Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

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 Brown, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, C. E.
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?

Communication Networks in Task-Performing Groups

Effects of Task Complexity, Time Pressure, and Interpersonal Dominance

Thomas M. Brown

Northern Illinois University

Charles E. Miller

Northern Illinois University

In an experiment on the emergence of communication networks, 48 groups, each consisting of 4 or 5 members, were randomly assigned to the cells of a 2 (high vs. low time pressure) 2 (high vs. low task complexity) factorial design and completed a decision-making task. The interpersonal dominance of each member was measured via the Dominance scale of the Personality Research Form (PRF). Results showed that members higher in dominance emerged as more central in the group communication network, both sending and receiving more messages than members lower in dominance. Group members correctly perceived that those higher in dominance participated more in discussion. Communication was more centralized in groups that worked on the low complexity task than in groups that worked on the high complexity task. Members correctly perceived that participation was more unequally distributed in more centralized groups. An anticipated interaction effect, with time pressure moderating the effect of task complexity, was not supported.

Small Group Research, Vol. 31, No. 2, 131-157 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/104649640003100201
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
 The American Review of Public AdministrationHome page
N. Kapucu
Interagency Communication Networks During Emergencies: Boundary Spanners in Multiagency Coordination
The American Review of Public Administration, June 1, 2006; 36(2): 207 - 225.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
N. Katz, D. Lazer, H. Arrow, and N. Contractor
Network Theory and Small Groups
Small Group Research, June 1, 2004; 35(3): 307 - 332.
[Abstract] [PDF]