Laboratory groups attempted to reach consensus on a simulated business problem. Members of 4-person groups received information on whether three proposed systems met each of IO desired criteria. Cast as a hidden profile problem, the information was distributed unevenly within the group. Groups communicated using one ofthreeformats:face-to-face, teleconference, or electronic chat. As predicted, cognitive workload was significantly higher andfewer correct decisions were obtained in the electronic chat condition versus the other twoformats. The electronic chat medium limited participants' ability to coordinate and verify information. Electronic chat should be combined with collaboration technology or groupware that facilitates information storage, organization, and processing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association . (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47(2), 1597-1611.
2.
Apple, W. , & Hecht, K. (1982). Speaking emotionally: The relation between verbal and vocal communication of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(5), 715-727.
3.
Bernthal, P. R. , & Insko, C. A. (1993). Cohesiveness without groupthink: The interactive effects of social and task cohesion. Group and Organizational Management, 18(1), 66-87.
4.
Bikson, T. , & Eveland, J. D. (1990). The interplay of work group structures and computer support. In J. Galegher, R. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.). Intellectual teamwork: Social and technologicalfoundations of cooperative work (pp. 245-290). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Birdwhistell, R. I. (1970). Kinetics and context: Essays on body motion communications. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
6.
Bonacich, P. (1987). Communication networks and collective action. Social Networks, 9(4), 389-396.
7.
Boyle, E. A. , Anderson, A. H., & Newlands, A. (1994). The effects of eye contact on dialogue and perfonnance in a co-operative problem solving task. Language and Speech, 37(1), 1-20.
8.
Bruch, M. A. , Gorsky, J. M., Collins, T. M., & Berger, P. A. (1989). Shyness and sociability examined: A multicomponent analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 904-915.
9.
Campbell, D. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3(3), 14-25.
10.
Chawla, P. , & Krauss, R. M. (1994). Gesture and speech in spontaneous and rehearsed narratives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30(6) 580-601.
11.
Clark, H. H. , & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. D. Teasly (Eds.), Perspective on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12.
Daft, R. L. , & Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
13.
Dennis, A. R. , & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 531-537.
14.
Diehl, M. , & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497-509.
15.
Ekman, P. , & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Detecting deception from the body or face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 288-298.
16.
Gallupe, R. B. , DeSanctis, G., & Dickson, G. (1988). Computer-based support for group problem finding: An experimental investigation. MIS Quarterly, 12(2), 277-296.
17.
Gigone, D. , & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 959-974.
18.
Hackman, J. R. , & Morris, C. G. (1983). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness. In H. H. Blumber, A. P. Hare, V. Kent, & M. F. Davies (Eds.), Small groups and social interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 331-345). New York: Wiley.
19.
Hart, S. G. , & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139-183). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
20.
Hiltz, S. R. , Johnson, K., & Agle, G. (1978). Replicating Bales problem solving experiments on a computer conference: A pilot study (Research Rep. No. 8). Newark: Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center, New Jersey Institute of Technology.
21.
Hiltz, S. R. , Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making: Communication processes and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13(2), 225-252.
22.
Hollingshead, A. B. , McGrath, J. E., & O'Connor, K. M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer mediated versus face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 24(3), 307-333.
23.
Janis, I. L. , & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.
24.
Kiesler, S. , Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computermediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123-1134.
25.
Kraut, R. , Galegher, J., Fish, R., & Chalfonte, B. (1992). Task requirements and media choice in collaborative writing. Human-Computer Interaction, 7(4), 375-408.
26.
Lafferty, J. C. (1973). The subarctic survival situation. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics.
27.
Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343-356.
28.
Lea, M. , & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2(3-4), 321-341.
29.
Leary, M. R. (1983). Understanding social anxiety: Social, personality, and clinical perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30.
McGrath, J. E. , & Hollingshead, A. B. (1993). Putting the "group" back in group support systems: Some theoretical issues about dynamic processes in groups with technological enhancements. In L. M. Jessup & J. S. Valacich (Eds.), Group supportsystems: New perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
31.
McGuire, T. M. , Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 917-930.
32.
Raymond, E. S. (Ed.). (1991). The new hacker's dictionary. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
Siegel, J. , Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(2), 157-187.
34.
Sproull, L. , & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35.
Stasser, G. , & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 426-434.
36.
Stasser, G. , Taylor, L. A., & Hannah, C. (1989). Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of threeand six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 67-78.
37.
Stasser, G. , & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1467-1478.
38.
Stasser, G. , & Titus, W. (1987). The effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information in group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81-93.
39.
Straus, S. G. (1996). Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and information distribution on participation and performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 27(1) 115-142.
40.
Trevino, L. , Lengel, R., & Daft, R. (1987). Media symbolism, media richness and media choice in organizations. A symbolic interactionist perspective. Communication Research, 14(5), 553-575.
41.
Valacich, J. S. , Dennis, A. R., & Connolly, T. (1994). Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57(3), 448-467.
42.
Walther, J. B. , Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computermediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication Research, 21(4), 460-487.
43.
Weisband, S. P. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53(3), 352-380.
44.
Wellens, A. R. (1986). Use of a psychological distancing model to assess differences in telecommunication media. In L. Parker & C. Olgen (Eds.), Teleconferencing and electronic media: Vol. V (pp. 347-361). Madison, WI: Center for Interactive Programs.
45.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 3, 269-274.
