The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Group Task Performance and Communication Technology: A Longitudinal Study of Computer-Mediated Versus Face-to-Face Work Groups
Abstract
This article explores the effectiveness of two theoretical models in predicting the effects of computer-mediated comnusnication and task type on group taskperformance. Thefirstmodel (task as moderator) predicts that the type of task on which the group is working moderates the effects of communication medium on task performance over time. The second model (change as moderator) predicts that cumulative experience and certain kinds of changes imposed on the group moderate these effects. The relationship between technology and task performance appeared to be more dependent on experience with the technology and with group membership than on the type of task on which the group was working. Results also suggested that the newness of the medium and not the newness of the group led to poorer task performance for computer groups in some weeks. Although there were no differences in performance between computer groups andface-to-face groupsfor generate and decision-making tasks,face-to-face groups performed betteron negotiation and intellective tasks than did their computer-mediated counterparts. Results supported all of the predictions of the second model but only partially supported the first model. These findings have important implications forfuture research and practice.
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
Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 · Cited by 9,868
Cited by
Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.6.791 · Cited by 2,903
Wright, K. B. (2006) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x · Cited by 2,550
Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity1
Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148857 · Cited by 1,511
Virtual Teams versus Face‐to‐Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web‐based Conference System*
Warkentin, M. E., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R. (1997) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01338.x · Cited by 663
The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1093/hcr/26.3.341 · Cited by 557
Metadata
- Authors
- Hollingshead, A. B., Mcgrath, J. E., & O'Connor, K. M.
- Venue
- Small Group Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1993-08
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 307-333
- ISSN
- 1046-4964 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8278
- OpenAlex
- W2148495933
- Cited by
- 483
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.25
- 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.