impact of individualism

7/22/2019 Impact of individualism

1/29

The Impact of IndividualismCollectivism, Social Presence, and Group Diversity on Group

Decision Making under Majority InfluenceAuthor(s): Dongsong Zhang, Paul Benjamin Lowry, Lina Zhou and Xiaolan FuSource: Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Spring, 2007), pp. 53-80Published 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 [email protected].

.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc.is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of

Management Information Systems.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 216.165.95.79 on Mon, 4 Nov 2013 23:17:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=meshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40398871?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40398871?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes


2/29

TheImpactof ndividualism Collectivism,SocialPresence,ndGroupDiversitynGroupDecisionMakingUnderMajoritynfluenceDONGSONGZHANG,PAULBENJAMIN OWRY,LINAZHOU,ANDXIAOLANFUDongsong hang s anAssistantrofessorntheDepartmentf nformationystemsattheUniversityfMaryland,altimoreounty. e received isPh.D. nMIS fromtheUniversityfArizona.Hiscurrentesearchocuses ncomputer-mediatedom-municationndcollaboration, obile omputing,ndknowledgemanagement.iswork asappearedn ournals uch s JournalfManagementnformationystems,CommunicationsftheACM, EEE Transactions,nformationManagement,ndDecision upportystems. isresearch asbeen upportedyNIH andGoogle.Paul Benjaminowrys anAssistantrofessorf nformationystemst heMarriottSchool,BrighamoungUniversity,nda Kevin ndDebraRollins aculty ellow,affiliatedith heKevin nd DebraRollinsCenter or Business.He received isPh.D. nMIS fromheUniversityfArizona. is nterestsnclude uman-computerinteractioncollaboration,ommunication,ntertainment),-businesselectronicmarkets),ndscientometricsf S research. e has articles ublishednJournalfManagementnformationystems,ournalf heAIS,Communicationsf heACM,Communicationsf he IS,Decision upportystems,EEE TransactionsnSystems,ManandCybernetics,EEE TransactionsnProfessionalommunication,nd mallGroupResearch.Lina Zhou is anAssistant rofessorf Informationystemst theUniversityfMaryland, altimore ounty. he receivedherPh.D. inComputerciencefromBeijingUniversity,hina.Herresearchnterestsenterncomputer-mediatedom-munication,eceptionetection,emanticWeb, nd peechnteraction.erwork asbeenpublishednJournalfManagementnformationystems,ommunicationsftheACM, EEE TransactionsnSpeech ndAudioProcessing,EEE TransactionsonSystems, an andCybernetics,EEE TransactionsnProfessionalommunica-tion, ecisionSupport ystems,nformationManagement,ndGroupDecisionandNegotiation.Xiaolan Fu is a ProfessorfPsychologytthe nstitutefPsychology,hineseAcademy fSciences,Beijing, hina.Shereceived erPh.D. inPsychologyromtheChinese cademyfSciences,nd nM.S. and B.S. inPsychologyromekingUniversity.er urrentesearchocuses nthe rinciplesfhumanognitivectivi-ties, hementalndbehavioralssues nthe reas f omputer-supportedooperative

JournalfManagementnformationystemsSpring 007,Vol.23,No.4,pp.53-80.2007 M.E. Sharpe,nc.0742-1222/2007$9.50+ 0.00.DOI 10.2753/MIS0742-222230404

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/29

54 ZHANG,OWRY,HOU, ND Uwork, ndhuman-computernteraction.he haspublished 50 research apers nEnglishnd nChinese.Abstract:Majoritynfluencesthe ttempty majorityfgroupmemberso mposetheir ommonositionngroup issentersuring roup ecisionmaking.ecauseofglobalization,he seof ross-culturaleamsngroupaskssbecomingncreasinglycommon. heobjective f this tudywas to nvestigateownationalulture,ocialpresence,ndgroupdiversity ayaffectmajoritynfluencen a groupdecision-makingontext. total f183groups articipatedn a large-scalempiricalxperi-ment tmultipleites. he results how hat henational ulturefgroupminoritieshas a significantmpactnmajoritynfluencend hat he se ofcomputer-mediatedcommunicationan reducemajoritynfluence.he findingsave both heoreticalandpracticalmplicationsormprovinghe utcomendthe ffectivenessfgroupdecisionmakingncross-culturalnvironments.Keywords nd phrases: MC, computer-mediatedommunication,ulture,roupdecisionmaking, roup ecision ystems,roup iversity, ajoritynfluence,ocialpresence,irtualeams.

As globalization ncreases, irms ealize that art f their ompetitivedvantagedependsnthe evelopmentf uperiorollaborativeapability.hecurrentusinessenvironmentftennvolves ollaborationnface-to-faceFtF)settingsut ncreas-inglynvolves istributedirtualeamso opewith ncertain,mbiguous,nd apidlychangingnformation.irtual eams rephysicallyispersedeams hat eavily elyonelectronicommunicationndcollaborationechnologiesorperforminguchoftheirwork. hesechangeshave underlinedhe mportancefvirtual eams ndoffshoringnthemassive hiftoward globaldigital conomy59].Given heprevalencef diversemulticulturalork roups hat recomposed fmembersromontrastingationalultures,t s vital or usinesses ndmanagerstounderstandhe hallengesfdifferentational ultures. lackofunderstandingfcross-culturalollaborationan eadto varietyfproblems.or xample, rganiza-tional tudies nteamsnvolving ore han nenationalulturehow hatuch eamsmay xperience ore roblems,uch sconflict, isunderstanding,oor erformance[61], nddecreasedrust31], scomparedohomogeneouseams. oenable ffectivecollaboration,roupmembers ust irstewillingo harenformationnd hen aveanopportunityocontribute.owever,ndividuals' otivationovoiceopinionsanvary reatly ithinhe ontext fanywork ituationrenvironment60].Majorityinfluence,hephenomenonf nterestn this esearch,s a particularlyroblematicphenomenonncross-culturalroupsndmerits urthernvestigation.Majoritynfluences the ttemptya majorityfgroupmemberso mpose heircommonositionngroup issentersuringdecision-makingrocess36].Majori-ties anshapenot nly heudgmentsndbehavior f ndividualmembersut lsothewaythey hink51],whichmay esult npoorgroup ecisionsnd unfavorable



4/29

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE 55

outcomes. ebelieve hat ationalultures akey lementffectingajoritynfluence,because he elated henomenonfconformitys partially productf culture6].Differentulturalerspectives ayncreaserdecrease ocial ensionsndproblemsassociatedwithmajoritynfluencengroups.Collaborativeoftwarerrelatedroupupportystems,hichredesignedo m-prove roup rocesses,an be used odampenocial-orientednformationxchange[84].Thisdampeningffectmay n turn ecreasemajoritynfluencend mproveopportunitiesor ndividualroupmembersocontribute.n this aper,werefer ocollaborativeoftwares a common ndgeneric mbrella erm or omputer-medi-ated ommunicationCMC) tools.A glaringimitationfexistingtudies nCMCis thatmost f them ocus n Westernultures20].Onlyfewerhan 0 empiricalstudies avefocused nculturalssues 77].CMC can ncrease articipation;educedomination,roductionlocking,ndcognitiventerference;nd creategreaterequality f nfluence11, 33]. However,hefindingsrom revious esearch singparticipantsromWesternulturesmaynotbe directlypplicable o other ultures.Groupmembersrom ifferentultures ay erceive roup ynamicsifferentlyromtraditionalesternonceptsfgroup ehavior.his soneof hemajor easonsmanymanagementndorganizationracticesevelopedn Westernountries ave failedwhenntroducedo otherultures35].Furthermore,hetherheuse of CMC canpromotereaterqualityf nfluencenculturallyomogeneousndheterogeneousgroupstill eeds obeempiricallyalidated3].

Althoughhere avebeen extensivetudies nmajoritynfluencen socialpsy-chology incethe1950s,fewhave nvestigatedhis ssuefrom oth ultural ndtechnologicalerspectives.hus,nthis esearch, e are nterestednexploringowmajoritynfluences affectedycultural ifferencesndwhether ajoritynfluencecanbediminishedhroughMC. Specifically,e aimto address everalmportantresearchuestions: o groupmembersrom ifferentulturesxperienceifferentlevelsofmajoritynfluenceuring roup ecisionmaking? o differencesxist ntheway hatmajoritynfluenceffectsroup ecisionmakingn FtF nddistributedcommunicationettings ith rwithout MC support?oes the ffectfmajorityinfluencengroupminoritiesary romulturallyomogeneousroupsoculturallyheterogeneousroups? o address hese uestions, e firsteveloped theoreticalmodel oexplain ndpredict owgroupminoritiesrom ifferentational ulturesmaybehaveundermajoritynfluencen various ommunicationettings.Wethenoperationalizedhe heoretical odelnto ypotheses,hichwere mpiricallyestedinrigorousaboratoryettings.inally, ediscuss he ontributions,imitations,ndfutureesearchirections.ConceptualoundationMajoritynfluenceSocial influenceefers o theway n which pinionsndattitudesf one ormorepersonsffectthers. onformity,hemost ominantorm f social nfluence40],



