This article advances the general argument that the importance of communicationfor group decision-making performance and its impact on such performance are a function of three task characteristics: structure, information requirement, and evaluation demand. In developing this argument, the article identifies the task circumstances in which group communication can be expected to play a role in determining decision-making performance, as well as specifying how communication functions within those circumstances to affect decision efficacy. The article concludes with concrete directions and suggestionsforfuture research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Argyle, M. , & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. London: C.U.P.
2.
Bamlund, D. C. (1959). A comparative study of individual, majority, and group judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 55-60.
3.
Bavelas, A. (1948). A mathematic model for group structure.Applied Anthropology, 7, 16-30.
4.
Bavelas, A. (1950). Communication pattems in task-oriented groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22, 725-730.
5.
Burleson, B. R. , Levine, B. J., & Samter, W. (1984). Decision-making procedure and decision quality. Human Communication Research, 10, 557-574.
6.
Campbell, J. P. (1968). Individual versus group problem solving in an industrial sample. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 205-210.
7.
Cook, M. , & Lallijee, M. (1972). Verbal substitutes for visual signals in interaction. Semiotica, 3, 212-221.
8.
Davis, J. H. (1969). Group performance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
9.
Emmons, J. F. , & Kaplan, L. M. (1971). The Delphi method of decision-making: A futuristic technique. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association.
10.
Gouran, D. S. , & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1983). The role of communication in decision-making groups: A functional perspective. In M. S. Mander (Ed.), Communications in transition. New York: Praeger.
11.
Gouran, D. S. , & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1986). Counteractive functions of communication in effective group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
Hackman, J. R. , & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
13.
Hewes, D. E. (1986). A socioegocentric theory of group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are n + 1 heads better than one?Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517-539.
15.
Hiltz, S. R. , Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision-making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225-252.
16.
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1982). Group communication and problem-solving effectiveness I: A critical review of inconsistent findings. Communication Quarterly, 30, 134-141.
17.
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1985). Discussion procedures and decision-making performance: A test of a functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 12, 203-224.
18.
Hirokawa, R. Y (1988). Group communication and decision-making performance: A continued test of the functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 14, 487-515.
19.
Hirokawa, R. Y. , & Scheerhorn, D. R. (1986). Communication in faulty group decisionmaking. In R. Y Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decisionmaking. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
20.
Kanekar, S. , & Rosenbaum, M. E. (1972). Group performance on a multiple-solution task as a function of available time. Psychonomic Science, 27, 279-296.
21.
Lamm, H. S. , & Tromsdorff, G. (1973). Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency (brainstorming): A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 361-388.
22.
Leavitt, H. J. (1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 38-50.
23.
Marquart, D. I. (1955). Group problem solving. Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 103-113.
24.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
25.
Newell, A. (1980). Reasoning, problem solving, and decision processes: The problem space as a fundamental category. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. 8). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Riecken, H. W. (1958). The effect of talkativeness on ability to influence group solutions of problems. Sociometry, 21, 309-321.
27.
Shaw, M. (1932). A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of complex problems. American Journal of Psychology, 44, 491-504.
28.
Shaw, M. E. (1964). Communication networks. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
29.
Shaw, M. E. (1978). Communication networks 14 years later. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Group processes. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
30.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
31.
Shaw, M. E. , & Penrod, W. T. (1962). Validity of information, attempted influence, and quality of group decisions. Psychological Reports, 10, 19-23.
32.
Shaw, M. E. , & Penrod, W. T. (1964). Group effectiveness as a function of amount of "legitimate" information. Journal of Social Psychology, 62, 241-246.
33.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
34.
Taylor, D. W. , & Faust, W. L. (1952). Twenty questions: Efficiency in problem-solving as a function of size of group. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 360-368.
35.
Williams, E. (1977). Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 963-976.
36.
Zaleska, M. (1978). Individual and group choices among solutions of a problem when solution verifiability is moderately low. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 37-53.
