The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Experiments in Group Decision Making Communication Process and Outcome in Face-to-Face Versus Computerized Conferences
Abstract
A 2 × 2 factorial design was used to explore the process and outcome of small group problem-solving discussions for two modes of communication (face-to-face and computerized conferencing) and two types of tasks (a qualitative human relations task and a scientific ranking test with a criterion solution). Interaction process was coded using Bales Interaction Process Analysis. There were two to three times as many communication units in the face to-face groups consisting of five members each as in the computerized conferencing mode of communication during the same elapsed time. Group decisions were equally good in the two modes, but the groups were less likely to reach agreement in the computerized conferencing mode. There were proportionately more of the types of task-oriented communication associated with decision quality in the computerized conferences.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.10.1123 · Cited by 2,630
Cited by
Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction
WALTHER, J. B. (1996) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365096023001001 · Cited by 4,798
The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-Representation on Behavior
Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2007) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.x · Cited by 2,126
Word of mouth communication within online communities: conceptualizing the online social network
Brown, J., Broderick, A. J., & Lee, N. (2007) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.20082 · Cited by 1,661
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x · Cited by 1,242
Computer Networks As Social Networks
Wellman, B. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1065547 · Cited by 918
Metadata
- Authors
- HILTZ, S. R., JOHNSON, K., & TUROFF, M.
- Venue
- Human Communication Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1986-12
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 225-252
- ISSN
- 0360-3989 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2958
- OpenAlex
- W2131631103
- Cited by
- 654
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Experiments in Group Decision Making Communication Process and Outcome in Face-to-Face Versus Computerized Conferences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00104.x
- The paper
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00104.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
