comparison of the effects of oral and written ...irss.academyirmbr.com/papers/1447225052.pdf...

ISSN 2309-0081 Peña, Rangel & Maciel (2015)

487

I

www.irss.academyirmbr.com November 2015

International Review of Social Sciences Vol. 3 Issue.11

R S S

Comparison of the Effects of Oral and Written

Communication on the Performance of Cooperative Tasks

ADRIANA PEÑA PÉREZ NEGRÓN Research Professor at Computer Science Department CUCEI, Universidad de Guadalajara, México.

Email: [email protected]

NORA EDITH RANGEL BERNAL Research Professor at Centro de Estudios e Investigaciones en Comportamiento, Universidad de

Guadalajara, México. Francisco de Quevedo #180, Col. Arcos Vallarta, Guadalajara, Jal., C. P. 44130,

México.

Email: [email protected]

OSCAR EDUARDO MACIEL CASTILLO Undergraduate Student at CUCEI, Universidad de Guadalajara, México.

Abstract

In this paper, a study was made in order to compare the effects of oral and written communication on the

performance of cooperative tasks. Also, it was evaluated if there were differences in the type of

participants‟ verbal interactions (directive vs. non-directive) due to the form of communication allowed

and its effect in the task performance. Sixteen undergraduate students assembled tridimensional figures in

two computers connected via Internet. Participants were randomly assigned in two groups exposed to an

inverted sequence of two experimental conditions during the task solution: with the possibility of oral or

written communication. Results showed similar efficient rates when the participants were exposed to oral

or written communication. About directive and non-directive interactions it was observed that in almost all

dyads one of the participants showed more directive verbal interventions than his/her peer, regardless of

the mode of communication used in the experimental session. Results are discussed in terms of the

morphology vs. the function of the stipulated modes of communication.

Key Words: Cooperation, Oral Communication, Written Communication, Communication Effect, Social

Behavior.

Introduction

According to Ribes (2001) and Ribes, Rangel & López (2008), the social behavior is possible by a

conventional contact media in which interactions among individuals and their environment are articulated

as, and through, language. Ribes, et al. (2005) recognized that in the study of different cooperative

relations, the linguistic behavior could be a determinant factor of its occurrence.

In such a way that in the experimental study of social behavior, it has been found that in choice situations

between cooperative alternatives vs. non-cooperatives (see Note 1), the participants showed a greater

http://www.irss.academyirmbr.com/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


488

I



R S S

preference for cooperative responses when they established task-related verbal interactions, before or

during its execution, compared to when this kind of interaction was restricted (e.g. Biccieri & Lev-On,

2007; Cohen, Wildschut & Insko, 2010; Hake & Schmid, 1981; Marwell & Schmitt, 1975; Meleady,

Hopthrow & Crisp, 2013; Pulido, 2012; Pulido, Rangel & Ortiz, 2014; Ribes et al., 2005, 2006, 2008;

Wichman, 1970).

An aspect to consider in the quoted studies is that in most of them, the type of allowed linguistic

interactions among participants was oral and the participants solved the experimental task in the same

experimental cubicle. In this regard, Ahmad, Bangash, Bano & Khan (2008) reported that when participants

solve the task in a face-to-face situation, verbal and non verbal interaction was encouraged while they

worked on a common goal. Bicchieri & Lev-On (2007) suggested that face-to-face interactions support

contextual signs such as: voice tone, gesture, visual contact, etc., contributing to the increment of

cooperative responses among the participants; formulating the question of if in the absence of these

contextual signs, the aforementioned verbal interaction effect would be present, and proposing the

evaluation of the influence of impersonal communication in cooperative tasks given the considerable

number of this type of interaction that takes place.

Bicchieri & Lev-On (2007) presented also a review of studies on the cooperative behavior where the effects

of different forms of communication (i.e. written, audio, videoconference) were evaluated. In this review,

in all cases was reported an increment of the cooperative responses with respect to situation where verbal

communication was restricted; they also found that: a) the degree on the communication effect varied

according to the richness of the communication channel (e.g. when the communication was via

videoconference the results were more close to those founded in face-to-face interactions, and when the

participants’ communication was interrupted, the cooperation decreased, and it increased again when the

communication was restituted); and b) when the allowed communication was asynchronous, it difficult the

establishment of agreements and the cooperation on the task; and when the agreements were settled, they

were more frequently broken up, in comparison with face-to-face situations.

