The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Much Bandwidth Is Enough? A Longitudinal Examination of Media Characteristics and Group Outcomes1
Abstract
This study addresses three key issues related to media differences among computer-mediated groups meeting face-to-face, synchronously, and asynchronously: First, do groups using different media perceive characteristics of these media differently? Second, do media-related perceptions remain static or change as they are used over time? And finally, do media differences result in performance differences, i.e., do richer media result in better performance for equivocal tasks as predicted by bandwidth theories? Some results of this study tend to support media-characteristics theories while others offer limited support for more evolutionary perspectives. For instance, initially, face-to-face groups found their medium to be warmer, have a better interface, and be more effective compared to their distributed counterparts. While many of these initial perceptions lingered over time, there was one notable exception. At the start of the study, face- to-face groups rated their medium as being more effective than synchronous groups; however, by the end of the study, no significant differences were apparent. Moreover, despite the persistently lower social presence of leaner media, distributed-synchronous groups performed better than their face-to-face counterparts. Finally, the two types of distributed groups—synchronous and asynchronous—did not differ significantly in their perceptions or performance. This study improves our understanding of distributed interaction while simultaneously highlighting the need to further investigate the relationships among tasks, technologies and teams over time.
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
Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction
WALTHER, J. B. (1996) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365096023001001 · Cited by 4,798
Estimation of the reliability of ratings.
Ebel, R. L. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02288803 · Cited by 976
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
Defining E‐leadership as Competence in ICT‐Mediated Communications: An Exploratory Assessment
Roman, A. V., Van Wart, M., Wang, X., Liu, C., Kim, S., & McCarthy, A. (2019) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.12980 · Cited by 259
Can You Hear Me Now? Communication in Virtual Product Development Teams*
Montoya, M. M., Massey, A. P., Hung, Y. C., & Crisp, C. B. (2009) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00342.x · Cited by 135
Computer‐mediated communication: synchronicity and compensatory effort
Münzer, S., & Borg, A. (2008) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1387 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Burke, K., & Chidambaram, L.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 1999-12-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 557-579
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W1557012556
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.85
- 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.