5/29

56 ZHANG, LOWRY, ZHOU, AND FU

is a process f conflict esolutionn which eviant roupmembersomplywithgroup'smajorityiewpoint.ecause this ineofresearchnvestigatesow major-ity an nfluenceminorityoconformo tsview,t s also referredo as majorityinfluenceesearch. majorityan be definedn at leastthree ifferentays 40]:(1) accordingo thenumberf membersn eachgroup,with hemajorityroup e-ing numericallyreaterhan heminorityroup;2) a majorityypicallyolds henormativeositioni.e.,opinionsndbeliefs hat eflectcceptedocietal tandardsin a society), hereas minorityolds n anti-normativeosition;nd 3) basedonthepower elationshipetween he ource ndrecipientf nfluence, ajoritiesrehighernpower hanminorities.ncongruence ith hebulk fmajoritynfluenceliterature,e adopt hefirstefinition.Convergent-divergentheory49] argues hatmajoritiesosteronvergencefat-tention,houghts,nd alternativesonsidered. ovement rom minorityositiontoa majorityositionsusuallyttributableotwo ssumptions:ne sthe elief hatmajorityudgmentsrelikely o be correct an assumptionermednformationalinfluence. hen nformationalnfluenceccurs, heminorityenses he strengthinnumbers"bout hemajority'sosition. he otherssumptions that ndividualswant o be acceptedndthereforeish o avoid hedisapprovalhat manatesrommaintainingminorityiewpoint anassumptionermed ormativenfluence.hennormativenfluenceccurs,minoritiesrenot omuch oncernedbout ruthstheyareconcernedbout eing ocially ccepted. iscrepancy ith majoritys surpris-ingandstressful;t ncreases ither hebelief hat ne is inadequater deviant rthedoubt none'sownopinion4].To reduce uch nternalonflicts,eople end oadopt hemajorityositionnd convince hemselvesf thevalidityfthat ositionbyconsideringssuesonly rom hemajorityerspective50].Peoplemightlsobemotivatedoidentify ith rsee themselvess similarothemajorityn order operceive reatertatus rpower 47].Strongmajoritynfluenceanresultnpoor rganizationalecisions,ecause eoplefear eprisalrom hemajority74].A studyfU.S. uries howed hat nmore han85percentf all udicial ases,themajorityositionnthefirstallotwas thefinalverdict34].Anothertudyhowed hatwhen positionource omprised0percentof group's osition,here ascomplianceo hat osition ithoutetailedrocessingoftheposition'smessages41].CultureFundamentally,ultures conceptualizeds sharedymbols,orms,ndvalues n asocialcollectivity,uch s a country27].Beyond ationalulture,ulturelsorep-resentshared alues nd ttitudes ithin specificrganizationr nother ormsfsocialgrouping82].Onewaytoclarifyhe oncept fculturesto dentifyimen-sions f ulturalariation76].Themost opularulturalheoryhat asbeen doptedin informationystemsIS) researchs Hofstede'smodelofnational ulture27],whichwasdeveloped asedon a large ody fsurveyata bout hevaluesheldbyemployeesn ocalsubsidiariesf BM inmore han 0 countries.ismodel efines



6/29


five ultural imensionshat re basedonvalue orientationshat re shared crosscultures:ower istance,ndividualism-collectivismI-C),masculinity-femininity,uncertaintyvoidance,ndConfucianynamism.Someresearchersriticize ofstede'smodel nthegroundshat t s ratherrudeandsimplistic,hat surveymaynotbe a suitablewayofmeasuringulturaliffer-ences, nd hat studyfthe ubsidiariesfonecompanymaynot rovidenforma-tion bout ntire ational ultures.et Hofstede'smodelhas beenwidely alidatedbymore han 40studies78],makingtgeneralizableo differentettings44,64].Moreover,t s themost ommonlydoptedmodel ncross-culturalMC research.Hisgeneralulturalonstructsrdimensionsan be usefulnhelping xplain oten-tialdifferencesncultureegardingheuseoftechnology81].Myers ndTan 48]examined 6 studies nculturen themanagementnformationystemsiterature;among hem,4 used oneor more imensionsfHofstede'smodel.Therefore,eadopted ofstede'sulturalmodel n this esearch.Nationalulturelays n mportantole ngroupnteractionecause thas a directimpactn ndividualehavior14]andonhowpeopleuseproductsnd echnologies[30].Cultureffectsnterpersonalommunication,nfluencing,orxample,ituationalfactorsf ommunication,elf-conception,erbal ndnonverbalommunication,ndinterpersonalelationships24]. t s oneof he romisingimensionsf echnology-basedgroup esearchhat asa tremendousmpact norganizations68].Organiza-tions rom ifferentountries usttrategicallyorkogethernmajor rojects,uchas ointventuresnd ocalizationrograms;hus,managersndresearcherseed odeepen heir nderstandingfthe ffectfnationalulturenmanagement.

Computer-MediatedommunicationImprovingroup rocessesndoutcomes iaCMC has beenoneofthemost ighlyinvestigatedesearchssues nthe ast wodecades 10,53].Bybreakingown om-municationarriers,MC mayhelpgroupmembersonveynformationropinionsthatmaynotbe otherwiseonveyedn a traditionaltF,non-CMC-supportednvi-ronment32,37,38].BecauseCMC isdesignedo mproveeamwork,esearchn CMC also needs obeextendedocross-culturaleams oexamine ow tcan mproveheir erformance.Given hemportancefnationalulture,MC-based ross-culturaltudiesarehighlyrelevanto a post-industrialocietyn whichmanagerialeams, ftenomposed findividualsrom ifferentationalultures, illmake xtensivese of nformationtechnologyIT) tosupportroup ecision-making"84,p. 54].Becausepeoplewhopossessdifferentalues, references,ndbeliefsmay iew nduse CMC differently,theways hat MC canchange roup ehaviorre ikely ontingentponnationalculture73,80].Despite hencreasingiversityfglobal irtualeams nd he romiseof CMC tohelp uch eams, nly handful fstudies aveattemptedo nvestigatethe seof echnologynculturallyeterogeneouseamse.g., 3,9,62,71]),butnoneofthem asexaminedmajoritynfluence.



7/29


Theoretical odel andHypotheses evelopmentA problemnexistingS multicultural esearch s that t s either theoreticalrthetheories redeveloped t an inappropriateonceptualevel.Creatingheoreti-cal propositionsbout pecific ational ultures ithoutddressingheunderlyingmechanismshatmakethese ultures ifferents problematic.n examinationfunderlyingheoretical echanismsf national ulture eedsto takeplacetohelpexplainmportantehavioral ifferencesfgroupmembershat angeneralizeoavarietyfcircumstances.Wepredict,asedon Hofstede'smodel, hat differenceill xist etween he e-havior fChinese roupminoritiesndthat fU.S. groupminoritiesndermajorityinfluence.heprimaryeason or hose ifferencess that hinese roupmembersareexpectedo eanstronglyowardollectivism,nd U.S. groupmembershouldleanstronglyoward ndividualism.pecifically,e concentratenexplainingif-ferencesnthe cceptabilityfmajorityiews nhomogeneousndividualisticndcollectivisticroupss well s inculturallyeterogeneousroups all nthreeypesof ommunicationettingsith ifferentevels f ocialpresence. ur esearch odelis shownnFigure .The mpact fCulture nMajoritynfluenceByexaminingofstede's odel, esearchersanhypothesizehich imensionsouldmostikely lay role nthe reatmentf he T artifact21].Among ive imensionsofHofstede'smodel,we believe he ultural ifferencenthe -CdimensionICD) ismost ppropriateo be used toexplain hepotentialifferencenmajoritynfluencebecause:

1. We desire okeepour heoryuccinctndrelevant.tarting ith model hataccounts or ll five fHofstede's imensionss independentariabless anunwieldy lacetostartuilding usefulheoryn our ontext. nereason orthis s that hose ive imensionsonotfollow he amedirection,ndtheyexist sseparateheoreticalonstructs18];thus,esearchersormallyonsideronly neortwodimensionstonce.2. Triandis 75] suggests eveloping ypothesesoncerningherelationshipbetween ulturendsocial behavior ased onthe CD of Hofstede'smodel.Individualismescribesulturesnwhichhe ies mongndividualsre oose,while ollectivismescribesulturesnwhich eople re ntegratednto trong,cohesive roupshat rotectndividualsnexchangeor nquestioningoyalty.The CD isthemost ommonlyseddimensionn ross-culturalesearch hileexplaining hy roupsnsome ountriesremorewillingo adhere ogroupnorms hanhose notherountries,nd sa pertinentactor or MC researchinorganizationsndgroups74].Thus,wearguehat heCD isdirectlyelatedtothephenomenonf nterestfthis esearch,majoritynfluence,ecausethis imensionnvolves roup ohesion,onflictesolutiontrategies,nd he



8/29


Degree of CollectivismHigh: hinese national ulture VLow: U. . n t on l ou tu e >.

Degree of Social Presence ^sjHigh:F, oCMC .J^1*nfluenceMedium: tF, MC supported InfluenceLow:Virtual,MC supported J*|Degree or Group Diversity fHigh:Heterogeneous ultureLow:Homogeneousculture

Figure.Research odel

willingnesso hallengeifferentpinions.he CD best eflectsross-culturalvariationsnconformityehavior,uch s majoritynfluence6].3. Thetargetarticipantsn ourexperimentereundergraduatetudents ithsimilartatusnuniversities.heyhadnoprevious orkingelationships,ndnohierarchicalocial structurexistedmong hem. hus, tatus ifferencesdidnot xist ndthe ffectsfthepower istance imensionan be ignored.4. Given henaturefthe ask nd the xperimentalesign sed n this tudy(e.g., ne ession),he ifferencesetweenulturesnmasculinity-femininity,uncertaintyvoidance,ndConfucianynamismouldhaverelativelyittleimpactn this tudy.5. In termsfrelevance ndpracticality,he CD neatly lignswith henationalculturesfChina nd heUnitedtates; his lignmentllows lean peration-alization or estinghemodel.Thepractical ignificancef the CD appliedtoChina ndtheUnited tates s extremelyigh onsideringhat hese retwomajorworld owers hat re ncreasinglynvolvedn ointventuressingheterogeneousnddistributedeams.

