In this article, we proffer new theoretical ideas regarding how the structural features of e-mail make it more likely that disputes escalate when people communicate electronically compared to when they communicate face-to-face or via the telephone. Building upon Rubin et al.’s (1994) conflict escalation model, we propose a new conceptual framework that articulates: (i) the structural properties of e-mail communication; (ii) the impact of these properties on conflict process effects; and (iii) how process effects, in turn, trigger conflict escalation. Propositions specify the nature of relationships among process effects and the components of conflict escalation. We also discuss how the extent of familiarity between individuals acts as a moderator of these relationships. Our conceptual framework, the dispute-exacerbating model of e-mail (DEME), is designed to be a foundation for future empirical research.
Alicke, M.D. , Klotz, M.L. , Breitenbecher, D.L. & Yurak, T.J.Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1995, 68, 804–825 .
2.
Brett, J.M. , Shapiro, D.L. & Lytle, A.L.Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Friedman & Currall Conflict escalation 1345
3.
Burgoon, J.K. , Le-Poire, B.A. & Rosenthal, R.Effects of preinteraction expectancies and target communication on perceiver reciprocity and compensation in dyadic interaction . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1995, 31, 287–321 .
4.
Carroll, J.S. , Perkowitz, W.T. , Lurigio, A.J. & Weaver, M.F.Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology, and personality . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1987, 52, 107–118 .
5.
Chaiken, S. & Eagly, A.H.Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 45, 241–256 .
6.
Clark, H. & Brennan, S.Grounding in communication. In L. Resnick , J. Levine & S. Teasley (Eds), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association , 1991, pp. 127–149.
7.
Daft, R.L. & Lengel, R.H.Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design . Management Science,1986, 32, 554–571 .
8.
Davidson, M. & Friedman, R.When excuses don’t work: The persistent injustice effect among black managers . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1998, 43, 154–183 .
9.
DeSanctis, G. & Poole, M.S.Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory . Organization Science, 1994, 5, 121–147 .
10.
Dickson, G.W. , DeSanctis, G. , Poole, M.S. & Jackson, B.M.Help or hindrance? The role of communication technologies in changing organizational form. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 1997.
11.
Festinger, L.A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press , 1957.
12.
Fredrickson, B.L. & Kahneman, D.Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1993, 65, 45–55 .
13.
Garfinkel, H.Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press , 1967.
14.
Garton, L. & Wellman, B.Social impacts of electronic mail in organizations: A review of the research literature . Communication Yearbook, 1995, 18, 434–453 .
15.
Harasim, L.M.Networlds: Networks as a social space. In L.M. Harasim (Ed.), Global networks: Computers and international communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press , 1993, pp. 15–34.
16.
Hastorf, A.H. & Cantril, C.They saw a game: A case study . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1954, 49, 129–134 .
17.
Hayden, T. & Mischel, W.Maintaining trait consistency in the resolution of behavioral inconsistency: The wolf in sheep’s clothing?Journal of Personality, 1976, 44, 109–132 .
18.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. & Leidner, D.E.Communication and trust in global virtual teams . Organization Science, 1999, 10, 791–815 .
19.
Kemp, N.J. & Rutter, D.R.Cuelessness and the content and style of conversation . British Journal of Social Psychology, 1982, 21, 43–49 .
20.
Kiesler, S.Preface. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum , 1997.
21.
Kiesler, S. & Sproull, L.Group decision making and communication technology . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1992, 52, 96–123 .
22.
Landry, E.M.Scrolling around the new organization: The potential for conflict in the online environment . Negotiation Journal, 2000, 133–142 .
23.
Lea, M. & Spears, R.Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making . International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 1991, 34, 283–301 .
24.
Lerner, G.H.Finding ‘face’ in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction . Social Psychology Quarterly, 1996, 59, 303–321 .
25.
Lombardo, J.P. , Weiss, R.F. & Stich, M.H.Effectance reduction through speaking in reply and its relation to attraction . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 28, 325–332 .
26.
Lyubomirsky, S. , Tucker, K.L. , Caldwell, N.D. & Berg, K.Why ruminators are poor problem solvers: Clues from the phenomenology of dysphoric rumination . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999, 77, 1041–1060 .
27.
McGrath, J.E. & Hollingshead, A.B.Effects of technological enhancements on the flow of work in groups: Preliminary report of a systematic review of the research literature (Report 90–1). Urbana: University of Illinois , 1990.
