Impact of Individualism

The Impact of IndividualismCollectivism, Social Presence, and Group Diversity on Group Decision Making under Majority Influence Author(s):
Dongsong Zhang, Paul Benjamin Lowry, Lina Zhou and Xiaolan Fu Source: Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Spring, 2007), pp. 53-80 Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40398871 . Accessed: 04/11/2013 23:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Management Information Systems.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 216.165.95.79 on Mon, 4 Nov 2013 23:17:37 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
- Collectivism, The ImpactofIndividualism and GroupDiversity on Social Presence, GroupDecisionMakingUnder MajorityInfluence

DONGSONG ZHANG,PAUL BENJAMIN LOWRY,LINA ZHOU, AND XIAOLAN FU
ofInformation Professor intheDepartment Zhangis anAssistant Dongsong Systems hisPh.D. inMIS from Baltimore He received ofMaryland, attheUniversity County. focuses on computer-mediated comresearch His current ofArizona. theUniversity His andknowledge mobile andcollaboration, munication management. computing, injournals suchas Journal has appeared work Systems, ofManagement Information and & Management, Communications ACM,IEEE Transactions, Information ofthe and NIH been research has His DecisionSupport by Google. supported Systems. atthe Marriott ofInformation Professor is anAssistant Lowry Paul Benjamin Systems Debra Rollins a Kevin and and Fellow, School,Brigham Faculty YoungUniversity, his foreBusiness.He received withtheKevinand Debra RollinsCenter affiliated include His interests ofArizona. theUniversity Ph.D. inMIS from human-computer e-business interaction communication, (electronic entertainment), (collaboration, in Journal He has articles research. IS of scientometrics and of published markets), Journal ACM, AIS, Communications ofthe ofthe Systems, Management Information onSystems, IEEE Transactions Communications AIS,Decision Systems, Support ofthe andSmall onProfessional IEEE Transactions ManandCybernetics, Communication, Research. Group of at theUniversity of Information Professor Lina Zhou is an Assistant Systems from Science in her Ph.D. She received Baltimore Computer County. Maryland, comon computer-mediated center interests China.Herresearch BeijingUniversity, has Herwork interaction. andspeech semantic Web, detection, munication, deception Communications inJournal beenpublished of Systems, Information ofManagement IEEE Transactions on Speechand AudioProcessing, theACM,IEEE Transactions Communicaon Professional IEEE Transactions Man and Cybernetics, on Systems, and GroupDecision & Management, DecisionSupport tion, Information Systems, andNegotiation. Chinese of Psychology, at theInstitute of Psychology Xiaolan Fu is a Professor from herPh.D. in Psychology China.She received of Sciences,Beijing, Academy in from a B.S. M.S. and and an of the Chinese Psychology Peking Academy Sciences, activiofhuman focuses on theprinciples research Hercurrent cognitive University. issuesintheareasofcomputer-supported andbehavioral themental cooperative ties,
/Spring Journal 2007,Vol.23, No. 4, pp. 53-80. Systems Information ofManagement Inc. 2007 M.E. Sharpe, 0742-1222/2007 $9.50 + 0.00. 1222230404 DOI 10.2753/MIS0742-
54 ZHANG, ANDFU LOWRY, ZHOU,
and human-computer 150 research interaction. She has published work, papersin andin Chinese. English ofgroup members toimpose is theattempt Abstract: influence bya majority Majority Becauseof ongroup decision their common dissenters making. position during group ingroup is becoming teams tasks theuse ofcross-cultural increasingly globalization, social hownational common. The objective ofthisstudy was to investigate culture, decisionin a affect influence and group majority presence, groupdiversity may A total in a large-scale context. of 183 groups experiempirical participated making ofgroup minorities culture ment at multiple sites. The results showthat thenational theuse ofcomputer-mediated has a significant on majority influence andthat impact The findings have boththeoretical can reducemajority influence. communication ofgroup andtheeffectiveness theoutcome andpractical for implications improving in cross-cultural environments. decision making Key wordsand phrases: communication, culture, CMC, computer-mediated group social decision decision influence, diversity, majority making, group systems, group teams. virtual presence,
As globalizationincreases, firms realize that competitive advantage partof their onthedevelopment Thecurrent business ofsuperior collaborative depends capability. but environment often involves in face-to-face collaboration (FtF) settings increasinvolves distributed to andrapidly virtual teams with uncertain, ingly cope ambiguous, information. Virtual teams arephysically teams that changing heavily dispersed rely on electronic and collaboration communication forperforming much technologies of their work. These changes have underlined theimportance of virtual teamsand in the massive shift toward a [59]. offshoring globaldigital economy Giventheprevalence of diverse workgroups multicultural that are composed of members from national it is vitalforbusinesses and managers cultures, contrasting tounderstand thechallenges ofdifferent A lackofunderstanding national cultures. of cross-cultural collaboration canleadtoa variety ofproblems. Forexample, organizational studies onteams more than onenational culture showthat suchteams involving more suchas conflict, may experience problems, misunderstanding, poorperformance and decreased trust as tohomogeneous teams. To enable effective [61], [31], compared members must first be willing toshare information andthen have collaboration, group an opportunity tocontribute. individuals' motivation tovoiceopinions can However, within thecontext ofanywork situation orenvironment vary greatly [60]. Majority thephenomenon of interest in thisresearch, is a particularly influence, problematic in andmerits further phenomenon cross-cultural groups investigation. is theattempt of group members to imposetheir Majority influence bya majority common on dissenters a position group [36].Majoriduring decision-making process tiescan shapenotonlythejudgments andbehavior of individual members butalso thewaythey think in poorgroup decisions andunfavorable [51], which mayresult
GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE
55
Webelieve that national outcomes. culture is a key element influence, affecting majority becausetherelated of is a product of culture [6]. phenomenon conformitypartially Different cultural ordecrease socialtensions andproblems perspectives mayincrease in groups. associated with influence majority orrelated software which Collaborative aredesigned toimsupport group systems, canbe usedtodampen social-oriented information prove group processes, exchange effect decreasemajority influence and improve [84]. This dampening mayin turn forindividual members to contribute. In thispaper, we refer to group opportunities forcomputer-medias a common andgeneric umbrella term collaborative software limitation of existing on CMC studies atedcommunication (CMC) tools.A glaring focuson Western cultures than30 empirical mostof them is that [20]. Onlyfewer issues[77]. CMC can increase reduce havefocused on cultural studies participation; and and create interference; domination, blocking, cognitive greater production from thefindings research of influence [11, 33]. However, previous using equality not be to other cultures. Western cultures from may directly applicable participants from cultures from different members may perceive group dynamics differently Group one the This is of reasons of behavior. Western traditional many major concepts group in Western countries havefailed andorganization developed practices management whether theuse of CMC can cultures to other whenintroduced [35]. Furthermore, andheterogeneous in influence of culturally homogeneous equality greater promote validated still needstobe empirically [3]. groups in social psyinfluence studies on majority have beenextensive there Although from cultural and this issue both have few the since 1950s, investigated chology how in we are interested in this research, Thus, exploring technological perspectives. influence andwhether differences is affected influence majority bycultural majority several we aimto address CMC. Specifically, can be diminished important through different cultures from different members Do research experience questions: group Do differences existin decision influence levelsof majority making? during group in FtF and distributed decision affects influence thewaythat making group majority of majority Does theeffect CMC support? with or without communication settings to from minorities ongroup influence culturally groups homogeneous culturally vary a theoretical we first these To address developed questions, groups? heterogeneous national cultures from different minorities how group modelto explainand predict We then in variouscommunication influence settings. majority maybehaveunder tested were which into model the theoretical empirically hypotheses, operationalized and the discuss we inrigorous contributions, limitations, Finally, settings. laboratory directions. research future
Foundation Conceptual Influence Majority

of one or more and attitudes refersto the wayin which Social influence opinions influence form of social themostdominant others. affect [40], Conformity, persons
56
ZHANG, LOWRY, ZHOU, AND FU
is a processof conflict witha resolution in whichdeviant groupmembers comply how a Because this line of research investigates majormajority viewpoint. group's to as majority a minority to conform to itsview,itis also referred itycan influence A majority research. can be defined in at leastthree different ways [40]: influence beto thenumber in each group, with themajority ofmembers (1) according group holds the a than the ingnumerically typically greater minority group;(2) majority standards societal normative andbeliefs that reflect (i.e.,opinions position accepted and(3) basedon in a society), whereas a minority holdsan anti-normative position; are ofinfluence, thepower between thesourceandrecipient majorities relationship influence in In with the bulk of than minorities. majority higher power congruence we adoptthefirst definition. literature, that foster of at[49] argues majorities convergence Convergent-divergent theory Movement from a and alternatives considered. tention, position thoughts, minority that totwoassumptions: oneis thebelief toa majority is usually attributable position are likelyto be correct an assumption termed informational majority judgments Wheninformational theminority sensesthe"strength influence occurs, influence. in numbers" is that individuals aboutthemajority's The other position. assumption from the that emanates want to be accepted andtherefore wishto avoid disapproval When a minority termed normative influence. maintaining viewpoint anassumption about truth as they normative influence minorities arenotso much concerned occurs, areconcerned a majority is surprisaboutbeingsocially with accepted. Discrepancy it increases or either thebeliefthat one is inadequate or deviant ing and stressful; thedoubt in one's ownopinion suchinternal to conflicts, [4]. To reduce peopletend the and convince themselves of the of that adopt majority position position validity issuesonlyfrom themajority also be [50]. Peoplemight byconsidering perspective motivated to identify withor see themselves as similar to themajority in order to status orpower[47]. perceive greater influence canresult inpoororganizational because decisions, Strong majority people fear from the A of U.S. showed that in more than [74]. study reprisal majority juries 85 percent ofall judicialcases,themajority on thefirst ballotwas thefinal position verdict showed that when a position source 50 percent [34].Another study comprised ofa group's there was to that without detailed position, compliance position processing oftheposition's [41]. messages
Culture
culture is conceptualized as shared andvaluesin a norms, Fundamentally, symbols, socialcollectivity, suchas a country national culture also rep[27]. Beyond culture, resents shared valuesandattitudes within a specific or in forms of organization other socialgrouping theconcept ofculture is to identify dimen[82]. One wayto clarify sionsofcultural variation cultural that hasbeenadopted [76].Themost popular theory in information research is Hofstede's model of national culture (IS) systems [27], which was developed basedon a largebodyof survey dataaboutthevaluesheldby inlocal subsidiaries ofIBM inmore than 50 countries. His modeldefines employees
57
dimensions that arebased on value orientations that are shared across fivecultural individualism-collectivism cultures: (I-C), masculinity-femininity, powerdistance, andConfucian avoidance, dynamism. uncertainty that itis rather criticize Hofstede's modelon thegrounds crude Some researchers be a of differthat a survey not suitable cultural andsimplistic, may way measuring ofonecompany informaa study ofthesubsidiaries ences,andthat maynotprovide Yet Hofstede's modelhas beenwidely validated national cultures. tionaboutentire itgeneralizable to different than140 studies [44,64]. [78],making settings bymore in model cross-cultural CMC research. it is the most Moreover, commonly adopted inhelping canbe useful ordimensions cultural constructs His general explain potentheuse oftechnology andTan [48] in culture tialdifferences [81]. Myers regarding information in themanagement on culture 36 studies examined literature; systems we Hofstede's model. dimensions of 24 or more used one Therefore, amongthem, research. modelin this cultural Hofstede's adopted becauseithas a direct interaction roleingroup culture National playsan important andtechnologies how use and on behavior individual on [14] people products impact for situational affects communication, influencing, example, [30].Culture interpersonal and verbal andnonverbal ofcommunication, factors communication, self-conception, dimensions of of the It is one [24]. technologypromising relationships interpersonal on organizations has a tremendous research that basedgroup [68]. Organizaimpact such onmajor work must countries from different tions projects, strategically together needto andresearchers andlocalization as jointventures thus, managers programs; on culture of the effect national of their management. understanding deepen
Communication Computer-Mediated
via CMC has beenone ofthemost andoutcomes highly processes group Improving downcomissuesinthepasttwodecades[10,53]. By breaking research investigated information oropinions members CMC mayhelpgroup munication barriers, convey enviin a traditional otherwise not be that FtF, non-CMC-supported conveyed may ronment [32,37, 38]. onCMC also needstobe research toimprove BecauseCMC is designed teamwork, their howitcan improve teamsto examine to cross-cultural extended performance. "arehighly studies cross-cultural CMC-based national of the Given importance culture, of often in whichmanagerial to a post-industrial relevant teams, composed society use ofinformation willmakeextensive national different from individuals cultures, Because to 54]. [84, peoplewho p. decision-making" (IT) support group technology and use CMC view and beliefs different differently, values, may preferences, possess are likely behavior CMC can changegroup thewaysthat contingent uponnational teams andthe virtual ofglobal the culture promise diversity increasing [73,80].Despite to have studies a handful of ofCMC to helpsuchteams, investigate attempted only teams inculturally theuse oftechnology (e.g.,[3,9, 62,71]),butnone heterogeneous influence. has examined ofthem majority
58
ModelandHypotheses Theoretical Development

or it is either atheoretical in existing researchis that A problem IS multicultural theoretilevel. Creating thetheories are developedat an inappropriate conceptual theunderlying without cal propositions aboutspecific national cultures addressing of An examination is problematic. different mechanisms thatmakethesecultures to culture needs to take of national theoretical mechanisms place help underlying to a that can generalize of group members behavioral differences explainimportant ofcircumstances. variety willexist between thebea difference We predict, that basedon Hofstede's model, minorities under that U.S. havior ofChinese minorities and of majority group group members is that Chinesegroup influence. The primary reasonforthosedifferences members should toward and U.S. group areexpected to lean strongly collectivism, on difwe concentrate lean strongly toward individualism. explaining Specifically, and in individualistic in of views ferences theacceptability majority homogeneous - all inthree as wellas inculturally collectivistic types heterogeneous groups groups research model Our with different levels of social ofcommunication presence. settings is shown in Figure1.
ofCulture on Majority Influence The Impact

which would Hofstede's researchers canhypothesize dimensions model, Byexamining most five dimensions oftheIT artifact [21].Among likely playa roleinthetreatment ofHofstede's we believethecultural intheI-C dimension difference model, (ICD) is mostappropriate to be usedto explain difference in majority influence thepotential because: 1. We desire tokeepourtheory andrelevant. with a modelthat succinct Starting accounts forall fiveofHofstede's dimensions as independent is an variables to start a useful in our context. One for reason unwieldy place building theory thisis that thosefivedimensions do notfollowthesamedirection, andthey exist as separate theoretical constructs researchers consider [18];thus, normally or one two dimensions at once. only 2. Triandis[75] suggests therelationship developing hypotheses concerning between culture and socialbehavior based on theICD of Hofstede's model. Individualism describes cultures inwhich thetiesamong individuals areloose, while collectivism describes inwhich cultures into peopleareintegrated strong, cohesive that in individuals for groups protect exchange unquestioning loyalty. TheICD is the most useddimension incross-cultural research while commonly in somecountries aremore to adhere togroup explaining whygroups willing norms than those inother andis a pertinent factor for CMC research countries, inorganizations andgroups we that the ICD is related [74].Thus, argue directly to thephenomenon of interest of thisresearch, because influence, majority this dimension involves conflict resolution andthe cohesion, group strategies,
59
Degree of Collectivism Chinese national culture V High: Low:U.S. national ouItu re >.
Degree of Social Presence
^sj
noCMC RF, High:
Medium:FtF, CMC supported Low:Virtual, CMC supported
J*|
.J^1* Influence
Degree or Group Diversity High: Heterogeneousculture Low:Homogeneous culture 1.Research Model Figure
tochallenge different TheICD best reflects cross-cultural willingness opinions. inconformity variations suchas majority influence behavior, [6]. 3. The target in ourexperiment with wereundergraduate students participants similar status inuniversities. and Theyhadnoprevious working relationships, no hierarchical social structure existed them. differences Thus,status among didnotexistandtheeffects ofthepower distance dimension can be ignored. 4. Giventhenature of thetaskand theexperimental used in thisstudy design thedifferences between inmasculinity-femininity, cultures (e.g.,onesession), andConfucian wouldhaverelatively little avoidance, uncertainty dynamism in this impact study. 5. In terms ofrelevance andpracticality, theICD neatly thenational alignswith cultures ofChinaandtheUnited this allowscleanoperationStates; alignment alization fortesting themodel.The practical of theICD applied significance to Chinaand theUnited Statesis extremely that theseare highconsidering twomajor world in that are involved ventures powers increasingly joint using anddistributed teams. heterogeneous BasedontheICD, we first that with minorities individualistic cultures would predict be less susceptible to majority influence than thosewith collectivistic cultures. In an individualistic tiesbetween are and task over concerns culture, loose, people prevail concerns Such cultures value freedom and individual [27]. relationship highly rights. or act independently and are largely unconnected with others. Peopletendto think
60
one's with to group norms as beingassociated relinquishing Theyviewconformity conflict arises bearound. When a not in and autonomy, being control, beingpushed to for individual tween andgroup goals be acceptable goals,itis considered personal their own tend to follow individualists goals.As a result, placedaheadofcollective or controlled ownchoiceswithout affected conscience andmaketheir any by being a with in an individualistic culture external cause[39].When majority disagree people communication. toresolve conflicts via openanddirect arelikely position, they into Incontrast, is oneinwhich a collectivistic culture strongly peopleareintegrated others. This their on the reactions of cohesive and base type self-understanding groups within a group ofculture onkeeping balanceandharmony focuses [19],andrelationdecisions members overtaskswhenmaking [27]. group shipsamonggroup prevail resolution because Such group members tendto employ indirect meansforconflict consensus are to forge themaintenance ofharmony within thegroup andtheability and collective When a conflict between [16]. goalsoccurs, regarded highly personal in promoting valsubordination of personal goals to thecollective goals is helpful andobedience ues suchas harmony, [42]. Collectivists humility, courtesy, patience, those their actionswith to speakup in a group, to coordinate hesitate try typically or fear ofbeingseparated ofothers to minimize socialfriction, andhavean abiding toconforming andrestrictareaccustomed disconnected from thegroup. Collectivists to modify their ideas,evenwhenusingCMC [26]. Theyaremoreinclined ingtheir ownpreferences andpositions toconform toa group andbehavemore cooperatively thanindividualists is expected in a higher levelof majority are [5], which to result In summary, influence. we propose that thedegree ofcollectivism minorities ofgroup is a positive function ofmajority influence: 1: Majority willbe manifested more oncollectivistic Hypothesis influence strongly minorities than on individualistic minorities. group group Cultural can refer to national, orprofessional differences diversity organizational, In this refers to the cultural of [27]. study, groupdiversity diversity groupmem- either bers all group members are from thesamenational culture (homogeneity), orthey arefrom national cultures as operationalized contrasting (heterogeneity), by theICD. Therearethree streams ofresearch on theimpact ofheterogeneity on team effectiveness whichexamines the [17]: (1) organizational literature, demography differences in observable suchas age or functional characteristics, (2) background; cultural which variables to literature, diversity highlights demographic presupposed relate to cultural and and attributes, values, research, directly perceptions; (3) group which addresses teamcomposition effects. Ourstudy to thethird belongs category. Teamsimilarity is considered to be positively with associated teameffectiveness andinterpersonal attraction inraceandnationality tointerfere [17].Diversity appears with more than does in teams group process [66].Because homogeneityorganizational team members share common views and are to and homogeneous likely interpret evaluate situational events andmanagement insimilar practices ways, generally they for their teamsthan thosein culturally teams. report stronger affinity heterogeneous In contrast, members from different cultures in a groupare morelikely to respond
61
ormanagerial tothesameevent thesame [23].Theydo notshare differently approach that enableshared mental models more [7]; they understanding experience difficulty - resulting in diminished whileagreeing on whatis important andworking together andcohesion, andcausing suchas discomfort harmony pressures group psychological to a group[62]. Cultural differences and a weak senseof belonging amonggroup ingroup andconfusion decision members ambiguity, may amplify complexity, making inmembers' andoverall attitudes, values, [8],andmaycausevariations performance, toconflicts when team members interact can [85].Theseproblems leading potentially and increase team members mistrust andmiscommunication foster among stereotypintheinability tovalidate ideasandarguments, and which result gainconsensus, ing, reach decisions [1]. in reveal the nuances ofcultural Socialidentity (SIT) [72]canfurther diversity theory derived from memberan individual's is Social perceived self-concept, identity groups. ofwhat defines itis anindividual-based ofsocialgroups [29]. Namely, perception ship Social identities assume with "us" as associated membership. anyinternalized group identities are in social with somecommonality others; therefore, grounded people's crethat asserts SIT of social their group membership membership. group perceptions - orself-categorization attheexpense favor anin-group inwaysthat atesanin-group with reference to is determined ofone's owngroup The evaluation ofan out-group. The attributes. mere value-laden in of terms social other comparisons through groups todisplay canleadthem members themselves as group actofindividuals' categorizing individuals seek ofa group, as members After favoritism. being categorized in-group from an their self-esteem to achievepositive in-group differentiating by positively more the conflict exists the that dimensions. SIT valued some on suggests out-group willjudge one another themorelikelythoseindividuals between groupmembers, characteristics. rather thanon individual affiliation However, on their newly group would not have in this formed (as study) probably groups heterogeneous culturally differences cultural to substantial time to adjust sufficient [85]. should be their whoidentify minorities that Based on SIT,we argue in-group group as whosee themselves minorities influence. tomajority more Conversely, susceptible as an outview the to more are members other from different majority likely group we predict influence. to majority resistant andhencebecomemore Therefore, group thehigher influence on majority hasa negative that namely, impact diversity group influence: themajority theweaker thecultural diversity, in culturally more willbe manifested 2: Majority strongly influence Hypothesis to as groups. heterogeneous culturally groups compared homogeneous valued. and achieving conflicts Forcollectivists, goals arehighly group avoiding inculturally that collectivists haveshown studies Prior normally groups heterogeneous is expected behavior when levelsofcooperation their toincrease cooperative attempt more to make are collectivists likely of cultural diversity, [3]. Underthecondition as In contrast, thanindividualists. and consensus to achievegroupharmony effort and more much are members U.S. independent individualists, group simply strong are U.S. participants ties[14].Thus, leanawayfrom creating deepcollective naturally
62
aretheminority when less likely tobe affected influence, they bymajority especially sense of and in culturally have out-group: strong heterogeneous groups hetin culturally minorities 3: Majority on collectivistic influence Hypothesis that on individualistic than more willbe manifested strongly erogeneous groups minorities inculturally groups. heterogeneous
Influence on Majority The Impact ofSocial Presence

