Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Small Group Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Scott, C. R.
Right arrow Articles by Easton, A. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Examining Equality of Influence in Group Decision Support System Interaction

Craig R. Scott

University of Texas at Austin

Annette C. Easton

San Diego State University

This article explores the assumption that most group decision support systems (GDSSs) tend to equalize influence in groups. Several past studies suggest that random groups interacting in a computer-mediated environment have more equal influence than face-to-face groups. This study, however, examined variations in perceived influence and communicative influence strategies among individual members of an intact group using a GDSSfor decision making. Although results indicate that perceived influence is more equal during GDSS interaction than immediately prior to such interaction, other results question the claim of equal influence. Findings suggest that historically high- and low-influence individuals are still perceived as such even in the GDSS meetings; furthermore, historically high- and low-influence members all use influence messages, but they use different tactics and employ them in varied amounts. Thesefindings question the influence equalization assumption of GDSSs.

Small Group Research, Vol. 27, No. 3, 360-382 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/1046496496273002
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
N. C. Romano Jr., P. B. Lowry, and T. L. Roberts
Technology-Supported Small Group Interaction: Extending a Tradition of Leading Research for Virtual Teams and Global Organizations
Small Group Research, February 1, 2007; 38(1): 3 - 11.
[PDF]

Home page
 Communication ResearchHome page
S. A. Rains
Leveling the Organizational Playing Field--Virtually: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Research Assessing the Impact of Group Support System Use on Member Influence Behaviors
Communication Research, April 1, 2005; 32(2): 193 - 234.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
T. Postmes and R. Spears
Behavior Online: Does Anonymous Computer Communication Reduce Gender Inequality?
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, August 1, 2002; 28(8): 1073 - 1083.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Management Communication QuarterlyHome page
C. A.P. Smith and S. C. Hayne
Decision Making under Time Pressure: An Investigation of Decision Speed and Decision Quality of Computer-Supported Groups
Management Communication Quarterly, August 1, 1997; 11(1): 97 - 126.
[Abstract]