The detectability of socio-egocentric group speech: A quasi-turing test

Communication Monographs

Volumn 72, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 117-143

  Corman, Steven R ^a   Kuhn, Timothy ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision Making; Discussion Coherence; Group Communication; Simulation; Socio Egocentric Model

Indexed keywords

EID: 27944502466     PISSN: 03637751     EISSN: 14795787     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03637750500111849     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Axley, S. (1984). Managerial communication in terms of the conduit metaphor. Academy of Management Review, 9, 428-437.
2. Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984). Classification and regression trees. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
3. Corman, S. R. (1996). Cellular automata as model of unintended consequences of organizational communication. In J. Watt, & A. VanLear (Eds.), Dynamic patterns in communication processes (pp. 191-212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Corman, S. R. (1997). The reticulation of quasi-agents in systems of organizational communication. In G. A. Barnett, & L. Thayer (Eds.), Organization - communication: Emerging perspectives: V. The renaissance in systems thinking (pp. 65-82). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
5. Davis, J. H. (1969). Group performance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
6. Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97-125.
7. Davis, J. H. (1982). Social interaction as a combinatorial process in group decision. In H. Brandstätter, J. H. Davis, & G. Stocker-Kreichgauer (Eds.), Group decision making (pp. 27-58). London: Academic Press.
8. Davis, J. H., Spitzer, C. E., Nagao, C., & Stasser, G. (1978). The nature of bias in social decisions by individuals and groups: An example from mock juries. In H. Brandstätter, J. H. Davis, & H. Schuler (Eds.), Dynamics of group decisions (pp. 33-52). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9. Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 1-11.
10. Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (1997). On the statistics of interdependence: Treating dyadic data with respect. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 271-302). New York: Wiley.
11. Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1998). The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science, 22, 389-424.
12. Gouran, D. S., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1996). Functional theory and communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups: An expanded view. In R. Y. Hirokawa, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 55-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Grosz, B. J., Weinstein, S., & Joshi, A. K. (1995). Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of a discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 203-225.
14. Gruenfeld, D. H., Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Kim, P. H. (1998). Cognitive flexibility, communication strategy, and integrative complexity in groups: Public versus private reactions to majority and minority status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 202-226.
15. Haslett, B. B., & Ruebush, J. (1999). What differences do individual differences in groups make? The effects of individuals, culture, and group composition. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 115-138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Hewes, D. E. (1986). A socio-egocentric model of group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirokawa, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 265-291). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17. Hewes, D. E. (1996). Small group communication may not influence decision making: An amplification of socio-egocentric theory. In R. Y. Hirokawa, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 179-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Hirokawa, R. Y., Erbert, L., & Hurst, A. (1996). Communication and group decision-making effectiveness. In R. Y. Hirokawa, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 269-300). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Hoffman, L. R. (1979). The group problem-solving process: Studies of a valence model. New York: Praeger.
20. Hoffman, L. R., & Kleinman, G. B. (1994). Individual and group in group problem-solving. Human Communication Research, 21, 36-59.
21. Karelis, J. (1986). Reflections on the Turing Test. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 16, 161-171.
22. Kuhn, T., & Poole, M. S. (2000). Do conflict management styles affect group decision-making? Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Human Communication Research, 26, 558-590.
23. Latané, B. (1996). Dynamic social impact: The creation of culture by communication. Journal of Communication, 46, 13-23.
24. Lorge, I., & Solomon, H. (1955). Two models of group behavior in the solution of eureka-type problems. Psychometrika, 29, 139-148.
25. McPhee, R. D., Poole, M. S., & Seibold, D. R. (1981). The valence model unveiled: A critique and alternative formulation. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 259-278). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
26. Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (1999). Influence processes in group interaction. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 288-312). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Nash, J. (1953). Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica, 21, 129-140.
28. Pavitt, C. (1993). Does communication matter in social influence during small group discussion? Five positions. Communication Studies, 44, 216-227.
29. Pavitt, C., & Johnson, K. K. (1999). An examination of the coherence of group discussions. Communication Research, 26, 303-321.
30. Penrod, S., & Hastie, R. (1979). Models of jury decision-making: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 462-492.
31. Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk, & C. W. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 173-193). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
32. Poole, M. S., McPhee, R. D., & Seibold, D. R. (1982). A comparison of normative and interactional explanations of group decision-making: Social decision schemes versus valence distributions. Communication Monographs, 49, 1-19.
33. Putnam, L. L., & Stohl, C. (1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context. Communication Studies, 41, 248-265.
34. Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284-324). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
36. Scheerhorn, D., Geist, P., & Teboul, J. B. (1994). Beyond decision making in decision-making groups: Implications for the study of group communication. In L. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups (pp. 247-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
37. Seibold, D. R., Meyers, R. A., & Sunwolf (1996). Communication and influence in group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirokawa, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication in group decision-making (2nd ed., pp. 242-268). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38. Seyfarth, B. J. (1999). Are reasons structures? A cognitive- structurational approach toward explaining small group processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
39. Seyfarth, B. (2000). Structuration theory in small group communication: A review and agenda for future research. In M. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook 23 (pp. 341-379). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Shanon, B. (1989). A simple comment regarding the Turing Test. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 19, 249-256.
41. Stasser, G., & Davis, J. H. (1981). Group decision making and social influence: A social interaction sequence model. Psychological Review, 88, 523-551.
42. Sunwolf, & Seibold, D. R. (1998). Jurors' intuitive rules for deliberation: A structurational approach to communication in jury decision making. Communication Monographs, 65, 282-307.
43. Tracy, K. (1982). On getting the point: Distinguishing "issues" and "events," an aspect of conversational coherence. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 279-301). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
44. Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433-460.