influence can be explained on majority The effect of social presence usingsocial a medium to which "the can be defined as Social degree presence theory. presence the and interpersonal of theother facilitates awareness during relationships person ofsocial number tends tohavethemost interaction" [22,p. 118].FtFcommunication while CMC media in social viewed as being cues,so itis typically [45], presence high In viewedas beinglow in socialpresence. havefewer socialcues andaretypically than haveless socialpresence that onCMC generally distributed teams addition, rely FtFgroups [60]. that medialow in socialpresence Social presence maynotbe suittheory predicts areneeded and when able forintersubjective interpretation interactivity reciprocity "the that is theassumption in communication to socialpresence [45]. Central theory ofthe sender influences ofthe information message" understanding recipients' presence moresocialcues willgenerate medium that [45, p. 89]. A communication provides and a higher direct confrontation levelof socialpresence, thusleading to increased members socialpressure andnormative influence on individual [60, stronger group or can be reduced members 74]. The fearofrejection byother group by alleviating indirect confrontation media with fewer social cues or avoiding through byhaving dividual Rains[57] or comments [13]. Forexample, judgments givenanonymously a meta-analysis demonstrated a leaner medium that support through group systems, with lowersocialpresence, increased influence and reduced member group equality dominance. we of that the level of social communication Thus, propose presence mediais a positive function ofmajority influence. severalrelated studies socialpresFollowing (e.g., [12, 60]), we operationalized ence in thisstudy three communication with different levels of by using settings - namely, socialcues FtFnon-CMCgroups, FtFCMC groups, anddistributed CMC in theFtF non-CMC-supported communication (dCMC) groups. Groupminorities environment areexpected tobe less willing tochallenge than majority positions they are in bothCMC-supported becauseFtF communication is therichenvironments, estmedium that offers thelargest of socialcues by which number group majorities can exert themostinfluence on group In an FtF setting, minorities. or moreverbal nonverbal cues areavailableandcan be processed to form interactivity, reciprocity, andinterdependence communication than inCMC-supported among partners settings Extensive research has the of outcomes intraditional FtF U.S. [59]. compared groups environments versus those inCMC-supported environments and non-CMC-supported that theuse of CMC wouldincrease in participation andreduce suggested equality
63
in FtF CMC-supported to conform socialpressure [54]. Members groups exchange textual and visual becausevoice cues are removed, cues; however, opinions using will exercise less normative influence and conformity on the themajority pressure communication. than in FtFunsupported minority members arephysically locatedat different sites.They In a dCMC setting, group Because of the removal of bothvoice textual cues only. through exchange opinions social cues amongthethree comhas thefewest and visualcues,a dCMC setting and levels of social normative in the lowest munication presence settings, resulting is the we usedinthis feature that dCMC allows,which influence [67].Another study, members. social which further reduces ofanonymity, among presence group provision without identification togroup discussions individual contributions enables Anonymity that occursin conformance the overcome This feature [79] [33, 56]. pressure helps member's effort to criticize other team want members do not team when any groups socialpresence, a dissenting orelicit anonymity mayreduce By lowering viewpoint. ofgroup thetendency andcommunication evaluation [65] andincrease apprehension view. with themajority ordisagree toresist members inFtFnon-CMC more bemanifested will 4: Majority strongly influence Hypothesis CMC groups. indistributed andfinally byFtF CMC groups, followed groups, dCMC gentwocommunication with theother As stated above,compared settings, that theChinese Itis believed communication. ingroup socialpresence lowers erally that reliesmore form of communication subtle valuesa morehigh-context, culture Chinese culture than does individualistic cues on nonverbal Therefore, [25]. heavily from when cues the lost social affected more be would going by negatively participants Chinese to U.S. participants. in comparison FtFto a distributed Accordingly, setting in or restricted would be distributed in handicapped groups majorities homogeneous in the U.S. In minorities. influence on Chinese contrast, majorities majority exerting in communication to low-context themselves can easilyadapt groups homogeneous In influence on Chineseminorities. andexercise distributed majority strong settings in a distributed on rather than focus on tend to addition, presenters arguments people caution wouldlikelylowertheir communication [54]. Chineseparticipants setting in a distribmembers and between differentiation their in-group out-group regarding moreeasilywhenthe themajority and thusmaylean toward utedsetting, position is stronger. influence willbe manifested CMC setting, 5: In a distributed influence majority Hypothesis inhomothan inheterogeneous minorities on collectivistic more groups strongly Chinese groups. geneous
Methodology
with controlled weconducted To testtheabovehypotheses, laboratory experiments of culture national social that a 3 x 2 x 2 factorial group presence, design manipulated in A totalof 183 four-member and groupdiversity. participated groups minorities, thestudy.
ofIndependent Variables Operationalization

meAs introduced we operationalized as thecommunication socialpresence earlier, dium Inthe with three different FtFunsupported four members setting, group settings. satFtF in a lab. The group so members' decisions werepresented on a whiteboard that member see and their could then members them, every group explained opinions to therest ofthegroup, mulone person at a time. thismedium Therefore, provided on saw eachother anddecisions voice,visual(i.e.,participants tiplecues,including thewhiteboard), cues. It offered thehighest socialpresence andother verbal among thethree was similar The FtFCMC setting to theFtF unsupported setting, settings. that that eachgroup worked on thetaskonlythrough a CMC system member except we developed for thisstudy than oralcommunication. rather Hence,ithada through moderate levelof socialpresence. In dCMC groups, members satin different group rooms anddidnotsee each other at all before, after Like or theexperiment. during, members inFtFCMC groups, indCMC groups also worked onthe task members only thesameCMC system. Thiscommunication medium included through onlytextual cues andwas themedium with thelowest levelofsocialpresence. The national construct is the model.It is sugculture ICD of Hofstede's cultural that U.S. culture Chinese culture leansstrongly toward whereas individualism, gested leansstrongly in toward collectivism mainland Chinawas notincluded [5].Although Hofstede's and Chinese residents of Taiwan were shown to original study, HongKong be collectivists we conducted a manipulation checkoftheICD for [27]. In this study, all participants tofurther ourassumption in validate that a significant difference exists this dimension between Chinese and We U.S. participants participants. operationalized - culturally with twolevels (low on group group diversity diversity) homogeneous andheterogeneous (highon group diversity).
ChoiceofGroupSize
evidence reveals that a majority ofthree members hasthemaximum influEmpirical enceonminorities do not exercise much more influence [51] andthat larger majorities we used four-member in all communication in this [46]. Therefore, groups settings to form a three-member study, attempting majority during experiments.
NaiveParticipants andConfederates Participants:

wereundergraduate students recruited from four universities. Participants Theyall contributed tothe on a basis and were Humanstudy voluntary compensated monetarily. were followed all at institutions. of subject protocols participating ParticipantsChinese were recruited from twouniversities inBeijing, whereas China, homogeneous groups in culturally andU.S. homogeneous were participants heterogeneous groups groups recruited from twouniversities in theUnited States. we would have liked to Ideally, haveeach culturally formed with U.S. in the U.S. heterogeneous group participants andChinese inChina. this wasinfeasible duetothe However, participants requirement
65
of an FtFcommunication environment anda 12-hour timezone difference between ChinaandtheUnited States.In culturally Chinesemembers heterogeneous groups, whohadbeenintheU.S. for twoyears werestudents atmost andspokeanydialect of native could and In Chinese as their write language. They speak English effectively. in these this would not have and Chinese barriers, participants groups language way, that their we couldreasonably assume maintained collectivistic cultural they original was further confirmed via themanipulation check.Thisapproach has values,which All in were familiar studies CMC beenusedin other [63]). groups (e.g., participants all participants, were andonline communication. with 57.9 percent Among computers werebetween werebetween male,66 percent ages 20 and25, 14 percent ages25 and wereolderthan 30. 29, andothers andthree included confederates Eachgroup onenaiveparticipant (i.e.,theminority) instructrained in advanceandfollowed whowerespecially specific, predeveloped weremaster-level a majority ofthree. Confederates to form tions in theexperiment of but were similar who not know naive did students ages.They participants graduate so that we couldguarantee all groups andall settings were usedinthesamewayacross in a consistent in every wouldbe formed of three a unanimous that group majority andminimize ofconfederates theconsistency manner. To maximize andpredictable inat each four or five confederates trained we mistakes, participating unnecessary This also in sessions. all stitution andusedthem strategy provided group repeatedly could confederates In addition, variation. ofeliminating theadvantage within-group so minority influence didnotexist. never yieldtothenaiveparticipant, task. theexperimental about had prior None of thenaiveparticipants knowledge that other was informed all naive each Whenwe formed group participant groups, difference. Under toavert status tohimorherinorder similar members werestudents effects couldbe conmember status effects sucha setting, [15] andgroup proximity of thechanges was notto examine Becausethefocusofourstudy minimal. sidered session in one the we conducted over in influence time, experiments groups majority control andreduced increased which ina longitudinal rather than experimental study, ingroups tobalancegender we also tried andexecution. inlogistics Finally, difficulty weremale. ofeachgroup halfofthemembers so that
Task Group
we selecteda preference In thisstudy, task,in whichgroupsaimedto select,by the oftask, In this norms. contextual based on alternative a consensus, preferred type other which norm as the taken is (minority) posiagainst majority position usually arecompared. tions had to be equallyunderstandable thisstudy for Because thetaskselected byboth task we chosea well-known ChineseandU.S. participants, decision-making group as follows: was scenario task The survival. called desert participants hypothetical wererequired items. buthad savedeight in a desert weretrapped Groupmembers survival. to desert oftheir in terms thoseitems to rank to work importance together to members were In each rounds. of a number Thetaskwent round, required through
66
and rank orrerank andteammates' those items basedontheir ownjudgment rankings rest of the in the to their to the and round(s), group. rankings opinions previous explain or the on theranking This was repeated until either thegroup reached a consensus hadalready rounds condition), (thetermination depending group gonethrough eight itminimized the on which An advantage sucha taskwas that camefirst. ofselecting a sideeffect ofpersonal and on the task throughpreexperiknowledge background and information aboutparticipants ment we collected questionnaire, demographic or experience confirmed that no participants in thisstudy had anyprior knowledge on thistaskin No timepressure or restrictions wereimposed withdesert survival. as much time as were told to take of the members any experimental settings. Group to generate thebestranking. necessary scenario inthe with version ofthe task Allparticipants anEnglish U.S. were provided into and back-translated andinstructional which were translated Chinese materials, by in meaning. inadvance toensure bilingual cross-language equivalence professionals in toparticipants The validated Chineseversions ofthosedocuments wereprovided totheformal atall participating China.Prior we conducted experiments, pilotstudies or misinterpretations sites.Participants in thosestudies did notreport anyproblems thetaskorinstructions. with
A Web-Based TeamDiscussion: Collaboration Software

To support thisresearch, a Web-based we developed CMC toolcalledTeamDiscuswhich was a Web browser at all used all sion, by CMC-supported through groups 2 showsthemainsystem sites. which ofthree consists interface, (1) the Figure parts: section showstheranking results oftheprevious rounds from each andcurrent upper member ofa group, the middle section the from each (2) displays explanation group member is thenaiveparticipant) in theprevious/ on his or herranking (e.g.,par_a current and(3) thebottom allowsindividual torank those round, portion participants items "Move Up" and "Move Down" buttons andto (left)simply eight byclicking for their in thecurrent round. provide explanation rankings (right) In CMC groups, had to workwith. In every participant his or herowncomputer each round, each groupmember ranked itemsand provided to his or explanations herranking in thebottom section. The submitted and explanations would rankings in the table at the and in the middle "Comments" immediately appear ranking top with submitters' IDs attached. thesystem was carefully field, However, experimental so that inanyround, no naiveparticipants wouldbe ableto see other designed group members' and before or his her own. A round was rankings explanations submitting finished after all members submitted their and If a had rankings explanations. group not reached a consensus decision onrankings, thesystem started the next automatically round andthesameprocess wasrepeated. Theentire session wouldendautomatically whenone of thetwotermination conditions introduced in theprevious subsection occurred. The whiteboard used in FtF unsupported or the TeamDiscussion groups in CMC groupsalwaysdisplayed system rankings generated onlyin theprevious andcurrent rounds.
67
2. System Interface ofthefirst (at thebeginning round) Figure
Procedures Experimental
The experimental wereas follows: readan introductory each participant procedures article about intheexperiment. desert survival before to the lab to coming participate discuss Thearticle somegeneric about desert survival but didnot provided knowledge items usedin thetask.Upontheir members wereushered arrival, anyspecific group toprearranged seatsaccording toexperimental introduced earlier. To increase settings in their the distributed the naive were also told that CMC realism, setting, participants werelocatedat remote sitesat that moment and wouldworkwith groupmembers them theTeamDiscussion in realtime. introduced Thena facilitator through system theobjective IDs of all group of thestudy and national culture and experimental members. Thefour IDs as A (the members ofeachgroup wereassigned experimental naiveparticipant), Thefacilitator's rolewas tocoordinate B, C, andD (confederates). an experimental sessionwithout inanydiscussions orjudging rankings. participating In addition, thefacilitator would a also informed that the task participants go through ofrounds an number andthat would be notified to at a certain Such they stop point. hasbeenadopted becauseparticipants studies onmajority influence approach byother needsometime torespond we usedthe tosuchinfluence [52].To ensure consistency, samefacilitator acrosssessions at each site,anda carefully scripted procedure. Thefirst round was slightly different from thesubsequent rounds becauseconfederateshadto waittillthenaiveparticipant submitted hisorherranking, andthen they their the of the naive generated according rankings byreshuffling ranking participant to predefined reinstructions. Those predefined weretested, reshuffling strategies andfinalized created initial confederates fined, method, through pilotstudies. By this
68
from thenaiveparticipant's that weresignificantly different as wellas from rankings the members' in order to minimize from thenaive other potential suspicion group from thesecondround, there wouldbe no requirement forthe Starting participant. - they for ranked items folofranking submission confederates order bycompletely In the naive confederate of participant's ranking. particular, lowing scripts, regardless for theremaining B was instructed to keephisorherfirst-round ranking unchanged in the to changetheir whileconfederates C and D wereinstructed rounds, rankings of so that their wouldbecomethesame as that secondand third rounds, rankings a unanimous B at theendof thethird confederate round, creating majority ranking. In our from thenaiveparticipant. was used to prevent Such a procedure suspicion as shown in the therolesofconfederates, eversuspected no naiveparticipant study, their third all confederates would After the round, keep questionnaires. postexperiment and unanimous (i.e.,maintaining majority) provide explanations unchanged ranking The based on certain ofthenaiveparticipant guidelines. rankings onlyfordifferent andthat ofthenaiveparticipant, ofconfederates therankings alongwith gapbetween confederates to exercise enabled in the statements normative explanations, provided naive influence on the normative participant. persistent
Variable ofDependent Operationalization Influence) (Majority

