At the Convergence of Input and Process Models of Group Discussion: A Comparison of Participation Rates across Time, Persons, and Groups

References

• Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. E. (1993). Membership matters: How member change and continuity affect small group structure, process and performance. Small Group Research, 24, 334–361. doi:10.1177/1046496493243004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auld,Jr., F., & White, A. M. (1956). Rules for dividing interviews into sentences. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 42, 273–281. doi:10.1080/00223980.1956.9713040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balkwell, J. W. (1991). Status characteristics and social interaction: Assessment of theoretical variants. Advances in Group Processes, 8, 135–176.
   Google Scholar
• Balkwell, J. W., & Berger, J. (1996). Gender, status, and behavior in task situations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 273–283. doi:10.2307/2787023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2010). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? In C. R. Agnew, D. E. Carlston, W. G. Graziano, & J. R. Kelly (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research (pp. 12–27). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beretvas, S. N. (2011). Cross-classified and multiple-membership models. In J. J. Hox & J. K. Roberts (Eds.), Handbook for advanced multilevel analysis (pp. 313–334). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, J., Norman, R. Z., Balkwell, J. W., & Smith, R. F. (1992). Status inconsistency in task situations: A test of four status processing principles. American Sociological Review, 57, 843–855. doi:10.2307/2096127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bessette, J. M. (1994). The mild voice of reason: Deliberative democracy and American national government. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Black, L. W., Welser, H. T., Cosley, D., & DeGroot, J. M. (2011). Self-governance through group discussion in Wikipedia measuring deliberation in online groups. Small Group Research, 42, 595–634. doi:10.1177/1046496411406137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonito, J. A. (2004). Shared cognition and participation in small groups: Similarity of member prototypes. Communication Research, 31, 704–730. doi:10.1177/0093650204269406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonito, J. A., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1997). Participation in small groups. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 20 (pp. 227–261). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bonito, J. A., & Meyers, R. A. (2011). Examining functional communication as egocentric or group-centric: Application of a latent group model. Communication Monographs, 78, 463–485. doi:10.1080/03637751.2011.618138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonito, J. A., & Ruppel, E. K. (2011). An application of the socioegocentric model to information-sharing discussions: In search of group-level communication influences. Communication Research, 38, 356–375. doi:10.1177/0093650210377195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonito, J. A., & Sanders, R. E. (2009). A different approach to answering a good question: A response to Hewes's models of communication effects on small group outcomes. Human Communication Research, 35, 296–303. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01351.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonito, J. A., & Sanders, R. E. (2011). The existential center of small groups: Member's conduct and interaction. Small Group Research, 42, 343–358. doi:10.1177/1046496410385472
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bottger, P. C. (1984). Expertise and air time as bases of actual and perceived influence in problem-solving groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 214–221. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braman, D., Kahan, D. M., & Grimmelmann, J. (2005). Modeling facts, culture, and cognition in the gun debate. Social Justice Research, 18, 283–304. doi:10.1007/s11211-005-6826-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). The world café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, N., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (2001). The private roots of public action: Gender, equality, and political participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carson, L., Gastil, J., Hartz-Karp, J., & Lubensky, R. (Eds.). (2013). The Australian Citizens’ Parliament and the future of deliberative democracy. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307–326. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daftary-Kapur, T., Dumas, R., & Penrod, S. D. (2010). Jury decision-making biases and methods to counter them. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 133–154. doi:10.1348/135532509X465624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. A. (1989). The theory of the democratic process. In R. A. Dahl (Ed.), Democracy and its critics (pp. 106–118). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Della Porta, D., & Rucht, D. (Eds.). (2013). Meeting democracy: Power and deliberation in global justice movements. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, S., & Fiske, D. W. (1985). Interaction structure and strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Strycker, L. A. (2006). An introduction to latent variable growth curve modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dwyer, W. L. (2002). In the hands of the people: The trial jury's origins, triumphs, troubles, and future in American democracy. New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisek, M. H., Berger, J., & Norman, R. Z. (1991). Participation in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups: A theoretical integration. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 114–142. doi:10.1086/229742
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisek, M. H., & Ofshe, R. (1970). The process of status evolution. Sociometry, 33, 327–346. doi:10.2307/2786161
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, J. S., He, B., Luskin, R. C., & Siu, A. (2010). Deliberative democracy in an unlikely place: Deliberative polling in china. British Journal of Political Science, 40, 435–448. doi:10.1017/S0007123409990330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gastil, J. (1993). Democracy in small groups. Philadelphia, PA: New Society.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Gill, S. J., Menlo, A., & Keel, L. P. (1984). Antecedents to member participation within small groups: A review of theory and research. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 9, 68–76. doi:10.1080/01933928408412059
   Google Scholar
• Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (2002). Modeling the personality of dyads and groups. Journal of Personality, 70, 901–924. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.05027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gouran, D. S. (1976). The Watergate coverup: Its dynamics and its implications. Communication Monographs, 43, 176–186. doi:10.1080/03637757609375930
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupte, M. (2004). Participation in a gendered environment: The case of community forestry in India. Human Ecology, 32, 365–382. doi:10.1023/B:HUEC.0000028086.63366.3d
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hewes, D. E. (1996). Small group communication may not influence decision making: An amplification of socio-egocentric theory. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 179–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hewes, D. E. (2009). The influence of communication processes on group outcomes: Antithesis and thesis. Human Communication Research, 35, 249–271. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01347.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickerson, A., & Gastil, J. (2008). Assessing the difference critique of deliberation: Gender, emotion, and the jury experience. Communication Theory, 18, 281–303. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00323.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollingshead, A. B., McGrath, J. E., & O'Connor, K. M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 307–333. doi:10.1177/1046496493243003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Hox, J., & Stoel, R. D. (2005). Multilevel and SEM approaches to growth curve modeling. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0470013192.bsa418/abstract
   Google Scholar
• Hyman, D. A. (2013). Something went wrong on the way to the courthouse. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law ( advance online publication), 38, 243–253. doi:10.1215/03616878-1966234
   Google Scholar
• Jarboe, S. (1988). A comparison of input-output, process-output, and input-process-output models of small group problem-solving effectiveness. Communication Monographs, 55, 121–142. doi:10.1080/03637758809376162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karpowitz, C. F., & Mendelberg, T. (2011). An experimental approach to citizen deliberation. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 258–272). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921452.018
   Google Scholar
• Karpowitz, C. F., Raphael, C., & Hammond, A. S. (2009). Deliberative democracy and inequality: Two cheers for enclave deliberation among the disempowered. Politics & Society, 37, 576–615. doi:10.1177/0032329209349226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirchmeyer, C. (1993). Multicultural task groups: An account of the low contribution level of minorities. Small Group Research, 24, 127–148. doi:10.1177/1046496493241009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knobloch, K. R., Gastil, J., Reedy, J., & Cramer Walsh, K. (2013). Did they deliberate? Applying an evaluative model of democratic deliberation to the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative review. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 105–125. doi:10.1080/00909882.2012.760746
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreft, I. G. G., de Leeuw, J., & Aiken, L. S. (1995). The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 1–21. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3001_1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., Wolfinger, R. D., & Schabenberger, O. (2006). SAS for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Littlepage, G. E., Schmidt, G. W., Whisler, E. W., & Frost, A. G. (1995). An input-process-output analysis of influence and performance in problem-solving groups. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69, 877–889. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.877
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. J. (1973). Time, emotion, and inequality: Three problems of participatory groups. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 9, 351–368. doi:10.1177/002188637300900217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J. J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mattei, L. R. W. (1998). Gender and power in American legislative discourse. The Journal of Politics, 60, 440–461. doi:10.2307/2647917
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGrath, J. E. (1990). Time matters in groups. In J. Galegher, R. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp. 23–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A. (1989a). Persuasive arguments theory: A test of assumptions. Human Communication Research, 15, 357–82. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1989.tb00189.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A. (1989b). Testing persuasive argument theory's predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence. Communication Monographs, 56, 112–132. doi:10.1080/03637758909390254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (1998). Argument in group decision making: Explicating a process model and investigating the argument-outcome link. Communication Monographs, 65, 261–281. doi:10.1080/03637759809376454
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A., Brashers, D. E., & Hanner, J. (2000). Majority-minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcome links. Journal of Communication, 50, 3–30. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02861.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers, R. A., Seibold, D. R., & Kang, P. (2010). Examining argument in a naturally occurring jury deliberation. Small Group Research, 41, 452–473. doi:10.1177/1046496410366308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moorhead, G., Ference, R., & Neck, C. P. (1991). Group decision fiascoes continue: Space shuttle Challenger and a revised groupthink framework. Human Relations, 44, 539–550. doi:10.1177/001872679104400601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreland, R. L., Fetterman, J. D., Flagg, J. J., & Swanenburg, K. L. (2010). Behavioral assessment practices among social psychologists who study small groups. In C. R. Agnew, D. E. Carlston, W. G. Graziano, & J. R. Kelly (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research (pp. 28–53). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). The composition of small groups. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway, & H. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes (pp. 237–280). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nabatchi, T., Gastil, J., Weiksner, G. M., & Leighninger, M. (Eds.). (2012). Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, H. (2008). Open space technology: A user's guide. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
   Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. J. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.2307/25611470
   Google Scholar
• Patterson, P. M. (2000). The talking cure and the silent treatment: some limits of “discourse” as speech. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 22, 663–695.
   Google Scholar
• Pauchet, C. (1982). Speaking time during the university teaching and research council's meetings. Revue Francaise de Sociologie, 23, 275–282. doi:10.2307/3320773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavitt, C. (1999). Theorizing about the group communication-leadership relationship. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 313–334). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pavitt, C. (2003). Why we have to be reductionists about group memory. Human Communication Research, 29, 592–599. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00861.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavitt, C. (2009). A sympathetic reaction to the SM and DLCM as group communication theories. Human Communication Research, 35, 272–278. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01348.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavitt, C., & Johnson, K. K. (1999). An examination of the coherence of group discussions. Communication Research, 26, 303–321. doi:10.1177/009365099026003002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups III: A multiple sequence model of group decision development. Communication Monographs, 50, 321–342. doi:10.1080/03637758309390173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poole, M. S. (1998). The small group should be the fundamental unit of communication research. In J. S. Trent (Ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the 21st century (pp. 94–97). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Poole, M. S., & Dobosh, M. (2010). Exploring conflict management processes in jury deliberations through interaction analysis. Small Group Research, 41, 408–426. doi:10.1177/1046496410366310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74–102. doi:10.1080/00335638509383719
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putnam, L. L., & Stohl, C. (1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context. Communication Studies, 41, 248–265. doi:10.1080/10510979009368307
   Google Scholar
• Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25, 347–376. doi:10.1177/0090591797025003002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, R. E. (1989). Message effects via induced changes in the social meaning of a response. In J. Bradac (Ed.), Message effects in communication science (pp. 165–194). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, R. E. (2007). The effect of interactional competence on group problem solving. In F. Cooren (Ed.), Interacting and organizing: Analyses of a management meeting (pp. 163–183). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, R. E., & Bonito, J. A. (2010). Speaking for the institution: A fourth production site for group members’ influence attempts. Small Group Research, 41, 427–451. doi:10.1177/1046496410366309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shelly, R. K., & Troyer, L. (2001a). Emergence and completion of structure in initially undefined and partially defined groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 318–332. doi:10.2307/3090157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shelly, R. K., & Troyer, L. (2001b). Speech duration and dependencies in initially structured and unstructured task groups. Sociological Perspectives, 44, 419–444. doi:10.1525/sop.2001.44.4.419
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323–355.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siu, A. (2008). Look who's talking: Examining social influence, opinion change, and argument quality in deliberation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3343885).
   Google Scholar
• Skvoretz, J. (1988). Models of participation in status-differentiated groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 43–57. doi:10.2307/2786983
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorrentino, R. M., & Boutillier, R. G. (1975). The effect of quantity and quality of verbal interaction on ratings of leadership ability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 403–411. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(75)90044-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stasser, G., & Vaughan, S. I. (1996). Models of participation during face-to-face unstructured discussion. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 165–192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Stoner, J. A. (1968). Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions: The influence of widely held values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 442–459. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(68)90069-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SunWolf. (2010). Investigating jury deliberation in a capital murder case. Small Group Research, 41, 380–385. doi:10.1177/1046496410366484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai, Y. (1977). Hierarchical structure of participation in natural groups. Behavioral Science, 22, 38–40. doi:10.1002/bs.3830220106
   Google Scholar
• Van der Kleij, R., Paashuis, R., & Schraagen, J. M. (2005). On the passage of time: Temporal differences in video-mediated and face-to-face interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62, 521–542. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Kleij, R., Schraagen, J. M., Werkhoven, P., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2009). How conversations change over time in face-to-face and video-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 40, 355–381. doi:10.1177/1046496409333724
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yetton, P. W., & Bottger, P. C. (1982). Individual versus group problem solving: An empirical test of a best-member strategy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 307–321. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(82)90248-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yetton, P. W., & Crawford, C. (1992). Reassessment of participative decision-making: A case of too much participation. In F. Heller (Ed.), Decision-making and leadership (pp. 90–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar