The study examines effects of media synchronicity in a group problem-solving task. The media characteristics of parallelism, immediacy of feedback, and reprocessability are varied within text-based computer-mediated communication. The hidden profile task requires groups to exchange unshared pieces of information and to integrate them. Contrary to expectations, asynchronous media characteristics do not support the production of unshared information. Furthermore, asynchronous media characteristics result in higher engagement in integrating information during discussion. Asynchronous media characteristics decrease the coherence of the discourse and increase the mental effort of the participants. Since coherence and mental effort indicate that asynchronous media characteristics impede the information integration process, the higher engagement in information integration is interpreted as compensatory effort.
Baltes, B., Dickson, M., Sherman, M., Bauer, C., & LaGanke, J. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision-making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 156-179.
2.
Boyle, E.A., Anderson, A.H., & Newlands, A. (1994). The effects of eye contact on dialogue and performance in a co-operative problem solving task. Language and Speech , 37, 1-20.
3.
Bradner, E., Kellog, W.A., & Erickson, T. (1999). The adoption and use of "Babble": A field study of chat in the workplace. In S. Bodker, M. Kyng, & K. Schmidt (Eds.), Proceedings of the European conference on computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 139-158). Copenhagen, Denmark: Kluwer Academic.
4.
Brünken, R., Plass, J.L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53-61.
5.
Burke, K., & Chidambaram, L. (1999). How much bandwidth is enough? A longitudinal study of media characteristics and group outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 23(4), 557-579.
6.
Carletta, J., Isard, S., Doherty-Sneddon, G., Isard, A., Kowtko, J.C., & Anderson, A.H. (1997). The reliability of a dialogue structure coding scheme. Computational Linguistics, 23(1), 13-31.
7.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction . Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
8.
Clark, H.H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Clark, H.H., & Brennan, B.E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. Levine , & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cruz, M.G., Henningsen, D.D., & Smith, B.A. (1999). The impact of directive leadership on group information sampling, decisions, and perceptions of the leader. Communication Research, 26, 349-369.
12.
Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organisation design. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organisational behavior (pp. 191-233). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
13.
Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
14.
Dennis, A.R. (1996). Information exchange and use in group decision making: You can lead a group to information, but you can't make it think. MIS Quarterly, 20, 433-457.
15.
Dennis, A.R., & Valacich, J.S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 531-537.
16.
Dennis, A.R., & Valacich, J.S. (1999). Rethinking media richness: Towards a theory of media synchronicity. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (IEEE). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
17.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497-509.
18.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392-403.
19.
Doherty-Sneddon, G., Anderson, A.H., O'Malley, C., Langton, S., Garrod, S., & Bruce, V. (1997). Face-to-face and video mediated communication: a comparison of dialogue structure and task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 1-21.
20.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Gallupe, R.B., Dennis, A.R., Cooper, W.H., Valacich, J.S., Bastianutti, L.M., & Nunamaker, J. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 350-369.
24.
Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 47-58.
25.
Hancock, J.T., & Dunham, P.J. (2001). Language use in computer-mediated communication: The role of coordination devices. Discourse Processes, 31(1), 91-110.
26.
Herbsleb, J.D., Atkins, D.L., Boyer, D.G., Handel, M., & Finholt, T. (2002). Introducing instant messaging and chat in the workplace. In D. Wixon (Ed.), Conference on human factors in computing systems. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves (pp. 171-178). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.
27.
Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. In R. H. Sprague (Ed.), Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/1999/0001/02/00012022.pdf
28.
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.
29.
Holmer, T. (2005). CHATLINE Manual Draft (Version 2.8) [Software application, research prototype]. Darmstadt, Germany: Fraunhofer IPSI.
30.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351-371.
31.
Kinney, S.T., & Dennis, A.R. (1994). Reevaluating media richness: Cues, feedback, and task. In T. N. Mudge & B. D. Shriver (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual Hawaii international conference on system science (pp. 21-30). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press.
32.
Kinney, S.T., & Watson, R.T. (1992). The effect of medium and task on dyadic communication . In J. I. DeGross, J. D. Becker, & J. J. Elam (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on information systems (pp. 107-117). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota.
33.
Kowtko, J., Isard, S., & Doherty-Sneddon, G. (1992). Conversional games within dialogue (Research Paper HCRC/RP-31). Human Communications Research Centre . Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh.
34.
Laughlin, P.R. (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative, problem-solving groups on verbal intellective tasks. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 127-155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
Levine, T.R., & Hullett, C.R. (2002). Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 612-625.
36.
Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312-320.
37.
McGrath, J.E., & Berdahl, J.L. (1998). Groups, technology, and time: Use of computers for collaborative work. In R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards , E. J. Posvoc, F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar , E. Henderson-King, & J. Myers (Eds.), Applications of theory and research on groups to social issues (Vol. 4, pp. 205-228). New York: Plenum.
38.
McGrath, J.E., & Hollingshead, A.B. (1993). Putting `group' back in group support systems: Some theoretical issues about dynamic processes in groups with technological enhancements. In L. M. Jessup & J. S. Valacich (Eds.), Group support systems: New perspectives (pp. 78-96). New York: Macmillan.
39.
McGrath, J.E., & Hollingshead, A.B. (1994). Groups interacting with technology: ideas, issues, evidence, and an agenda. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
Mennecke, B., Valacich, J.S., & Wheeler, B.C. (2000). The effects of media and task on user performance: A test of the task-media fit hypothesis. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9, 507-529.
41.
Muller, M.J., Raven, M.E., Kogan, S., Millen, D.R., & Carey, K. (2003). Introducing chat into business organizations: Toward an instant messaging maturity model. In M. Pendergast, K. Schmidt, C. Simone, & M. Tremaine (Eds.), Conference on supporting groupware. Proceedings of the 2003 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work. (pp. 50-57). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.
42.
Münzer, S., & Borg, A. (2008). Computer-mediated communication: Synchronicity and compensatory effort. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 663-683.
43.
Nardi, B.A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in action. In W. Kellog & S. Whittaker (Eds.), Computer supported cooperative work. Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 79-88). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.
44.
Newlands, A., Anderson, A.H., & Mullin, J. (2003). Adapting communicative strategies to computer-mediated communication: An analysis of task performance and dialogue structure. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 325-348.
45.
Pierce, C.A., Block, R.A., & Aguinis, H. (2004). Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 916-924.
46.
Piontkoswki, U., Böing-Messing, E., Hartmann, J., Keil, W., & Laus, F. (2003). Transaktives Gedächtnis, Informationsintegration und Entscheidungsfindung im Medienvergleich. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 15(2), 60-68.
47.
Rice, R.E. (1992). Task analyzability, use of new media, and effectiveness: A multi-site exploration of media richness. Organization Science , 3(4), 475-500.
48.
Shankar, T.R., VanKleek, M., Vicente, A., & Smith, B.K. (2000). Fugue: A computer mediated conversational system that supports turn negotiation. In R. H. Sprague (Ed.), Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society. Available from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber=6709
49.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision-making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478.
50.
Straus, S.G., & McGrath, J.E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 87-97.
51.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
52.
Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 457-466.
53.
Valacich, J.S., Dennis, A.R., & Connolly, T. (1994). Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57(3), 448-467.
54.
Walther, J.B., & Burgoon, J.K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 50-88.
55.
Werry, C.C. (1996). Linguistic and interactional features of internet relay chat. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
56.
Wittenbaum, G.M., Hollingshead, A.B., & Botero, I.C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71(3), 286-310.
