com research proposal

1

RUNNING HEAD: GROUP CONFLICT IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGY

A New Way to Work it Out:

Examining Conflict in CMC and FTF Channels

By

Jared Stier

Metropolitan State University, Denver

February 12, 2014

Jared Stier is an undergraduate student at Metropolitan State University pursuing a bachelor of arts in speech communication. Jared Stier can be reached at [email protected]

2


Abstract

With group’s conflicts that have risen in the past have been dealt in channel of face-to-face

communication (FTF). This channel is challenging enough without the modified communication

that takes place in technology. Along with the onset of the increased implementation of groups

technology has nearly transformed every facet of modern organizations. Computer Mediated

Communication (CMC) has competed with FTF for the primary way teams communicate.

Groups now are finding how to communicate and manage conflict in this new technological era.

This paper looks to investigate some questions about conflict in group both using CMC and FTF.

Mainly how is group cohesion affected by conflict in the mediums of CMC and FTF? This will

be done by building on past research of this phenomenon and proposing future avenues of

research.

Keywords: CMC, Group Dynamics, Conflict management, FTF, GSS

3


Introduction

Today more and more organizations are using group work as opposed to individual work

to accomplish organizational tasks. Group offer a better chance to collaborate and share ideas

than an individual. There are many dynamics of group communication. Perhaps one of the most

important is group conflict. The wrong kind of conflict can be detrimental for a group because it

affects two main driving forces. There is Cohesiveness which drives the group together and

direction which moves them toward their goal. Computer mediated communication (CMC) is

relatively new phenomenon that is changing and transforming the way that humans

communicate. Group communication is an area of CMC and research has been conducted since

the early seventies examining this phenomenon. Conflict occurs in Face to Face (FTF)

communication regularly but CMC conflict is particularly challenging because the nature of the

medium.

The main benefit of virtual communication is that it is convenient and connects

individuals across the world. CMC as medium does have its draw back in communication. For

one the speed in which a message can by typed is significantly slower than one that is spoken. It

also lacks some of the communicative richness that FTF offers such as nonverbal cues. Cues

filtered out theory (COF) was encompassed the short comings of CMC. It was these draw back

which lead original researcher to come to the conclusion that regarding group CMC is not

efficient medium (Straus and McGrath, 1997; Bhappu 2000). This is until more recent research

introduced another theory about CMC and groups. Social information processing (SIP) theory

was developed by Walther to explain interpersonal dynamics of technological communication

(Walther, 1990). It was adapted to group communication and offered an explanation of how

4

RUNNING HEAD: GROUP CONFLICT IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGYgroups communicate over CMC. There is a number of studies conducted that support either SIP

or COF.

This research proposal will evaluate this literature hopefully showing that SIP is most

commonly excepted explanation of the how groups use CMC. Though there is much literature

supporting SIP stating given enough time CMC groups will not encounter abnormal or increased

amounts of conflict. Time is something that many groups do not have professionally or

politically. Many groups deal with time deadlines and must produce. Given time constraints this

proposal seeks to understand if group cohesion and communication can be expedited using

modern technological advances. The hope of the research to validate certain instruments that

allows for better group communication void of negative conflict. A review of the literature will

highlight the etymology of CMC research and show how ideas of evolved. This will start with a

brief description on the research on group dynamic using technology. Analysis of the two major

theories in the area of CMC will also be given. Finally the review will incorporate research on

how technology has grown to accommodate in some ways the ways in which virtual groups

communicate.

CMC Group Dynamics

It is foundationally relevant to address how groups change depending on the medium of

communication. This is because group dynamics are affected heavily by the phenomenon of

conflict. Driskell, Radtke and Salas (2003) examined the different dynamics of CMC groups

compared to FTF. Three factors that are important to CMC group dynamics are cohesiveness,

status and group norms (Driskell et al., 2013). Communication is a factor that was mentioned in

the research but will be addressed more comprehensively later in the review of the literature.

Driskell et al. (2003) also examined how these factors impacted performance.

5

RUNNING HEAD: GROUP CONFLICT IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGYCohesiveness was first mentioned in the literature and is a large part of group dynamics.

Driskell et al. (2003) state that, “Cohesiveness is considered to be one of the most fundamental

aspects of groups” (pg. 3012). Conflict can disrupt cohesiveness so it is important that certain

types of conflict be controlled to allow for optimal cohesiveness. Driskell et al. found that there

is more support for positive performance when group cohesiveness is established. It is worth

noting that despite these finding there are contrary findings that show no increase in performance

with high group cohesiveness (Terborg, Castore, & DeNinno, 1976). As far as group status is

concerned the research suggests that high status individuals showed less dominance over low

status group members using CMC (Driskell et al., 2003) this is significant because the findings

would suggest that CMC breaks status barrier making for a more horizontal distribution of

power. Performance impacts on status showed both positive and negative consequences. A lack

of high status members created a leadership void in some instances while in other cases the more

decentralized status affiliation lead to more group cooperation and inclusion.

The last of group factors was group norms. Driskell et al., (2003) found that CMC groups

had a harder time establishing group norms. CMC groups also encountered a higher number of

counter-normative behaviors such as aggression. Group norms had a significantly more negative

effect on group performance. It also was the most distinguishing difference among FTF and

CMC groups (Driskell et al., 2003). The research done by Driskell et al. illuminates the impact

that group can encounter virtually. Communication plays a large part in all of the factors of

group dynamics. Now that a brief review of dynamics has been given, literature defining conflict

and framing how and what group conflict is will be introduced.

6

RUNNING HEAD: GROUP CONFLICT IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGYConflict

Conflict is defined as. “the interaction of interdependent people who perceive opposition

of goals, aims and values, and who see the other party as potentially interfering with the

realization of these goals” (Putnam&Poole, 1987, p. 552). The type of conflict that this proposal

will examine is intergroup conflict. This is the internal conflict of a group that leads to

dysfunction. This is contrasted by intergroup conflict which can arise externally leading to

different challenges. It important to understand that conflict is not all bad. There are positive

types of conflict. These are interaction that may seem dysfunction in preliminary stages but

overall will help group move towards goals and cohesiveness.

There are three main types of conflict mentioned in previous research though he

dimensions are somewhat different. Of the three task conflict was seen to be the most positive

form of conflict (Hobman et al., 2002). The other two types of conflict process and relational are

considered to be counterproductive. Process conflict can be seen as the way in which group

members disagree on the paths to accomplishing goals. Relationship conflict is one of the most

prominent forms negative arising from personality differences which can lead to counter

normative group cohesion (Hobman et al., 2002). These types of conflict are found in all

mediums of group communication but the frequency and effect of these types of conflict are

what distinguishes modern research findings.

Argumentativeness and Conflict styles are another important part of how groups

communicate in either of the communication channels. Previous research has evaluated five

main conflict management styles. These are avoiding, accommodating, competing,

compromising and collaborating (Thomas, 1976). These measures were further distinguished by

two factors, the amount of assertiveness and the amount of cooperation. Avoiding exhibits low

7

RUNNING HEAD: GROUP CONFLICT IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGYassertiveness and cooperativeness (Putnam & Wilson, 1982). Accommodating shows low

assertiveness and high cooperativeness. Competing is characterized by high assertiveness and

low cooperative skills. Compromising would indicate medium assertiveness and medium

cooperation and finally collaborating styles would have high assertiveness and high

cooperativeness.

The communicative leaning toward being argumentative can be found in nearly all

aspects of interpersonal or group interactions regardless of medium. According to Infante &

Rancer, (1996) an individual’s level of argumentativeness is mainly a personality trait which

would transcend communication mediums and context. A study in 2007 by Johnson et al.,

focused on the public arena as a factor to increasing the arguments. They found that there are

differences in the level of argumentativeness when moving from the private to the public sphere.

Hardaker (2010) suggests that CMC involves less accountability therefore the level of aggression

increases. A study done by Meluch,Walter (2012) looked to identify the differences between

CMS between FTF and CMC. They also sought out to discovery if argumentativeness had

different levels on each of the mediums. The results indicated that compromising and

collaborating styles are more likely to happen in FTF groups (Meluch & Walter, 2012). The

research also indicates that there was a slight increase in the amount of argumentativeness in

CMC though the authors suggest that future research might yield a higher amount (Meluch &

Walter, 2012).

CMC and FTF Mediums

CMC has been shown to reduce cues when communication occurs. For this reason some

suggest it is not an efficient medium for conflict in regards to outcomes. There are two

significant theories that pertain to CMC and have relevance regarding group communication

8

RUNNING HEAD: GROUP CONFLICT IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGYthese. These are social information processing theory which is somewhat counter to the other

theory of cues filtered out approach. The cues filtered out approach propose that that amount of

cues or richness is invariably less while communicating over CMC (Culnan & Markus, 1987).

These findings suggest that communicating over the limited richness would inevitably lead to

more counterproductive and damaging conflict in the group. According to Hobman et al., (2002)

“… the CMC environment is limited in its information richness, which leads to a reduction in

social norms and ultimately more profane behavior” (pg. 440). These behavioral and social

anomalies would inevitably lead to negative outcomes of conflict in CMC groups. This theory

was eventually opposed by Social Information Processing theory (SIP). SIP states that given

enough time for group member to properly exchange and circulate personal and social

information, the amount and type of conflict occurring in group would be the same as FTF

(Walther & Burgoon, 1992). This would indicated that it would only take essentially take time to

create the same group dimensions over a digital medium to allow group to navigate conflict

similar to FTF counterparts.

Cues Filtered Out Theory

A cue filtered out is really made up foundationally of three previous theories. These include,

social presence (Short,Williams, & Christie, 1976), social context cues (Sproull & Kiesler,1986),

and media richness theories (Daft & Lengel, 1986) as cited in Hobman et al. (2002). These three

theories advocated for the reduced cues found in CMC. COF proposes that CMC creates a

psychological state in which reduces communicative bandwidth produces uninhibited behavior

and abnormal group functioning. This preliminary research has been supported by research in

that followed. It is worth mentioning however that these original studies were done in a bald

9

RUNNING HEAD: GROUP CONFLICT IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGYtechnological landscape. Perhaps this had more of an effect on CMC than did the actual

contemporary medium.

A number of studies done between 1994 and 1997 by Straus and McGrath others have

supported the theory of CFO. The research covered a broad spectrum of group dynamics

including cohesiveness, group satisfaction and communication conflict. The research offered a

number of finding that project CMC as a weaker alternative compare to FTF for groups. One of

the more signification conclusions suggests that virtual team member experienced limited

personal information leading to a lack of group intimacy and fragile group cohesiveness (Straus,

1997). The research also found the individual using a computer facilitated medium incurred a

decreased level of satisfaction with the task at hand (Straus, 1996). Last, Straus and McGrath

(1994) concluded the in general CMC group had a hard time understanding each other compared

to FTF groups.

Bhappu, Meader, Erwin,Crews and J. M.(2002) as cited in Hobman et al. (2002)

concurred with Strauss and McGrath (1996) in that CMC creates more abnormal group conflict.

They conducted research examining group relationship and process conflict. They found that

CMC groups experienced significant amounts of negative conflict compared to FTF groups.

These studies bolstered the support for COF and leave the area of group communication and

technology divided. If relying on these findings only the theory of COF would suggest that CMC

cannot support group communication because of the increased level of negative conflict. These

would be problematic because of the move by many organizations to group structures combined

with globalization. The need for the connective power of technology is growing in many

professional fields. This research would suggest that groups will have significant hurdles in

10

RUNNING HEAD: GROUP CONFLICT IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGYaccomplishing goals because of group communication and cohesion using CMC. Fortunately an

opposing research has shed a more positive light on group CMC.

Social Information Processing Theory

SIP offers a different way of looking at CMC groups. Instead of viewing CMC as a

reduced form of communication, SIP offers a different explanation of the phenomenon. SIP

really views CMC that as a different alteration of communication. CMC using under SIP is really

just different not insufficient for supporting group communication. If FTF communication is

standard for all communication mediums that it is only logical that CMC would not measure up.

