Effects of geographic distribution on dominance perceptions in computer-mediated groups

Communication Research

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 313-331

  Peña, Jorge ^a   Walther, Joseph B ^b   Hancock, Jeffrey T ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer mediated communication; Distributed work; Dominance; Hyperpersonal model; Impression formation; Social information processing; Symmetry; Virtual groups

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247884323     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650207300431     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Asch, S.E. (1956). I. Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70, 1-51.
2. Bales, R.F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
3. Bales, R.F., & Cohen, S.P. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for multiple level observation of groups. New York: Free Press.
4. Bateson, G. (1958). Naven: A survey of the problems suggested by a composite picture of the culture of a New Guinea tribe drawn from three points of view. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
5. Bos, N., Shami, N.S., Olson, J.S., Cheshin, A., & Nan, N. (2004). In-group/out-group effects in distributed teams: An experimental simulation. In Proceedings of computer supported collaborative work '04 (pp. 429-436). New York: ACM Press.
6. Boucher, E., Hancock, J.T., & Dunham, P.J. (2004, January). The perception and maintenance of social status in computer-mediated and face-to-face conversations: An examination of the equalization phenomenon. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, Austin, TX.
7. Bradner, E., & Mark, G. (2002, November). Why distance matters: Effects on cooperation, persuasion and deception. Paper presented at the ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work, New Orleans, LA.
8. Burgoon, J.K., & Dunbar, N.E. (2000). An interactionist perspective on dominance-submission: Interpersonal dominance as a dynamic, situationally contingent social skill. Communication Monographs, 67, 96-121.
9. Burgoon, J.K., & Hale, J.L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19-41.
10. Burke, K., Aytes, K., Chidambaram, L., & Johnson, J.J. (1999). A study of partially distributed groups: The impact of media, location, and time on perceptions and performance. Small Group Research, 30, 453-490.
11. Byrne, D. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 417-431.
12. Cramton, C.D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346-371.
13. Dillard, J.P., Solomon, D.H., & Samp, J.A. (1996). Framing social reality: The relational relevance of relational judgments. Communication Research, 23, 703-723.
14. Dovidio, J.F., Ellyson, S.L., Keating, C.F., Heltman, K., & Brown, C.E. (1988). The relationship of social power to visual displays of dominance between men and women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 233-242.
15. Dryer, D.C., & Horowitz, L.M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 592-603.
16. 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.
17. Dunbar, N.E., & Burgoon, J.K. (2005). Measuring nonverbal dominance. In V. L. Manusov (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures (pp. 361-374). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Ellis, D.G. (1976). An analysis of relational communication in ongoing group systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah.
19. Ellyson, S.L., & Dovidio, J.F. (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior: Basic concepts and issues. In S. L. Ellyson & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 1-28). New York / Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
20. Evans, C.R., & Jarvis, P.A. (1986). The group attitude scale: A measure of attraction to group. Small Group Behavior, 17, 203-216.
21. Fiol, C.M., & O'Connor, E.J. (2005). Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: Untangling the contradictions. Organization Science, 16, 19-32.
22. Gibbs, J.L., Ellison, N.B., & Heino, R.D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 33, 1-26.
23. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor.
24. Gouran, D.S. (1973). Correlates of member satisfaction in group decision-making discussion. Central States Speech Journal, 24, 91-96.
25. Hancock, J.T., & Dunham, P.J. (2001). Impression formation in computer-mediated communication revisited: An analysis of the breadth and intensity of impressions. Communication Research, 28, 325-347.
26. Hinds, P. J., & Kiesler, S. (Eds.). (2002). Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Hinds, P.J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16, 290-307.
28. Hollingshead, A.B. (1996). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making: The effects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23, 193-219.
29. Johnson, J.J. (1999, January). A field study of partially distributed group support. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Retrieved February 20, 2005, from csdl.computer.org/comp/ proceedings/hicss/1999/0001/01/00011025.PDF
30. Kiesler, D.J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185-214.
31. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T.W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
32. Klohnen, E.C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive-Self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity, or attachment security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709-722.
33. Kraut, R.E., Fussell, S.R., Brennan, S.E., & Siegel, J. (2002). Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. In P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 137-162). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. 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). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
35. Levine, T.R., & Banas, J. (2002). One-tailed F-tests in communication research. Communication Monographs, 69, 132-143.
36. McCroskey, J.C., & McCain, T.A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261-266.
37. McGlone, M.S., & Batchelor, J.A. (2003). Looking out for number one: Euphemism and face. Journal of Communication, 53, 251-264.
