摘要:

This article examines the effect of communication media on group processes and the consequent effect of processes on group cohesiveness, satisfaction, and productivity using mediated regression analysis. Data are based on Straus and McGrath (1994), in which 72 three-person groups worked on idea generation, intellective, and judgment tasks in either computer-mediated (CM) or face-to-face (FTF) discussions. Straus and McGrath found that in comparison to FTF groups, CM groups were less productive across tasks and expressed lower satisfaction in the judgment task. This article adds to findings about group outcomes by showing that CM groups expressed lower cohesiveness than did FTF groups. Analysis of communication processes shows that CM groups had higher proportions of task communication and disagreement and greater equality of participation. In contrast to prior reports that people using electronic communication are depersonalized, CM groups did not engage in more attacking behavior and they exchanged higher rates of supportive communication than did FTF groups. Mediated regression analysis reveals that the group process accounted for the effect of communication mode on cohesiveness and satisfaction but not on productivity. Results suggest that media effects on outcomes, as well as on processes such as task focus and equality of participation, are due to the rates by which CM and FTF groups operate and not necessarily because of any inherently depersonalizing feature of electronic communication.

ISSN:0737-0024    

DOI:10.1207/s15327051hci1203_1

出版商:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.    

年代:1997

数据来源: Taylor

摘要:

Many efforts have been made to exploit the properties of graphical notations to support argument construction and communication. In the context of design rationale capture, we are interested in graphical argumentation structures as cognitive tools to support individual and collaborative design in real time. This context of use requires a detailed understanding of how a new representational structure integrates into the cognitive and discursive flow of design, that is, whether it provides supportive or intrusive structure. This article presents a use-oriented analysis of a graphical argumentation notation known as QOC (Questions, Options, and Criteria). Through a series of empirical studies, we show that it provides most support when elaborating poorly understood design spaces, but is a distraction when evaluating well-constrained design spaces. This is explained in terms of the cognitive compatibility between argumentative reasoning and the demands of different modes of designing. We then provide an account based on the collaborative affordances of QOC in group design meetings, and extend this to discuss the evolution of QOC argumentation from short term working memory to long term group memory.

ISSN:0737-0024    

DOI:10.1207/s15327051hci1203_2

出版商:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.    

年代:1997

数据来源: Taylor