Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 654

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

HILTZ, STARR ROXANNE, JOHNSON, KENNETH, TUROFF, MURRAY·1986·Human Communication Research
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00104.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00104.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

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
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00104.x
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

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.