2. Or…You plus Me less Them = US Groupware Old wine in new bottles

3. brianwhitworth.com 2 Agreement Many real life tasks are “equivocal”, i.e. have no best or correct answer Unless the group “enacts” agreement, it cannot act So agreement is a critical group output Distinct from task performance

4. brianwhitworth.com 3 Why is agreement important? No Group Action The Group Acts!

5. brianwhitworth.com 4 Computer Mediated vs FTF Groups Task performance as good or better than FTF Generally less agreement than FTF Generally less decision confidence Slower acting (take longer) Lower process satisfaction

6. brianwhitworth.com 5 Media Richness Theory A physical approach, i.e. rich communication requires a high physical bandwidth for high information transfer Ambiguous social situations require high information transfer to “disambiguate” them CMI agreement is low because “rich” social influence cannot squeeze through the “lean” electronic channel

7. brianwhitworth.com 6 Aims Examine assumptions behind media richness approach Propose an alternative “cognitive” or human process based perspective Explore some implications

8. brianwhitworth.com 7 Assumptions of MR I. Media richness defines communication richness II. Richness is a primary property of media III.Information exchange reduces ambiguity IV.Personal interactions give group cohesion

9. brianwhitworth.com 8 I. Media richness defines communication richness Computer channels are too “narrow” to transmit rich social influence Task Information Social Information Computer Channel

10. brianwhitworth.com 9 Findings Lean, text based e-mail is very friendly -Email can be more friendly than face-to- face Online groups behave like face-to-face groups (norms, jargon, roles, identity) Some CM groups report more agreement than face-to-face CM groups polarize

11. brianwhitworth.com 10 A cognitive perspective Meaning is a cognitive overlay on physical reality Cognitive Process Physical signal Meaning A lean message can have a rich meaning

12. brianwhitworth.com 11 Multi-Threading Content analysis I AM NOT ANGRY! Context analysis He is not angry He is angry Multiple cognitive processes can operate on one physical signal Messages carry content and context (sender) information

13. brianwhitworth.com 12 II. Richness is a primary property of media That media can be classified according to their richness or bandwidth –Often audio is the most efficient –E-mail is preferred to telephone for some tasks Media cannot be arranged along a single dimension for all tasks

14. brianwhitworth.com 13 Many properties of media Number of channels Channel bandwidth Interactivity Synchrony/asynchrony Transmission cost Linkage Comparing FTF & Computer interaction is to confound variables

15. brianwhitworth.com 14 Incomparability of environments Groupware is a communication environment The FTF environment is the physical world Cannot judge one environment by the criteria of another Often cannot convert activities from one environment to another We adapt to environments

16. brianwhitworth.com 15 Underwater Translate: Walking - slow Adapt: Swimming - better Invent: Flippers - best...

17. brianwhitworth.com 16 No “best” environment No best groupware configuration Different configurations favor different purposes (contingency theory) Implies need for software flexibility, which people can adapt to their needs

18. brianwhitworth.com 17 III. Information exchange reduces ambiguity? “Equivocal” tasks are invariably those where personal relationships are important (e.g. getting to know someone, resolving a personal disagreement, negotiating, firing someone)

19. brianwhitworth.com 18 Relating Involves the cognitive entity “relationship” Operates differently from task information analysis –Interactive - turn based, time sequential –Signed - not anonymous –Genuine and spontaneous –Ambiguity

20. brianwhitworth.com 19 Relating and ambiguity In relating, ambiguity is a social lubricant Want to go out to McDonalds? Maybe I hate McDonalds Or perhaps Luigi’s? Great!

21. brianwhitworth.com 20 An unexpected conclusion Maintaining relationships may be as important as task analysis & completion Face-to-face interaction may be preferred in situations where relationships are important because it allows more ambiguity, rather than less Cannot just consider task purpose

22. brianwhitworth.com 21 IV. Personal interaction creates cohesion Group cohesiveness involves interpersonal attraction, social presence, and hence rich cues (Hogg, 1992) A C B D

23. brianwhitworth.com 22 Two processes - Bales IPA Task resolution –Informational influence –Message content One communication can contain both (McGrath 1984) Group interaction has both task and social outputs Socio-emotional –Interpersonal influence –Message context e.g. voice tone

24. brianwhitworth.com 23 Serious problems Large groups are as cohesive as small ones Cohesive group members may all dislike each other Bales’ SE factor splits (social & emotional) Distributed CM groups agree less when FTF Anonymous CM groups polarize Reducing social presence does not increase anti-normative behavior

25. brianwhitworth.com 24 The influence of the group Results can be resolved by extending Bale’s theory Social identity theory reinvents “group” as a cognitive entity Group influence is distinct from personal influence

26. brianwhitworth.com 25 Social identity theory Identity - the idea of “self” (a cognition) Behavior conforms to identity Groups form a group identity, which group members take into their own identity Common identity gives common behavior We identify with the group, not the people in it