If CMC is viewed as a totally unique medium, than valence can be understood in a whole new

way. Walther was one of the original advocates for CMC as a viable form of relational

communication. Walther (1992) produced a Meta review contemporary literature and research.

Walther (1992) hypothesized that since recent research revealed time discrepancies in CMC and

FTF communication, perhaps many of the studies were not examining interpersonal processes

accurately. The process of how groups evolve using CMC is a large share of Walther’s (1992)

research. It has been argued that messages in general have less personalization (Culnan &

Markus, 1987). Walther (1990) refutes this claim by suggesting that, “…message personalization

Increases linearly with message frequency in both FTF and CMC exchanges” (pg.26).

In addition to the personalization of the messages the process are also significant. Four

requisite processes are argued that allow for function communication. Relational motivators are

the first and these are the general social needs of each of the group members. Group members

also form impressions of each other through text based cues. In additional research Walther and

Burgoon (1992) hypothesized a number of different explanations on how impression can occur

in CMC. One of Walther’s hypothesis states that, “The effect of message frequency on

11

RUNNING HEAD: GROUP CONFLICT IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGYImpression formation Is mediated by the communication channel such that Impressions are

developed earlier In FTF communication, and more slowly In CMC, and that Impression

development is similarly greater after many exchanges In either medium; I.e., Initial Intercepts

are higher In FTF than CMC, while terminal positions are equal” (pg. 23).The third process is

what Walters (1992) calls psychological-level knowledge which could easily be thought of today

a emotional intelligence. The last process involves managing relational changes and encoding

relational changes. Again Walther and Burgoon (1992) posit the effect that time will have on

relation changes such as immediacy and affection. Like previous processes FTF might have

initially higher amount of immediacy and affection but in at a certain point the levels of CMC

and FTF relational change will level equivocally.

Ultimately, Walther (1992) purposes that just like in FTF medium, CMC communicators

seek relationship. In a FTF communication group members have social needs that are all

different. Despite the diversity of needs each member seeks to establish social connections with

their peers. These are communicative needs are satisfied by nonverbal, style and general

impressions of group members. In a CMC group the communication is not reduced or constricted

according to Walther (1992). They in fact are just change through the virtual medium. CMC

group members seek social satisfaction through textual cues. Through the text of CMC the users

are able to form and interpret social norms much like FTF group. They merely achieve these

processes in a different way. These foundation ideas of SIP where establish not only in the

review of past literature but also empirically verified in dissertation study done by Walther and

Burgoon (1992) where these elements of group communication over CMC was measured against

control group using FTF. The results supported the hypothesis mentioned previously creating an

opposing voice to previous views CMC. These findings were the first opposition COF. Though

12

RUNNING HEAD: GROUP CONFLICT IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGYSIP research had not been supported as well as COF, it provided a clue towards viewing CMC as

a whole new form of communication.

Recent (SIP) Research

In a longitudinal study done in 2002 by Hobman, Bordia, Irmer and Chang, an

examination of mutli-modal group conflict accounting for time was conducted. The motivational

etymology of the study was to confirm either SIP or CFOA. In addition to confirming one

particular theory the study also examined particular types of conflict. These included process,

relational and task related conflict (Hobman et al., 2002). To do this Hobman et al. (2002) used

an approached that allowed for CMC groups to have more time to complete a project. Hobman et

al. (2002) randomly assigned one hundred and forty six participants in either a FTF or CMC

group. Each of the groups was given the assignment of creating an advertisement script for a

company. The study allowed for message exchange equivalency. This meant that the CMC

would have about two and half times longer to work on the project. Hobman et al. (2002) created

hypothesis that would support either SIP or CFO.