28.
McLeod, P.L. , Baron, R.S. , Marti, M.W. & Yoon, K.The eyes have it: Minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997, 82, 706–718 .
29.
Nakamura, M. , Buck, R. & Kenny, D.A.Relative contributions of expressive behavior and contextual information to the judgment of the emotional state of another . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1990, 9, 1032–1039 .
30.
Orcutt, J.D. & Anderson, R.E.Social interaction, dehumanization and the ‘computerized other.’Sociology and Social Research, 1977, 61, 380–396 .
31.
Owens, D.A. , Neale, M.A. & Sutton, R.I.Technologies of status management: Status dynamics in email communications. In M.A. Neale , E.A. Mannix & T.L. Griffith (Eds), Research on groups and teams, Vol. 3 – Technology. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press , 2000.
32.
Poole, M.S. , Holmes, M. & DeSanctis, G.Conflict management in computer-supported meeting environment . Management Science, 1991, 37, 926–953 .
33.
Powell, R.S. & O’Neal, E.C.Communication feedback and duration as determinants of accuracy, confidence, and differentiation in interpersonal perception . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 746–756 .
34.
Pruitt, D.G. , Parker, J.C. & Mikolic, J.M.Escalation as a reaction to persistent annoyance . The International Journal of Conflict Management, 1997, 8, 252–270 .
35.
Rice, R.E. & Love, G.Electronic emotions: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated network . Communication Research, 1987, 14, 85–108 .
36.
Richman, W.L. , Kiesler, S.Weisband, S. & Drasgow, F.A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999, 84, 754–775 .
37.
Rogers, R.W.Expressions of aggression: Aggression-inhibiting effects of anonymity to authority and threatened retaliation . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1980, 6, 315–320 .
38.
Rogers, R.W. & Ketchen, C.M.Effects of anonymity and arousal on aggression . Journal of Psychology, 1979, 102, 13–19 .
39.
Rubin, J.Z. , Pruitt, D.G. & Kim, S.H.Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement, 2nd edn.New York: McGraw-Hill , 1994.
40.
Rusting, C.L. & Nolen-Hoeksema, S.Regulating responses to anger: Effects of rumination and distraction on angry mood . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1998, 74, 790–803 .
41.
Sambamurthy, V. & Poole, M.S.The effects of variations in capabilities of GDSS designs on management of cognitive conflict in groups . Information Systems Research, 1992, 3, 224–251 .
42.
Short, J. , Williams, E. & Christie, B.The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley1976.
43.
Siegel, J. , Dubrovsky, V. , Kiesler, S. & McGuire, T.W.Group processes in computermediated communication . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1986, 37, 157–187 .
44.
Stephens, J. & Beattie, G.Turn-taking on the telephone: Textual features which distinguish turn-final and turn-medial utterances . Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1986, 5, 211–222 .
45.
Stoddard, D.B. , Donnellon, A. & Nolan, R.L.Verifone Case # 9–398–030. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School , 1997.
46.
Tesser, A. , Pilkington, C.J. & McIntosh, W.D.Self-evaluation maintenance and the mediational role of emotion: The perception of friends and strangers . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1989, 57, 442–456 .
47.
Valley, K. & Keros, A.T.It takes two: Improvisations in negotiation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School , 2000, p. 48-48.
48.
Valley, K.L. , Moag, J. & Bazerman, M.H.A matter of trust: Effects of communication on the efficiency and distribution of outcomes . Journal of Economic Behavior Organization, 1998, 34, 211–238 .
49.
Varey, C. & Kahneman, D.Experiences extended across time: Evaluation of moments and episodes . Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1992, 5, 169–185 .
50.
Vitz, P.C. & Kite, W.R.Factors affecting conflict and negotiation within an alliance . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1970, 6, 233–247 .
51.
Walther, J.Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction . Communication Research, 1996, 23, 3–43 .
52.
Weisband, S. & Atwater, L.Evaluating self and others in electronic and face-to-face groups . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999, 84, 632–639 .
53.
Zigurs, I. , Poole, M.S. & DeSanctis, G.A study of influence in computer-mediated group decision making. MIS Quarterly, December, 1988, 625–644.
54.
Zuboff, S.In the age of the smart machine. New York: Basic Books , 1988.
