The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups
Abstract
New computer-based communications technologies make possible new or expanded forms of group work. Although earlier researchers suggest that scant social information in these technologies might cause status equalization in groups, no experimental test of this phenomenon has been made. In a laboratory experiment, we compared face-to-face communication with electronic mail in decision-making groups whose members differed in social status. We examined status in two ways: by varying the external status of group members, and by varying the decision task to manipulate expertise. When the groups made decisions in face-to-face meetings, the high-status member dominated discussions with the three low-status members. Also, the high-status member more often was a "first advocate" in the face-to-face discussions, and first advocates were more influential than later advocates. These status inequalities in face-to-face decision making were pronounced just when the high-status member's expertise was relevant to the decision task. When the same groups made comparable decisions using electronic mail, status and expertise inequalities in participation were reduced. A striking and unexpected result was that "first" advocacy was shared by high- and low-status members in discussions using electronic mail. This behavior resulted in increased equality of influence across status and expertise. We discuss the implications of these results for research and for design of new communication technologies.
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 psychology of intergroup relations
Tajfel, H. (1982) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245 · Cited by 7,949
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
Self-citationSocial Pressures in Informal Groups
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950) · The American Catholic Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3707362 · Cited by 1,831
The group polarization phenomenon.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602 · Cited by 1,102
The group as a polarizer of attitudes.
Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0027568 · Cited by 1,038
Cited by
Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction
WALTHER, J. B. (1996) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365096023001001 · Cited by 4,798
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x · Cited by 1,242
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01462.x · Cited by 1,000
Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9172-7 · Cited by 811
Leadership Effectiveness in Global Virtual Teams
Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2002) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2002.11045697 · Cited by 736
Panacea or Panopticon?: The Hidden Power in Computer-Mediated Communication
SPEARS, R., & LEA, M. (1994) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365094021004001 · Cited by 705
Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication
Thorne, S. L. (2003) · Language Learning & Technology · doi:10.64152/10125/25200 · Cited by 573
“…and quite robust line of CMC research describes the medium as "not rich enough" for many task-related needs (Daft & Lengel, 1984, in Walther, 1996, p. 3), nor is CMC effective for interpersonal exchanges as there is "scant social information" available (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991, p. 119).”
BackgroundIntroduction to the Special Issue: Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations
DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.6.693 · Cited by 495
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., & Jaspers, J. (2007) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.004 · Cited by 352
A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jimenez-Rodriguez, M., Wildman, J., & Shuffler, M. (2011) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.002 · Cited by 234
An analysis of communication mode in group support systems research
Fjermestad, J. (2004) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(03)00021-6 · Cited by 193
Group Awareness Tools: It’s What You Do with It That Matters
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.002 · Cited by 167
Cho, D., & Kwon, K. H. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.046 · Cited by 107
The quality of online, offline, and mixed-mode friendships among users of a social networking site
Antheunis, M. L., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2012) · Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace · doi:10.5817/cp2012-3-6 · Cited by 101
Credible Threat: Attacks Against Women Online and the Future of Democracy
Sobieraj, S. (2020) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190089283.001.0001 · Cited by 100
Computer-mediated focus groups
Walston, J. T., & Lissitz, R. W. (2000) · Evaluation Review · doi:10.1177/0193841x0002400502 · Cited by 75
Rains, S. A. (2005) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650204273763 · Cited by 74
Team Decision Making in Virtual and Face-to-Face Environments
O’Neill, T. A., Hancock, S. E., Zivkov, K., Larson, N. L., & Law, S. J. (2016) · Group Decision and Negotiation · doi:10.1007/s10726-015-9465-3 · Cited by 54
Koehler, C., & Weber, M. (2018) · Cyberpsychology Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace · doi:10.5817/cp2018-4-4 · Cited by 49
Structuring group decision making in a web-based environment by using the nominal group technique
Lago, P. P., Beruvides, M. G., Jian, J.-Y., Canto, A. M., Sandoval, A., & Taraban, R. (2007) · Computers & Industrial Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cie.2006.11.003 · Cited by 46
Anonymity in classroom voting and debating
Ainsworth, S., Gelmini-Hornsby, G., Threapleton, K., Crook, C., O’Malley, C., & Buda, M. (2011) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.05.001 · Cited by 38
Pragmatics lost? Overview, synthesis and proposition in defining online hate speech
Baider, F. (2020) · Pragmatics and Society · doi:10.1075/ps.20004.bai · Cited by 35
Effects of Cultural Orientation on Attitude Toward Anonymity in E-Collaboration
Zhong, Y., Liu, N., & Lim, J. (2008) · IFIP – The International Federation for Information Processing · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-87503-3_7 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B.
- Venue
- Human-Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1991-06-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 119-146
- ISSN
- 0737-0024 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059308148
- Cited by
- 790
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 44.50
- 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.
