Polarization and Dissatisfaction in Group Settings

References

• Baltes, B., M. Dickson, M. Sherman, C. Bauer, and J. LaGanke. “Computer-mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta Analysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 2002, p. 156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barron, R.S. and G. Roper. “Reaffirmation of Social Comparison Views of Choice Shifts: Averaging and Extremity Effects in Autokinetic Situation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 1976, pp. 521–530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benbasat, I. and L.H. Lim. “The Effects of Group, Task, Context and Technology Variables on the Usefulness of Group Support Systems,” Small Group Research, 24:4, 1993, pp. 430–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs R.O. and G-J. de Vreede. “Measuring Satisfaction in GSS Meetings,” Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Information Systems, 1997, pp. 483–484.
   Google Scholar
• Brown. Social Psychology. New York: Free, 1965.
   Google Scholar
• Burnstein, E. and A. Vinokur. “Persuasive Argumentation and Social Comparison as Determinants of Attitude Polarization,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 1977, pp. 315–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnstein, E., A. Vinokur, and Y. Trope. “Interpersonal Comparison Versus Persuasive Argumentation: A More Direct Test of Alternative Explanations For Group-Induced Shifts In Individual Choice,” Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 1973, pp. 236–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, G., D. Gustafson, and Y. Lee. “The Effect of a Quantitative Decision Aid – Analytic Hierarchy Process – on Group Polarization,” Group Decision and Negotiation, 11:4, July 2002, p. 329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly, T., L.M. Jessup, and J.S. Valacich. “Effects of Anonymity and Evaluative Tone on Idea Generation in Computer-mediated Groups,” Management Science, 36:6, 1990, pp. 689–703.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornelius, C. and M. Boos. “Enhancing Mutual Understanding in Synchronous Computer-mediated Communication by Training: Trade-offs in Judgmental Tasks,” Communication Research, 30:2, 2003, p. 147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daft, R.L. and R.J. Lengel. “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design,” Management Science, 32, 1986, pp. 554–571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daft, R.L., R.H. Lengel, and L.K. Trevino. “Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for Information Support Systems,” MIS Quarterly, 11, 1987, pp. 355–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dennis, A.R., B.J. Haley, and R.J. Vandenberg. “A Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Participant Satisfaction in Group Support Systems Research,” Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual International Conference on Information Systems, 1996, pp. 278–289.
   Google Scholar
• Ebbesen, E.B. and R.J. Bower. “Proportion of Risky to Conservative Arguments in a Group Discussion and Choice Shifts,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 1974, pp. 315–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Shinnawy, M. and A. Vinze. “Polarization and Persuasive Argumentation: A Study of Decision Making in Group Settings,” MIS Quarterly, 22:2, June 1998, p. 165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fjermestad, J., R.H. Starr, and M. Turoff. “An Integrated Framework for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems,” Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 4, 1993, pp. 179–188.
   Google Scholar
• Fjermestad, J. “An Analysis of Communication Mode in Group Support Systems Research,” Decision Support Systems, 37:2, 2004, p. 239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodhue, D. and R.L. Thompson. “Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance,” MIS Quarterly, 19:2, 1995, pp. 213–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath, C. and R. Gonzalez. “Interaction with Others Increases Decision Confidence but Not Decision Quality: Evidence against Information Collection Views of Interactive Decision Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61:3, 1995, pp. 305–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hof, R.D. “The Education of Andrew Grove,” Business Week, January 16, 1995, pp. 60–62.
   Google Scholar
• Holsapple, C.W., W. Luo, and R.S. Morton. “Computer Support of Shift Work: An Experiment in a GSS Environment,”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 41:1, 2000, pg 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, W. and P. Zhang. “An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of GSS and Group Process on Group Outcome in Small Group Decision-Makings,” Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45:1, Fall 2004, pg. 23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isenberg, D.J. “Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta Analysis,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50:6, 1986, pp. 1141–1151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jessup, L.M., T. Connolly and J. Galegher. “The Effects of Anonymity on GSS Group Process with an Idea-Generating Task,” MIS Quarterly, 14:3, 1990, pp. 313–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karan, V., D.S. Kerr, U.S. Murthy, and A.S. Vinze. “Information Technology Support for Collaborative Decision Making in Auditing: An Experimental Investigation,” Decision Support Systems, 16, 1996, pp. 181–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiesler, S., J. Siegel, and T.W. McGuire. “Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication,” American Psychologist, 39:10, 1984, pp. 1123–1134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick, D. “Intel Goes for Broke,” Fortune, May 16, 1994, pp. 62–68.
   Google Scholar
• Lamm, H. and D.G. Myers. “Group-Induced Polarization of Attitudes and Behavior,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11 1978, pp. 145–149.
