The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality
Abstract
Media richness theory argues that performance improves when team members use “richer” media for equivocal tasks. This experiment studied the effects of media richness on decision making in two-person teams using “new media” (i.e., computer-mediated and video communication). Media richness was varied based on multiplicity of cues and immediacy of feedback. Subjects perceived differences in richness due to both cues and feedback, but matching richness to task equivocality did not improve decision quality, decision time, consensus change, or communication satisfaction. Use of media providing fewer cues (i.e., computer mediated communication) led to slower decisions and more so for the less equivocal task. In short, the results found no support for the central proposition of media richness theory; matching media richness to task equivocality did not improve performance.
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
Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences
Kirk, R. (2013) · doi:10.4135/9781483384733 · Cited by 8,539
Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction
WALTHER, J. B. (1996) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365096023001001 · Cited by 4,798
Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication.
Krauss, R. M., & Weinheimer, S. (1966) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0023705 · Cited by 342
(2014) · doi:10.4324/9781315807645 · Cited by 215
Cited by
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
Self-citationInformational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption
Sussman, S. W., & Siegal, W. S. (2003) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.14.1.47.14767 · Cited by 1,250
Introduction 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
Egocentrism over e-mail: can we communicate as well as we think?
Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z.-W. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925 · Cited by 425
Virtual Work: Bridging Research Clusters
Raghuram, S., Hill, N. S., Gibbs, J. L., & Maruping, L. M. (2019) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2017.0020 · Cited by 426
Metadata
- Authors
- Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 1998-09
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 256-274
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W2139115720
- Cited by
- 1,018
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 22.67
- 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: Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/isre.9.3.256
- The paper
- Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality. Information Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.3.256
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.