of basedonthenumber ofmajority influence measure a proven Weadopted surrogate as usedbyTanetal. [74].The a consensus tooktoreach eachgroup rounds decision, how longittooka naive consensus to reacha group of rounds number represented The larger the confederates. influence formed to yieldto themajority by participant inorder tofollow themajority's taken ofrounds number ranking bya naiveparticipant If a naiveparticipant influence. thelowerthemajority to reacha group consensus, to this a valueofninewas assigned after didnotyieldto themajority rounds, eight variable. dependent
Data Analysis Check Manipulation

in I-C between U.S. and difference theassumed of thisstudy, Giventhe objective Module 94 Values the We factor. was a Chinesecultures Survey adopted pertinent checkon national fora preexperiment culture, manipulation byHofstede developed ontheindex lower Chinese that andwe found (jn= 68) weresignificantly participants thesignificance confirmed than U.S. participants ofindividualism (jj,= 88). A i-test = of successful evidence the < demonstrated and difference ofthis (i181 2.22,p 0.05) theI-C scoresofChineseand of I-C. Particularly, in terms on culture manipulation different were inculturally U.S. participants (p < significantly groups heterogeneous of the further diversity. 0.05), confirming manipulation group
69
Results
statistics ofthedependent variable. Table2 shows thedescriptive Table1 summarizes which met ofan analysis ofvariance theresults variable, (ANOVA) onthedependent of the ANO VA. andthenormality thehomogeneity requirements a significant maineffect ofthenational culture ofgroup revealed ANOVAresults influence on majority minorities (F(l, 171) = 19.3,p < 0.01). Chineseparticipants andreacha fewer rounds thegroup tooksignificantly majority (|i = 5.41) to follow = that the than their U.S. consensus (jn 6.28), indicating majority counterparts group than that in theindiculture was significantly in thecollectivistic influence stronger culture. vidualistic Thus,HI was supported. was notsignificant ofgroup that themaineffect showed ANOVAresults diversity = = H2 was not (F(l, 171) 1.23,/? 0.27). Therefore, supported. showed ofgroup minorities ofnational culture effect ofthemain A posthocanalysis fewer tooksignificantly in culturally that Chineseminorities heterogeneous groups = in U.S. minorities than themajority rounds tofollow heterogeneous groups (|i 5.5) inFigure shown from thecomparison canbe observed (jll= 6.5,p< 0.01). Thepattern 3. Thus,H3 was supported. medium ofcommunication main effect A significant (F(2, 171)= 29.5,p < 0.01) on existed between national interaction A significant was found. influence themajority < which medium and communication of groupminorities culture (p 0.05), implies in different communication influence on majority ofculture theeffect that mayvary leastsignificant A further Fisher's different levelsofsocialpresence. mediafeaturing in FtF minorities the that showed difference setting unsupported (LSD) analysis group to reachconsensus fewer rounds tooksignificantly (jli= 4.8) thanthosein theFtF CMC setting (n = 6.3,p < 0.01). The results ('i = 6.5,p < 0.01) anddCMC setting intheFtFunsupported existed influence much that showed setting majority stronger influin majority no difference Yet inboth than significant settings. CMC-supported CMC settings FtF CMC and distributed between ence was found (p > 0.05). Thus, H4 was partially supported. in the that showed of group oftheeffect ofcontrast The results diversity analysis in minorities was on Chinese influence CMC setting, distributed higher majority = thanin Chinesehomogeneous (F(l, 30) 4.966; p < groups groups heterogeneous interaction between no There was was H5 group Thus, significant 0.05). supported. between and of culture national the and minorities, diversity group group diversity medium. andcommunication
Discussion
toour areapplicable that presents several research group Cross-cultural challenges research data at different the half to and a a research team our Ittook gather year study. instructional ofrecruiting Thetasks sites. scripts, designing participants, appropriate in both to suitable was that task cultures, an participants group finding appropriate These at severalsiteswereparticularly and coordinating challenging. experiments
70
ai 'S
coojcocm 9 I g _,.
_NT. cdcviocj _w_

iflr-ow
1 #S
g
ai
^wcoo)
cococot
cji-coo)
3 3
cd >
1
'e?
r^T-ojcqoocsjT-oir-cqcvjT-; (Niri NNiricD ^'iri^^
^ o
^0)i(j) O t- O -
(u c o
d) E! d) 0)
EAE
cd
XIXIIIIXIIIX
00)000000)000(1)
EBE
i- O i.
EE
O b_ O vi
- *tt S
o S'S
s gS w
2^ 3
.*i
co
co 3
co
co Du
co
's B 53
>
Oh
c/3
i- H
0i
1 E I Ile
USE
i
o 2
t E
Sat
s E
Q
71
Table2. Results ofANOVATeston theDependent Variable Degreesof freedom

National culture (NC) Group diversity (GD) Communication medium (CM) NCxGD NCxCM GDxCM NC x GD x CM *p< 0.05; **/?< 0.01. 1 1 2 1 2 2 2
F
19.3 1.23 29.5 0.14 4.16 0.55 1^39
p
0.00** 0.27 0.00** 0.71 0.02* 0.58 0.25
" S -1
7 -
*-
^--
*--_____~
* 3 -tt: ?
j l-*-u-s.
Distributed CS FtF CS
10 -I
.
FtF
: 1
3. Number ofRounds Taken inCulturally Figure Heterogeneous Groups
issuesprobably studies that havebeenvery limited whythere empirical helpexplain in of examine culture's effect on different andoutcomes thecontext processes group use. technology This study intohow majority influence maybe affected by the provides insights in of collectivism of social and degree presence, groupdiversity groupminorities, to decisionmaking. We makeseveral theoretical and empirical contributions group thestudy of national culture in thecontext of technology-supported FtF and virtual Thissection which has beencalledfor several researchers teams, [21, 69]). by (e.g., first summarizes ourresults, then discusses theimplications for and theory practice, itslimitations andfuture research alongwith possibilities.
ofFindings Summary
theresults showthat national culture affects influence, First, significantly majority whichwe attribute to thedisparity in social norms beliefsof group and cultural members who are from national cultures. results Specifically, supported disparate manifested ourprediction that influence on collectivistic minorities is majority group morestrongly than that on individualistic (HI). Thus,thelevelof groupminorities
72
minorities to dependon their national cultural influence on group appears majority toward collectivism (orindividualism). propensity evidence tosupport ourprediction that we didnotfind Second, significant majority inculturally wouldbe stronger as minorities ongroup influence homogeneous groups This in result with that (H2). culturally heterogeneous groups unexpected compared in theway in ourexperiment behavedconsistently that indicates groupminorities of thedegree norms andbeliefs national cultural to their that conformed regardless of the the national culture and ofgroup majorities. diversity that inculturally for ourprediction wefound Third, heterogeneous significant support minorities would be stronger than that on influence on collectivistic majority groups, that there indeed exists a different value minorities individualistic (H3). Thisindicates in how their cultures and collectivistic individualistic between participants system diverse in a culturally deal with group. beinga minority of social presin a groupis a function influence that we found Fourth, majority we found that medium. ence,as operationalized Specifically, bythecommunication of influence level a inFtFunsupported minorities majority experiencedhigher groups there was no significant and dCMC groups thanFtF CMC groups (H4). However, This finding and dCMC groups. FtF CMC groups between difference that, implies can cues (e.g., voice and facialexpression) of somenonverbal removal in general, in turn less and andconformance less socialpresence insignificantly result pressure, availablein theFtF Such nonverbal influence. cues, whichare typically majority influence thestrongest to exercise majorities mayenablegroup setting, unsupported visualcuesina distributed with FtFCMC, removing minorities. on group Compared to impact to reducesocial presence seemsnotsufficient CMC setting significantly influence. majority on Chinese morestrongly was manifested influence that we found Fifth, majority in a disChinesegroups thanin homogeneous in heterogeneous minorities groups inclination cultural collectivists' In other CMC setting tributed words, (H5). despite are ifcollectivistic with oragreeing toward members, majorities in-group supporting or ifa medium restricted by a communication imposed by thelow social presence decisioncommunication does notmatch medium communication needs,thegroup ofnormative tobe determined wouldbe more outcome bytheamount likely making cultural than rather exercised influence similarity. between an interesting we found ourhypotheses, Asidefrom relationship testing about mixed hasreported research Previous time. theCMC use anddecision findings the we observed time[55]. In thisstudy, decision ofCMC use on group theimpact = in 50 timein theFtF unsupported shortest minutes), (mean groups performance = anddCMC groups with FtFCMC groups (mean= (mean 74 minutes) comparison whileusingCMC. Such a timeincreased thedecision In other 95 minutes). words, theFtFunsupricher as a follows. as can be medium, First, explained phenomenon In CMC than CMC settings. feedback more affords environments, rapid setting ported and information normative time on more to tend members processing spend group to time more enables CMC think, their Second, participants arguments. composing communicawithFtF unsupported in comparison their edit,and refine arguments
73
notonlylikely tion.Thesedifferences contribute to thedifferent levelsof majority influence butalso couldlead to different levelsof quality and satisfaction of group decision making.
for Theory Implications

