Small group use of communication technologies: a comparison of modality on group outcomes

References

• Barker, V. E., Abrams, J. R., Tiyaamornwong, V., Seibold, D. R., Duggan, A., Park, H. S., & Sebastian, M. (2000). New contexts for relational communication in groups. Small Group Research, 31, 470–503. doi:10.1177/104649640003100405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonito, J. A., Ruppel, E. K., & Keyton, J. (2012). Reliability estimates for multilevel designs in group research. Small Group Research, 43(4), 443–467. doi:10.1177/1046496412437614
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs, R. O., Reinig, B. A., & Vreede, G. J. D. (2006). Meeting satisfaction for technology supported groups: An empirical validation of a goal-attainment model. Small Group Research, 37(6), 585–611. doi:10.1177/1046496406294320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 5, 554–571. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
   Google Scholar
• Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilson, L. K., Maynard, M. T., & Jones Young, N. C. (2015). Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41, 1313–1337. doi:10.1177/0149206314559946
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirokawa, R. Y., & Salazar, A. J. (1999). Task-group communication and decision-making performance. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   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(3), 307–333. doi:10.1177/1046496493243003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keyton, J. (1991). Evaluating individual group member satisfaction as a situational variable. Small Group Research, 22, 200–219. doi:10.1177/1046496491222004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Laitinen, K., & Valo, M. (2018). Meanings of communication technology in virtual team meetings: framing technology-related interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 111, 12-22. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.10.012
   Google Scholar
• Lau, S. H., & Woods, P. C. (2008). An investigation of user perceptions and attitudes towards learning objects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 685–699. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00770.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., Romano, N. C., Jr., Cheney, P. D., & Hightower, R. T. (2006). The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication: Does computer-mediated communication make a difference? Small Group Research, 37(6), 631–661. doi:10.1177/1046496406294322
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malik, R., Dobosh, M., Bajcsy, P., & Poole, M. S. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of communication media on remote collaboration. Paper presented at the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Virtual Environments, Human-Computer Interfaces and Measurement Systems, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Mejias, R. J. (2007). The interaction of process losses, process gains, and meeting satisfaction within technology supported-environments. Small Group Research, 38, 156-194. doi: 10.1177/1046496406297037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlitzky, M., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (2001). To err is human, to correct for it divine: A meta-analysis of research testing the functional theory of group decision-making effectiveness. Small Group Research, 32, 313–341. doi:10.1177/104649640103200303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, N., Lee, K. M., & Cheong, P. H. (2008). University instructors’ acceptance of electronic courseware: An application of the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 163–186. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00391.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poole, M. S., & Dobosh, M. A. (2010). Group decision-making. In C. Berger, M. Roloff, & D. Roskos-Ewaldsen (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (2nd ed., pp. 381–397). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, C. (1999). Communication technology and group communication. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 432–472). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sheer, V. C., & Chen, L. (2004). Improving media richness theory: A study of interaction goals, message valence, and task complexity in manager-subordinate communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 18(1), 76–93. doi:10.1177/0893318904265803
   Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90. doi:10.1177/009365092019001003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B., & Park, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (2005). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24(1), 36–65. doi:10.1177/0261927X04273036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zigurs, I. (1998). A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 313–334. doi:10.2307/249668
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar