Bordia 1997 review (business, sociological, psychological)

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.

Emotion in CMC Review article (Derks et al, 2008)

The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: A review

Derks, D., Fischer, A.H., and Bos, A. (2008)

Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol 24, Issue 3, 766-785.

Method

Reviewed Psychoinfo, Medline Google scholar & professional network.

Key terms; emoticons, flaming, unihibited behaviour, anonymity, emotion and mood in combination with CMC, F2F, social sharing, internet, onlinbe, self disclosure, anonymity, gender differences, display rules, mimicry and anonymity.

Studies with a social interaction setting; restricted to text based CMC.

Romantic relationships and non English language papers were excluded

Definition of emotion communication:

the recognition , expression and sharing of emotions or moods between two or more individuals. Explicit emotion communication involves references to discrete emotions through verbal labels ( I am very angry) appraisals ( this is scary) and tendencies to act ( I would like to hit you) or emblems ( emoticons). Implicit emotional communication includes the emotional style of the message, as can be inferred from the degree of personal involvement, self disclosure, language use, etc.

Comparing FtoF and CMC for emotions, sociality the most important aspect to consider.

First

Literature review in terms of social presence

1. The difference is the impact of context on social presence (sociality).( Short, Williams & Christie, 1976).

2. Manstead (in press) proposes 2 dimensions; the physical and the social.

The physical means there is no bodily contact and no visibility.

The lack of visibility links to the social to contribute to a reduced relational salience.

Furthermore the other person may be unknown and together with reduced salience it increases anonymity of the situation . i.e. visibility and knowing the person are additive when it comes to the social presence equation.

Derks et al : What does this mean for emotional experience?

• bodily contact - probably more relevant to intimate relationships
• visibility -implications for the decoding and recognition of others' emotions, also the expression of one's own emotion is less visible

3. interaction between social norms & social presence ( Potmes, Spears etc)

No social cues at the outset, SIDE sees this as significant for increasing ingroup identity ( ? therefore salience of the situation) but social cues tend to 'leak out' .

KRO what is the implication of this - ? need to view from a developmental perspective.

Three points of focus for the literature review and as far as possible compared f-to-f and CMC

1. Emotion talk as part of content
2. expression of emotion
3. recognition of emotion ( but little research)

1. Emotion as part of content

f-to-f

need to talk about emotions - social sharing- a general manifestation of f-to-f ( Christophe & Rime, 1997) , the more intense the feeling the more inclined to talk about the event.

once exposed to social sharing it is then common to share with a third person i.e. non anonymity of source

'in a met-analytic review, Collins & Miller (1994) found that people who engage in intimate disclosures tend to be liked more than those who disclose less' i.e. sharing emotions is a useful tool. Disclosing emotions 'healthy and good for well being'

CMC

use of MSN (KRO and & ? facebook)

online dating

CMC mediated therapies

studies of self disclosure

(Savicki (1991), Savicki & Kelly (2000), Herring. Men ignore socio-emotional, they are more task orientated and less satisfied with the medium. Women in female only groups self disclose and attempt to reduce tension . I statements & directly addressing group members more likely More likely to thank, appreciate and apologise and be upset by violations of politeness. Men ignore socio-emotional, more task orientated and less satisfied with the medium.)

2. Expression of emotion

F-to-f

studies into the effect of co-presence

Fridlund compared

a) f-to-f

b) imaginary present

c) alone

There was more smiling in conditions a) and b) than c). More likely to cry when alone.

display rules and the identity of interactants

Hess, Fischer . power relations and the activation of different display rules. Social position prescribes what emotions to display.

relationships - friendships accentuate facial expression i.e. relationships as a mediator of expression. (KRO anonymity and stranger may operate together in CMC)

gender - some evidence for gender differences in display rules

CMC ( almost total focus on flaming!)

Siegel et al (1986) compared groups engaged on identical tasks. Flaming was more common in CMC. No difference between synchronous and asynchronous CMC.

3. recognition of emotion

lack of visibility therefore no NVC.

Function of NVC in f-to-f

• reduce ambiguity
• tone down or intensify emotional expression ( Lee & Wagner)
• animate and/or clarify interaction
• elicit mimicry - particularly important for establishing positive relationships

Comparing f-to-f and CMC

Sasaki & Ohbuchi (1999)

compared interaction via CMC and f-to-f ( vocal)

The task was to interact with a confederate in two hypothetical conflict situations in which confederate had to accept an unreasonable request. Didn't see each other in either situation. Confederates voice manipulated to produce either a positive or a negative tone. P's asked to rate emotions and intentions of the confederate. Emotions equally intense for each ' in vocal condition, however, angry emotions and perceived negative intents prompted aggressive responses, whilst such effects were absent in CMC' , p8.

Consider whether lack of NVC in CMC can lead to either over estimation or underestimation of emotional state and therefore inappropriate reactions or judgements of others.

CMC

emoticons

like NVC can serve to accentuate, emphasise, clarify.

Derks et al (2007) manipulated the social context of chat ( task or socio-emotional) and valence ( positive or negative) . Ps could respond with text, emoticon or a combination. Social contexts tended to attract emoticons. Positive emotions in contexts with positive valence negative emoticons in contexts with negative valence.

BUT

when task orientated Ps used the least number of emoticons p9 ' individuals have to be more accurate, they have more explaining to do, and if possible, they are required to present alternatives.

AND

use of emoticons is deliberate ( voluntary)

Authors concludes that absence of NVC is taken over. p10. individuals more explicitly describe or label their emotions in CMC compared to F2F. There is no research in which this is directly compared, however.

Authors claim that MIMICRY cannot be achieved in CMC KRO but presentational style may be a way.

Questions

Is emotional embodiment reduced in CMC?

Is emotional reaction easier to control in CMC?

Is spontaneity reduced ( i.e. asynchronous -time to reflect)