38. McGuire, T.W., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917-930.
39. McLeod, P.L., & Liker, J.K. (1992). Electronic meeting systems: Evidence from a low structure environment. Information Systems Research, 3, 195-223.
40. Mehrabian, A., & Hines, M. (1978). A questionnaire measure of individual differences in dominance-submissiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 479-484.
41. Montoya, R.M., & Horton, R.S. (2004). On the importance of cognitive evaluation as a determinant of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 696-712.
42. Moon, Y., & Nass, C. (1996). How "real" are computer personalities? Psychological responses to personality types in human-computer interaction. Communication Research, 23, 651-674.
43. Nardi, B.A., & Whittaker, S. (2002). The role of face-to-face communication in distributed work. In P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 83-112). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B.J., Reeves, B., & Dryer, D.C. (1995). Can computer personalities be human personalities? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 223-239.
45. Olson, G.M., & Olson, J.S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 139-178.
46. Parks, M. (1977). Relational communication: Theory and research. Human Communication Research, 3, 372-381.
47. Pink, D.H. (2005). Why the world is flat. WIRED, 13 (5). 150-153.
48. Piper, W.E., Marrache, M., Lacrois, R., Richardson, A.M., & Jones, B.D. (1983). Cohesion as a basic bond in groups. Human Relations, 36, 93-108.
49. Rains, S.A. (2005). Leveling the organizational playing field-Virtually: A meta-analysis of experimental research assessing the impact of group support system use on member influence behaviors. Communication Research, 32, 193-234.
50. Rice, R.E. (1984). Mediated group communication. In R. E. Rice & Associates (Eds.), The new media: Communication, research, and technology (pp. 129-156). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
51. Rogers, L.E., & Escudero, V. (2004). Relational communication: An interactional perspective to the study of process and form. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52. Rogers, L.E., & Farace, R.V. (1975). Analysis of relational communication in dyads: New measurement procedures. Human Communication Research, 1, 222-239.
53. Schmid Mast, M. (2002). Dominance as expressed and inferred through speaking time: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28, 420-450.
54. Seashore, S. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the individual work group. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
55. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187.
56. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon?: The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459.
57. Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121-134.
58. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
59. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81-93.
60. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304-313.
61. 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.
62. Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2003). Social cues and impression formation in CMC. Journal of Communication, 53, 676-693.
63. Tiedens, L.Z., & Fragale, A.R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558-568.
64. Tusing, K.J., & Dillard, J.P. (2000). The sounds of dominance: Vocal precursors of perceived dominance during interpersonal influence. Human Communication Research, 26, 148-171.
65. Tyler, T.R. (1999). Why do people help organizations?: Social identity and pro-organizational behavior. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research on organizational behavior (Vol. 21, pp. 201-246). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
66. Walther, J.B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
67. Walther, J.B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 473-501.
68. Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
69. Walther, J.B. (2002). Time effects in computer-mediated groups: Past, present, and future. In P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 235-257). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
70. Walther, J.B., & Bazarova, N. (2007). Misattribution in virtual groups: The effects of member distribution on self-serving bias and partner blame. Human Communication Research, 33, 1-26.
71. Walther, J.B., Boos, M., & Jonas, K. (2002). Misattribution and attributional redirection in distributed virtual groups [Electronic version]. In Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
72. Walther, J.B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55, 828-846.
73. Walther, J.B., & Burgoon, J.K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.
74. Walther, J.B., & Parks, M.R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3 rd ed., pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
75. Walther, J.B., Slovacek, C.L., & Tidwell, L.C. (2001). Is a picture worth a thousand words?: Photographic images in long-term and short-term computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 28, 105-134.
76. Weisband, S.P. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 352-380.
77. Weisband, S.P. (2002). Maintaining awareness in distributed team collaboration: Implications for leadership and performance. In P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 311-333). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
78. Weisband, S.P., Schneider, S.K., & Connolly, T. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and social information: Status salience and status difference. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1124-1151.
79. Wiggins, J.S., & Broughton, R. (1985). The interpersonal circle: A structural model for the integration of personality research. In R. H. Hogan & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in personality 1, (pp. 1-47). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
80. Zaccaro, S.J., & Lowe, C.A. (1988). Cohesiveness and performance on an additive task: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 547-55.