Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 512

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Review: A Cognitive-Affective Model of Organizational Communication for Designing IT1,2

Dov, Te’eni·2001·MIS Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/3250931
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There are several theories available to describe how managers choose a medium for communication. However, current technology can affect not only how we communicate but also what we communicate. As a result, the issue for designers of communication support systems has become broader: how should technology be designed to make communication more effective by changing the medium and the attributes of the message itself? The answer to this question requires a shift from current preoccupations with the medium of communication to a view that assesses the balance between medium and message form. There is also a need to look more closely at the process of communication in order to identify more precisely any potential areas of computer support. This paper provides the spadework for a new model of organizational communication, and uses it to review existing research, as well as to suggest directions for future research and development. Beginning with the crucial aspects of action, relationship, and choice, an integrated model of how people communicate is developed. This model incorporates three basic factors: (1) inputs to the communication process (task, sender-receiver distance, and values and norms of communication with a particular emphasis on inter-cultural communication); (2) a cognitive-affective process of communication; and (3) the communication impact on action and relationship. The glue that bonds these factors together is a set of communication strategies aimed at reducing the complexity of communication. The model provides a balance between relationship and action, between cognition and affect, and between message and medium. Such a balance has been lacking in previous work, and we believe it reflects a more realistic picture of communication behavior in organizations. A set of propositions generated from the model sets an agenda for studying the communication process as well as its inputs and outputs. Furthermore, this knowledge of the mechanisms that guide behavior is used to demonstrate the potential for developing design principles for future communication support systems.

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 · 10.2307/3250931

Cites

17 of 17 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 17 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Dov, T.
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2001-06-01
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
251-312
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
DOI
10.2307/3250931
OpenAlex
W1496596930
Cited by
512
References
17
FWCI
78.75
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.