A sympathetic reaction to the SM and DLCM as group communication theories

Human Communication Research

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 272-278

  Pavitt, Charles ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 62749092070     PISSN: 03603989     EISSN: 14682958     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01348.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bales, R. F. Strodtbeck, F. L 1951). Phases in group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 485 495.
2. Berger, C. R. Calabrese, R. J 1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99 112.
3. Buller, D. R. Burgoon, J. K 1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203 242.
4. Burgoon, J. K. Hale, J. L 1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behavior. Communication Monographs, 55, 58 79.
5. Burleson, B. R 2007). Constructivism: A general theory of communication skill. In B. B. Whaley W. Samter (Eds Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 105 128). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Corman, S. R 1996). Cellular automata as models of unintended consequences of organizational communication. In J. H. Watt C. A. VanLear (Eds Dynamic patterns in communication processes (pp. 191 212). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
7. Corman, S. R. Kuhn, T 2005). The detectability of socio-egocentric group speech: A quasi-Turing test. Communication Monographs, 72, 117 143.
8. Dowe, P 1992). Wesley Salmon's process theory of causality and the conserved quantity theory. Philosophy of Science, 59, 195 216.
9. Giles, H. Ogay, T 2007). Communication accommodation theory. In B. B. Whaley W. Samter (Eds Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 293 310). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Greene, J. O 1984). A cognitive approach to human communication: An action assembly theory. Communication Monographs, 51, 289 306.
11. Harre, R. Madden, E. H 1975). Causal powers. Totowa, NJ : Rowman & Littlefield.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Hewes, D. E 2009). The influence of communication processes on group outcomes: Antithesis and thesis. Human Communication Research, 35, 249 271.
15. Meyer, J. R 1997). Cognitive influences on the ability to address interaction goals. In J. O. Greene (Ed Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 71 90). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Pavitt, C 1992). Describing know-how about group discussion procedure: Must the representation be recursive? Communication Studies, 43, 150 170.
17. Pavitt, C 2000). Answering questions requesting scientific explanations for communication. Communication Theory, 10, 379 404.
18. Pavitt, C in press). Alternative approaches to theorizing in communication science. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff D. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds The new Sage handbook of communication science. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications.
19. Pavitt, C. Johnson, K. K 1999). An examination of the coherence of group discussions. Communication Research, 26, 303 321.
20. Pearce, W. B. Cronen, V. E 1980). Communication, action, and meaning. New York : Praeger.
21. Petty, R. E. Cacioppo, J. T 1986). Communication and persuasion. New York : Springer-Verlag.
22. Poole, M. S. Doelger, J. A 1986). Developmental processes in group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirokawa M. S. Poole (Eds Communication and group decision-making (pp. 35 61). Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.
23. Salmon, W. C 1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
24. Smith, M. J 1982). Cognitive schemata and persuasive communication: Toward a contingency rules theory. In M. Burgoon (Ed Communication yearbook 6 (pp. 330 362). Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.
25. Vinokur, A. Burnstein, E 1974). Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group induced shifts: A group problem-solving approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 305 315.