On their review, Biccieri and Lev-On (2007) concluded that in computer-mediated interaction

(videoconference, text, audio, etc.) the conversation structures were altered (e.g. for the talking-turns to be

taken, or their sequence and alternation became problematic) disrupting the immediate feedback and

preventing or impeding the required coordination to solve a common task. They pointed out an additional

consequence in this type of interactions: it prevented the emergency of a participant that takes the initiative

and proposes the strategies that facilitate the accomplishment of the required task, as observed in face-to-

face interaction situations. The authors then highlighted the relevance of this kind of directive interventions

to improve the performance on cooperative tasks (Bruttel & Fishbacher, 2013, Hernández Lagos, 2014;

Orbel, van de Kragt & Dawes, 1988; Sutter & Rivas, 2014; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg & Wilke,

2001). In this matter, Knipperberg et al. (2001) mentioned that in cooperative tasks, in those which helping

others is helping yourself (partial altruistic tasks), the use of power is affected, this is, because with a

common task, the participants try to influence each other.

So far, the effect of verbal interactions same as the emergency of certain types of interventions (directive or

non directive ones) in cooperative tasks, the analysis is based on the choice of cooperating or not. However,

as Pulido et al. (2013) pointed out, in these experimental preparations, the concurrent presentation of the

alternatives of cooperate and non cooperate, could impede the exploration of the effects that each of them

could have in the participants’ behavior. According to this, Pulido et al. (2013) and Rangel & Peña (in

review) evaluated the communication effect in situation of forced cooperation, founding better efficient

indices on the task performance when the participants were allowed to have verbal interaction compared

with situation where the communication was restricted.



489

I



R S S

Given these findings it seems relevant to question whether in forced cooperative situations, different effects

are also observed due to different modes of communication. The goal of this study is then to compare the

effects on the performance of a cooperative task with oral communication vs. written communication.

Methods

Participants

Sixteen undergraduate students, 13 male and 3 female, with ages in the range of 18 to 25 years old,

voluntarily participated in the study in exchange of desktop objects they could choose (i.e. pencils, text

markers or pens).

Materials, devices and experimental situation

The sessions took place in an illuminated room, free of distractions. In each of two desk in opposite

directions and with a tall bookshelf between them, was placed a DellTM

computer model Allienware X51

with Intel CoreTM

i7 64 bytes processor, with a NVIDIATM

graphic card model GeForce GTX 670, a LCD

Allienware 23” monitor model OptX AW2310 at 120 Hz, a mouse and a keyboard. In some sessions, when

oral communication was allowed, microphones and earphones were also used. Both computers were

Internet connected and the participants’ answers were automatically registered.

A tridimensional (3D) collaborative virtual environment (CVE) software system was used. On it, the users

worked in dyads while both participants could see the same virtual scenario, they saw it from a different

point of view that matched the place they located themselves in the virtual world at any given moment.

The screen of the sessions was taped with the aTube CatcherTM

application that also registered, when

allowed, the verbal interchange of the participants. When the communication was written a chat was used,

and it automatically registered the written messages in a text file. The software application automatically

saved the position of each object in the environment, for this data, an ad hoc application was developed for

its treatment. Sigma PlotTM

10.0 and ExcelTM

applications were used to graphic them.

Design

An intrasubject design was implemented; this allowed comparisons intra and among participants, and

among groups. The participants were divided in eight dyads that were randomly assigned in two

experimental groups. The sequence of conditions was different for each group.

All dyads were exposed to an instructional session for the software application (a demonstration session).

Afterwards, both groups were exposed to six sessions to solve the experimental task. For the Group 1, in

the first three sessions the participants had the possibility of oral communication and in the last three the

allowed communication modality was written text through a chat. In the Group 2, the order of these

conditions was inverted. Table 1 shows the experimental design.

