Virtual teams: Effects of technological mediation on team performance

Group Dynamics

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 297-323

  Driskell, James E ^a   Radtke, Paul H ^b   Salas, Eduardo ^c  

^a FLORIDA MAXIMA CORPORATION   (United States)

^b NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; BEHAVIORISM; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER NETWORK; HUMAN; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; INFORMATION SYSTEM; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS; PROCESS TECHNOLOGY; REVIEW; TASK PERFORMANCE; TEAMWORK; TELECOMMUNICATION; VIRTUAL REALITY;

EID: 0347664117     PISSN: 10892699     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1089-2699.7.4.297     Document Type: Review

References (115)

1. Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). On judging and being judged accurately in zero acquaintance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 518-529.
2. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256-274.
3. Anderson, A. H., O'Malley, C., Doherty-Sneddon, G., Langton, S., Newlands, A., Mullin, J., et al. (1997). The impact of VMC on collaborative problem solving: An analysis of task performance, communicative process and user satisfaction. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen, & S. B. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-Mediated Communication (pp. 133-155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 251-280.
5. Back, K. W. (1951). Influence through social communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 9-23.
6. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and satistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
7. Berger, J. (1992). Expectations, theory, and group processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 3-11.
8. Berger, J., Webster, M., Ridgeway, C., & Rosenholtz, S. J. (1986). Status cues, expectations, and behavior. In E. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research (Vol. 3, pp. 1-22). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
9. Blanton, H., & Christie, C. (2003). Deviance regulation: A theory of action and identity. Review of General Psychology, 7, 115-149.
10. Bos, N., Olson, J. S., Gergle, D., Olson, G. M., & Wright, Z. (2002). Effects of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development. In Proceedings of CHI 2002 (pp. 135-140). New York: ACM Press.
11. Boyle, E., Anderson, A., & Newlands, A. (1994). The effects of visibility on dialogue and performance in a cooperative problem solving task. Language and Speech, 37, 1-20.
12. Burgelman, J. C. (2000) Traveling with communication technologies in space, time and everyday life: An exploration of their impact. Retrieved from htt://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_3/burgelman/
13. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281.
14. Cairncross, F. (1997). The Death of Distance: The Trendspotter's Guide to New Communications. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
15. Cappel, J. J., & Windsor, J. C. (2000). Ethical decision making: A comparison of computer-supported and face-to-face groups. Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 95-107.
16. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and Self-Regulation: A Control-Theory Approach to Human Behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
17. Chapanis, A., Ochsman, R. B., Parrish, R. N., & Weeks, G. D. (1972). Studies in interactive communication: I. The effects of four communication modes on the behavior of teams during cooperative problem-solving. Human Factors, 14, 487-509.
18. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.) Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19. 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, 97-120.
20. Costanzo, M. (1992). Training students to decode verbal and nonverbal cues: Effects on confidence and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 303-313.
21. Craig, T. Y., & Kelly, J. R. (1999). The effects of task and interpersonal cohesiveness on group creativity. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 243-256.
22. Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organizational Science, 12, 346-371.
23. Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 420-443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24. Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing another likes or dislikes you: Behaviors making the beliefs come true. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 284-290.
25. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A ne approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233.
26. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-571.
27. DePaulo, B. M., Rosenthal, R., Eisenstat, R. A., Rogers, P. L., & Finkelstein, S. (1976). Decoding discrepant nonverbal cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 313-323.
28. Devine, D. J. (2002). A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in organizations. Group Dynamics, 6, 291-310.
29. Doherty-Sneddon, G., Anderson, A., O'Malley, C., Langton, S., Garrod, S., & Bruce, V. (1997). Face-to-face and video-mediated communication: A comparison of dialogue structure and task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Apppied, 3, 105-125.
30. Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. (1987). Personality and group performance. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91-112). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31. Driskell, J. E., & Mullen, B. (1990). Status, expectations, and behavior: A meta-analytic review and test of the theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 541-553.
32. Driskell, J. E., Olmstead, B., & Salas, E. (1993). Task cues, dominance cues, and influence in task groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 51-60.
33. Driskell, J. E., & Radtke, P. H. (in press). The effect of gesture on speech production and comprehension. Human Factors.
34. Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119-146.
35. Erickson, B., Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C., & O'Barr, W. M. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effect of "powerful" and "powerless" speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266-279.
36. Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175-186.
37. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282.
38. Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (1997). The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1429-1439.
39. Fussell, S. R., & Benimoff, N. I. (1995). Social and cognitive processes in interpersonal communication: Implications for advanced telecommunications technologies. Human Factors, 37, 228-250.
40. Golembiewski, R. T. (1962). The Small Group: An Analysis of Research Concepts and Operations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41. Griffith, T., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Information Processing and Performance in Traditional and Virtual Teams: The Role of Transactive Memory (Research Paper No. 1613). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Graduate School of Business.
42. Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 45-99.
43. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992). Media space and communicative asymmetries: Preliminary observations of video-mediated interaction. Human Computer Interaction, 7, 315-346.
44. Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225-252.
45. Hiltz, S. R., Turoff, M., & Johnson, K. (1989). Experiments in group decision making: 3. Disinhibition, deindividuation, and group process in pen and real name computer conferences. Decision Support Systems, 5, 217-232.
46. Hollingshead, A. B., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Computer-assisted groups: A critical review of the empirical research. In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas, I. L. Goldstein, et al. (Eds.), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations (pp. 46-78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
47. Hollingshead, A. B., McGrath, J. E., & O'Conner, K. M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 307-334.
48. Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371.
49. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in virtual teams. Organizational Science, 10, 791-815.
50. Jecker, J., Maccoby, N., Breitrose, H. S., & Rose, E. D. (1964). Teacher accuracy in assessing cognitive visual feedback from students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 393-397.
51. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706.
52. Kiesler, S., Zubrow, D., Moses, A., & Geller, V. (1985). Affect in computer-mediated communication: An experiment on synchronous terminal-to-terminal discussion. Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 77-104.
53. Krauss, R., & Fussell, S. (1990). Mutual knowledge and communicative effectiveness. In J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technical Bases of Collaborative Work (pp. 111-146). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.
55. Lea, M., O'Shea, T., Fung, P., & Spears, R. (1992). "Flaming" in computer-mediated communication: Observations, explanations, and implications. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 89-112). Hertfordshire, England: Harvestder Wheatsheaf.
56. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585-634.
57. Linville, J. M., Liebhaber, M. J., Obermayer, A. H., & Fallesen, J. J. (1991). Computer-Mediated Group Processes in Distributed Command and Control Systems: Supervised Shared Work (Tech Rep. 926). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
58. Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1961). Group cohesiveness, communication level, and conformity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 408-412.
59. Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-283.
60. McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
61. McGrath, J. E. (1990). Time matters in groups. In J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technical Bases of Collaborative Work (pp. 23-61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. McGrath, J. E. (1997). Small group research, that once and future field: An interpretation of the past with an eye to the future. Group Dynamics, 1, 7-27.
63. McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups Interacting with Technology: Ideas, Issues, Evidence, and an Agenda. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
64. McLeod, P. L. (1992). An assessment of the experimental literature on electronic support of group work: Results of a meta-analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 257-280.
65. Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 166-195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
66. Mullen, B. (1987). Self-attention theory: The effects of group composition on the individual. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of Group Behavior (pp. 125-146). New York: Springer-Verlag.
67. Mullen, B. (1991). Group composition, salience, and cognitive representations: The phenomenology of being a group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 297-323.
68. Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making: An integration of tests of the group think hypothesis. Small Group Research, 25, 189-204.
69. Mullen, B., & Baumeister, R. F. (1987). Group effects on self-attention and performance: Social loafing, social facilitation, and social impairment. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 189-206). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
70. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
71. Mullen, B., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1989). Salience, motivation, and artifact as contributions to the relation between participation rate and leadership. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 545-559.
72. Nixon, H. L. (1979). The Small Group. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
73. Oliver, L. W., Harman, J., Hoover, E., Hayes, S. M., & Pandhi, N. A. (1999). A quantitative integration of the military cohesion literature. Military Psychology, 11, 57-83.
74. Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 139-179.
75. Poole, M. S., Holmes, M., Watson, R., & DeSanctis, G. (1993). Group decision support systems and group communication: A comparison of decision making in computer-supported and nonsupported groups. Communicative Research, 20, 176-213.
76. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238-259.
77. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 918-930.
78. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communications. Communication Research, 25, 689-715.
79. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2002). Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics, 6, 3-16.
80. Ridgeway, C. L. (1987). Nonverbal behavior, dominance, and the basis of status in task groups. American Sociological Review, 52, 683-694.
81. Ridgeway, C. L., & Diekema, D. (1989). Dominance and collective hierarchy formation in male and female task groups. American Sociological Review, 54, 79-93.
82. Ringelmann, M. (1913). Research on animate sources of power: The work of man. Annales de l'Institut National Agronomique (2e Serie, Tome XII), 1-40.
83. Rocco, E. (1998). Trust breaks down in electronic contexts but can be repeated by some initial face-to-face contact. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 496-502). Los Angeles: ACM Press.
84. Rudman, C., Hertz, R., Marshall, C., & Dykstra-Erickson, E. (1997). Channel overload as a driver for adoption of desktop video for distributed group work. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen, & S. B. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-Mediated Communication (pp. 199-223). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
85. Saunders, C., Robey, D., & Vaverek, K. (1994). The persistence of status differentials in computer conferencing. Human Communication Research, 20, 443-472.
86. Schachter, S., Ellertson, N., McBride, D., & Gregory, D. (1951). An experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations, 4, 229-238.
87. Selfe, C. L., & Meyer, P. R. (1991). Testing claims for online conferences. Written Communication, 8, 163-192.
88. Sellen, A. J. (1995). Remote conversations: The effects of mediating talk with technology. Human Computer Interaction, 10, 401-444.
89. Shaw, M. E. (1973). Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
90. Short, J. (1974). Effects of medium of communication on experimental negotiation. Human Relations, 27, 225-243.
91. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. New York: Wiley.
92. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. (1986). Group process in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187.
93. Silver, S. D., Cohen, B. P., & Crutchfield, J. H. (1994). Status differentiation and information exchange in face-to-face and computer-mediated idea generation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 108-123.
94. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the "social" in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication (pp. 30-65). Hertfordshire, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
95. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
96. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections - New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
97. Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. New York: Academic Press.
98. 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, 115-142.
99. 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.
100. 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.
101. 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.
102. Thompson, L. F., & Coovert, M. D. (2003). Teamwork online: The effects of computer conferencing on perceived confusion, satisfaction and postdiscussion accuracy. Group Dynamics, 7, 135-151.
103. Tziner, A., & Vardi, Y. (1982). Effects of command style and group cohesiveness on the performance of self-selected tank crews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 769-775.
104. Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. (1993). Status characteristics theory: The growth of a program. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch (Eds.), Theoretical Research Programs: Studies in the Growth of Theory (pp. 23-63). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
105. Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23, 342-369.
106. Walther, J. B., Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication Research, 21, 460-487.
107. Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated communication. Human Communications Research, 19, 50-83.
108. Warkentin, M. E., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision Science, 28, 975-996.
109. Webster, M., & Driskell, J. E. (1983). Processes of status generalization. In H. Blumberg, A. P. Hare, V. Kent, & M. Davies (Eds.), Small Groups and Social Interaction (pp. 57-67). New York: Wiley.
110. Weisband, S., & Atwater, L. (1999). Evaluating self and others in electronic and face-to-face groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 632-639.
111. Weisband, S. P., Schneider, S. K., & Connolly, T. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and social information: Status salience and status differences. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1124-1151.
112. Whittaker, S., & O'Conaill, B. (1997). The role of vision in face-to-face and mediated communication. In K. E. Finn, A. J. Sellen, & S. B. Wilbur (Eds.), Video-Mediated Communication (pp. 23-49). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
113. Williams, E. (1977). Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and video mediated communication. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 963-976.
114. Zaccaro, S., & Lowe, C. (1986). Cohesiveness and performance on an additive task: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 547-558.
115. Zaccaro, S., & McCoy, M. C. (1988). The effects of task and interpersonal cohesiveness on performance of a disjunctive group task. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 837-851.