Classic experimental studies on restrictive communication networks concluded that network patterns and status congruency affect efficiency, satisfaction, and leadership of group decision making. This experiment had a two-fold purpose: (1) to determine if computer-mediated communication would effect the results of these studies; and (2) to assess centrality of network position as a context cue of social status. The results suggested that network pattern retained its influence in computer-mediated groups, while influence of status congruence was weakened by the equalization effects of the computer media. The results also indicated that a center position in the computer network did serve a social-context cue of status: a high-status person exerted status influence only occupying the hub position. Thus, assignment of group members to network positions of equal or different centrality can be used as means of controlling influence of status and authority in computer-mediated groups.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsS. N. (1953). Status congruency as a variable in small groups performance. Social Forces, 32, 16–22.
2.
DubrovskyV. J.KieslerS. B.SethnaB. N. (1991). The Equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Human Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146.
3.
EastonG. K. (1988). Group decision support systems versus face-to-face communication for collaborative group work: An experimental investigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
4.
GallupeR.B.DennisA.R.CooperW.H.ValacichJ.S.BastianuttiL.M.NunamakerJ.F. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 350–369.
5.
HackmanJ.R.MorrisC.G. (1978). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Group Processes (pp. 1–55). New York: Academic Press.
6.
HomansG.C. (1974). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (rev. ed). New York: Jovanovich.
7.
KelleyH. H.ThibautJ. W. (1978). Interpersonal Relations.New York: Wiley.
8.
KieslerS.SiegelJ.McGuireT. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134.
9.
KirchlerE.DavisJ. H. (1986). The influence of member status differences and task type on group consensus and member position change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (1), 83–91.
10.
KoganN.WallachM.A. (1964). Risk taking: A study in cognition and personality.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
11.
LeavittH. J. (1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 38–50.
12.
MaierN. R. F. (1967). Assets and liabilities in group problem solving: The need for an integrative function. Psychological Review, 74 (4): 239–249.
13.
MarchJ.G.OlsenJ.P. (1976). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations.Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforiaget.
14.
MeekerB.F. (1990). Expectation states and interpersonal behavior. In RosenbergM.TurnerR. (Eds.) Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives (pp. 290–319). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
15.
MooreJ.C.JohnsonE.B.ArnoldM.S.C. (1972). Status congruence and equity in restricted communication networks. Sociometry, 35 (4), 519–537.
16.
MosierDJ. (1995). Effects of Status, Congruence, and Network Pattern in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY.
17.
SalancikG.R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In StawB.M.SalancikG.R. (Eds.), New Directions in Organizational Behavior (pp. 1–54). Chicago: St. Clair Press.
18.
ScheinE.H. (1958). The development of organization in small problem-solving groups. Final report, Sloan Project No. 134, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
19.
ShawM. E. (1978). Communication networks fourteen years later. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Group Processes, (pp. 351–361) New York: Academic Press.
20.
ShawM. E. (1981). Group Dynamics: the Psychology of Small Group Behavior, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, Inc.
21.
SiegelJ.DubrovskyV.KieslerS.McGuireT. W. (1986). Group Processes in Computer-Mediated Communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157–187.
22.
SproullL.KieslerS. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32 (11), 1492–1512.
23.
SproullL.KieslerS. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
WeisbandS. 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.
25.
WeisbandS. P.SchneiderS. K.ConnollyT. (1994). Participation equality and influence: Cues and status in computer-supported cooperative work groups. In deMichelisG.SimoneC.SchmidtK. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 137–142. Kluwer Academic Press.
26.
WilliamsE. (1977). Experimental comparison of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 963–976.
27.
ZigursL.PoolScott M.DeSanctisG. L. (1988). A study of influence in computer-mediated group decision making. MIS Quarterly, December, 625–644.