Table 1. Experimental design

Group 1

n = 4 dyads Task demonstration Oral communication Written communication

Group 2

n = 4 dyads Task demonstration Written communication Oral communication

Total of

sessions

1 3 3



490

I



R S S

Procedure

Like in Rangel & Peña study (in review) where the effects of allowing or not communication were

compared, the experimental task consisted in the assembly of pieces to form geometric figures in a CVE; an

“island” in which 14 pieces of different color were placed around (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The initial

pieces were made by united cubes, with one, two or three of them as shown in Table 2.

Figure 1. The CVE for the task accomplishment. This is the initial configuration of the pieces to assemble a

geometric figure in the CVE.

Figure 2. A humanoid avatar. Each avatar was labelled during the session with the participant’s name to

facilitate the communication. A cube was formed by several pieces.



491

I



R S S

Table 2. Pieces available in the CVE to assemble the figure

Number of

pieces

Cubes that form

the piece

Shape Visual example

2 1

5 2

5 3 I

2 3 L

In the experiment, the participants assembled six different figures as shown in Table 3, one for each session

to avoid a learning effect. During the session, the participants could observe the figure to be assembled in a

model formed by plastic pieces, as the one in Figure 3.

Table 3. Figures to be assembled in each session

Session Figure Visual example Session Figure Visual example

1

Cuboid 4x3x2

4

Two levels

cross

2

Cube 3X3X3

5

Cube with the

hollow centre

3

Cuboid 4X2X3

6

Stairs with 4

steps and 3

cubes width

Figure 3. Example of the figure in plastic pieces. Each figure, as the one in the figure, was presented to the

participants along with an explanation for each session.



492

I



R S S

In the CVE the users were graphically represented by a humanoid avatar in first person, that is to say, they

could not see themselves in the virtual world. The avatar corresponded to the participant’s gender and had

its name above to facilitate the identification and communication (see Figure 2).

The human-computer interaction in the CVE was made through a combination of keys and the mouse. They

could navigate (walk or fly over the island); and select, move or rotate each piece or object. During the

session a piece of paper with the combination of the keys to interact with the CVE was available for the

participants (see Appendix). There was no time limit to solve the task.

In the demonstration session the participants were allowed to familiarize with the CVE application for 3 to

5 minutes, before they started the session. Then the next instructions were given to them:

“The two of you are going to work together to assemble a figure like this (the figure in plastic was then

shown to them and it was also verbally explained, for example: „this is a cross with two levels, each bar of

the cross has two cubes‟). Not all the pieces are necessary to assemble the figure. We are here in the next

room; please let us know when you have finished.”

When the alternative to communicate was oral, then the next was added:

“To communicate with each other use the microphone that comes with the earphones.”

When the alternative to communicate was written text, the added indication was:

“To communicate with each other you are going to use a chat. To activate it press the „Enter‟ key and to

deactivate it use the „Esc‟ key. They are also indicated in the piece of paper you have with the list of the

instructions to interact with the application.”

Data Analysis

According to the experimental design the presented data analyses are intra-subject (cf. Acuña, 2010).

Inefficient Rate. Similar to Rangel & Peña (in review), an inefficient rate for the task accomplishment was

calculated based on the sum of the crossed distance of each piece or object, both: those that formed the final

figure and those that were moved even if they were not part of the final figure.

In order to calculate the inefficient rate, a unite with the sum of the crossed distances required to put all the

objects that formed the final figure of the session was used, that is, the unite is equal to the most efficient

crossed distance of the objects. This distance was subtracted to the sum of the real crossed distance of the

objects during the session and then used as the divisor to get an inefficient factor.

Directive Interventions. This type of oral interventions were those used by the participants to indicate,

suggest or ask the other participant to move or not certain pieces, or to do something specific related to the

task, for example, “Let us start with the base of the figure”. Two independent observers registered the

directive interactions; the reliability of this analysis was calculated by dividing the number of agreements

between the number of observations, higher than 80% of agreements were observed.

Data about the time it took to solve the task, each participant crossed distance with an object, and the

number of times each participant moved a piece, is presented.

Results

Figure 4 shows the inefficient rates for both groups in each session by using: 1) the crossed distance of the

objects that formed the final figure, and 2) all the moved objects. In this figure it can be observed that, in



493

I



R S S

Group 1, the dyads 1 and 2 were those that presented the biggest inefficient rates. Dyad 1 was the most

inefficient in two sessions with oral communication (sessions 1 and 3) and in the first with written

communication (session 4). Dyad 2 was more inefficient in sessions 5 and 6, where participants were

allowed to communicate in written form. Dyads 3 and 4 were more inefficient in some of the sessions with

oral communication compared to those with written communication.

