More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

article

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

Authors:

Nancy J. Stone,

Matthew PoseyAuthors Info & Claims

Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 24, Issue 3

Pages 827 - 851

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.02.014

Published: 01 May 2008 Publication History

Abstract

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.

References

[1]

Group processes in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Behavior and Information Technology. v10. 281-296.

[2]

Group processes in solving two problems: Face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Behaviour & Information Technology. v18. 179-198.

[3]

Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Addison-Wesley, Oxford, England.

[4]

Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. v87. 156-179.

[5]

Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology. v49. 429-452.

[6]

The impact of cross-training and workload on team functioning: A replication and extension of initial findings. Human Factors. v40. 92-101.

[7]

Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In: Guzzo, R.A., Salas, E. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations, Josey-Bass, San Francisco. pp. 333-380.

[8]

The influence of familiarity among group members, group atmosphere and assertiveness on uninhibited behavior through three different communication studies. Computers in Human Behavior. v16. 141-159.

[9]

Commarford, P. M., Kring, J. P., & Singer, M. J. (2001). Investigating communication as a possible mediator of team performance in distributed teams. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 45th annual meeting, pp. 1939-1943.

[10]

Measuring team knowledge during skill acquisition of a complex task. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics. v5. 297-315.

[11]

The effect of gesture on speech production and comprehension. Human Factors. v45. 445-454.

[12]

Group decision making under stress. Journal of Applied Psychology. v76. 476-478.

[13]

Collective behavior and team performance. Human Factors. v34. 277-288.

[14]

Adaptive team coordination. Human Factors. v41. 312-325.

[15]

Effects of task language demands and task complexity on computer-mediated work groups. Small Group Research. v25. 331-366.

[16]

The role of communication, socio-psychological and personality factors in the maintenance of crew coordination. Aviation Space & Environmental Medicine. v53. 1062-1066.

[17]

Dyads and triads at 35,000 feet. American Psychologist. v39. 885-893.

[18]

Decision accuracy in computer-mediated versus face-to-face decision-making teams. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes. v76. 30-47.

[19]

Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making: The effects of communication media. Human Communication Research. v23. 193-219.

[20]

Computer-assisted groups: A critical review of the empirical research. In: Guzzo, R.A., Salas, E. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations, Josey-Bass, San Francisco. pp. 46-78.

[21]

Communication as group process mediator of aircrew performance. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. v60. 402-410.

[22]

Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes. v52. 96-123.

[23]

Bystander "apathy". American Scientist. v57. 244-268.

[24]

The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology. v87. 3-13.

[25]

Groups: Interaction and performance. Prentic-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

[26]

Measuring and managing for team performance: Emerging principles from complex environments. In: Guzzo, R.A., Salas, E. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations, Josey-Bass, San Francisco. pp. 9-45.

[27]

Orasanu, J. (1990). Shared mental models and crew decision making. Cognitive science laboratory report #46. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

[28]

Shared problem models and flight crew performance. In: Johnston, N., McDonald, N., Fuller, R. (Eds.), Aviation psychology in practice, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, UK. pp. 255-285.

[29]

Orasanu, J. (1995). Evaluating team situation awareness through communication. In D. Garland & M. Endsley (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on experimental analysis and measurement of situation awareness. Daytona Beach, FL.

[30]

Team cognition in the cockpit: Linguistic control of shared problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 14th annual conference of the cognitive science society, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

[31]

Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research. v25. 689-715.

[32]

The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research. v26. 341-371.

[33]

Styles of group discussion in computer-mediated decision making. British Journal of Social Psychology. v36. 241-262.

[34]

Group decision making and perceived success: The role of communication medium. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. v9. 15-31.

[35]

Team coordination training. In: Cannon-Bowers, J., Salas, E. (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. pp. 221-245.

[36]

Spears, R. & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the "social" in computer-mediated communication. In Lea, M., (Eds.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, England, pp. 30-65.

[37]

Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. v48. 1467-1478.

[38]

The role of shared mental models in developing team situational awareness: Implications for training. Training Research Journal. v2. 85-116.

[39]

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. v27. 115-142.

[40]

Technology, group process, and group outcomes: Testing the connections in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Human-Computer Interaction. v12. 227-266.

[41]

Does the medium matter: The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology. v79. 87-97.

[42]

Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist. v45. 120-133.

[43]

The impact of cross-training on team functioning: An empirical investigation. Human Factors. v38. 87-100.

[44]

Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly. v38. 357-381.

[45]

Group situation awareness and distributed decision making: From military to civilian applications. In: Castellan, N.J. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. pp. 267-291.

Cited By

Wang RScown PUrquhart CHardman J(2014)Tapping the educational potential of FacebookEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-012-9206-z19:1(21-39)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-012-9206-z
Xolocotzin Eligio UAinsworth SCrook C(2012)Emotion understanding and performance during computer-supported collaborationComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.00128:6(2046-2054)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.001
Janssen JErkens GKirschner PKanselaar G(2009)Influence of group member familiarity on online collaborative learningComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.01025:1(161-170)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.010

Index Terms

Understanding coordination in computer-mediated versus face-to-face groups
1. Applied computing
  1. Law, social and behavioral sciences
    1. Psychology
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing

Recommendations

Coordination in innovative design and engineering: observations from a lunar robotics project
GROUP '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work

Coordinating activities across groups in systems engineering or product development projects is critical to project success, but substantially more difficult when the work is innovative and dynamic. It is not clear how technology should best support ...
Coordination challenges in a computer-supported meeting environment
Special issue: Organizational impact of group support systems, expert systems, and executive information systems

In this study we observed the coordination activities of groups collaboratively writing in a low-structure computer-supported meeting room. We used video analyses of the sessions to identify well-coordinated and poorly coordinated groups. Through user ...
Experience of emotion in face to face and computer-mediated social interactions

The present study compared the experience of emotion in social interactions that take place face to face (FtF), co-presently, and those that take place online, in computer-mediated communications (CMC). For a period of ten days participants reported how ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Computers in Human Behavior

Computers in Human Behavior Volume 24, Issue 3

May, 2008

700 pages

ISSN:0747-5632

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Elsevier Ltd © 2007.

Publisher

Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

Netherlands

Publication History

Published: 01 May 2008

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 09 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Wang RScown PUrquhart CHardman J(2014)Tapping the educational potential of FacebookEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-012-9206-z19:1(21-39)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-012-9206-z
Xolocotzin Eligio UAinsworth SCrook C(2012)Emotion understanding and performance during computer-supported collaborationComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.00128:6(2046-2054)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.001
Janssen JErkens GKirschner PKanselaar G(2009)Influence of group member familiarity on online collaborative learningComputers in Human Behavior10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.01025:1(161-170)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.010

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents