Upload
agamemnon-elena
View
34
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Groupware. Old wine in new bottles. Or…You plus Me less Them = US. 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. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Or…You plus Me less Them = US
Groupware
Old wine in new bottles
brianwhitworth.com2
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
brianwhitworth.com3
Why is agreement important?
No Group Action
The Group Acts!
brianwhitworth.com4
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
brianwhitworth.com5
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
brianwhitworth.com6
Aims
• Examine assumptions behind media
richness approach
• Propose an alternative “cognitive” or
human process based perspective
• Explore some implications
brianwhitworth.com7
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
brianwhitworth.com8
I. Media richness defines communication richness
• Computer channels are too “narrow” to transmit rich social influence
Task Information
Social Information
Computer Channel
brianwhitworth.com9
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
brianwhitworth.com10
A cognitive perspective
• Meaning is a cognitive overlay on physical reality
Cognitive Process
Physical signal
Meaning
A lean message can have a rich meaning
brianwhitworth.com11
Multi-Threading
Contentanalysis
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
brianwhitworth.com12
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
brianwhitworth.com13
Many properties of media
• Number of channels• Channel bandwidth• Interactivity• Synchrony/asynchrony• Transmission cost• Linkage
Comparing FTF & Computer interaction
is to confound variables
brianwhitworth.com14
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
brianwhitworth.com15
Underwater
• Translate: Walking - slow
• Adapt: Swimming - better
• Invent: Flippers - best ...
brianwhitworth.com16
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
brianwhitworth.com17
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)
brianwhitworth.com18
Relating
• Involves the cognitive entity “relationship”
• Operates differently from task information analysis– Interactive - turn based, time sequential– Signed - not anonymous– Genuine and spontaneous– Ambiguity
brianwhitworth.com19
Relating and ambiguityIn relating, ambiguity is a social
lubricant
Want to go out to McDonalds?
Maybe
I hate McDonalds
Or perhaps Luigi’s?
Great!
brianwhitworth.com20
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
brianwhitworth.com21
IV. Personal interaction creates cohesion
Group cohesiveness involves interpersonal attraction, social presence, and hence rich cues (Hogg, 1992)
A
CB
D
brianwhitworth.com22
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
brianwhitworth.com23
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
brianwhitworth.com24
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
brianwhitworth.com25
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
brianwhitworth.com26
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
brianwhitworth.com27
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)
brianwhitworth.com28
Multi-threaded communication
Context: Sender state information
Content: Task or factual information
Position: Action or intention to act
brianwhitworth.com29
Example
“Thanks for the great party, man!”
Content: Party was greatContext: HappyPosition: About to leave
brianwhitworth.com30
Conclusions
I. Meaning is a cognitive overlayII. Environments are multi-
dimensionalIII. Relating is distinct from task
information analysisIV. Group identification (which causes
cohesion) is distinct from relating
brianwhitworth.com31
Bipolar models
Task vs Socio-Emotional (Bales)
Interpersonal vs Normative (Social Identity Theory)
Informational vs Normative (Deutsch & Gerard,1965)
Task vs Interpersonal vs Normative
brianwhitworth.com32
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
brianwhitworth.com33
Resolving the task
• Individual level• One-way, one-to-many• Task information• Gives task output• Can be anonymous• Work setting
brianwhitworth.com34
Relating to Others
• Dyadic level• Two-way, one-to-one• Sender information • Gives interpersonal output• Cannot be anonymous • Social setting
brianwhitworth.com35
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
brianwhitworth.com36
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
brianwhitworth.com37
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
brianwhitworth.com38
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
brianwhitworth.com39
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
brianwhitworth.com40
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
brianwhitworth.com41
Treatments
I. BlindII. Group aware
- exchanged position information
III. Group and confidence aware -exchanged position andconfidence informationComputer-mediated vs altered CM design
brianwhitworth.com42
Position information exchange
AAABB Group Position: A
• Three voted for A • Two voted for B• Anonymous voting
brianwhitworth.com43
Confidence Symbols
Very Confident !!Confident !Fairly ConfidentNot Very Confident ½Not Confident at All ¼
brianwhitworth.com44
Confidence information exchange
A¼A¼A ¼B!!B!! Group Position: A
• Three weak votes for A • Two strong votes for B
brianwhitworth.com45
Informationexchanged
First IE Set Second IESet
Third IE Set
Blind Intellective
Preference
Group Intellective Intellective Intellective
aware Preference Preference Preference
Confidence Intellective Intellective Intellective
aware Preference Preference Preference
Design
Repeated measures design - every subject under every treatment
brianwhitworth.com46
Effect on Agreement
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
A
Blind Position Confidence
Information Exchanged9% of votes unanimous
66% of votes unanimous
brianwhitworth.com47
“I think I agreed with most of what the group decided”
4.08
5.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Response
Blind
Group Aware
Tre
atm
ent
Key1 = Strongly Disagree4 = In the Middle7 = Strongly Agree
brianwhitworth.com48
Effect on Confidence
3.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.9
44.1
C
Blind Position Confidence
Information Exchanged
Group position increased confidence
Key1 = Not confident at all3 = Fairly confident4 = Confident5 = Very Confident
brianwhitworth.com49
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
brianwhitworth.com50
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
brianwhitworth.com51
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
brianwhitworth.com52
Levels of Groupware Support
I Supports factual information
exchangeII Supports relationshipsIII Supports groups, norms
and social structures
I
I IIII
brianwhitworth.com53
1.Represent the group
Who am I ?(my identity)
3.Resolve the task
What is the issue?(in me/you context)
2.Relate to another
Who are you?(in relation to me)
BEHAVIOUR
Action based onidentity
Action based onrelationship
Action based ontask information
Given who I am,our relationshipmust be this way
Given who I am,the task must beresolved this way
Given our relation,the task must beresolved this way
brianwhitworth.com54
Final CommentGroupware 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.
brianwhitworth.com55
May the wine mature!