   Google Scholar
• Laughlin, P.R. and P.C. Earley. “Social Combination Models, Persuasive Arguments Theory, Social Comparison Theory, and Choice Shift,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1982, pp. 273–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martz, B. and M. Shepherd. “The Impact of Immediate Feedback on Group Decision Satisfaction,”. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 43:4, Summer 2003, p. 41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGrath, J.E. Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.
   Google Scholar
• McGrath, J.E. and A.B. Hollingshead. “Putting the Group Back in Group Support Systems: Some Theoretical Issues about Dynamic Processes in Groups with Technological Enhancements.” In Jessup, L.M. and J. Valacich (Eds.). Group Support Systems: New Perspectives. New York, 1993.
   Google Scholar
• McLeod, P.L. “An Assessment of the Experimental Literature on Electronic Support of Group Work: Results of a Meta-Analysis,” Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 1992, pp. 257–280.
   Google Scholar
• Mennecke, B.E., J.S. Valacich, and B.C. Wheeler. “The Effects of Media and Task on User Performance: A Test of the Task-Media Fit Hypothesis,” Group Decision and Negotiation, 9:6. 2000, p. 507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, C.G. “Task Effects on Group Interaction,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4:5, 1966, pp. 545–554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, D.G. “Polarizing Effects of Social Interaction.” In Brandstatter, H., J.H. Davis and G. Stocher-Kreichgauer (Eds.). Contemporary Problems in Group Decision Making. New York: Academic, 1982, pp. 125–161.
   Google Scholar
• Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., L. Applegate, and B. Konsynski. “Facilitating Group Creativity: Experience with a Group Decision Support System,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 3:3, 1987, pp. 5–19.
   Google Scholar
• Pavitt, C. “Another View of Group Polarizing: The Reasons for One-sided Oral Argumentation,” Communication Research, 21:5, Oct 1994, p. 625.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piccoli, G., A. Powell, and B. Ives. “Virtual Teams: Team Control Structure, Work Processes, and Team Effectiveness,” Information Technology and People, 17:4, 2004, p. 359.
   Google Scholar
• Poole, M.S., D.R. Siebold, and R.D. McPhee. “Group Decision Making as Structuration Process,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 1985, pp.74–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pruitt, D.G. “Choice Shifts in Group Discussion: An Introductory Review,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20:3, 1971a, pp. 339–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pruitt, D.G. “Conclusions: Toward an Understanding of Choice Shifts in Group Discussion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20:3, 1971b, pp. 495–510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rutledge, R.W. and A.M. Harrell. “Group Shifts: An Examination of the Explanatory Power of Responsibility and Framing of Accounting Information,” Working Paper, Florida International University, 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Sambamurthy, V. and G. DeSanctis. “An Experimental Evaluation of GDSS Effects on Group Performance during Stakeholder Analysis,” Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, 3, 1990, pp. 79–88.
   Google Scholar
• Sia, C., B.C.Y. Tan, and K.-K Wei. “Group Polarization and Computer-mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity,” Information Systems Research, 13:1, 2002, p. 70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siau, K. “Evaluating the Usability of a Group Support System Using Co-discovery,” Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44, Winter 2003/2004, p. 17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegel, J., V. Dubrovsky, S. Kiesler, and T.W. McGuire. “Group Processes in Computer-Mediated Communication,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 1986.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoner. “Risky and Cautious Shifts in Group Decision: The Influence of Widely Held Values,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 1968, pp. 442–459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C.R. “Deliberative Trouble? Why Groups go to Extremes,” Yale Law Journal, 110:1, October 2000, p. 71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valacich, J.S., A.R. Dennis, and T. Connolly. “Idea Generation in Computer-based Groups: A New Ending to an Old Story,” Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 1994, pp. 448–467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vidmar, N. “Effects of Group Discussion on Category Width Judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 1974, pp. 187–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinze, A. “Empirical Verification of Effectiveness for a Knowledge-Based System: The Users' Perspective,” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 37:9, 1992, pp. 309–334.
   Google Scholar
• Zahir, S. and B. Dobing. “Designing a Web-based Multi-Criteria Group Support System (MCGSS)” Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42:4, 2002, pp. 50–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zigurs, I., M.S. Poole, and G. DeSanctis. “A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making,” MIS Quarterly, 12:4, 1988, pp. 625–644.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimbardo, P.G. “The Human Choice: Individuation, Reason and Order versus De-individuation, Impulse and Chaos.” In Arnold, W.J. and D. Levine (Eds.). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1969.
   Google Scholar
• Zviran, M., N. Pliskin, and R. Levin. “Measuring User Satisfaction and Perceived Usefulness in the ERP Context,” Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45:3, Spring 2005, p. 43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar