Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Management Communication Quarterly
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Olaniran, B. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Group Performance in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Communication Media

Bolanle A. Olaniran

Texas Tech University

This study explores the effects of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and face-to-face (FTF) media on group performance under four experimental conditions. There were CMC-only, FTF-only, FTF/CMC, and CMC/FTF groups. The study examined three variables: the number of unique ideas generated, the time to reach consensus, and the decision quality. Vigilant interaction theory was helpful in exploring the media effects on group performance. Results indicate that, in general, CMC groups generate a greater number of unique ideas than do FTF groups. However, the CMC effect was greater with CMC/FTF groups. This effect was attributed to CMC's showing a greater potential for preventing productivity loss when there is more likelihood for performance evaluation as group members anticipate future FTF interaction with their coparticipants in CMC. Results also indicate the CMC groups take longer to reach consensus than FTF groups. Decision quality was greater in both FTF/CMC and CMC/FTF groups than in either CMC- and FTF-only groups. This study affirms the need to explore group decision making as a nonunitary process and the need to combine FTF/CMC media for better group performance. The discussion includes implications and recommendations for media combination choice.

Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 3, 256-281 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0893318994007003002
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Social Science Computer ReviewHome page
C. Underhill and M. G. Olmsted
An Experimental Comparison of Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Focus Groups
Social Science Computer Review, November 1, 2003; 21(4): 506 - 512.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Eval RevHome page
J. T. Walston and R. W. Lissitz
Computer-Mediated Focus Groups
Eval Rev, October 1, 2000; 24(5): 457 - 483.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Management EducationHome page
S. Meisel and B. Marx
Screen to Screen Versus Face to Face: Experiencing the Differences in Management Education
Journal of Management Education, December 1, 1999; 23(6): 719 - 731.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Communication ResearchHome page
J. B. WALTHER
Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction
Communication Research, February 1, 1996; 23(1): 3 - 43.
[Abstract]