Figure 4. Inefficient rate for each session of the two groups. This figure indicates the inefficient rate

calculated based on the best-crossed distance of the figures as unit.

In Group 2, Dyad 7 was the most inefficient. While the other three dyads in the group showed inefficient

rates lower than 14 units per session with both, oral and written communication, Dyad 7 showed 18 and 23

more unnecessary movements in one of the sessions (Session 1 with written communication) and inefficient

rates of 18 and 20 unites in Session 5 with oral communication.

Figure 5 shows the time, in minutes and seconds, that each session took for the participants to complete the

task. In Group 1, the dyads 1 and 2 took longer in solving the task during some sessions.

In Group 2, Dyad 7 was the one that took the longest time to solve the task. While the other dyads in this

Group completed the task in less than 7 minutes, Dyad 7 lasted almost 30 minutes in Session 1, and in the

rest of them they took between 12 to 20 minutes to solve the task.



494

I



R S S

Figure 5. Minutes for each session to complete the task.

Figure 6 shows the number of verbal interventions (written and oral) that each of the participants had in

each session. The bars show the total number of interventions made by each participant of each dyad. The

planned segment in each bar indicates how many of these interventions were directive.

Figure 6. Number of participant’s verbal interventions for both experimental conditions. The bars show the

total number of verbal interventions made by each participant. The planned segment in each bar indicates

how many of these interventions were directive.



495

I



R S S

In general, most of the dyads presented more interventions when the communication was oral, compared

with the written communication sessions. Some exceptions can be seen in the first session with written

communication in Dyad 1, in this session the communication of one of the participants (P2) was highest

than in the sessions with oral communication. In Dyads 4, 5 and 6, the number of interventions was similar

in both communication modes.

In four dyads (3, 4, 5 and 7) one of the participants showed a higher number of directive interventions in

most of the sessions (participants 5, 7, 10 and 13 respectively), with no distinction in the allowed type of

communication or the experimental order that they were exposed. In Dyad 6, there were no directive

interventions by any of the participants in the written communication sessions; however, the participant 11

did the highest number of directive interventions in the three sessions with oral communication compared

to his/her partner.

In the remaining dyads (1, 2, 6 and 8), both members did the highest number of directive interactions in

alternated sessions. For example, in Dyads 1 and 2, the participants 2 and 3 did the highest number of

directive interventions in just one of the sessions (O2). When they were exposed to written communication,

they showed more directive interventions than their dyad partner in the three sessions.

Finally in Dyad 8, the participant 15 had a higher number of directive interventions than his/her partner in

the oral communication condition, while the participant 16 did the same in the written communication

condition.

In Figure 7 is shown the crossed distance of the moved objects that each of the participants did for both

groups. In a general way it can be observed that in all dyads, one of the participants (the participants 1, 3, 5

and 7 in Group 1; and the participants 10, 11 and 13 in Group 2) crossed a higher distance with the moved

objects than his partner in most of the sessions. Although, in Dyad 8 of the Group 2, the participant 15

crossed the highest distance with objects in half of the sessions, and in the other half the participant 16 did

it.

Figure 7. The distance each participant crossed with objects. The participant moved the pieces to complete

the figure; this figure shows the sum of all the moved pieces during the session.



496

I



R S S

Figure 8 shows the number of moved objects by each participant in each session. As can be observed, in all

dyad one of the participants (1, 2, 3 and 8 of the Group 1; and 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Group 2) moved

more objects than his/her dyad partner in most of the sessions.

Figure 8. Number of pieces moved by each participant in each session. This figure represents the counted

number of times that a participant took a piece or object.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate, in forced cooperative contingencies, the effect

produced by oral and written communication established between the participants, on the performance of a

cooperative task. Additionally, the effects of both types of communication on the emergency of

verbalizations that directed and facilitated the task were analyzed.

As mentioned, the effect of verbal interaction has been broadly studied in cooperative-non cooperative

choice situations, finding a preference to cooperate when the participants verbally interact compared with

conditions in which the verbal communication is restricted (e.g. Bicchieri & Lev-On, 2007; Cohen et al.

2010; Hake & Schmid, 1981; Marwell & Schmitt, 1975; Meleady et al., 2013). In this type of situations, it

had been evaluated the effects of different forms of communication allowed between participants (Bicchieri

& Lev-On 2007). It also had been found that when participants are exposed to non-choice situations (like in

forced cooperation situations), what is affected by the presence or absence of verbal interaction is the

efficient rates for the resolution of the task (e.g. Pulido, 2012; Pulido, Rangel & Ortiz, 2013; Rangel &

Peña in review). However, in forced cooperative task, the effect of different modes of communications had

been not evaluated as in this study.

About the efficiency in solving a cooperative task, in this study, it was found that from a general point of

view, the participants had similar executions when the communication was oral than when it was in written

text. In one sense, this data supports the findings in the results of Pulido et al. (2013) and Rangel & Peña (in

review), in which higher efficient rates were reported when communication was allowed. In the present

study, in both experimental conditions, the participants had the opportunity to communicate with each

other, thus the efficient rates were equally affected. In such a way that this result can be considered as



497

I



R S S

evidence for the communication effect, which has been reported in several experimental preparations

previously cited in this paper.

On the other hand, the similar execution that was founded between participants exposed to the different

experimental conditions, contrasts with the results that could have been expected due to the different modes

of communication allowed, i.e. different effects on the task performance, based on the review reported by

Bicchieri and Lev-On (2007), but it is worth to consider two aspects related with the experimental

conditions presented in this study:

First, in any of the two types of communication, the participants interacted face-to-face, that is, while in the

oral communication conditions the participants used microphones and earphones, and in the written

communication was through a chat, in any case the participants were allowed to see each other while they

interacted (they only could see his/her avatar in the computer screen). This could suggest that even when

the communication types were morphologically different, e.g. oral and written, they might not be

functionally different given that it was found no difference regarding the efficiency to solve the

experimental task.

Second, as a result of the aforementioned, it seem probable to find different results if in the oral

communication condition, the participants solve the task face-to-face, keeping impersonal the written

communication condition, given that as Bicchieri and Lev-On (2007) mentioned, it has been reported that

in situations in which face-to-face interaction is required, the participants’ agreements are supported.

In regard to the emergency of directive interventions in the situation, the results do not seem to support

what Bicchieri and Lev-On (2007) suggested with respect to impersonal situations, where the emergency of

a participant that try to direct the task solution becomes complicated. In this study it could be observed that

in 7 of the 8 dyads, there was a participant that showed more directive interventions than his/her partner in

most of the sessions (except in Dyad 8, in which the participants alternated sessions in which they did

comments for directing his/her partner with no regard of the communication modality).

In the same way, it can be observed that most of the participants that did the highest number of directive

interventions were also those who showed the longest crossed distance and the highest number of

movements during the accomplishment of the task, that is to say, they were the more proactive participants.

This kind of data, supports the undoubted relevance of the language in social behavior (Ribes, 2001; Ribes,

Rangel & López, 2008). In this sense, it seems plausible to keep on analyzing, leaving outside the

communication morphology and taking into consideration its functionality, if it could be possible to find

different effects in the efficient rates and in the relation that the members of a dyad establish during the

execution of a cooperative task.

Note [

1] This paper is regarding cooperative situations of partial altruism, in which the individual responses

produce profits for him/her and the others in the interaction (see Knipperberg et al. 2001; Pulido, Rangel,

Ávila, Mérida & Ribes, 2014; Ribes et al., 2006)

Appendix

Keys and mouse combinations for the participants to interact with the CVE:

Avatar:

Navigation – arrow and “WASD” keys

Head movement – mouse directed



498

I



R S S

Objects:

Selection – left click

Movement – object selection and drag the mouse

Lifting – left click + Ctrl

Rotation – left click + Ctrl + Shift

Chat

Start – Enter

End – Esc

References

Acuña, L. (2010). El uso de la estadística en análisis de la conducta: ¿cuándo usarla y cuándo no? Revista

Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 36, 1, 133-145.

