Hewes’s socioegocentric model is applied to discussion data from an information-sharing task. The primary question is whether discussion data display psychological (individual-level) or interactional (group-level) associations among contributions. Two studies are described. The first used a card sort task to group the 42 items from the choose-the-best-candidate task. The second study used the groupings from the first task to code information-based contributions to discussion. Results indicated that participants reliably group the items into valence-based categories and that there were valence-based associations between items contributed to discussion. However, the associations were at the individual level of analysis—there were no group-level effects for information sharing. However, other features of the discussions did have group-level effects, and we argue for a better understanding of information sharing in terms of the comments that frame information-based contributions to interaction.
Bonito, J.A. ( 2001). An information-processing approach to participation in small groups. Communication Research, 28, 275.
2.
Bonito, J.A. ( 2003a). A social relations analysis of participation in small groups. Communication Monographs, 70, 83-97.
3.
Bonito, J.A. ( 2003b). Information processing and exchange in mediated groups: Interdependence and interaction. Human Communication Research , 29, 533-559.
4.
Bonito, J.A. ( 2004). Shared cognition and participation in small groups: Similarity of member prototypes. Communication Research, 31, 704-730.
5.
Bonito, J.A. ( 2007). A local model of information sharing in small groups . Communication Theory, 17, 252-280.
6.
Bonito, J.A., Decamp, M.H., & Ruppel, E.K. ( 2008). The process of information sharing in small groups: Application of a local model. Communication Monographs, 75, 136-157.
7.
Bonito, J.A., & Meyers, R.A. ( 2010, November). Examining functional communication from a socioegocentric perspective: Application of a latent group model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association , San Francisco, CA.
8.
Corman, S.R., & Kuhn, T. ( 2005). The detectability of socio-egocentric group speech: A Quasi-Turing Test. Communication Monographs, 72, 117-143.
9.
Cox, T.F., & Cox, M.A. ( 2001). Multidimensional scaling (Vol. 88). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall. Retrieved July 4, 2010, from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0646/00060180-d.html
10.
Dion, K.L. ( 2000). Group cohesion: From "field of forces" to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice , 4, 7-26.
11.
Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. ( 2002). Modeling the personality of dyads and groups. Journal of Personality, 70, 901-924.
12.
Greitemeyer, T., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2003). Preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile paradigm: Beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 84, 322-339.
13.
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.
14.
Hewes, D.E. ( 2009). The influence of communication processes on group outcomes: Antithesis and thesis. Human Communication Research, 35, 249-271.
15.
Hewes, D.E., & Evans, D. ( 1978). Three theories of egocentric speech: A contrastive analysis . Communication Monographs, 45, 18-32.
16.
Lambert, B.L. ( 2001). Automatic content analysis of pharmacist-patient interactions using the Theme Machine document clustering system. In M. West (Ed.), Progress in communication sciences, Volume 17: Applications of computer content analysis (pp. 103-122). Westport, CT : Ablex.
17.
Larson, J.R., Foster-Fishman, P.G., & Keys, C.B. ( 1994). Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67, 446-461.
18.
Levinson, S.C. ( 1981). Some pre-observations on the modelling of dialogue. Discourse Processes, 4, 93-116.
19.
Levinson, S.C. ( 1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Meyers, R.A. ( 1989). Testing Persuasive Argument Theory’s predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence . Communication Monographs, 56, 112-132.
21.
Meyers, R.A., & Seibold, D.R. ( 1990). Perspectives on group argument: A critical review of persuasive arguments theory and an alternative structurational view. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 13 (pp. 268-302). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
Padula, M.A., Conoley, C.W., & Garbin, C.P. ( 1998). The dimensions underlying loneliness counseling interventions: A multidimensional scaling solution. Journal of Counseling & Development, 76, 442-451.
23.
Parker, K.C. ( 1988). Speaking turns in small group interaction: A context-sensitive event sequence model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 54, 965-971.
24.
Pavitt, C. ( 1993). Does communication matter in social influence during small group discussion? Five positions. Communication Studies , 44, 216-227.
25.
Pavitt, C., & Johnson, K.K. ( 1999). An examination of the coherence of group discussions . Communication Research, 26, 303-321.
26.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. ( 1993). A theory of explanation-based decision making. In Klein, G.A., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., Zsambok, C.E. (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 188-201). Westport, CT: Ablex. Retrieved July 4, 2010, from http://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1993-97634-011&site=ehost-live
27.
Poole, M.S. ( 1983). Decision development in small groups III: A multiple sequence model of group decision development. Communication Monographs, 50, 321-342.
28.
Poole, M.S. ( 1999). Group communication theory. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 37-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Seibold, D.R., & Meyers, R.A. ( 2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38, 312-336.
30.
Stasser, G., & Taylor, L.A. ( 1991). Speaking turns in face-to-face discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 675-684.
31.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. ( 2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304-313.
32.
Tracy, K.T. ( 1982). On getting the point: Distinguishing "issues" and "events," an aspect of conversational coherence. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 279-301). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
33.
Tsogo, L., Masson, M.H., & Bardot, A. ( 2000). Multidimensional scaling methods for many-object sets: A review. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 307-319.
34.
Weiner, S.L., & Goodenough, D.R. (1977). A move toward a psychology of conversation. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 213-225). Norwood, NJ : Ablex.
35.
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, 286-310.
