Or…You plus Me less Them = US

Groupware

Old wine in new bottles

brianwhitworth.com2

Agreement

• Many real life tasks are “equivocal”, i.e. have no best or correct answer

• Unless the group “enacts” agreement, it cannot act

• So agreement is a critical group output

• Distinct from task performance

brianwhitworth.com3

Why is agreement important?

No Group Action

The Group Acts!

brianwhitworth.com4

Computer Mediated vs FTF Groups

• Task performance as good or better than FTF

• Generally less agreement than FTF• Generally less decision confidence• Slower acting (take longer)• Lower process satisfaction

brianwhitworth.com5

Media Richness Theory

• A physical approach, i.e. rich communication requires a high physical bandwidth for high information transfer

• Ambiguous social situations require high information transfer to “disambiguate” them

• CMI agreement is low because “rich” social influence cannot squeeze through the “lean” electronic channel

brianwhitworth.com6

Aims

• Examine assumptions behind media

richness approach

• Propose an alternative “cognitive” or

human process based perspective

• Explore some implications

brianwhitworth.com7

Assumptions of MR

I. Media richness defines communication

richness

II. Richness is a primary property of media

III. Information exchange reduces ambiguity

IV. Personal interactions give group cohesion

brianwhitworth.com8

I. Media richness defines communication richness

• Computer channels are too “narrow” to transmit rich social influence

Task Information

Social Information

Computer Channel

brianwhitworth.com9

Findings

• Lean, text based e-mail is very friendly• -Email can be more friendly than face-

to-face • Online groups behave like face-to-face

groups (norms, jargon, roles, identity)• Some CM groups report more

agreement than face-to-face• CM groups polarize

brianwhitworth.com10

A cognitive perspective

• Meaning is a cognitive overlay on physical reality

Cognitive Process

Physical signal

Meaning

A lean message can have a rich meaning

brianwhitworth.com11

Multi-Threading

Contentanalysis

I AM NOT ANGRY!

Context analysis

He is not angry

He is angry

• Multiple cognitive processes can operate on one physical signal

Messages carry content and context (sender) information

brianwhitworth.com12

II. Richness is a primary property of media

• That media can be classified according to their richness or bandwidth– Often audio is the most efficient– E-mail is preferred to telephone for some tasks

• Media cannot be arranged along a single dimension for all tasks

brianwhitworth.com13

Many properties of media

• Number of channels• Channel bandwidth• Interactivity• Synchrony/asynchrony• Transmission cost• Linkage

Comparing FTF & Computer interaction

is to confound variables

brianwhitworth.com14

Incomparability of environments

• Groupware is a communication environment

• The FTF environment is the physical world• Cannot judge one environment by the

criteria of another• Often cannot convert activities from one

environment to another• We adapt to environments

brianwhitworth.com15

Underwater

• Translate: Walking - slow

• Adapt: Swimming - better

• Invent: Flippers - best ...

brianwhitworth.com16

No “best” environment

• No best groupware configuration• Different configurations favor

different purposes (contingency theory)

• Implies need for software flexibility, which people can adapt to their needs

brianwhitworth.com17

III. Information exchange reduces ambiguity?

• “Equivocal” tasks are invariably those where personal relationships are important (e.g. getting to know someone, resolving a personal disagreement, negotiating, firing someone)

brianwhitworth.com18

Relating

• Involves the cognitive entity “relationship”

• Operates differently from task information analysis– Interactive - turn based, time sequential– Signed - not anonymous– Genuine and spontaneous– Ambiguity

brianwhitworth.com19

Relating and ambiguityIn relating, ambiguity is a social

lubricant

Want to go out to McDonalds?

Maybe

I hate McDonalds

Or perhaps Luigi’s?

Great!

brianwhitworth.com20

An unexpected conclusion

• Maintaining relationships may be as important as task analysis & completion

• Face-to-face interaction may be preferred in situations where relationships are important because it allows more ambiguity, rather than less

• Cannot just consider task purpose

brianwhitworth.com21

IV. Personal interaction creates cohesion

Group cohesiveness involves interpersonal attraction, social presence, and hence rich cues (Hogg, 1992)

A

CB

D

brianwhitworth.com22

Two processes - Bales IPA

Task resolution– Informational influence– Message content

One communication can contain both (McGrath 1984)

Group interaction has both task and social outputs

Socio-emotional– Interpersonal influence– Message context

e.g. voice tone

brianwhitworth.com23

Serious problems• Large groups are as cohesive as small ones • Cohesive group members may all dislike each

other • Bales’ SE factor splits (social & emotional)• Distributed CM groups agree less when FTF• Anonymous CM groups polarize• Reducing social presence does not increase

anti-normative behavior

brianwhitworth.com24

The influence of the group

• Results can be resolved by extending Bale’s theory

• Social identity theory reinvents “group” as a cognitive entity

• Group influence is distinct from personal influence

brianwhitworth.com25

Social identity theory• Identity - the idea of “self” (a cognition) • Behavior conforms to identity• Groups form a group identity, which group

members take into their own identity• Common identity gives common behavior

We identify with the group, not the people in it

brianwhitworth.com26

Which has more effect?

Personal one-one discussion with a nutritionist for 25

minutes

Directed discussion in a like group for

25 minutes

Radke & Klisurich, 1947

brianwhitworth.com27

Normative Process

• Herd behaviour? - we are group animals

• Individuals adjust to group position• Mental not physical positions• Must know only:

– own position– group position (majority)

brianwhitworth.com28

Multi-threaded communication

Context: Sender state information

Content: Task or factual information

Position: Action or intention to act

brianwhitworth.com29

Example

“Thanks for the great party, man!”

Content: Party was greatContext: HappyPosition: About to leave

brianwhitworth.com30

Conclusions

I. Meaning is a cognitive overlayII. Environments are multi-

dimensionalIII. Relating is distinct from task

information analysisIV. Group identification (which causes

cohesion) is distinct from relating

brianwhitworth.com31

Bipolar models

Task vs Socio-Emotional (Bales)

Interpersonal vs Normative (Social Identity Theory)

Informational vs Normative (Deutsch & Gerard,1965)

Task vs Interpersonal vs Normative

brianwhitworth.com32

Cognitive three-process (C3P) model

• Resolving the task: Informational influence

• Relating to others: Personal influence

• Representing the group: Normative influence

All processes overlap in behavior

brianwhitworth.com33

Resolving the task

• Individual level• One-way, one-to-many• Task information• Gives task output• Can be anonymous• Work setting

brianwhitworth.com34

Relating to Others

• Dyadic level• Two-way, one-to-one• Sender information • Gives interpersonal output• Cannot be anonymous • Social setting

brianwhitworth.com35

Representing the Group

• Group level• Two-way, many-to-many • Group position information

exchanged• Gives a result valuable to the group • Can be anonymous• Where group action

required

brianwhitworth.com36

Agreement conclusions

• Media richness or bandwidth has little to do with generation of group agreement

• Normative influence is the main generator of group agreement

• Main requirement for normative influence is many-to-many linkage

brianwhitworth.com37

Many-to many linkage• e.g. A choir singing• Each contributes to the

group sound• The communication

environment merges all into one sound

• Each individual hears and is influenced by the whole group Singing groups go off

key together

brianwhitworth.com38

E-mail group discussion

• Manager e-mails 20 people• Each replies to 20 people• After one interaction, could have

400 e-mails• After two rounds could have 800• Information overload

brianwhitworth.com39

Electronic Voting

• Computer can merge group positions by calculation

• One vote can replace 400 emails for the purpose of generating agreement

• As different from a “formal” vote as e-mail is from a letter

• Computer makes voting easy

brianwhitworth.com40

An experimental test

1. Agreement requires:

• Rich communication

• Task information

• Conflict resolution

• Signed interaction

2. Agreement requires:

• No rich communication

• No task information

• No conflict resolution

• No personal interaction

Enactment of agreement only requires the exchange of position information

brianwhitworth.com41

Treatments

I. BlindII. Group aware

- exchanged position information

III. Group and confidence aware -exchanged position andconfidence informationComputer-mediated vs altered CM design

brianwhitworth.com42

Position information exchange

AAABB Group Position: A

• Three voted for A • Two voted for B• Anonymous voting

brianwhitworth.com43

Confidence Symbols

Very Confident !!Confident !Fairly ConfidentNot Very Confident ½Not Confident at All ¼

brianwhitworth.com44

Confidence information exchange

A¼A¼A ¼B!!B!! Group Position: A

• Three weak votes for A • Two strong votes for B

brianwhitworth.com45

Informationexchanged

First IE Set Second IESet

Third IE Set

Blind Intellective

Preference

Group Intellective Intellective Intellective

aware Preference Preference Preference

Confidence Intellective Intellective Intellective

aware Preference Preference Preference

Design

Repeated measures design - every subject under every treatment

brianwhitworth.com46

Effect on Agreement

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

A

Blind Position Confidence

Information Exchanged9% of votes unanimous

66% of votes unanimous

brianwhitworth.com47

“I think I agreed with most of what the group decided”

4.08

5.6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Response

Blind

Group Aware

Tre

atm

ent

Key1 = Strongly Disagree4 = In the Middle7 = Strongly Agree

brianwhitworth.com48

Effect on Confidence

3.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.9

44.1

C

Blind Position Confidence

Information Exchanged

Group position increased confidence

Key1 = Not confident at all3 = Fairly confident4 = Confident5 = Very Confident

brianwhitworth.com49

Agreement was enacted without

• Rich communication medium • Rich information exchange• Reasons or arguments• Personal context or social presence• Any development of trust • Any surfacing or resolution of conflict • Signed interaction (i.e. anonymously)

All that was required was the exchange of position information

brianwhitworth.com50

Summary

• C3P model suggests three purposes in group interaction:– To resolve task information– To maintain and develop interpersonal

relationships– To maintain and develop group unity

• The primary process generating group agreement is normative

brianwhitworth.com51

Dynamic Interaction

Task

Relationships

Group

The complexity of group interaction arises less from the complexity of individual cognitive processes than from their dynamic interaction and overlap

brianwhitworth.com52

Levels of Groupware Support

I Supports factual information

exchangeII Supports relationshipsIII Supports groups, norms

and social structures

I

I IIII

brianwhitworth.com53

1.Represent the group

Who am I ?(my identity)

3.Resolve the task

What is the issue?(in me/you context)

2.Relate to another

Who are you?(in relation to me)

BEHAVIOUR

Action based onidentity

Action based onrelationship

Action based ontask information

Given who I am,our relationshipmust be this way

Given who I am,the task must beresolved this way

Given our relation,the task must beresolved this way

brianwhitworth.com54

Final CommentGroupware is currently at an interval.

The next major step, of which the Internet is just a beginning, is the migration of human social life

online. To take this step we must recognize the dynamic complexity of group interaction, and distinguish normative from personal influence. Groupware will “come of age” when it can recognize and

support both types of social influence.

brianwhitworth.com55

May the wine mature!