Understanding coordination in computer-mediated versus face-to-face groups

Groups performed intellective and judgmental tasks in face-to-face (FTF) or computer-mediated communication (CMC) settings after coordination training or no training to determine the impact of CMC, training, and task type on group performance and coordination. Help seeking behaviors were stronger predictors of perceived and actual performance in CMC than FTF groups, but varied based on task type. In turn, training generally increased seeking behaviors, except non-task seeking behaviors in CMC groups; and seeking behaviors were stronger predictors for perceived performance in CMC than FTF groups. In addition, perceived performance was lower in CMC than FTF groups when untrained, but not when trained. Yet, performance agreement was similar on both tasks in FTF groups, but lower on the intellective than the judgmental task in CMC groups.

[1]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Technology, Group Process, and Group Outcomes: Testing the Connections in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Groups , 1997, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[2]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  Investigating Communication as a Possible Mediator of Team Performance in Distributed Environments , 2001 .

[3]  A. Hollingshead.  Information Suppression and Status Persistence in Group Decision Making The Effects of Communication Media , 1996 .

[4]  Nick McDonald,et al.  Aviation Psychology in Practice , 1997 .

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

[6]  Roya Ayman,et al.  Group Decision Making and Perceived Decision Success: The Role of Communication Medium , 2005 .

[7]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group decision making and communication technology , 1992 .

[8]  T. Postmes,et al.  The Formation of Group Norms in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2000 .

[9]  E. Salas,et al.  Collective Behavior and Team Performance , 1992 .

[10]  Catherine E. Volpe,et al.  Defining Competencies and Establishing Team Training Requirements , 1995 .

[11]  Erland Hjelmquist,et al.  Group processes in solving two problems: Face-to-face and computer-mediated communication , 1999, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[12]  James E. Driskell,et al.  The Effect of Gesture on Speech Production and Comprehension , 2003, Hum. Factors.

[13]  B. Baltes,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis , 2002 .

[14]  Nancy J. Cooke,et al.  Measuring Team Knowledge During Skill Acquisition of a Complex Task , 2001 .

[15]  J. Silla,et al.  The influence of familiarity among group members, group atmosphere and assertiveness on uninhibited behavior through three different communication media , 2000 .

[16]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Getting a Clue , 1996 .

[17]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Styles of group discussion in computer-mediated decision making , 1997 .

[18]  R. Spears,et al.  Social influence and the influence of the 'social' in computer-mediated communication. , 1992 .

[19]  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.

[20]  B. Latané,et al.  Bystanders "apathy". , 1969, American scientist.

[21]  E. Sundstrom,et al.  Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. , 1990 .

[22]  Steven M. Farmer,et al.  Effects of Task Language Demands and Task Complexity on Computer-Mediated Work Groups , 1994 .

[23]  H C Foushee,et al.  The role of communications, socio-psychological, and personality factors in the maintenance of crew coordination. , 1982, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[24]  K. Weick,et al.  Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. , 1993 .

[25]  H. Foushee,et al.  Dyads and triads at 35,000 feet: Factors affecting group process and aircrew performance , 1984 .

[26]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations , 1995 .

[27]  Clint A. Bowers,et al.  The Impact of Cross-Training and Workload on Team Functioning: A Replication and Extension of Initial Findings , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[28]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK TEAM CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: A REPLICATION AND EXTENSION , 1996 .

[29]  Elliot E. Entin,et al.  Team coordination training. , 1998 .

[30]  Hollenbeck,et al.  Decision Accuracy in Computer-Mediated versus Face-to-Face Decision-Making Teams. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[31]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Group Decision Making Under Stress , 1991 .

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

[33]  J. Walther.  Computer-Mediated Communication , 1996 .

[34]  L. Adrianson,et al.  Group processes in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication , 1991 .

[35]  H C Foushee,et al.  Communication as group process media of aircrew performance. , 1989, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[36]  Elliot E. Entin,et al.  Adaptive Team Coordination , 1999, Hum. Factors.

[37]  Paul E. Spector,et al.  The Impact of Cross-Training on Team Functioning: An Empirical Investigation , 1996, Hum. Factors.

[38]  T. Postmes,et al.  Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? , 1998 .

[39]  C. Burke,et al.  The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[40]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training. , 1998 .