27. brianwhitworth.com 26 Which has more effect? Personal one-one discussion with a nutritionist for 25 minutes Directed discussion in a like group for 25 minutes Radke & Klisurich, 1947

28. brianwhitworth.com 27 Normative Process Herd behaviour? - we are group animals Individuals adjust to group position Mental not physical positions Must know only: –own position –group position (majority)

29. brianwhitworth.com 28 Multi-threaded communication Context: Sender state information Content: Task or factual information Position: Action or intention to act

30. brianwhitworth.com 29 Example “Thanks for the great party, man!” Content: Party was great Context: Happy Position: About to leave

31. brianwhitworth.com 30 Conclusions I. Meaning is a cognitive overlay II. Environments are multi-dimensional III.Relating is distinct from task information analysis IV.Group identification (which causes cohesion) is distinct from relating

32. brianwhitworth.com 31 Bipolar models Task vs Socio-Emotional (Bales) Interpersonal vs Normative (Social Identity Theory) Informational vs Normative (Deutsch & Gerard,1965) Task vs Interpersonal vs Normative

33. brianwhitworth.com 32 Cognitive three-process (C3P) model Resolving the task: Informational influence Relating to others: Personal influence Representing the group: Normative influence All processes overlap in behavior

34. brianwhitworth.com 33 Resolving the task Individual level One-way, one-to-many Task information Gives task output Can be anonymous Work setting

35. brianwhitworth.com 34 Relating to Others Dyadic level Two-way, one-to-one Sender information Gives interpersonal output Cannot be anonymous Social setting

36. brianwhitworth.com 35 Representing the Group Group level Two-way, many-to-many Group position information exchanged Gives a result valuable to the group Can be anonymous Where group action required

37. brianwhitworth.com 36 Agreement conclusions Media richness or bandwidth has little to do with generation of group agreement Normative influence is the main generator of group agreement Main requirement for normative influence is many-to-many linkage

38. brianwhitworth.com 37 Many-to many linkage e.g. A choir singing Each contributes to the group sound The communication environment merges all into one sound Each individual hears and is influenced by the whole group Singing groups go off key together

39. brianwhitworth.com 38 E-mail group discussion Manager e-mails 20 people Each replies to 20 people After one interaction, could have 400 e-mails After two rounds could have 800 Information overload

40. brianwhitworth.com 39 Electronic Voting Computer can merge group positions by calculation One vote can replace 400 emails for the purpose of generating agreement As different from a “formal” vote as e- mail is from a letter Computer makes voting easy

41. brianwhitworth.com 40 An experimental test 1. Agreement requires: Rich communication Task information Conflict resolution Signed interaction 2. Agreement requires: No rich communication No task information No conflict resolution No personal interaction Enactment of agreement only requires the exchange of position information

42. brianwhitworth.com 41 Treatments I. Blind II.Group aware - exchanged position information III. Group and confidence aware - exchanged position and confidence information Computer-mediated vs altered CM design

43. brianwhitworth.com 42 Position information exchange AAABB Group Position: A Three voted for A Two voted for B Anonymous voting

44. brianwhitworth.com 43 Confidence Symbols Very Confident!! Confident! Fairly Confident Not Very Confident½ Not Confident at All¼

45. brianwhitworth.com 44 Confidence information exchange A ¼ A ¼ A ¼ B!!B!! Group Position: A Three weak votes for A Two strong votes for B

46. brianwhitworth.com 45 Design Repeated measures design - every subject under every treatment

47. brianwhitworth.com 46 Effect on Agreement 9% of votes unanimous 66% of votes unanimous

48. brianwhitworth.com 47 “I think I agreed with most of what the group decided” Key 1 = Strongly Disagree 4 = In the Middle 7 = Strongly Agree

49. brianwhitworth.com 48 Effect on Confidence Group position increased confidence Key 1 = Not confident at all 3 = Fairly confident 4 = Confident 5 = Very Confident

50. brianwhitworth.com 49 Agreement was enacted without Rich communication medium Rich information exchange Reasons or arguments Personal context or social presence Any development of trust Any surfacing or resolution of conflict Signed interaction (i.e. anonymously) All that was required was the exchange of position information

51. brianwhitworth.com 50 Summary C3P model suggests three purposes in group interaction: –To resolve task information –To maintain and develop interpersonal relationships –To maintain and develop group unity The primary process generating group agreement is normative

52. brianwhitworth.com 51 Dynamic Interaction Task Relationships Group The complexity of group interaction arises less from the complexity of individual cognitive processes than from their dynamic interaction and overlap

53. brianwhitworth.com 52 Levels of Groupware Support ISupports factual information exchange IISupports relationships IIISupports groups, norms and social structures I I III

54. brianwhitworth.com 53

55. brianwhitworth.com 54 Final Comment Groupware is currently at an interval. The next major step, of which the Internet is just a beginning, is the migration of human social life online. To take this step we must recognize the dynamic complexity of group interaction, and distinguish normative from personal influence. Groupware will “come of age” when it can recognize and support both types of social influence.

56. brianwhitworth.com 55 May the wine mature!