The results of the study showed for one that the amount of task conflict with the same in

both FTF and CMC groups. Second the research found that though process and relational

conflict occurred more frequently in the groups using CMC, the amount of these two types of

conflict eventually equalized with the FTF group as the study progressed. These findings bolster

the validity of SIP and suggest that conflict using a digital medium would have no particular

differences compared to FTF if given enough time to regulate group norms. They also help

support SIP (Walther & Burgoon 1992) reinforcing the notion that previous studies which

bolstered COF did not account for equivalent message exchange. The amount and quality of

research for SIP make for a convincing opposition to COF. This is because SIP recognizes and

13

RUNNING HEAD: GROUP CONFLICT IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGYaccounts for time which much of previous research did not account for. It is reasonable to

assume that given these finding SIP has more contemporary validity. SIP still does not account

for any solutions for CMC development. There has been research that does give option for CMC

group users.

Group Supported Systems (GSS)

There is literature and research that would indicate there is a hope for CMC and group

communication. These are breakthroughs in technology that allow a group to better communicate

with each other Group decision supported systems (GDSS) are instrument that allows CMC to

take on more of the communicative characteristics that are involved in FTF mediums. GDSS also

allows for decrease message exchange times. Poole & DeSanctis (1990) have done preliminary

research regarding GDSS. Poole and DeSanctis (1990) describe the benefits of GDSS saying, “A

group decision support system combines communication, computer, and decision technologies to

support the decision making and related activities of work groups (p.173). They also suggest,

“The fundamental goal of a GDSS is to support collaborative work activities such as idea

creation, message exchange, project planning, document preparation, mutual product creation,

and joint planning and decision making (Poole & DeSanctis, 1990, p.176).

Poole and DeSanctis have described the functions of GDSS in two levels, “Level 1 GDSS

provide technical features aimed at removing common communication barriers, such as large

screens for instantaneous display of ideas, voting solicitation and compilation, anonymous input

of ideas and preferences, and electronic message exchange between members (Poole &, 1990, p.

180). Level 2 represent an enhancement of level 1 by introducing budget allocation models,

utility and probability assessment models in addition to social judgment techniques (Poole &

DeSanctis, 1990). Using GDSS the two researchers looked to establish empirically how these

14

RUNNING HEAD: GROUP CONFLICT IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGYfunction would enhance group CMC. One particular prediction has to do with the communicative

conflict that CMC produces, “GDSS will surface group conflicts, but a Level 2 GDSS will

enable the group to handle group conflict more effectively that a Level 1 GDSS (Poole &

DeSanctis, 1990, p. 192). There results indeed showed that level 2 GDSS allowed for more

positive conflict and outcomes (Pool &DeSanctis, 1990).

Poole and DeSanctis (1990) were not the only researchers to evaluate impact of GSS in

CMC groups. In a study conducted by Chidambaram (1996) the goal was to again affirm that

groups using CMC behaved according to SIP. Chidambaram (1996) integrated group supported

systems (GSS) into the study to evaluate if this would have any impact on the group conflict and

cohesiveness. The study looked to measure a number of elements of group perception to discover

how groups evolved during a project. One of the elements was group cohesiveness over time

using GSS. Perceptions were described by Chidambaram (1996) as, “… group members'

assessment of the interaction process and include such aspects as trust, openness, and

participatory equality” (p. 148). The study also measured satisfaction in the group process.

Chidambaram (1996) predicted, “with repeated use of a GSS, relationships will start to

strengthen, members will become cohesive, and groups will be more satisfied” (p. 151). The

study in particular used 28 five person groups with half of them using GSS. The results from

Chidambaram (1996) study showed that initially group found that CMC and GSS were

constraining initially. Further results showed however that as the amount of time went on the

cohesiveness of the group began to grow stronger. By the end of the study the groups that used

GSS found that, “greater opportunity to exchange interpersonal information, they were able to

reduce the relational distance among members” (Chidambaram, 2006, p. 158).

15

RUNNING HEAD: GROUP CONFLICT IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGYMethod

Now that a comprehensive review of literature has been given a proposal for future

research will look to expand on some of the gaps in knowledge. SIP has given a convincing

retort against the previous theory COF regarding how virtual group communicate and function.

