Effects of training on computer-mediated communication in single or mixed gender small task groups

Abstract This study extends recent studies of gender and computer-mediated communication (CMC) in work groups which found a pattern of relationships between group activity and gender composition that helps understand satisfaction and productivity. The following hypotheses are tested: (a) participants in groups receiving group development encouraging instructions will show higher levels of participation, group development, and satisfaction than participants in groups receiving standard e-mail etiquette instructions; and (b) across gender composition conditions, group development will be positively related to use of self-disclosure, opinion, and coalition building language, and inversely related to use of facts, argumentativeness, and coarse and abusive language. Generally, the first hypothesis was not supported. However, closer examination indicates that groups' “gendered” communication styles may have overridden the experimental procedure so this hypothesis may not have been adequately tested. The second hypothesis concerning the relationship between group development and use of specific communication patterns is supported. The ability of some participants to demonstrate successful socioemotional behaviors in the test-based CMC medium suggests the need to reexamine theories which propose that communication is determined solely by its medium. Rather than focusing on the characteristics of the medium, it might be more productive to focus on the characteristics of the communication to understand CMC in small task groups.

[1]  V. Savicki,et al.  Gender, Group Composition, and Task Type in Small Task Groups Using Computer-Mediated Communication , 1996 .

[2]  Deborah Tannen,et al.  Talking from 9 to 5 , 1994 .

[3]  E. Yalow.  Educational psychology: A cognitive view. 2nd ed. , 1978 .

[4]  Mark Costanzo,et al.  Training students to decode verbal and nonverbal cues: Effects on confidence and performance. , 1992 .

[5]  I. Altman,et al.  Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships , 1973 .

[6]  Linda L. Carli.  Gender differences in interaction style and influence. , 1989 .

[7]  J. Novak,et al.  Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View , 1969 .

[8]  A. Mehrabian,et al.  Language Within Language: Immediacy, a Channel in Verbal Communication , 1968 .

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

[10]  V. Savicki,et al.  Gender and group composition in small task groups using computer-mediated communication , 1996 .

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

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

[13]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  Gender and Democracy in Computer-Mediated Communication , 1995, Computerization and Controversy, 2nd Ed..

[14]  Robert H. Anderson,et al.  Toward an ethics and etiquette for electronic mail , 1985 .

[15]  Richard T. Herschel,et al.  Exploring numerical proportions in a unique context: The group support systems meeting environment , 1994 .

[16]  E. Berscheid.  Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills , 1976 .

[17]  Gerard Egan,et al.  The Skilled Helper , 1982 .

[18]  P. Nick Blanchard,et al.  Sex differences in task and social-emotional behavior. , 1982 .

[19]  R. Rice.  Media Appropriateness Using Social Presence Theory to Compare Traditional and New Organizational Media , 1993 .

[20]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills , 1975 .

[21]  Michel Hersen,et al.  Research and Practice in Social Skills Training , 1979, Springer US.

[22]  M. Allen,et al.  Sex differences in self-disclosure: a meta-analysis. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  Kenneth E. Kendall.  Emerging Information Technologies: Improving Decisions, Cooperation, and Infrastructure , 2001 .

[24]  D. Rutter.  Communicating by telephone , 1987 .

[25]  Chuck Kormanski,et al.  Team building patterns of academic groups , 1990 .

[26]  Victor Savicki,et al.  Computer Mediated Communication: Gender and Group Composition , 2000, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[27]  J. Valacich,et al.  Group Support Systems: New Perspectives , 1992 .

[28]  W. Bennis,et al.  Learning for Leadership.@@@Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach. , 1966 .

[29]  J. Authier,et al.  Microcounseling: Innovations in Interviewing, Counseling, Psychotherapy and Psychoeducation , 1978 .

[30]  M. Argyle,et al.  EYE-CONTACT, DISTANCE AND AFFILIATION. , 1965, Sociometry.