1972 .

[9]  C. O'Reilly,et al.  Relationships among components of credibility and communication behaviors in work units. , 1976 .

[10]  R. Kanter.  Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

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

[12]  Paul D. Guild,et al.  Teleconferencing and Leadership Emergence , 1978 .

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

[14]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  Affect in Computer-Meditated Communication: An Experiment in Synchronous Terminal-to-Terminal Discussion , 1985, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[15]  G. Stasser,et al.  Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion , 1985 .

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

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

[18]  C. Nemeth.  Differential contributions of majority and minority influence , 1986 .

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

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

[21]  G. Stasser,et al.  Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. , 1987 .

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

[23]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making, 3: disinhibition, deindividuation, and group process in pen name and real name computer conferences , 1989, Decis. Support Syst..

[24]  G. Stasser,et al.  Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. , 1989 .

[25]  P. Earley,et al.  Voice, control, and procedural justice : instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments , 1990 .

[26]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[27]  Michael Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. , 1991 .

[28]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Task Requirements and Media Choice in Collaborative Writing , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[29]  G. Stasser,et al.  Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. , 1992 .

[30]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  ELECTRONIC BRAINSTORMING AND GROUP SIZE , 1992 .

[31]  S. Weisband.  Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups , 1992 .

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

[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]  J. McGrath,et al.  Group Task Performance and Communication Technology , 1993 .