Ahmad, S., Bangash, H., Bano, M. & Kahn, I.A. (2008). Cooperation and competition: and experimental

study on children in Peshawar City. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 24(2), 391-397.

Bicchieri, C. & Lev-On, A. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and cooperation in social

dilemmas: an experimental analysis. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 6(2), 139-168. doi:

10.1177/1470594X07077267

Bruttel, L. & Fishbacher, U. (2013). Taking the initiative. What characterizes leaders? European Economic

Review, 64, 147-168. doi 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2013.08.008

Cohen, T., Wildschut, T. & Insko, C. (2010). How communication increases interpersonal cooperation in

mixed-motive situations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 39-50. doi:

10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.009

Hake, D.F. & Schmid, T.L. (1981). Acquisition and maintenance of trusting behavior. Journal of the

Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 35, 109-124. doi:10.1901/jeab.1981.35-109

Hernández-Lagos, P. (2014). The economic context determines who leads: experimental analysis of

initiative through communication. Disponible en http://cess.nyu.edu/policon2014/wp-

content/uploads/2013/12/Leadership and context-v24.pdf.

Marwell, G. & Schmitt, D. (1975). Cooperation: An experimental analysis. New York: Academic Press.

Meleady, R., Hopthrow, T., Crisp, R. J. (2013). Simulating social dilemmas: Promoting cooperative

behavior through imagined group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5),

839-853. doi: 10.1037/a0031233

Orbell, J.M.; van de Kragt, A.J.C., & Dawes, R.M. (1988). Explaining discussion-induced cooperation.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 811-819.

Pulido, L. (2012). Efecto del tipo de contingencia en el establecimiento y cualidad de intercambios

verbales: su papel en la elección de alternativas compartidas. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation.

México: Universidad de Guadalajara.

Pulido, L., Rangel, N., Ávila, A., Mérida, F. & Ribes, E. (2014). Efecto del intercambio de recursos y

fuerza de trabajo en la elección de contingencias compartidas. Acta Comportamentalia, 22, 3, 295-314.

Pulido, L., Rangel, N. & Ortiz, G. (2013). El papel del intercambio verbal en la solución de tareas en niños

de primaria. Acta Comportamentalia, 21(1):36-52.

Pulido, L., Rangel, N. & Ortiz, G. (2014). Efecto del tipo de contingencia en el establecimiento y cualidad

de intercambios verbales: su papel en la elección de alternativas compartidas. Journal of Behavior,

Health & Social Issues, 6, 1, 71-86.

Ribes, E. (2001). Functional dimensions of social behavior: theoretical considerations and some

preliminary data. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 27, 285-306.

Ribes, E., Rangel, N., & López, V.F. (2008). Análisis teórico de las dimensiones funcionales del

comportamiento social. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 25(1), 45-57.

Ribes, E., Rangel, N., Magaña, C., López, A. & Zaragoza, A. (2005). Efecto del intercambio diferencial

equitativo e inequitativo en la elección de contingencias sociales de altruismo parcial. Acta

Comportamentalia, 13, 159-179.



499

I



R S S

Ribes, E., Rangel, N., Ramírez, E. Valdez, U., Romero, C., & Jiménez, C. (2008). Verbal and-nonverbal

induction of reciprocity in a partial-altruism social interaction. European Journal of Behavior Analysis,

9, 53-72.

Ribes, E., Rangel, N., Zaragoza, A., Magaña, C., Hernández, H., Ramírez, E. & Valdez, U. (2006). Effects

of differential and shared consequences on choice between individual and social contingencies.

European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 7, 41-56.

Sutter, M. & Rivas, F. (2014). Leadership, reward and punishment in sequential public goods experiments.

In P. Van Lange, B. Rockenbach & T. Yamagishi (Eds.), Reward and punishment in social dilemmas

(pp. 133-155). USA: Oxford University Press.

Van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D. & Wilke, H.A. (2001). Power use in cooperative and

competitive settings. Basic and Applied Social Psichology, 23(4), 291-300.

Wichman, (1970). Effects of isolation and communication on cooperation in a two-person game. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 114-120. doi: 10.1037/h0029845


comparison of the effects of oral and written ...irss.academyirmbr.com/papers/1447225052.pdf...

Documents