One element that previous SIP research has not addressed is the time constraints that occur in

real world groups. Many groups face tight time allotments which would not allow for the time

needed equivalent group cohesion. Further research would look to see if modern advancements

in GSS allow for expedited group cohesion leading to less negative conflict. Modern GSS

include Google Docs, Prezi and Face Time with Apple devices are evolutions of GSS technology

that have not been studied extensively to see how they affect group conflict. The following are

the hypotheses are how new GSS would affect groups:

H1: CMC groups using modern GSS will have similar if not decreased amounts of

negative conflict compare to FTF groups

H2: CMC groups will have as successful if not more successful outcomes using modern

GSS compared to FTF groups.

To conduct this research a scientific method with survey method will be combined to

examine the results. A controlled workplace will be given to two groups. One group of

participants will have only writing supplies and access to one computer for the internet. This will

be the FTF control group for the research. The other group will be situated in five no adjacent

cubicles with a computer and a mobile device. This CMC will have a choice of Google Docs or

Prezi along with their mobile device. Each group will be randomly assigned from a sample taken

from a college campus. Each group will have a project that will have to be completed. The

project is somewhat arbitrary but something along the lines of research presentation would

16

RUNNING HEAD: GROUP CONFLICT IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGYcombine creative and cooperative challenges. There will be rubric that measures criteria for the

project. The CMC group will only be able to communicate online while the FTF only while all

together. CMC groups will not have added time which is included by much of the previous

research. Instead a more realistic scenario will give each group three hours a day for two weeks.

At the end of the study the ability to meet project criteria will measure the success of the project.

A survey will also be given to each group member with questions about group cohesion and

conflict. The survey will contain Liker-type scale questions that evaluated the level of

satisfaction and negative conflict. Observations of group meeting will record any incidence of

conflict occurring in groups.

Discussion

This methodology will hopefully produce meaningful results to understand if CMC

groups have evolved with technology. As has been presented through the research group

communication is a dynamic phenomenon. It is difficult to find consistent results for virtual

group communication. With the addition of rapid changes in technology communication in

general has been a challenge to study. Areas like group communication continue to be important

despite these challenges. It is not only the responsibility of a communication researcher to

understand how human communication works. Each researcher must strive to understand of to

improve how to communicate. It is still uncertain if technology helps or hinders communication

in many fields. Proposals like this one mention will help humans navigate the complex nature of

communication in the future.

17


ReferenceBhappu, A. D., Meader, D. K., Erwin, C. R., & Crews, J. M. (2000, August). For better or

worse? Demographic diversity and computer-mediated communication in decision- making teams. Paper presented at the 60th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Toronto, Canada.

Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L.

Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly, 20, 143-165.

Daft, R. L.,&Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirement, media richnessand structural determinants. Management Science, 32, 554-571.

Driskell, J. E., Radtke, P. H., & Salas, E. (2003). Virtual teams: effects of technological mediation on team performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(4), 297.

Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 215-242.

Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., Irmer, B., & Chang, A. (2002). The expression of conflict in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small group research,33(4), 439-465.

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. Communication Yearbook, 19, 320–351.

Johnson, A. J., Becker, J. A. H., Wigley, S., Haigh, M. M., & Craig, E. A. (2007). Reported argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness levels: The influence of type of argument. Communication Studies, 58, 189-205.

Meluch, A. L., & Walter, H. L. (2012). Conflict Management Styles and Argumentativeness: Examining the Differences between Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication. Ohio Communication Journal, 5031-47.

Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In C. Steinfeld & J. Fulk (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 173-193). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communicative strategies in organizational conflicts: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale. Communication Yearbook, 6, 629-652.

Putnam, L. L.,&Poole, M. S. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L.W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp.

18

RUNNING HEAD: GROUP CONFLICT IN THE AGE OF TECHNOLOGY549-599). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Short, J.,Williams, E.,&Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Sproull, L.,&Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizationalcommunication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.

Straus, S. G. (1996). Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and information distributionon participation and performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 27, 115–142.

Straus, S. G. (1997). Technology, group process, and group outcomes: Testing the connections in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 227–266.

Straus, S. G., & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 87– 97.

Terborg, J. R., Castore, C., & DeNinno, J. A. (1976). A longitudinal investigation of the impact of group composition on group performance and cohesion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 782–790.

Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.

Walther, J. B.,&Burgoon, J. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction.

Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.

19


com research proposal

Documents