Technology, group process, and group outcomes: testing the connections in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups

Human-Computer Interaction

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 227-266

  Straus, Susan G ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; USER INTERFACES;

COMPUTER MEDIATED GROUPS; FACE TO FACE (FTF) DISCUSSIONS;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

EID: 0031335603     PISSN: 07370024     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327051hci1203_1     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Arrow, H., & McGrath, J.E. (1993). Membership matters: How member change and continuity affect small group structure, process, and performance. Small Group Research, 24, 334-361.
2. Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Bales, R. F. (1953). The equilibrium problem in small groups. In T. Parsons, R. F. Bales, & E. A. Shils (Eds.), Working papers in the theory of action (pp. 177-190). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
4. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
5. Bramson, M., Selub, M., & Solomon, L. (1987). How to prepare for the Graduate Record Examinations. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
6. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic.
7. Byrne, D., & Clore, G. (1967). Effectance arousal and attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, 6, 1-18.
8. Cohen, J. A. (1960). Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Education and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
9. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
10. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
11. Cohen, E., & Roper, S. (1972). Modification of interracial interaction disability. American Sociological Review, 37, 643-665.
12. Connolly, T., Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36, 689-703.
13. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233.
14. Diener, E., Fraser, S. C., Beaman, & Kelem, R. T. (1976). Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 178-183.
15. Dubrovsky, V.J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119-146.
16. Western, J. R., & Kristen, C. (1973). Teleconferencing: A comparison of attitudes, uncertainty, and interpersonal atmospheres in mediated and face-to-face group interaction. (Tech. Report No. 1). Ottawa, Canada: Department of Communications.
17. Worchel, S. (1994). You can go home again: Returning group research to the group context with an eye on development issues. Small Group Research, 25, 205-223.
18. Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 237-307). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.