BasedontheCD,we firstredicthatminoritiesithndividualisticultures ouldbe lesssusceptibleomajoritynfluencehan hosewith ollectivisticultures.n anindividualisticulture,iesbetween eople re oose, ndtask oncernsrevail verrelationshiponcerns27].Such ulturesighlyaluefreedomnd ndividualights.Peopletend o think r act ndependentlynd are argely nconnected ith thers.



9/29


Theyviewconformityogroup orms s being ssociatedwith elinquishingne'sautonomy,ot eingncontrol,ndbeing ushed round.When conflictrises e-tween ersonalndgroup oals, t sconsideredcceptable or ndividualoals obeplaced headof collective oals.As a result,ndividualistsend o follow heir wnconscience nd make heirwnchoiceswithouteing ffectedr controlledyanyexternalause 39].When eoplen n ndividualisticultureisagree ith majorityposition,heyre ikely o resolve onflictsiaopen nddirect ommunication.Incontrast,collectivisticulturesone nwhich eople re ntegratednto tronglycohesive roupsndbasetheirelf-understandingnthe eactionsf thers. his ypeof ulture ocuses nkeeping alance ndharmonyithingroup19], ndrelation-ships mong roupmembersrevail ver askswhenmaking roup ecisions27].Suchgroupmembersend oemployndirect eans or onflictesolutionecausethemaintenancefharmony ithin hegroup ndthe bilityoforgeonsensus rehighlyegarded16].When conflictetween ersonalndcollective oalsoccurs,subordinationfpersonal oalstothe ollective oals s helpfulnpromotingal-uessuch s harmony,umility,ourtesy,atience,nd obedience42].Collectiviststypicallyesitateospeakup in a group,ry ocoordinateheir ctionswith hoseof others o minimizeocialfriction,ndhave nabiding ear fbeing eparatedrdisconnectedromhe roup. ollectivistsre ccustomedo onformingndrestrict-ing heirdeas, venwhen singCMC [26].They remorenclined omodifyheirownpreferencesndpositionsoconformo a groupndbehavemore ooperativelythanndividualistsre 5],whichs expectedoresult n a higherevelofmajorityinfluence.nsummary,eproposehat he egree f ollectivismfgroupminoritiesis a positive unctionfmajoritynfluence:

Hypothesis:Majoritynfluenceill emanifestedoretronglyncollectivisticgroupminoritieshan n ndividualisticroupminorities.Cultural iversityan refer onational,rganizational,rprofessionalifferences[27]. In this tudy, roupdiversityefers o thecultural iversityfgroupmem-bers either ll groupmembersre from he amenational ulturehomogeneity),ortheyre fromontrastingational ulturesheterogeneity),s operationalizedy

the CD. There rethree treams fresearch n thempact fheterogeneityn teameffectiveness17]: (1) organizationalemographyiterature,hich xamines hedifferencesnobservableharacteristics,uch s ageorfunctionalackground;2)culturaliversityiterature,hich ighlightsemographicariables resupposedorelate irectlyoculturalttributes,alues, ndperceptions;nd 3) group esearch,which ddresses eam ompositionffects.ur tudy elongs o the hirdategory.Teamsimilaritys consideredobe positivelyssociatedwith eam ffectivenessand nterpersonalttraction17].Diversitynrace ndnationalityppearso nterferewith roup rocessmore han oeshomogeneitynorganizationaleams66].Becausehomogeneouseammembers hare ommon iews and are ikely o interpretndevaluate ituationalvents ndmanagementracticesn similar ays, hey enerallyreporttrongerffinityor heireams han hosenculturallyeterogeneouseams.In contrast, embersrom ifferentulturesna group remore ikely orespond



10/29

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITYINFLUENCE 6 1

differentlyo he ame vent rmanagerialpproach23].They o not hare he amementalmodels hat nable hared nderstanding7];theyxperience ore ifficultywhile greeingnwhat s importantndworkingogether resultingndiminishedgroup armonynd ohesion,nd ausing sychologicalressuresuch sdiscomfortanda weak senseofbelongingo a group 62].Cultural ifferencesmonggroupmembers ay mplifymbiguity,omplexity,nd onfusionngroup ecisionmaking[8], ndmay ausevariationsnmembers'ttitudes,alues, ndoverall erformance,potentiallyeadingo onflicts hen eammembersnteract85].Theseproblemsanfoster istrustndmiscommunicationmong eammembersnd ncreasetereotyp-ing,which esultnthenabilityovalidatedeas nd rguments,ain onsensus,ndreach ecisions1].Social dentityheorySIT) [72]canfurthereveal he uances f ulturaliversityngroups.ocial dentitysan ndividual'self-concept,erived romerceived ember-ship f ocialgroups29] Namely,t s an ndividual-basederceptionfwhat efines"us"as associatedwithny nternalizedroupmembership.ocial dentitiesssumesome ommonalityith thers; herefore,eople's ocial dentitiesregroundedntheirerceptionsf ocialgroupmembership.IT assertshat roupmembershipre-ates n n-groupor elf-categorizationnways hat avor n n-grouptthe xpenseofanout-group.he evaluationfone'sowngroups determinedith eferenceoother roupshroughocial omparisonsntermsfvalue-ladenttributes.hemereact f ndividuals'ategorizinghemselvessgroupmembersan eadthem odisplayin-groupavoritism.ftereing ategorizeds membersf group,ndividualseekto achievepositive elf-esteemypositivelyifferentiatingheirn-grouprom nout-groupnsomevalueddimensions.IT suggestshathemore he onflictxistsbetween roupmembers,hemore ikely hose ndividuals ill udgeone anotherontheir roup ffiliationatherhan n individualharacteristics.owever, ewlyformedulturallyeterogeneousroupsas in this tudy) robably ouldnothavesufficientime oadjust o substantialulturalifferences85].BasedonSIT,weargue hat roupminoritiesho dentifyheirn-grouphould emore usceptibleomajoritynfluence.onversely, inoritiesho ee themselvessdifferentromther roupmembersremore ikely oviewthemajoritys an out-groupndhence ecomemore esistantomajoritynfluence.herefore,epredictthat roup iversityasa negativempactnmajoritynfluencenamely,hehigherthe ulturaliversity,heweakerhemajoritynfluence:

Hypothesis: Majoritynfluenceillbemanifestedore tronglynculturallyhomogeneousroups s comparedoculturallyeterogeneousroups.Forcollectivists,voiding onflictsndachieving roup oalsarehighly alued.Priortudies ave hownhat ollectivistsnculturallyeterogeneousroups ormallyattempto ncreaseheirevels f ooperationhen ooperativeehaviorsexpected[3]. Under he onditionfcultural iversity,ollectivistsre ikely o makemoreeffortoachievegroupharmonyndconsensus hanndividualists.n contrast,sstrongndividualists,.S. groupmembersresimplymuchmorendependentndnaturallyean way romreatingeep ollectiveies 14].Thus,U.S.participantsre



11/29


less ikelyobe affectedymajoritynfluence,speciallywhen heyre heminorityinculturallyeterogeneousroupsndhave trongense fout-group:Hypothesis: Majoritynfluencen collectivistic inoritiesnculturallyet-erogeneousroupswillbemanifestedore tronglyhan hat n ndividualisticminoritiesnculturallyeterogeneousroups.

The mpact fSocialPresence nMajoritynfluenceThe effect f socialpresence nmajoritynfluenceanbe explained sing ocialpresenceheory.ocialpresence an be defined s "thedegree o which mediumfacilitateswareness f theother erson nd nterpersonalelationshipsuringheinteraction"22,p. 118].FtF ommunicationends ohave hemost umberf ocialcues, o t stypicallyiewed sbeing ighn ocialpresence45],while MC mediahave fewer ocial cuesand aretypicallyiewed s being ow n socialpresence.naddition,istributedeams hat ely n CMC generallyave esssocialpresencehanFtFgroups60].Socialpresenceheoryredictshatmedia ow n socialpresencemaynot e suit-ableforntersubjectiventerpretationhen nteractivityndreciprocityreneededin communication45].Central osocialpresenceheorys the ssumptionhatthepresencef he nformationendernfluencesecipients'nderstandingf hemessage"[45,p. 89].A communication edium hat rovidesmore ocial cueswillgeneratea higherevel of socialpresence,hus eading o ncreased irect onfrontationndstrongerocialpressurend normativenfluencen individualroupmembers60,74].The fear frejection yother roupmembersan be reduced yalleviatingravoiding irect onfrontationhrough ediawith ewer ocial cues orbyhavingn-dividualudgmentsr commentsiven nonymously13].Forexample, ains 57]demonstratedhroughmeta-analysishat roup upportystems,leanermediumwithower ocialpresence,ncreasednfluencequalityndreduced roupmemberdominance. hus,we propose hat he evel of socialpresence fcommunicationmedia s a positive unctionfmajoritynfluence.

Following everal elated tudiese.g., 12,60]),we operationalizedocialpres-encein this tudy yusing hree ommunicationettings ith ifferentevels ofsocialcues namely,tFnon-CMC roups,tFCMC groups,nddistributedMC(dCMC) groups.GroupminoritiesntheFtFnon-CMC-supportedommunicationenvironmentre xpectedobe esswillingochallengemajorityositionshanheyare nbothCMC-supportednvironments,ecauseFtFcommunications therich-estmedium hat ffershe argest umberfsocial cuesbywhich roupmajoritiescanexert hemost nfluencengroupminorities.n an FtFsetting, ore erbal rnonverbalues areavailable ndcan beprocessedo formnteractivity,eciprocity,and nterdependencemongommunicationartnershan nCMC-supportedettings[59].Extensiveesearch ascomparedhe utcomesfU.S. groupsntraditionaltFnon-CMC-supportednvironmentsersushose nCMC-supportednvironmentsndsuggestedhat heuse ofCMC would ncrease qualitynparticipationndreduce



12/29


socialpressureo conform54].Membersn FtFCMC-supportedroups xchangeopinions sing extual nd visualcues; however,ecause voicecuesareremoved,themajority ill exercise ess normativenfluencendconformityressuren theminorityhan nFtFunsupportedommunication.In a dCMC setting,roupmembersrephysicallyocated t differentites.Theyexchange pinionshroughextual uesonly. ecause of the emoval f both oiceandvisualcues,a dCMC settingas thefewest ocial cuesamong he hree om-municationettings,esultingn the owest evelsof socialpresencendnormativeinfluence67].Anothereaturehat CMCallows,whichwe used nthis tudy,s theprovisionf nonymity,hich urthereducesocialpresencemong roupmembers.Anonymitynablesndividualontributionsogroup iscussions ithoutdentification[33, 56].This featureelps vercomehe onformanceressure79] that ccurs ngroupswhen eammembers o notwant o criticizeny ther eammember's ffortorelicit dissentingiewpoint.y oweringocialpresence,nonymityay educeevaluationnd ommunicationpprehension65]and ncrease he endencyfgroupmemberso resist rdisagreewith hemajorityiew.

Hypothesis:Majoritynfluenceill emanifestedoretronglynFtFnon-CMCgroups,ollowed yFtF CMCgroups,ndfinallyn distributedMCgroups.As statedbove, ompared ith he therwo ommunicationettings,CMCgen-erallyowers ocialpresencengroupommunication.t s believed hat heChineseculture alues morehigh-context,ubtle orm f communicationhat eliesmoreheavily n nonverbaluesthan oes ndividualisticulture25].Therefore,hineseparticipantsould emore egativelyffectedy he ost ocial ueswhen oing romFtFto a distributedettingncomparisono U.S. participants.ccordingly,hinesemajoritiesnhomogeneousistributedroupswouldberestrictedrhandicappednexerting ajoritynfluencen Chineseminorities.ncontrast,heU.S. majoritiesnhomogeneousroups aneasily dapt hemselveso ow-contextommunicationndistributedettingsndexercise trongmajoritynfluencen Chineseminorities.naddition,eople end ofocus nargumentsatherhan npresentersn a distributedcommunicationetting54]. Chineseparticipantsould ikelyower heir autionregardingheir ifferentiationetweenn-groupndout-group embersn a distrib-uted etting,ndthusmay ean towardhemajorityositionmore asilywhen heinfluences stronger.

Hypothesis: Ina distributedMCsetting, ajoritynfluenceillbemanifestedmoretronglyn collectivisticinoritiesnheterogeneousroupshannhomo-geneousChinese roups.MethodologyTotestthe bovehypotheses,econductedontrolledaboratoryxperimentsitha 3 x2 x2 factorialesignhatmanipulatedocialpresence,ationalulturefgroupminorities,ndgroup iversity. total f 183four-memberroups articipatednthe tudy.



13/29

64 ZHANG,OWRY,HOU, ND UOperationalizationf ndependentariablesAs introducedarlier, eoperationalizedocialpresences the ommunicatione-diumwith hree ifferentettings.nthe tFunsupportedetting,our roupmemberssatFtF na lab.Thegroupmembers' ecisionswerepresentedna whiteboardothatverymemberould eethem,nd hen roupmembersxplainedheirpinionstothe est fthegroup,nepersont a time. herefore,hismediumrovidedmul-tiple ues, ncludingoice,visual i.e.,participantsaw each other nddecisions nthewhiteboard),ndother erbal ues. tofferedhehighestocialpresencemongthe hreeettings.heFtFCMC setting as similarotheFtFunsupportedetting,except hat achgroupmember orked nthe ask nly hroughCMC systemhatwedeveloped or his tudyatherhan hroughral ommunication.ence, thadmoderateevelof socialpresence.ndCMCgroups, roupmembersat ndifferentrooms nd did not eeeachothert allbefore,uring,rafterhe xperiment.ikemembersnFtFCMCgroups,membersndCMCgroupslsoworkednthe ask nlythroughhe ameCMC system.hiscommunication ediumncludednly extualcuesandwasthemedium ith he owest evelof socialpresence.The nationalultureonstructs the CD ofHofstede's ulturalmodel. t is sug-gestedhat .S. cultureeans tronglyowardndividualism,hereas hinese ultureleans tronglyowardollectivism5].Although ainland hinawasnot ncludednHofstede'sriginaltudy,hinese esidentsfHongKong ndTaiwanwere hown obecollectivists27]. n this tudy, econductedmanipulationheck f he CD forallparticipantsofurtheralidateur ssumptionhat significantifferencexistsnthis imensionetweenhinese articipantsndU.S.participants.eoperationalizedgroup iversity ith wo evels culturallyomogeneouslowongroup iversity)andheterogeneoushigh ngroup iversity).ChoiceofGroup izeEmpiricalvidence eveals hat majorityf hreemembers as themaximumnflu-ence nminorities51]and hatargermajoritieso not xercisemuchmore nfluence[46].Therefore,e usedfour-memberroupsn all communicationettingsn thisstudy,ttemptingo form three-memberajorityuring xperiments.Participants:aiveParticipantsndConfederatesParticipantsereundergraduatetudentsecruitedrom our niversities.hey llcontributedo he tudyn voluntaryasis ndwere ompensatedonetarily.uman-subjectrotocols ere ollowedt llparticipatingnstitutions.articipantsfChinesehomogeneousroupswere ecruitedromwo niversitiesnBeijing, hina,whereasparticipantsnculturallyeterogeneousroupsndU.S. homogeneousroupswererecruitedromwouniversitiesntheUnited tates.deally,wewouldhave iked ohaveeachculturallyeterogeneousroup ormed ithU.S. participantsntheU.S.andChinese articipantsnChina.However,hiswas nfeasibleue o he equirement



14/29


ofanFtF communicationnvironmentnd a 12-hourime one differenceetweenChina nd theUnited tates.nculturallyeterogeneousroups, hinesememberswere tudentshohadbeen ntheU.S. for tmost woyearsnd poke nydialect fChinese s their ativeanguage. hey ould peak ndwrite nglish ffectively.nthisway, hinese articipantsn these roupswouldnothave anguage arriers,ndwe could easonablyssume hatheymaintainedheirriginalollectivisticulturalvalues,whichwasfurtheronfirmedia themanipulationheck. hisapproach asbeenused n other tudiese.g., 63]).AllparticipantsnCMC groupswere amiliarwithomputersnd nline ommunication.mongllparticipants,7.9percent eremale, 6percent ere etweenges20and25,14percent ere etweenges25 and29,andothers ere lder han 0.Eachgroupncludednenaive articipanti.e., heminority)nd hree onfederateswhowere peciallyrainedn advance ndfollowedpecific, redevelopednstruc-tions n the xperimento form majorityfthree. onfederateseremaster-levelgraduatetudentshodidnotknow aive articipantsutwere f imilarges.Theywere sed n he ameway cross llgroupsnd llsettingso that e couldguaranteethat unanimous ajorityfthreewouldbe formednevery roupna consistentandpredictable anner. omaximize he onsistencyfconfederatesndminimizeunnecessary istakes, etrainedour r five onfederatest eachparticipatingn-stitutionndusedthem epeatedlynallgroup essions. hisstrategylsoprovidedthe dvantagefeliminatingithin-groupariation.naddition,onfederatesouldnever ield o thenaiveparticipant,ominoritynfluenceidnot xist.Noneof thenaiveparticipantsadprior nowledgebout he xperimentalask.Whenwe formedroups,achnaiveparticipantas informedhat ll other roupmembers ere tudentsimilarohim rher nordero vert tatus ifference.ndersuch setting,tatus ffects15]andgroupmemberroximityffectsouldbecon-sideredminimal. ecausethefocus f our tudywas not oexamine he hanges fmajoritynfluencengroupsver ime,we conductedhe xperimentsn onesessionratherhann longitudinaltudy, hichncreasedxperimentalontrolndreduceddifficultyn ogisticsnd xecution.inally, e also triedobalance enderngroupssothat alf fthemembersfeachgroupweremale.Group askIn this tudy, e selected preferenceask, n whichgroups imedto select, yconsensus,preferredlternativeasedoncontextualorms.n this ype f ask, hemajorityositions usually aken s thenormgainstwhich therminority)osi-tions recompared.Becausethe ask elected or his tudy ad tobe equally nderstandableybothChinese ndU.S. participants,e chosea well-knownroup ecision-makingaskcalleddesert urvival. hehypotheticalask cenariowas as follows: articipantswere rappedn a desert uthadsavedeighttems.Groupmembers ererequiredtowork ogetherorank hose tems n termsftheirmportanceo deserturvival.Thetaskwent hroughnumberfrounds.n eachround,members ere equiredo



15/29


rank rrerankhose tems asedon theirwnudgmentnd eammates'ankingsndopinionsn he reviousound(s),nd o xplainheirankingso he est f he roup.This wasrepeated ntil ither hegroup eached consensus n therankingr thegroup adalready one hroughight oundsthe erminationondition),ependingon which amefirst.nadvantagefselectinguch taskwasthattminimizedhesideeffectfpersonal nowledgendbackgroundn the ask throughpreexperi-ment uestionnaire,e collected emographicnformationboutparticipantsndconfirmedhat oparticipantsn this tudy adanyprior nowledgerexperiencewith esert urvival. o time ressurer restrictionsere mposed n this ask nany f the xperimentalettings. roupmembers ere old o take s much ime snecessaryogeneratehebest anking.Allparticipantsn heU.S.were rovided ithnEnglish ersionf he ask cenarioand nstructionalaterials,hichwere ranslatednto hinesendback-translatedybilingual rofessionalsnadvance oensureross-languagequivalencenmeaning.The validated hinese ersions fthose ocuments ereprovidedoparticipantsnChina. riorothe ormalxperiments,e conductedilot tudies t llparticipatingsites. articipantsn those tudies id not eportnyproblemsrmisinterpretationswith he ask r nstructions.TeamDiscussion: Web-Based ollaborationoftwareTo supporthis esearch, edeveloped Web-based MC toolcalledTeamDiscus-sion,whichwas usedbyall CMC-supportedroups hroughWebbrowsert allsites. igure shows hemain ystemnterface,hich onsistsfthree arts:1) theupperectionhows he ankingesults f he reviousnd urrentounds rom achmember f group,2) themiddle ection isplayshe xplanationromachgroupmembere.g., par_as thenaiveparticipant)n his or herrankingntheprevious/currentound,nd 3) the ottomortionllows ndividualarticipantsorank hoseeighttemsleft) imply yclickingMoveUp" and "Move Down"buttonsndtoprovidexplanationor heirankingsright)nthe urrentound.InCMC groups, very articipantadhis or herowncomputero workwith. neachround, achgroupmember ankedtems ndprovidedxplanationsohis orherrankingnthebottomection. hesubmittedankingsndexplanations ouldimmediatelyppear ntherankingable t the opand nthemiddle Comments"field, ithubmitters'xperimentalDs attached. owever,he ystem ascarefullydesignedo that nany ound, onaiveparticipantsould e able to see other roupmembers'ankingsndexplanationseforeubmittingisorher wn.A roundwasfinishedfter llmembersubmittedheir ankingsndexplanations.fa group adnot eached consensusecision nrankings,he ystemutomaticallytartedhe extround nd he ameprocesswasrepeated.heentireessionwould nd utomaticallywhen neof the woterminationonditionsntroducednthepreviousubsectionoccurred. hewhiteboardsed n FtFunsupportedroups rtheTeamDiscussionsystemnCMC groups lwaysdisplayed ankings eneratednly nthepreviousandcurrentounds.



16/29


Figure . Systemnterfaceatthebeginningf the irstound)

ExperimentalroceduresTheexperimentalrocedures ere s follows: achparticipantead nintroductoryarticle bout esert urvival eforeomingothe ab toparticipatenthe xperiment.The rticlerovidedomegeneric nowledgebout esert urvival ut idnot iscussany pecifictems sed n the ask.Upontheirrrival,roupmembers ereusheredtoprearrangedeats ccordingo xperimentalettingsntroducedarlier. o ncreaserealism,n he istributedMC setting,henaive articipantsere lso told hatheirgroupmembers ere ocated t remote ites t thatmomentnd wouldworkwiththemhroughheTeamDiscussionystemnrealtime. hen facilitatorntroducedtheobjective f the tudy nd national ulture ndexperimentalDs of all groupmembers.hefourmembersf achgroupwere ssigned xperimentalDs as A thenaive articipant),, C,andD (confederates).hefacilitator'solewas to oordinateanexperimentalessionwithoutarticipatingnanydiscussions r udging ankings.Inaddition,he acilitatorlso nformedarticipantshat he askwouldgothroughnumberfrounds nd that heywouldbe notifiedostop t a certain oint. uchanapproach asbeen dopted y ther tudies nmajoritynfluenceecause articipantsneed ome ime orespondo such nfluence52].To ensureonsistency,e used hesamefacilitatorcross essions t eachsite, nda carefullycripted rocedure.Thefirstoundwasslightlyifferentrom he ubsequentounds ecause onfeder-ateshad to wait ill henaiveparticipantubmittedis or her anking,nd then heygeneratedheirankingsyreshufflinghe ankingfthenaiveparticipantccordingtopredefinednstructions.hosepredefinedeshufflingtrategies eretested, e-fined,ndfinalizedhroughilot tudies. ythismethod,onfederatesreatednitial



17/29


rankingshatwere ignificantlyifferentrom henaiveparticipant'sswell s fromother roupmembers'n order o minimizehepotentialuspicion rom henaiveparticipant.tartingrom he econd ound,herewouldbe norequirementor heorder frankingubmissionor onfederatesthey ankedtems ycompletelyol-lowing cripts,egardlessf henaive articipant'sanking.nparticular,onfederateB was nstructedokeephis or her irst-roundanking nchangedor he emainingrounds, hile onfederatesand D were nstructedochange heir ankingsnthesecond nd third ounds,o that heir ankings ouldbecome he ame as that fconfederateat the ndof the hirdound,reating unanimousmajorityanking.Sucha procedure as used topreventuspicion rom henaiveparticipant.n ourstudy,onaiveparticipantver uspectedhe oles fconfederates,s shown nthepostexperimentuestionnaires.fterhe hirdound,ll confederatesould eep heirunanimousankingnchangedi.e.,maintainingajority)ndprovidexplanationsonly or ifferentankingsf thenaiveparticipantased on certain uidelines.hegapbetweenhe ankingsf onfederatesnd hat f henaive articipant,longwithnormativetatementsrovidedn the xplanations,nabled onfederatesoexercisepersistentormativenfluencen thenaiveparticipant.OperationalizationfDependent ariable(Majoritynfluence)Weadopted provenurrogate easurefmajoritynfluenceasedon thenumberfroundsachgroup ook oreach consensus ecision,s usedbyTanet al. [74].Thenumberf roundsoreach group onsensus epresentedow ong t took naiveparticipantoyield o themajoritynfluenceormedyconfederates.he argerhenumberfroundsaken y naive articipantofollow hemajority'sankingnordertoreach group onsensus,he ower hemajoritynfluence.fa naiveparticipantdidnotyield othemajorityfteright ounds, valueofninewasassigned othisdependentariable.

DataAnalysisManipulationheckGiven heobjective fthis tudy, he ssumed ifferencen -C between .S. andChinese ultures as a pertinentactor.We adopted heValuesSurveyModule94developed yHofstedeor preexperimentanipulationheck nnationalulture,andwe found hat hinese articipantsjn 68)were ignificantlyower n the ndexof ndividualismhanU.S. participantsjj,= 88).A i-test onfirmedhe ignificanceofthis ifferencei181 2.22,p < 0.05) anddemonstratedhe vidence f successfulmanipulationnculturen termsf -C.Particularly,he -C scores f Chinese ndU.S. participantsnculturallyeterogeneousroupswere ignificantlyifferentp


18/29


ResultsTable1summarizeshe escriptivetatisticsf he ependentariable. able2 showsthe esultsf nanalysis fvarianceANOVA)on the ependentariable, hichmetthehomogeneityndthenormalityequirementsftheANOVA.ANOVAresults evealed significantain ffect fthenational ulture fgroupminoritiesnmajoritynfluenceF(l, 171)= 19.3,p < 0.01). Chineseparticipantstook ignificantlyewer ounds|i = 5.41) to follow hegroupmajoritynd reachgroup onsensushan heir .S. counterpartsjn 6.28), ndicatinghat hemajorityinfluencen the ollectivisticulture assignificantlytrongerhan hat n the ndi-vidualisticulture.hus,HI wassupported.ANOVAresults howed hat hemain ffectfgroup iversityas not ignificant(F(l, 171)= 1.23,/? 0.27).Therefore,2 was not upported.Aposthoc nalysisf hemain ffectfnationalulturefgroupminoritieshowedthat hineseminoritiesnculturallyeterogeneousroups ook ignificantlyewerrounds ofollowhemajority|i = 5.5) thanU.S. minoritiesnheterogeneousroups(jll 6.5,p< 0.01).Thepatternanbe observedrom he omparisonhownnFigure3.Thus,H3wassupported.Asignificantain ffectf ommunicationediumF(2, 171)= 29.5,p < 0.01)onthemajoritynfluence asfound. significantnteractionxisted etween ationalculturefgroupminoritiesnd communicationediump < 0.05),whichmpliesthathe ffectfculture nmajoritynfluence ayvaryn differentommunicationmedia eaturingifferentevels f ocialpresence. furtherisher'seast ignificantdifferenceLSD) analysishowedhat roupminoritiesn he tFunsupportedettingtook ignificantlyewer ounds oreach onsensusjli= 4.8) than hose n theFtFCMC setting'i = 6.5,p < 0.01) and dCMC settingn = 6.3,p < 0.01).The resultsshowed hatmuch tronger ajoritynfluencexistedn the tFunsupportedettingthann both MC-supportedettings.etnosignificantifferencenmajoritynflu-encewasfound etween tF CMC and distributedMC settingsp > 0.05). Thus,H4waspartiallyupported.The resultsf contrastnalysis f the ffectfgroup iversityhowed hatn thedistributedMC setting, ajoritynfluencen Chineseminorities as highernheterogeneousroups hann Chinesehomogeneous roupsF(l, 30) = 4.966;p


19/29

70

cdi'sc/3B53>Oh

i- H0i

ai 'S 9 coojcocm iflr-ow cdcviocjI g _,. _NT. _w_

1 #S ^wcoo) cococot cji-coo)cd >g 3 3

ai

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

^ ^0)i(j) (u c d) E d) 0)o O t- O - o i- O i. O b_ O vis EAE EBE EEO 00)000000)000(1) XIXIIIIXIIIX

.*i co co co- *tt S S S Bg S s s so S'S w co co2^ 3 3 Du

I i i1Ile I o sIle o2 ESat t ^USE E Q



20/29

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITY INFLUENCE 7 1

Table2. Results fANOVATest n theDependent ariableDegrees ffreedom F p

National culture NC) 1 19.3 0.00**Group diversity GD) 1 1.23 0.27Communication medium (CM) 2 29.5 0.00**NCxGD 1 0.14 0.71NCxCM 2 4.16 0.02*GDxCM 2 0.55 0.58NC x GD x CM 2 1^39 0.25*p< 0.05; **/?< 0.01.

7 - *--_____ ;S-1 * ^ - - ~ ^ I* 3- j l-*-u-s-tt: ? - i1 - :0 -I . . 1Distributed S FtF CS FtF

Figure.NumberfRounds akennCulturallyeterogeneousroupsissuesprobablyelp xplainwhy here avebeenveryimitedmpiricaltudies hatexamine ulture's ffectn differentroup rocessesndoutcomesnthe ontextftechnologyse.Thisstudy rovides nsightsntohowmajoritynfluence aybe affectedythedegree f collectivismfgroupminorities,ocialpresence,ndgroup iversityngroup ecisionmaking.We make everal heoreticalndempiricalontributionsothe tudyf national ulturen the ontextftechnology-supportedtF andvirtualteams,which as been alledfor yseveral esearcherse.g., 21, 69]). This sectionfirstummarizesurresults,hen iscusses he mplicationsor heoryndpractice,alongwith ts imitationsnd futureesearchossibilities.SummaryfFindingsFirst,heresults howthat ational ultureignificantlyffectsmajoritynfluence,whichwe attributeo thedisparityn social norms nd cultural eliefs fgroupmembers ho are from isparate ational ultures.pecifically,esultsupportedourpredictionhatmajoritynfluencen collectivisticroupminoritiessmanifestedmore tronglyhan hat n individualisticroupminoritiesHI). Thus, he evelof



21/29


majoritynfluencengroupminoritiesppears odepend n their ational ulturalpropensityoward ollectivismor ndividualism).Second,we didnot indignificantvidence osupporturpredictionhatmajorityinfluencengroupminoritiesould estrongernculturallyomogeneousroupsscompared ith hatnculturallyeterogeneousroupsH2). Thisunexpectedesultindicateshat roupminoritiesn ourexperimentehaved onsistentlyn thewaythat onformedo their ational ultural orms nd beliefs egardlessf thedegreeofgroup iversityndthenational ulturefthemajorities.Third, e foundignificantupportor ur redictionhatn ulturallyeterogeneousgroups,majoritynfluencen collectivistic inoritiesould e strongerhan hat nindividualisticinoritiesH3).This ndicateshat herendeed xists differentaluesystem etweenndividualisticnd collectivisticulturesn how their articipants

dealwith eing minorityn a culturallyiverse roup.Fourth, e found hatmajoritynfluencen a groups a functionf socialpres-ence, s operationalizedythe ommunicationedium.pecifically,e found hatminoritiesnFtFunsupportedroupsxperiencedhigherevel fmajoritynfluencethan tF CMC groups nd dCMC groupsH4). However,herewas no significantdifferenceetween tF CMC groups nddCMC groups. hisfindingmplies hat,ingeneral,emoval fsomenonverbalues e.g.,voiceand facial xpression)anresultnsignificantlyesssocialpresencendconformanceressure,nd n turnessmajoritynfluence.uchnonverbalues,which retypicallyvailable n theFtFunsupportedetting, ay nablegroupmajoritieso exercise he trongestnfluenceongroupminorities.ompared ith tFCMC,removingisual ues na distributedCMC settingeemsnot ufficiento reduce ocialpresenceignificantlyoimpactmajoritynfluence.Fifth, e foundhatmajoritynfluence as manifested ore tronglyn Chineseminoritiesnheterogeneousroups hannhomogeneoushinesegroupsna dis-tributedMC settingH5). In otherwords, espite ollectivists'ulturalnclinationtowardupportingr greeing ithn-group embers,f ollectivistic ajoritiesrerestrictedythe ow socialpresencemposed ya communicationediumr f acommunicationedium oesnotmatch ommunicationeeds, hegroup ecision-makingutcomewould emoreikelyobe determinedy he mountfnormativeinfluencexercisedatherhan ulturalimilarity.Asidefromestingurhypotheses,e foundninterestingelationshipetweentheCMC useanddecision ime. reviousesearchasreported ixed indingsboutthe mpact f CMC use ongroup ecision ime 55]. In this tudy, e observedheshortesterformanceime n theFtFunsupportedroupsmean= 50 minutes),ncomparison ith tFCMC groupsmean 74minutes)nddCMCgroupsmean95 minutes).n otherwords, hedecision ime ncreasedwhileusingCMC. Suchaphenomenonan beexplaineds follows. irst,s a richermedium,heFtFunsup-portedettingffords ore apid eedbackhan MC settings.nCMCenvironments,groupmembersend ospendmore ime nprocessing ormativenformationndcomposingheirrguments.econd,CMC enablesparticipantsore ime othink,edit, ndrefineheirrgumentsncomparison ith tFunsupportedommunica-



22/29


tion. hese differencesot nly ikely ontributeo thedifferentevelsofmajorityinfluenceut lso could ead todifferentevelsofqualityndsatisfactionfgroupdecisionmaking.Implicationsor heoryOurprimaryheoreticontributions that ulturemattersngroup ecisionmakinginvolvingmajoritynfluence. e carefullyxplainednd examinedwhy nd howcollectivisticnd ndividualisticroupminoritiesndermajoritynfluenceeacteddifferentlynthree istinctommunicationettings. e also extendedhe ultural i-mensionsy ccountingor ocial resencendgroup iversity.o our est nowledge,this s thefirsttudyo examine he ffect fgroup iversitynmajoritynfluence.Inaddition,his s oneof thefew ross-culturalmpiricaltudies sing echnology-supportedeams.As a furtherheoreticalontributionf thiswork,t s critical oemphasize hatHof tedefirstublished istheoryn the CD in 1980.Sincethen,we have seendramatichangesn theglobaleconomywithChinaand theUnited tates t theforefrontfthese hanges),he dvent f he nternet,oliticalnd conomic eforminChina,ncreasesnglobal ravel,hangesnhow orporationsompete,ncreasedethnic iversityn theUnited tates, ndtheuse ofvirtualmulticulturaleams. et,despite ll these rofoundhanges,he verall onstructf the CD appears ostillhold.This s not osaythat shiftn thesenationalultures as not ccurredt allover ime. uchshiftsikely ccur 21,43],but renotnecessarilyapid.Theseresultsuggesthat lthoughulturemay lowly hange ver ime,omeofits sychologicalomponentsredeeplyngrainedhroughsocializationrocesshatdoesnot hange s rapidlys technologyoes.Hence, ultures a worthyheoreti-cal phenomenonf nterestecauseone'sculturalnclinationsregenerallytableandcan beused oreasonablyredict isorher ehavior.hese onclusionsupportwhatHofstedeoundn hisupdatedwork28] that isculturalmodel s still alidin the nformationge. It s importanto note hatHofstede'slaim nd ourresultspartiallyonflict ith he riticismy McCoyet al. [43] that uggests possibilitythat ofstede's imensions aynothold tronglyodayn some ulturesr hatndi-vidual-level easuresf ulture ay emoreppropriate.eargue hatt spossiblethatulturalhanges ccur astern somenationalultureshan thers. nd, learly,individualifferencesetweeneoplewill lways xistwithingiven ulture. ivenour heoreticalodel nd mpiricalvidence, e asserthat omegeneralizationsanbemade t a nationalultureevel.Implicationsor racticeThefindingsf his tudy ave ignificantanagerialmplications.heemphasisnteamworknorganizationss growing.herefore,t s importantounderstandheeffectfculturenteamworknd dentifyays ominimizeroup rocessoss and



23/29


productivityoss.Althought s true hat lobalizations erasingheboundaries fcountriesnd hat urrentifferencesetween ational ultures aynot e as signifi-cant s they ncewere, ulture till argelynfluencesndividualndorganizationalbehavior.We foundtrikingifferencesn howgroupminoritiesehaved nderhemajoritynfluencenChinese ndU.S. groups. lthoughtmaybe intuitiveothinkthat eoplewith ifferentationalultures ay ehave imilarlyndermajoritynflu-ence,nrealityhey onot, ecause heyperate ith isparatealue ystemshat avea direct ndsignificantmpact nthegroup rocess. he results f this tudymplythatt sa mistake ormanagersoassume hatllmembersf heirrganizationsregoing obehavewith he ame etofmotivationsndcultural alues.These differencesave tremendousmplicationsor reatingwork eams hattranscendational ulture. hefindingsfthis tudyuggesthat heres a needforpractitionersndorganizationalroups obe awareof and understandultural if-ference henworkingna cross-culturalecision-makingontext.uchunderlyingcultural ifferenceequireseepunderstandingnd, deally, mpathyrommanagersandteammembersor he ttitudes,orms,ndvalues fothers.As a specificxample rom ur esearch, anagersnd rganizationshould onsidertheneedsof collectivisticeammembersy providingdvanced echnologiesndproceduresooffsethe ffectsfnegativemajoritynfluence.sidefromechnologi-cal nterventions,eam-buildingxercises ouldbehighlyaluablen hese cenarios.As wesuggestedarlier,managersndorganizationseed otake pecial arewhendealingwithmulticulturalroups hat ave collectivistic inorityroupmembersbecause ndividualistsremuchmoreikely oexertmajoritynfluencenthese itu-ations,which ancreate uboptimalutcomes nd strainedelationships.Meanwhile,urfindinghat tFgroupswithouthe upportfCMC havehighermajoritynfluencehan MC-supportedroups as mportantmplicationsor rac-tice: heuse ofCMC canhelpreduce nwanted ajoritynfluencentheprocess fgroup ecisionmaking.LimitationsndFuture esearchSeveralimitationsf his tudy rovidepportunitiesor utureesearch.irst,MCtodate s largely esigned rom North merican erspective,hich ncouragesindependenthinkingndparticipationrom ll groupmembers. aman nd Wei[58] suggesthat ifferencesnculturalttributesnddecision nvironmentsaveimportantmplicationso he esign fCMC systemsor eoplewith ifferentulturalbackgrounds.s a result,he galitarianpiritfCMC may onflict ith orms facceptableehaviornnonegalitarianocieties. esearchersave uggestedhat MCdesignedoreduce ertainrocessossesmaynotbe effective hen onformityndharmonyre the ultural orm. orexample, o et al. [26]foundheuse ofgroupdecision upportystemsesseffectivenSingaporewhen omparedo their se ntheUnited tates.Althoughurfindingshowed hatmajoritynfluencenChinesegroupminoritiesasreducednboth omogeneousndheterogeneousroups singCMC, this eduction aynotbe inharmony ith heirultural alues. t s argued



24/29

GROUP DECISION MAKING UNDER MAJORITYINFLUENCE 75

thatwhen echnologiesave featureshat eflectsers' ulturalrigins,hey aveinterpretivelexibilitynd can be adapted nd used ndifferentays.Thus, urtherreductions aybe possible ftheCMC systemsredesignedwith ollectivistsnmind. urtheresearch eeds o be conductedo see howdifferentultural roupsmake hese daptationsndwhetherhe utcomesre atisfactorynd n onformancewith sers' ulturalalues.Anotherimitations thatn order o minimize hepotentialffect ffamiliarityamong roupmembers,ur tudy sed dhocgroupsn which henaiveparticipantsdidnot now ny therroupmembersi.e., onfederates).irtualeamswith sharedhistory2] andwith ime odevelop elationshipsnthevirtualnvironment83]arelikelyobe more ohesive nd ohavehighererformance.hus, utureesearchanexplorehemajoritynfluencenestablishedirtualeamswith higherevel fgroupcohesion,s opposed o ad hoc teams.Moreover,ask ndmediumhoices ave significantmpactnteam utcomes70].For xample, eused decision-makingask,which anbeamonghemost halleng-ing asks or eams. utureesearchhus eeds oexamine therypes f asks suchas brainstormingnd deagenerationandother ommunicationedia.Finally, e used tudentarticipantsf imilar emographicackgroundsecauseofthe hallengen thenature ndexecutionfthe tudy.ieldresearchnactual r-ganizations ithworking roupsnwhich roupmembers avediverse ackgroundswouldpotentiallyrovidemorensights.urther,twouldbe useful o examine heeffectsfdifferentevels fculturaleterogeneityngroupsnddifferentroup izeinthe uture.ConclusionCultural diversitysnota newphenomenon,et t s increasinglyelevantn ourprogressivelyobile ndglobalworld.Today, ross-culturalroups re commonin organizationsecauseofthechanging lobalmarket nd business hallenges.Understandingulturalifferencess beneficialor vercominghe otentialarriersthat ulturallyeterogeneouseams ace, ecause ndividualsrom ifferentulturalbackgroundsommunicatendactdifferently24].Thisresearchmakes everal ontributionso thefields fmajoritynfluencendgroup ollaboration.irst,we examinedhemajoritynfluencenculturallyetero-geneousgroups n bothFtFunsupportedndCMC-supportednvironmentsndcomparedtwith hemajoritynfluencenculturallyomogeneousroups. his s animportanthenomenonobeexaminedecausemany irtualeamsnthe ealworldareculturallyeterogeneous.o our bestknowledge,o studies ave nvestigatedmajoritynfluencenculturallyeterogeneousroups upportedyCMC. Second,most f he riortudiesngroupollaborationere onductednFtF ettings.nthisstudy,n additionoFtFgroups, e also nvestigatedajoritynfluencenphysicallydistributedroups. hird,o address he ommonhallenge fsmall ample ize nmost reviousulturalMC studies, ehad large umberfgroupshat articipatedinthis mpiricaltudynChina nd heUnited tates. his tudyrovidesomenew



25/29

76 ZHANG,OWRY,HOU, ND Uinsightsnto ow odesign nd arryut nempiricalross-culturaltudy,swell sa numberftheoreticalndpracticalmplications.Acknowledgments:he authorshankhe ditorsnd he eviewersor uggestionshat reatlyimprovedhis aper. hey lsoappreciatehe elp eceivedrom ickZhuang, oonlit dipat,TonyZhang, nd Tian Ran on system evelopmentndconductingxperiments,s wellasreviews nd opyedits rovidedyMarvin .Gardner,arah helps, oshua ix,Bryan eck-man, nd he eviewersndparticipantstHICSS 2006.Thisresearchspartiallyupportedythe 73ProgramfChineseMinistryfScience ndTechnologyGrant o.2002CB31 103),theNatural cienceFoundationfChina GrantNo. 60433030and30270466), heChineseAcademyfSciencesGrant o.0302037), heWangKuanCheng oundationf heChineseAcademy fSciences, nd the nformationystems epartmentnd the Kevinand DebraRollins enter or Business ttheMarriottchool,Brigham oungUniversity.ny pinions,findings,rrecommendationsxpressedere re hose f he uthorsndnotnecessarilyhoseofthe ponsorsfthis esearch.References

1.Adler, .J.nternationalimensionsfOrganizationalehavior,d ed.Boston: WS-Kent, 997.2.Alge,B.; Wiethoff,; andKlein,H.When oes hemediummatter?nowledge-buildingexperiencesnd pportunitiesndecision-makingeams. rganizationalehavior ndHumanDecisionProcesses, 1,1 2003),26-37.3.Anderson, .N., ndHiltz, .R. Culturallyeterogeneouss. culturallyomogeneousgroupsndistributedroup upportystems:ffectsngroup rocess ndconsensus.n R.H.Spragueed.),ProceedingsftheThirty-FourthnnualHawaii nternationalonferencenSystemciences. osAlamitos,A: IEEE Computerociety ress, 001 available thttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/7255/20032/0092621pdf?arnumber=92621).4. Baker, .M., andPetty, .E. Majorityndminoritynfluence:ource-positionmbal-ance as a determinantfmessage crutiny.ournalfPersonalityndSocialPsychology,7,1(1994), 5-19.5. Bond,M.H. ThePsychologyfthe Chinese eople. Hong Kong:OxfordUniversityPress, 986.6.Bond,R., nd mith,.B.Culturend onformity:meta-analyisof tudies sing sch'slineudgmentask. sychologicalulletin,19,1 1996),111-137.7. Cramton,D. The mutual nowledge roblemnd ts onsequencesor ispersedol-laboration.rganizationcience, 2,3 (2001),346-371.8.Daily,B.F., ndSteiner,.L.The nfluencefgroup ecisionupportystemsn contri-bution ndcommitmentevels nmulticulturalndculturallyomogeneousecision-makinggroups. omputersnHuman ehavior,4,1 1998), 147-162.9. Daily,B.F.;Whatley, .; Ash,S.R.; andSteiner, .L. The effectsfa group ecisionsupport ystem n culturallyiverse ndculturally omogeneous roupdecisionmaking.InformationndManagement,0,6 (1996),281-289.10.Dennis, .,andGarfield, .Theadoptionnduse ofGSS inprojecteams: owardmoreparticipativerocessesndoutcomes.MIS Quarterly,7,2 (2003),289-323.11.Dennis, .,andValacich, .S.Electronicrainstorming:llusions ndpatternsfproduc-tivity.nformationystemsesearch, 0,4 (1999),375-377.12.Dennis,A.; Hilmer, .M.; andTaylor, .J. nformationxchangend use inGSS andverbal roup ecisionmaking:ffectsfminoritynfluence.ournalfManagementnforma-tion ystems,4,3 (Winter 997-98), 1-88.

13. Deutsch,M., andGerard, .B. A study fnormativend informationalocial influ-encesupon ndividualudgment. ournalfAbnormalnd Social Psychology,1, 3 (1955),629-636.14.Doney, .M.;Cannon, .P.;ndMullen,M.R.Understandinghe nfluencefnationalul-ture n thedevelopmentftrust. cademyfManagementeview, 3,3 (1998),601-620.



26/29


15.Dubrovsky,.J.;Kiesler, .; andSethna, .N. The equalization henomenon:tatuseffectsncomputer-mediatedndface-to-faceecisionmaking roups.Human-ComputerInteraction,,2 (1991), 119-146.16.Earley, .C.Self rgroup? ulturalffectsf rainingnself-efficacyndperformance.AdministrativecienceQuarterly,9, 1 1994),89-117.17.Earley, .C.,andMosakowski, . Creating ybrideam ultures: nempiricalest ftransactionaleam unctioning.cademy fManagementournal,3, 1 2000),26-49.18. El-Shinnawy, ., andVinze,A.S. Technology,ulturendpersuasiveness: studyof choice-shiftsngroup ettings.nternationalournalfHuman-Computertudies, 7, 3(1997),473-496.19.Fiske,A.; Kitayama,.; Markus, .R.; andNisbett, .E. The culturalmatrixf socialpsychology.n D. Gilbert,. Fiske, ndG.Lindzeyeds.),TheHandbookf ocialPsychology.NewYork:McGraw-Hill, 998,pp.915-981.20. Fjermestad,. andHiltz, .R. An assessment fgroup upportystems xperimentalresearch ethodologyndresults. ournalfManagementnformationystems,5,3 (Winter

1998-99), -149.21 Ford, .P.;Connelly,.E.; andMeister,.B. InformationystemsesearchndHofstede'sculture'sonsequences:nuneasynd ncompleteartnership.EEE TransactionsnEngineer-ingManagement,0, 1 2003),8-25.22.Fulk,J.; chmitz, .; ndSteinfield,.A social nfluence odel ftechnologyse. n J.Fulk, ndC. Steinfieldeds.),OrganizationsndCommunicationechnology.ewburyark,CA: Sage,1990,pp.117-142.23.Gibson, .B. Buildingmulticulturaleams: earningomanage omogeneitynd het-erogeneity.nN.A.Boyacigiller,.A.Goodman,ndM.E. Phillipseds.),Crossing ultures:InsightsromMaster eachers. aiden,MA:Blackwell,004 available thttp://web.gsm.uci.edu/~cgibson/Publication%20files/Articles/Crossing%20cultures%20chapter.pdf).24. Gudykunst, .B.,andTing-Toomey,. Culture nd Interpersonalommunication.Newburyark, A: Sage,1998.25. Gudykunst, .B.; Matsumoto, .; andTing-Toomey,. The influence f culturalindividualism-collectivism,elf onstruais,nd ndividual alues on communicationtylesacross ultures.umanCommunicationesearch, 2,4 (1996),510-543.26.Ho,T.;Raman, .; andWatson, .Group ecisionupportystems:heculturalactor.nJ.DeGross, .C.Henderson,ndB.R.Konsynskieds.),Proceedingsf heTenthnternationalConferencen nformationystems. ew York:ACMPress, 989,pp.119-129.27.Hofstede,.CulturesndOrganizations:oftwaref heMind. erkshire,K:Mcuraw-HillEurope, 991.28.Hofstede, . Culture's onsequences Comparing alues, ehaviors,nstitutions,ndOrganizationscrossNations,d ed.London: age,2001.29. Hogg,M.A., andVaughan,G.M. Social Psychology,d ed. London:Prentice all,2002.30.Honold, .Culturend ontext:n mpiricaltudyor he evelopmentf frameworkorthe licitationf ulturalnfluencenproductsage. nternationalournalfHuman-ComputerInteraction,2,3-4 (2000),327-345.31.Huff, ., andKelley, . Levelsoforganizationalrustn ndividualistersus ollectivistsocieties: seven-nationtudy. rganizationcience, 4,1 2003),81-90.32.Jarvenpaa,.L., andLeidner, .E. Is anybodyut here? ntecedentsf trustnglobalvirtualeams. ournalfManagementnformationystems,4,4 (Spring 998),29-64.33.Jessup,.M.; Connolly,.; andGalegher, .The effectsfanonymityn GDSS groupprocesswithn dea-generatingask.MIS Quarterly,4,3 (1990),313-321.34.Kalven,H.,andZeisel,H. TheAmerican ury.oston: ittle, rown, 966.35. Kim,K.; Park,H.; andSuzuki,N. Reward llocationsn theUnited tates, apan ndKorea:A comparisonf ndividualisticndcollectivisticultures. cademy fManagementJournal,3, 1 1990), 188-198.36. Levine,J.M., ndRusso,E.M. Majorityndminoritynfluence.nC. Hendncked.),Group rocesses.Newburyark, A: Sage,1987,pp.13-54.37.Lowry,.B., ndNunamaker,.F.Usingnternet-based,istributedollaborativeritingtools o mproveoordinationndgroup warenessnwritingeams.EEE TransactionsnProfessionalommunication,6,4 (2003),277-297.



27/29

78 ZHANG,OWRY,HOU, ND U38.Lowry, .B.; Nunamaker,.F.; urtis, .; andLowry,M.R. The mpactfprocess truc-ture nnovice, nternet-based,synchronous-distributedollaborative ritingeams.EEETransactionsnProfessionalommunication,8,4 (2005),341-364.39.Markus, .R.;Mullally, .; andKitayama,. Selfways: iversityn modes f culturalparticipation.n U.Neisser,ndD.A. Joplingeds.),TheConceptual elf n Context: ulture,Experience,elf-understanding.ambridge: ambridge niversityress, 997, p. 13-61.40. Martin, ., andHewstone,M. Social-influencerocesses f control ndchange:Con-formity,bedienceoauthoritynd nnovation.nM.A.Hogg ndJ.Coopereds.),The AGEHandbook fSocialPsychology.ondon: age,2003,pp.347-366.41. Martin, .; Gardikiotis,.; andHewstone,M. Levels of consensusndmajorityndminoritynfluence.uropean ournalf ocialPsychology,2,5 (2002),645-665.42.Matthews,. TheChinese alue urvey:n nterpretationfvalue cales nd onsiderationof omepreliminaryesults.nternationalducation ournal,,2 (2000),117-126.43. McCoy, .; Galletta, .; andKing,W.R. ntegratingational ulturento S research:Theneedfor urrentndividual-level easures. ommunicationsftheAIS, 15, 12 (2005),211-224.44.Merritt,.Culturenthe ockpit: o Hofstede's imensionseplicate?ournalfCross-Cultural sychology,1,3 (2002),283-301.45.Miranda,.,and aunders,. The ocial onstructionfmeaning:n lternativeerspec-tive n nformationharing.nformationystemsesearch, 4,1 2003),87-106.46.Moscovici, . Social nfluencend onformity.nG.Lindzey,ndE.Aronsoneds.),TheHandbook fSocialPsychology.ew York:RandomHouse, 1985,pp.347-412.47. Mugny,G., andPerez,J. TheSocial Psychologyf Minoritynfluence. ambridge:Cambridge niversityress, 991.48.Myers,M.D., andTan,F.B.Beyondmodels fnational ulturen nformationystemsresearch. ournalfGlobal nformationanagement,0,1 2002),24-32.49.Nemeth, . Differentialontributionsfmajorityndminoritynfluence.sychologicalReview, 3, 1 1986),23-32.50.Nemeth, . Dissent s drivingognition,ttitudesndudgments.ocialCognition,3,3 (1995),273-291.51. Nemeth, , andGoncalo,J. nfluencendpersuasionn smallgroups.nT.C. BrockandM.C. Greeneds.),Persuasion: sychologicalnsightsndPerspectives.ondon: age,2005,pp.171-194.52.Nemeth,, andKwan,J.L.Majoritynfluence,ivergenthinking,nddetectionf or-rect olutions. ournalfApplied ocialPsychology,7,9 (1987),788-799.53.Nunamaker,.F.; riggs, .O.; Mittleman,.; Vogel, .; andBalthazard,.Lessons romadozenyears fgroupupportystemsesearch: discussion f ab andfield indings.ournalofManagementnformationystems,3,3 (Winter 996-97),163-207.54.Nunamaker,.F.; ennis, .;Valacich, .S.;Vogel, .; andGeorge, .F. lectronic eetingsystemsosupport roupwork. ommunicationsf heACM,34,7 (1991),40-61.55.Pinsonneault,.,andKraemer,.L. The mpact f echnologicalupportngroups: nassessmentfthe mpiricalesearch.ecision upport ystems,,2 (1989), 197-216.56. Poole,M.S.; Seibold,D.R.; andMcPhee,R.D. Group ecision-makings a structuralprocess.QuarterlyournalfSpeech, 1 1985),74-102.57. Rains,S.A. Leveling heorganizationallaying ield virtually: meta-analysisfexperimentalesearchssessinghempactfgroup upportystemse on membernfluencebehaviors. ommunicationesearch,2,2 (2005), 193-234.58.Raman,K.S.,andWei,K.K.TheGDSS researchroject.n R.P.Bostrom, .T.Watson,andS.T.Kinneyeds.),Computerugmentedeamwork:Guided our. ewYork:VanNos-trand einhold, 992,pp.210-220.59.Riegelsberger,.; asse,M.A.;andMcCarthy,.D.Themechanicsf rust: frameworkorresearchnddesign.nternationalournalfHuman-Computertudies,2,3 (2005), 81-422.60. Roberts, .L.; Lowry, .B.; andSweeney, .D. Anevaluationfthe mpact f social

presencehroughroup ize and theuse ofcollaborativeoftwarengroupmembervoice"inface-to-facendcomputer-mediatedask roups.EEE TransactionsnProfessionalom-munication,9,2 (2006),28-43.



28/29


29/29


80.Vreede,G., de; Jones, .,& Mgaya,BJ. Exploringhe pplicationndacceptancefgroup support ystems nAfrica.JournalofManagement nformation ystems, 5, 3 (Winter1998-99),197-234.81.Vogel,D.; Davison,R.; andShroff,. Socioculturalearning: perspectivenGSS-enabled lobal ducation. ommunicationsf heAIS, 7,9 (2001), 1-41.82.Walsham, .Cross-culturaloftwareroductionnduse:A structurationalnalysis.MISQuarterly,6,4 (2002),359-380.83.Warkentin, ., andBeranek, .M.Trainingo improve irtual eam ommunication.Informationystemsournal,,4 (1999),271-289.84.Watson, .; Ho, T.;andRaman, . Culture: fourthimensionfgroup upportystems.Communicationsf heACM,37, 10 1994),44-55.85.Watson,W.E.; Kumar, .; andMichaelsen,.K. Cultural iversity'smpact n nterac-tion rocess ndperformance:omparing omogeneousnddiverseask roups. cademyfManagementournal,6,3 (1993),590-602.

impact of individualism

Documents