Research on group behavior has identified social loafing, i.e., the tendency of members to do less than their potential, as a particularly serious problem plaguing groups. Social Impact Theory (SIT) helps explain social loafing in terms of two theoretical dimensions--the dilution effect (where an individual feels submerged in the group) and the immediacy gap (where an individual feels isolated from the group). In this study, which employed a controlled experiment, we investigated these dimensions of social loafing in the context of group decision making, using collocated and distributed teams of varying sizes. Our results--in line with SIT--indicate that small groups, signifying a small dilution effect, had increased individual contributions and better group outcomes compared to their larger counterparts. However,support for SIT's arguments about the immediacy gap was mixed: Members contributed visibly more when they were collocated, but no significant differences in group outcomes were evident. Regardless of dimension, the quality of the input (ideas generated) determined the quality of the output (decisions made). Also, contrary to the literature on brainstorming, having more ideas to work with resulted in poorer-quality decisions. This apparent paradox is explained using the notion of integrative complexity, which challenges conventional wisdom regarding the relationship between individual inputs and group outputs. The implications of these results for practice and research are examined.
This study addresses three key issues related to media differences among computer-mediated groups meeting face-to-face, synchronously, and asynchronously: First, do groups using different media perceive characteristics of these media differently? Second, do media-related perceptions remain static or change as they are used over time? And finally, do media differences result in performance differences, i.e., do richer media result in better performance for equivocal tasks as predicted by bandwidth theories? Some results of this study tend to support media-characteristics theories while others offer limited support for more evolutionary perspectives. For instance, initially, face-to-face groups found their medium to be warmer, have a better interface, and be more effective compared to their distributed counterparts. While many of these initial perceptions lingered over time, there was one notable exception. At the start of the study, face-to-face groups rated their medium as being more effective than synchronous groups; however, by the end of the study, no significant differences were apparent. Moreover, despite the persistently lower social presence of leaner media, distributed-synchronous groups performed better than their face-to-face counterparts. Finally, the two types of distributed groups--synchronous and asynchronous--did not differ significantly in their perceptions or performance. This study improves our understanding of distributed interaction while simultaneously highlighting the need to further investigate the relationships among tasks, technologies and teams over time.
This study examines how group attitudes and outcomes evolve over time with repeated use of a group support system. Social Information Processing (SIP) theory, which suggests that relational intimacy may take longer to develop in computer-supported groups, was used as the basis for testing a temporally bounded model of group behavior. The basic argument underlying this model is that computer-supported groups, given adequate time, will exchange enough social information to develop strong relational links. Thus, while computer support was expected to limit group interactions initially, the model predicted that, over a period of time, such constraints would dissipate. The results show evidence of such shifts among computer-supported groups. Attitudes of GSS users changed over time from highly negative to somewhat positive; outcomes improved more slowly. The turnaround in attitudes of users-toward each other and the interaction process support the SIP perspective that repeated use of computer support - despite some inherent initial restrictions--can help groups affiliate.
Economic, social, and political institutions worldwide are relying increasingly on communication technology to perform a variety of functions: holding electronic town meetings where hundreds of people in numerous cities participate simultaneously; forging strategic links with business partners, thereby forming "virtual corporations" that can be instantly disbanded: redefining the conventional notion of a college campus by offering classes via interactive media to non-traditional students; and enabling consumers with personal digital assistants to remain connected with their children and families at all times. In this environment, where geographic and temporal boundaries are shrinking rapidly, electronic meeting systems (EMS) are playing an important role. This study examines the impact on teams of using EMS in dispersed and face-to-face settings. The results suggest that EMS can be effective in augmenting traditional audio-conferencing by strengthening the medium and allowing additional communication cues to be exchanged among participants. They also indicate that EMS can improve decision-making performance, given proper task-technology fit and adequate facilitation. As businesses expand globally, such systems will provide instant communication capabilities and help coordinate dispersed decision-making activities.
This paper reports on a study aimed at integrating an important but neglected behavioral issue--group development--into group decision support systems (GDSS) research. Group development is based on the fact that most groups have a past and a future, and this affects group outcomes. However, most GDSS studies have investigated only a single group session. This study examined the behavior of groups using a GDSS over multiple sessions. The study reported in this paper specifically examined the following two questions: (1) does computer support affect the development of decision-making groups? and (2) do the patterns of development differ over time between computer-supported and manual groups? These two questions were studied using a two-factorial repeated measures research design. Results showed significant differences in development patterns between computer-supported groups and manual groups in terms of conflict management and degree of cohesiveness. After adapting to GDSS, computer-supported groups displayed more productive conflict management and higher group cohesiveness than manual groups.