in group theoretic contribution is that culture matters decision Ourprimary making We influence. and examined majority carefully whyand how involving explained under influence and individualistic reacted collectivistic groupminorities majority We also extended the in three distinct communication cultural disettings. differently To our best for social and mensions presence group diversity. byaccounting knowledge, on majority to examine theeffect of group influence. thisis thefirst diversity study studies In addition, thisis one ofthefewcross-cultural usingtechnologyempirical teams. supported it is critical to emphasize that of thiswork, theoretical contribution As a further we have seen his theory on theICD in 1980. Since then, stedefirst Hof published dramatic (withChinaand theUnitedStatesat the changesin theglobaleconomy andeconomic reform theadvent oftheInternet, ofthese forefront political changes), in increased how inglobaltravel, increases inChina, compete, corporations changes multicultural teams. andtheuse of virtual in theUnited ethnic Yet, States, diversity of the still construct ICD to the overall these all appears changes, profound despite has notoccurred at all cultures a shift in thesenational hold.Thisis notto saythat occur[21,43], butarenotnecessarily Suchshifts overtime. rapid. likely overtime, someof culture that Theseresults change mayslowly although suggest that a socialization are itspsychological process through ingrained components deeply theoretiis a worthy does. Hence,culture as technology does notchangeas rapidly stable are generally inclinations becauseone's cultural of interest cal phenomenon Theseconclusions hisorherbehavior. andcanbe usedtoreasonably support predict modelis stillvalid hiscultural work[28]- that in hisupdated found Hofstede what claimand ourresults Hofstede's to notethat in theinformation age. It is important a possibility that with thecriticism conflict suggests byMcCoy et al. [43] partially orthat indiinsomecultures dimensions that Hofstede's today maynotholdstrongly it is We that more be ofculture measures vidual-level argue possible appropriate. may than others. cultures in somenational occurfaster cultural that And,clearly, changes culture. Given within a given exist between differences individual peoplewillalways can that somegeneralizations we assert andempirical model ourtheoretical evidence, level. culture be madeat a national
Practice for Implications

Theemphasis on havesignificant ofthis Thefindings managerial implications. study the to understand it is important is growing. in organizations teamwork Therefore, loss and andidentify on teamwork ofculture effect process group waysto minimize
74
loss. Although it is true that is erasing theboundaries of productivity globalization countries andthat current not be as differences between national cultures may significantas they oncewere, culture stilllargely influences individual andorganizational the behavior. We found in howgroup minorities behaved under differences striking in think influence and it be intuitive to Chinese U.S. majority Although may groups. that infludifferent national cultures under maybehave peoplewith similarly majority inreality that have do not, because with valuesystems ence, they they operate disparate a direct and significant on thegroup The results ofthisstudy process. imply impact that itis a mistake for toassume all members oftheir are that managers organizations with to behave the same set of motivations and cultural values. going These differences have tremendous forcreating workteamsthat implications transcend national culture. The findings ofthisstudy that there is a needfor suggest difand to of and understand cultural be aware practitioners organizational groups in a cross-cultural ference whenworking context. Such underlying decision-making cultural difference from and,ideally, deepunderstanding managers requires empathy andteammembers theattitudes, andvaluesofothers. for norms, As a specific from ourresearch, should consider andorganizations example managers theneedsof collectivistic and teammembers advanced technologies by providing tooffset theeffects ofnegative influence. Asidefrom procedures technologimajority cal interventions, inthese exercises couldbe highly valuable scenarios. team-building As we suggested to and need take care when earlier, managers organizations special with multicultural that have collectivistic members dealing minority groups group becauseindividualists aremuch more toexert inthese influence situlikely majority which can create outcomes andstrained ations, suboptimal relationships. ourfinding that FtF groups without thesupport of CMC havehigher Meanwhile, influence than has for majority CMC-supported groups important implications practice:theuse ofCMC can helpreduce in theprocess unwanted influence of majority decision group making.
Limitations andFuture Research

