or…you plus me less them = us
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 PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Or…You plus Me less Them = US
Groupware
Old wine in new bottles
![Page 2: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
brianwhitworth.com3
Why is agreement important?
No Group Action
The Group Acts!
![Page 4: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
![Page 5: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
![Page 6: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
brianwhitworth.com6
Aims
• Examine assumptions behind media
richness approach
• Propose an alternative “cognitive” or
human process based perspective
• Explore some implications
![Page 7: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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
![Page 8: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
brianwhitworth.com8
I. Media richness defines communication richness
• Computer channels are too “narrow” to transmit rich social influence
Task Information
Social Information
Computer Channel
![Page 9: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
![Page 10: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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
![Page 14: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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
![Page 15: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
brianwhitworth.com15
Underwater
• Translate: Walking - slow
• Adapt: Swimming - better
• Invent: Flippers - best ...
![Page 16: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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)
![Page 18: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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!
![Page 20: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
brianwhitworth.com21
IV. Personal interaction creates cohesion
Group cohesiveness involves interpersonal attraction, social presence, and hence rich cues (Hogg, 1992)
A
CB
D
![Page 22: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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
![Page 23: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
![Page 24: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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
![Page 25: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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
![Page 26: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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
![Page 27: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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)
![Page 28: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
brianwhitworth.com28
Multi-threaded communication
Context: Sender state information
Content: Task or factual information
Position: Action or intention to act
![Page 29: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
brianwhitworth.com29
Example
“Thanks for the great party, man!”
Content: Party was greatContext: HappyPosition: About to leave
![Page 30: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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
![Page 31: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
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
![Page 32: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
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
![Page 33: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
brianwhitworth.com33
Resolving the task
• Individual level• One-way, one-to-many• Task information• Gives task output• Can be anonymous• Work setting
![Page 34: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
brianwhitworth.com34
Relating to Others
• Dyadic level• Two-way, one-to-one• Sender information • Gives interpersonal output• Cannot be anonymous • Social setting
![Page 35: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
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
![Page 36: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
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
![Page 37: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
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
![Page 38: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
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
![Page 39: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
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
![Page 40: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
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
![Page 41: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
brianwhitworth.com41
Treatments
I. BlindII. Group aware
- exchanged position information
III. Group and confidence aware -exchanged position andconfidence informationComputer-mediated vs altered CM design
![Page 42: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
brianwhitworth.com42
Position information exchange
AAABB Group Position: A
• Three voted for A • Two voted for B• Anonymous voting
![Page 43: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
brianwhitworth.com43
Confidence Symbols
Very Confident !!Confident !Fairly ConfidentNot Very Confident ½Not Confident at All ¼
![Page 44: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
brianwhitworth.com44
Confidence information exchange
A¼A¼A ¼B!!B!! Group Position: A
• Three weak votes for A • Two strong votes for B
![Page 45: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
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
![Page 46: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
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
![Page 47: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
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
![Page 48: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
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
![Page 49: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
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
![Page 50: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
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
![Page 51: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
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
![Page 52: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
brianwhitworth.com52
Levels of Groupware Support
I Supports factual information
exchangeII Supports relationshipsIII Supports groups, norms
and social structures
I
I IIII
![Page 53: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
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
![Page 54: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
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.
![Page 55: Or…You plus Me less Them = US](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062408/56813219550346895d987765/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
brianwhitworth.com55
May the wine mature!