Prashant Bordia (1997)
Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: A Synthesis of the Experimental Literature.
Journal of Business Communication, 34,1,99-118.
Review, mostly experimental studies- business, sociological psychological ( up to 1997).
Some limitations merely technical
CMC - Reduced normative social pressure, more equal participation ( compounded by experience whether face to face or CMC), greater tendency to put forward decision preferences, more ideas generation BUT preference for Face to face when it comes to resolving disagreement.
Reviewed 18 experimental studies of CMC from business, sociological & psychological databases. Most of the studies used student samples with varying degrees of experience in CMC. Also, the studies differ on the nature of the task, the time allotted to complete the task, the degree of anonymity, and group member proximity in the CMC condition.
Proposition 1: CMC groups take longer to complete the allotted task.
Yes but 40% due to typing.
Proposition 2: In a given time period CMC groups produce fewer remarks than FTF groups.
7/18 studies looked at this variable, 5 found in the affirmative.
CMC groups have about equal or more task-oriented remarks and decision proposals (Dubrovsky et al., 1991; Siegel et al., 1986). Weisband (1992) reported more implicit decision preferences, explicit decision proposals, social pressure remarks, process remarks, and task irrelevant remarks in the CMC condition. According to McGuire et al. (1987), there were about the same number of remarks advocating a position in the CMC and the FTF groups. Thus, in terms of exchanging task related comments, CMC and FTF groups are not too different. The difference seems to be in the social-emotional exchange. FTF groups have more tension release and agreement statements, while CMC groups have a tendency of giving more suggestions, orientation, opinions (Hiltz et al., 1986), formal expressions, and fewer spontaneous questions (Kiesler, Zubrow, & Moses, 1985).
Proposition 3 CMC groups perform better than FTF groups on idea generation tasks.
Gallupe, Dennis, Cooper, Valacich, Bastianutti, and Nunamaker (1992) observed that, as group size increased, productivity per person decreased in FTF groups but stayed the same in CMC groups.
The major advantage of CMC groups lies in reduced production blocking and evaluation apprehension (Gallupe, Cooper, Grise, & Bastianutti, 1994). Gallupe et al. (1994) effectively demonstrated that, when production blocking is introduced in the CMC condition (freezing the keyboard, introducing "turn taking" and "first in" procedures),
performance decreased dramatically.
Proposition 4: There is greater equality of participation in CMC groups.
Equality of participation in the CMC condition is a fairly consistent finding. In addition, in CMC groups, the difference between high and low status member participation is less (Dubrovsky et al., 1991) and they are less likely to have one individual dominating
the discussion (Hiitz et al., 1986).
Interestingly, Adrianson and Hjelmquist (1991) found no difference in participation between the CMC groups and FTF groups, but they noted a strong effect of experience. Experienced subjects participated more equally in the two conditions
Proposition 5: When time is limited, CMC groups perform better than FTF groups on tasks involving less, and worse on tasks requiring more, social-emotional interaction. Given enough time, CMC groups perform as well as FTF groups.
Strong evidence supports the idea that, when a task involves less social-emotional interaction (such as idea generation), CMC groups perform better than FTF groups. For example, studies of group brainstorming reveal that CMC groups produce more nonredundant ideas than FTF groups (Gallupe et al., 1991). However, because of less
social-emotional interaction in CMC, these groups do not perform as well as FTF groups in tasks that require more social-emotional conversation (Kiesler et al, 1985) or increased interdependence (Straus& McGrath, 1994).
Proposition 6: There is reduced normative social pressure in CMC groups.
Several indirect and direct findings in this literature seem to indicate that there is less normative interpersonal or social pressure in CMC groups. First, CMC groups take longer to reach consensus (Dubrovsky et al., 1991; McGuire et al., 1987; Weisband, 1992). Second, there is greater opinion change and conformity to group decision
in FTF groups (Adrianson & Hjelmquist, 1991), and less agreement in CMC groups (Hiltz et al., 1986). These findings indirectly suggest reduced normative pressure in CMC groups.
Proposition 7: Perception (understanding) of partner and task is poorer in CMC groups.
Most studies affirm this proposition
Researchers have also reported on how the group member, who finally records the group's choice or decision, makes more errors in the CMC condition than in the FTF condition.
Proposition 8: In CMC, evaluation of the communication partner is poorer under conditions of limited time. Evaluation of the medium is influenced by the type of the task.
Some research studies affirm, some don’t. Also there are consequences that depend on this proposition.
Straus and McGarth (1994) noted that, as tasks needed more interdependence, the difference in satisfaction with the medium increased (lower satisfaction expressed for CMC).
the function "giving or receiving orders" produced no difference for medium (both media equally good); whereas, "resolving disagreements" had the maximum
difference (FTF medium preferred).
type of task seems to decide which medium is favored. In the case of idea-generation (brainstorming) tasks for example, the CMC condition was favored. Subjects in the FTF condition rated the task as more difficult, were less comfortable with the process, believed
they had participated less, and were more apprehensive than were subjects in the CMC condition (Gallupe et al., 1991).
Proposition 9a: There is higher incidence of uninhibited behavior in CMC groups.
Some studies yes some no.
Proposition 9b: CMC induces a state of deindividuation, which in turn leads to uninhibited behavior.
In the literature on CMC there is some confusion over the effects of deindividuation. Further research needs to be done to resolve identity and self-awareness issues in CMC.
Proposition 10: CMC groups, as compared to FTF groups, exhibit less choice shift or attitude change.
Findings comparing choice shift or attitude change in CMC and FTF groups are contradictory.
Refs to follow up?
Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making:
communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized
conferences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225-252.
Hiltz, S. R., Turoff, M., & Johnson, K. (1989). Experiments in group decision making,
3: Disinhibition, deindividuation. and group process in pen name and real
name computer conferences. Decision Support Systems, 5, 217-232.