Several limitations ofthis for future research. CMC First, study provide opportunities to dateis largely from a North American whichencourages designed perspective, and participation all groupmembers. from Ramanand Wei independent thinking that differences in cultural attributes and decisionenvironments have [58] suggest tothe ofCMC systems for different cultural important implications design peoplewith As a result, theegalitarian of CMC mayconflict with norms of backgrounds. spirit behavior in societies. Researchers have that CMC acceptable nonegalitarian suggested toreduce certain lossesmaynotbe effective when and designed process conformity arethecultural norm. For example, Ho et al. [26] found theuse of group harmony decisionsupport less effective in Singapore whencompared to their use in systems theUnited States. our showed that influence on Chinese Although findings majority minorities was reduced inboth andheterogeneous group homogeneous groups using with their cultural values.It is argued CMC, thisreduction maynotbe in harmony
75
reflect that whentechnologies have features that users'cultural have origins, they and can be and used in different further ways.Thus, flexibility adapted interpretive withcollectivists are designed in reductions maybe possibleif theCMC systems needsto be conducted to see how different cultural Further mind. research groups andwhether theoutcomes aresatisfactory andinconformance make these adaptations values. with users'cultural in order to minimize thepotential effect of familiarity is that Another limitation hoc in which the naive our used ad members, groups participants study among group teams with a shared members Virtual didnot know (i.e.,confederates). group anyother inthevirtual environment todevelop time [83] are [2] andwith relationships history research can andtohavehigher tobe more cohesive Thus,future performance. likely virtual teams with a level of in established influence the higher group explore majority as opposedto ad hoc teams. cohesion, onteam outcomes choices havea significant task andmedium Moreover, [70]. impact the most which canbe among Forexample, we useda decision-making task, challeng- such other oftasks thus needstoexamine research teams. Future for types ingtasks - andother media. communication andidea generation as brainstorming because ofsimilar we usedstudent backgrounds demographic participants Finally, in actualorofthestudy. Fieldresearch andexecution in thenature ofthechallenge members havediverse inwhich with backgrounds group working groups ganizations to examine the it be useful would more wouldpotentially Further, insights. provide size ingroups anddifferent levelsofcultural ofdifferent effects group heterogeneity inthefuture.
Conclusion
relevant in our is not a newphenomenon, Cultural diversity yetit is increasingly are common cross-cultural world. and mobile groups Today, global progressively and businesschallenges. because of thechanging in organizations global market barriers thepotential for is beneficial differences cultural overcoming Understanding different cultural from teams that face,becauseindividuals heterogeneous culturally and act communicate [24]. differently backgrounds influence and of majority to thefields makesseveralcontributions This research heteroin influence the we examined collaboration. First, culturally majority group environments and and CMC-supported geneousgroupsin bothFtF unsupported This is an in influence with the it groups. homogeneous culturally majority compared in real world the virtual teams because examined to be many phenomenon important have investigated no studies To ourbestknowledge, are culturally heterogeneous. in culturally influence by CMC. Second, groups supported heterogeneous majority Inthis FtF in were conducted collaboration on studies most ofthe settings. group prior in influence we also FtF to in addition physically majority investigated groups, study, of smallsamplesize in thecommon to address distributed Third, challenge groups. that number ofgroups wehada large CMC studies, cultural most participated previous somenew This States. and the United in China inthis provides study study empirical
as wellas cross-cultural into howtodesign andcarry outan empirical study, insights andpractical a number oftheoretical implications.
that for theeditors andthereviewers Theauthors thank greatly suggestions Acknowledgments: Boonlit from RickZhuang, the this Adipat, helpreceived Theyalso appreciate improved paper. as well as and conducting experiments, development TonyZhang,and Tian Ran on system BeckJoshua K. Gardner, SarahPhelps, reviews andcopyedits Nix,Bryan byMarvin provided is partially atHICSS 2006.Thisresearch andthereviewers andparticipants man, by supported No. 2002CB312 103), ofScienceandTechnology the973 Program ofChinese (Grant Ministry of China(Grant No. 60433030and 30270466),theChinese theNatural ScienceFoundation oftheChinese Foundation No. 0302037),the ofSciences(Grant WangKuanCheng Academy and theKevinand Debra of Sciences,and theInformation Systems Department Academy Rollins for eBusiness attheMarriott Center School,Brigham Anyopinions, University. Young those oftheauthors andnotnecessarily here arethose orrecommendations findings, expressed ofthesponsors ofthis research.
References
3d ed. Boston:PWS1.Adler, Dimensions N.J.International Behavior, ofOrganizational Kent,1997. matter? H. When medium 2. Alge,B.; Wiethoff, doesthe C; andKlein, Knowledge-building Behavior andHuman teams. andopportunities indecision-making Organizational experiences DecisionProcesses, 91, 1 (2003), 26-37. vs. culturally 3. Anderson, W.N.,and Hiltz,S.R. Culturally homogeneous heterogeneous In R.H. indistributed on group andconsensus. Effects process groups group support systems: on Annual Hawaii International Conference oftheThirty-Fourth Sprague(ed.), Proceedings 2001 (availableat http:// Sciences.Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Press, System Society 11.pdf?arnumber=9262 11). ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7255/20032/009262 4. Baker,S.M., and Petty, R.E. Majority influence: imbaland minority Source-position ance as a determinant and Social Psychology, ofmessagescrutiny. Journal 67, ofPersonality 1(1994), 5-19. 5. Bond,M.H. The Psychology University of theChinesePeople. Hong Kong: Oxford Press,1986. 6. Bond,R.,andSmith, P.B.Culture A meta-analy Asch's andconformity: sisofstudies using linejudgment task.Psychological Bulletin, 119, 1 (1996), 111-137. 7. Cramton, CD. The mutual anditsconsequences for coldispersed knowledge problem laboration. Science,12, 3 (2001), 346-371. Organization 8. Daily,B.F.,andSteiner, R.L. Theinfluence ofgroup decision oncontrisystems support bution andcommitment levelsin multicultural andculturally homogeneous decision-making inHuman Behavior, 14, 1 (1998), 147-162. Computers groups. 9. Daily,B.F.; Whatley, of a groupdecision R.L. The effects A.; Ash,S.R.; and Steiner, on culturally diverseand culturally support system homogeneous groupdecisionmaking. andManagement, Information 30, 6 (1996), 281-289. 10.Dennis, M. Theadoption anduseofGSS inproject more teams: Toward A., andGarfield, andoutcomes. MIS Quarterly, participative processes 27, 2 (2003), 289-323. 11.Dennis, J.S.Electronic Illusions andpatterns ofproducA., andValacich, brainstorming: Research, 10,4 (1999), 375-377. tivity. Information Systems 12. Dennis, N.J.Information and use in GSS and A.; Hilmer, K.M.; andTaylor, exchange verbal decision Effects ofminority influence. Journal group making: ofManagement InformationSystems, 14, 3 (Winter 1997-98),61-88. 13. Deutsch, H.B. A study of normative and informational social influM., and Gerard, encesuponindividual Journal and Social Psychology, 51, 3 (1955), judgment. ofAbnormal 629-636. 14.Doney, andMullen, M.R. Understanding theinfluence ofnational culP.M.;Cannon, J.P.; ture on thedevelopment oftrust. Review, 23, 3 (1998), 601-620. Academy ofManagement
77
B.N. The equalization Status 15. Dubrovsky, S.; and Sethna, V.J.;Kiesler, phenomenon: decisionmaking in computer-mediated and face-to-face effects Human-Computer groups. 6, 2 (1991), 119-146. Interaction, oftraining effects on self-efficacy andperformance. P.C. Selforgroup? Cultural 16.Earley, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 39, 1 (1994), 89-117. An empirical E. Creating testof teamcultures: 17. Earley, P.C., and Mosakowski, hybrid teamfunctioning. transactional Journal, 43, 1 (2000), 26-49. Academy ofManagement and persuasiveness: A study culture 18. El-Shinnawy, M., and Vinze,A.S. Technology, Journal in groupsettings. International of choice-shifts Studies, 47, 3 ofHuman-Computer (1997),473-496. of social R.E. The cultural matrix 19. Fiske,A.; Kitayama, S.; Markus, H.R.; andNisbett, andG. Lindzey InD. Gilbert, S. Fiske, (eds.),TheHandbook ofSocialPsychology. psychology. NewYork:McGraw-Hill, 1998,pp. 915-981. of groupsupport J.and Hiltz,S.R. An assessment 20. Fjermestad, systems experimental Journal andresults. research 15,3 (Winter Information Systems, ofManagement methodology 1998-99),7-149. andHofstede's research D.B. Information 21. Ford, C.E.; andMeister, D.P.;Connelly, systems IEEE Transactions onEngineerandincomplete Anuneasy culture's partnership. consequences: 50, 1 (2003), 8-25. ingManagement, use. In J. modeloftechnology C. A socialinfluence 22. Fulk, J.;andSteinfield, J.;Schmitz, and Communication Park, Technology. Newbury Fulk,andC. Steinfield (eds.),Organizations CA: Sage, 1990,pp. 117-142. andhetto manage teams:Learning multicultural C.B. Building 23. Gibson, homogeneity Cultures: andM.E. Phillips R.A. Goodman, In N.A. Boyacigiller, (eds.), Crossing erogeneity. MA: Blackwell, 2004 (availableathttp://web.gsm.uci Teachers. Master Maiden, Insights from .edu/~cgibson/Publication%20files/Articles/Crossing%20cultures%20chapter.pdf). Communication. and Interpersonal S. Culture 24. Gudykunst, W.B., and Ting-Toomey, CA: Sage, 1998. Park, Newbury of cultural S. The influence 25. Gudykunst, Y.; and Ting-Toomey, W.B.; Matsumoto, valueson communication and individual selfconstruais, individualism-collectivism, styles HumanCommunication acrosscultures. Research, 22, 4 (1996), 510-543. In factor. Thecultural decision R. Group 26. Ho,T.; Raman, K.; andWatson, systems: support International andB.R. Konsynski J.C.Henderson, J.DeGross, (eds.),Proceedings oftheTenth NewYork: ACM Press,1989,pp. 119-129. on Information Systems. Conference UK: McurawMind. andOrganizations: G. Cultures Berkshire, 27. Hofstede, Software ofthe 1991. HillEurope, - Comparing and Institutions, G. Culture's Behaviors, 28. Hofstede, Values, Consequences 2d ed. London:Sage, 2001. Across Nations, Organizations 3d ed. London:Prentice G.M. Social Psychology, Hall, 29. Hogg, M.A., and Vaughan, 2002. for ofa framework for the Anempirical andcontext: P.Culture 30.Honold, development study Journal inproduct influence ofcultural elicitation the ofHuman-Computer usage.International 12, 3-4 (2000), 327-345. Interaction, collectivist versus inindividualist trust L. Levelsoforganizational 31. Huff, L., andKelley, A seven-nation societies: Science,14, 1 (2003), 81-90. Organization study. in global oftrust Antecedents outthere? D.E. Is anybody 32. Jarvenpaa, S.L., andLeidner, Journal teams. 14,4 (Spring virtual 1998),29-64. Systems, Information ofManagement on GDSS group of anonymity J.The effects 33. Jessup, T.; andGalegher, L.M.; Connolly, MIS Quarterly, task. an idea-generating with 14, 3 (1990), 313-321. process 1966. Boston:Little, Brown, 34. Kalven, H., andZeisel,H. TheAmerican Jury. and in theUnited States, 35. Kim,K.; Park, Japan H.; and Suzuki,N. Rewardallocations cultures. and collectivistic of individualistic Korea:A comparison Academy ofManagement 33, 1 (1990), 188-198. Journal, In C. Hendnck influence. and minority (ed.), 36. Levine,J.M.,and Russo,E.M. Majority CA: Sage, 1987,pp. 13-54. Processes. Park, Newbury Group collaborative distributed J.F. 37. Lowry, writing P.B.,andNunamaker, UsingInternet-based, on in writing teams.IEEE Transactions and groupawareness coordination toolsto improve 277-297. 4 Communication, 46, (2003), Professional
78 ZHANG, ANDFU LOWRY, ZHOU, 38. Lowry, ofprocess strucM.R. The impact P.B.; Nunamaker, J.F.; Curtis, A.; andLowry, teams.IEEE tureon novice,Internet-based, collaborative writing asynchronous-distributed on Professional Transactions Communication, 48, 4 (2005), 341-364. in modesofcultural 39. Markus, S. Selfways: H.R.; Mullally, P.; and Kitayama, Diversity In U. Neisser, andD.A. Jopling Culture, (eds.),TheConceptual Selfin Context: participation. Press,1997,pp. 13-61. University Experience, Self-understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge 40. Martin, M. Social-influence of control and change:ConR., and Hewstone, processes toauthority andinnovation. In M.A. HoggandJ.Cooper(eds.),TheSAGE obedience formity, London:Sage, 2003,pp. 347-366. Handbook ofSocial Psychology. and majority and M. Levels of consensus 41. Martin, R.; Gardikiotis, A.; and Hewstone, influence. Journal 32, 5 (2002),645-665. minority European ofSocial Psychology, Aninterpretation 42. Matthews, B. TheChinese valuesurvey: ofvaluescalesandconsideration ofsomepreliminary results. International Education 1, 2 (2000), 117-126. Journal, intoIS research: 43. McCoy,S.; Galletta, national culture D.; and King,W.R. Integrating The needforcurrent individual-level measures. Communications oftheAIS, 15, 12 (2005), 211-224. Journal 44. Merritt, A. Culture inthecockpit: Do Hofstede's dimensions ofCrossreplicate? Cultural 31, 3 (2002), 283-301. Psychology, Analternative 45. Miranda, C. Thesocialconstruction ofmeaning: S., andSaunders, perspectiveon information Research, 14, 1 (2003), 87-106. Systems sharing. Information In G. Lindzey, andE. Aronson 46. Moscovici, andconformity. S. Social influence (eds.),The Handbook New York:Random House,1985,pp. 347-412. ofSocial Psychology. 47. Mugny, G., and Perez,J. The Social Psychology of Minority Influence. Cambridge: Press,1991. Cambridge University culture in information 48. Myers, M.D., andTan,F.B. Beyondmodelsofnational systems research. Journal 10, 1 (2002), 24-32. Management, ofGlobalInformation 49. Nemeth, C. Differential contributions ofmajority andminority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 1 (1986), 23-32. 50. Nemeth, C. Dissent as driving attitudes andjudgments. Social Cognition, 13, cognition, 3 (1995), 273-291. 51. Nemeth, In T.C. Brock and persuasion in smallgroups. C, and Goncalo,J.Influence and M.C. Green(eds.), Persuasion: and Perspectives. London:Sage, Psychological Insights 2005,pp. 171-194. 52. Nemeth, ofcoranddetection C, andKwan,J.L.Majority influence, divergent thinking, rect solutions. Journal Social Psychology, 17,9 (1987), 788-799. ofApplied 53. Nunamaker, P.Lessonsfrom J.F.; R.O.; Mittleman, D.; Vogel, D.; andBalthazard, Briggs, a dozenyears ofgroup A discussion research: oflab andfield Journal systems support findings. 13, 3 (Winter ofManagement Information Systems, 1996-97),163-207. 54. Nunamaker, J.F. Electronic J.F.; A.; Valacich, Dennis, J.S.;Vogel, D.; andGeorge, meeting to support work. Communications ACM,34, 7 (1991),40-61. systems group ofthe 55. Pinsonneault, K.L. Theimpact oftechnological An on groups: A., andKraemer, support assessment oftheempirical research. DecisionSupport Systems, 5, 2 (1989), 197-216. 56. Poole, M.S.; Seibold,D.R.; and McPhee,R.D. Groupdecision-making as a structural Journal process. Quarterly ofSpeech,71 (1985), 74-102. - virtually: 57. Rains,S.A. Levelingtheorganizational field A meta-analysis of playing research theimpact ofgroup use on member influence experimental assessing support system behaviors. Communication Research, 32, 2 (2005), 193-234. 58. Raman, In R.P.Bostrom, R.T.Watson, K.S., andWei,K.K. The GDSS research project. andS.T. Kinney A Guided Teamwork: Tour. NewYork: VanNos(eds.),Computer Augmented trand Reinhold, 1992,pp. 210-220. 59. Riegelsberger, J.D.Themechanics oftrust: A framework for J.;Sasse,M.A.;andMcCarthy, research anddesign. International Journal Studies, 62,3 (2005),381-422. ofHuman-Computer 60. Roberts, P.D. An evaluation of theimpact of social T.L.; Lowry, P.B.; and Sweeney, size andtheuse of collaborative software on group member "voice" presence through group in face-to-face andcomputer-mediated taskgroups. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49, 2 (2006), 28-43.
79
andindividual in a M.Y. National influence 61. Salk,J.E.,andBrannen, culture, networks, team. multinational Journal, 43, 2 (2002), 191-202. Academy ofManagement management P.Thecollaborative conflict 62. Samaran, P.;andSeetharaman, I.; Paul,S.; Mykytyn, manageinDGSS supported tasks: Anexperimental andcultural ment diversity fuzzy investigation. style Annual Hawaii International In R.H. Sprague (ed.), Proceedings ConferoftheThirty-Sixth 2003 (availableat Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Sciences. enceonSystem Press, Society http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2003/1874/01/187410040a.pdf). it outof context: C. Taking 63. Setlock, L.D.; Fussell,S.R.; and Neuwirth, Collaborating In J.Herbsleb, andvia instant in face-to-face within and acrosscultures messaging. settings Work andG. Olson(eds.),Proceedings (CSCW'04). Supported Cooperative ofACM Computer ACM Press, NewYork: 2004,pp. 604-613. A test oftheHofstede valuesofmanagers: andAli,A.H. Work-related 64. Shackleton, V.J., 1 109-118. Cross-Cultural Journal model. 21, (1990), Psychology, of andcomputer-mediated com65. Sia, C.-L.; Tan,B.C.Y.; andWei,K.K. Group polarization and anonymity. of communication Effects munication: cues, social presence, Information Research, 13, 1 (2002), 70-90. Systems andcollaborative P.Impact ofheterogeneity 66. Souren, S.; andMykytyn, S.; Imad, P.;Priya, teams. ofsynchronous onthe conflict Information globalvirtual performance style management andManagement, 41, 3 (2004), 303-321. mailinorganizational socialcontext cues:Electronic S. Reducing 67. Sproull, L., andKiesler, communication. 32, 11 (1986), 1492-1512. Science, Management on the ofnational culture P.H.The influence 68. Steensma, H.K.; Marino, L.; andDickson, firms. alliances oftechnology formation Journal, Academy ofManagement byentrepreneurial 43,5(2000), 951-973. a theory-based M. Toward 69. Strub, E.; andSrite, R.; Karahanna, D.; Loch,K.; Evaristo, Journal ofculture. measurement 10, I (2002), 13-23. Management, ofGlobalInformation of tasktype The interaction matter: J.E.Does themedium 70. Straus, S.G., andMcGrath, reactions. Journal andmember on group andtechnology Psychology, ofApplied performance 79, 1 (1994), 87-97. oncomputerofculture M. Effects 71. Swigger, R.; andMonticino, F.; Brazile, K.; Alpaslan, Journal International collaborations. international Studies, 60, ofHuman-Computer supported 3 (2004), 365-380. In S. behavior. of inter-group J.C.The social identity 72. Tajfel,H., and Turner, theory Relations. andL.W. Austin Worchel Chicago:Nelson-Hall, (eds.),Psychology oflntergroup 1986,pp. 7-24. culture 73. Tan,B.C.Y.; Watson, K.S.; and Kerola,P.K. National R.T.; Wei,K.K.; Raman, where somepeoplearemoreequal than thesituation andgroup Examining systems: support Annual andR.H. Sprague(eds.),Proceedings In J.F.Nunamaker others. oftheTwenty-Sixth SoCA: IEEE Computer Los Alamitos, Sciences. on System HawaiiInternational Conference athttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel2/449/7026/00284175 Press,1993,pp. 132-141(available ciety .pdf?arnumber=284175). 74. Tan, B.C.Y.; Wei, K.K.; Watson, D.L.; and McLean, E.R. ComputerR.T.; Clapper, in an individualistic theimpact influence: and majority communication mediated Assessing culture. anda collectivistic Science, 44, 9 (1998), 1263-1278. Management contexts. cultural indiffering H.C. The selfandsocialbehavior 75. Triandis, Psychological 96, 3 (1989), 506-520. Review, A.; Georgas, K.; Brenes, 76. Triandis, H.; Bond,M.; Leung, R.; Betancourt, H.C; Bontempo, H.; andde J.;Tonzard, J.;Spangenberg, J.;Verman, B.; Sinha, G.; Setiadi, J.;Hui,C; Marin, across andcollectivism ofindividualism oftheeticaspects G. The measurement Montmollin, Journal Australian cultures. 38, 3 (1986),257-267. ofPsychology, inresults thedifferences differences M.A. Cultural 77. Tung, L.L., andQuaddus, explaining -199. decade.DecisionSupport for thenext 33, 2 (2002), 177 in GSS: Implications Systems, London:Sage, Research. and Cross-Cultural J.C.International 78. Usunier, Management 1998. on effects J.F.Groupsize and anonymity 79. Valacich,J.; Dennis,A.; and Nunamaker, 1 49-73. Small idea Research, 23, (1992), Group computer-mediated generation.
80
1998-99),197-234. on GSSA perspective R. Sociocultural 81. Vogel,D.; Davison,R.; and Shroff, learning: Communications enabled AIS, 7, 9 (2001), 1-41. ofthe globaleducation. MIS software anduse:A structurational 82.Walsham, G. Cross-cultural analysis. production 26, 4 (2002), 359-380. Quarterly, virtual teamcommunication. to improve P.M. Training 83. Warkentin, M., and Beranek, Journal, 9, 4 (1999), 271-289. Systems Information ofgroup A fourth dimension K. Culture: 84.Watson, R.; Ho,T.; andRaman, systems. support Communications ACM,37, 10 (1994),44-55. ofthe on interacL.K. Cultural 85. Watson, W.E.; Kumar, K.; andMichaelsen, impact diversity's taskgroups. anddiverse tion andperformance: Academy of Comparing homogeneous process Journal, 36, 3 (1993), 590-602. Management
Systems,15, 3 (Winter group supportsystemsin Africa.Journalof Management Information
of and acceptance theapplication 80. Vreede, G., de; Jones, N., & Mgaya,BJ. Exploring

Impact of Individualism

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Impact of Individualism

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Impact of IndividualismCollectivism, Social Presence, and Group Diversity on Group Decision Making under Majority Influence Author(s):

- Collectivism, The ImpactofIndividualism and GroupDiversity on Social Presence, GroupDecisionMakingUnder MajorityInfluence

54 ZHANG, ANDFU LOWRY, ZHOU,

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE

Foundation Conceptual Influence Majority

ZHANG, LOWRY, ZHOU, AND FU

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE

ZHANG, LOWRY, ZHOU, AND FU

ModelandHypotheses Theoretical Development

ofCulture on Majority Influence The Impact

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE

Degree of Social Presence

noCMC RF, High:

Medium:FtF, CMC supported Low:Virtual, CMC supported

ZHANG, LOWRY, ZHOU, AND FU

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE

ZHANG, LOWRY, ZHOU, AND FU

Influence on Majority The Impact ofSocial Presence

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE

64 ZHANG, ANDFU LOWRY, ZHOU,

ofIndependent Variables Operationalization

NaiveParticipants andConfederates Participants:

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE

ZHANG, LOWRY, ZHOU, AND FU

A Web-Based TeamDiscussion: Collaboration Software

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE

2. System Interface ofthefirst (at thebeginning round) Figure

ZHANG, LOWRY, ZHOU, AND FU

Variable ofDependent Operationalization Influence) (Majority

Data Analysis Check Manipulation

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE

_NT. cdcviocj _w_

r^T-ojcqoocsjT-oir-cqcvjT-; (Niri NNiricD ^'iri^^

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE

Table2. Results ofANOVATeston theDependent Variable Degreesof freedom

3. Number ofRounds Taken inCulturally Figure Heterogeneous Groups

ZHANG, LOWRY, ZHOU, AND FU

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE

for Theory Implications

Practice for Implications

ZHANG, LOWRY, ZHOU, AND FU

Limitations andFuture Research

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE

76 ZHANG, ANDFU LOWRY, ZHOU,

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE

ZHANG, LOWRY, ZHOU, AND FU

Systems,15, 3 (Winter group supportsystemsin Africa.Journalof Management Information

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen