Page 52 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

Human Communication Processes in the Small Group Context 35

Sometimes CMC relationships can be of higher quality than face-to-face relationships,
perhaps because with asynchronous communication, people access their messages
when it is convenient for them and when they can actually pay attention to the person
on the sending end of the message. Some support groups, like Alcoholics Anonymous,
that use asynchronous CMC for their meetings have been found to be more personal
and empathetic compared to those that meet face-to-face. Asynchronous communica-
42
tion allows delays between messages and can increase more thoughtful responses.
Several factors can improve the effectiveness of net conferences. For example,
43
sandwiching the conference between face-to-face meetings can enhance the sense of
groupness among members. Using a trained moderator can improve the process. So
will making sure that members know how to use the technology and will abide by the
guidelines for speaking. Tasks such as routine meetings and information sharing can
be very effective via a net conference. For more complex tasks in which disagreement
is likely to occur, face-to-face meetings are still preferable. Research suggests that
CMC and face-to-face groups are similar in potency—members’ belief that a group will
be effective—and effectiveness, although the pattern of development may differ. For
example, in the groups Lira and her associates studied, group potency remained sta-
44
ble in computer-mediated groups but increased in face-to-face groups. The research-
ers speculated that more time might be needed for CMC groups to work together and
evaluate their potency than the month allotted in the study. In addition, the more
effective a group actually is, the greater the group’s potency becomes, and this rela-
tionship was stronger in CMC groups than face-to-face ones. The researchers recom-
mend providing adequate training for CMC groups to ensure effectiveness and
increase potency. However, computer conferences have been used effectively to help
members in conflict achieve consensus. Table 2.3 compares the strengths of face-to-
face and net conferences or what used to be called teleconference meetings.

TABLE 2.3 Comparison of strengths

Teleconferences Face-to-Face Meetings
• They can be useful for information sharing, • Face-to-face meetings are better when group
routine meetings. cohesiveness and interpersonal relationships are
• Quantity and quality of ideas are equal to important.
face-to-face meetings. • Group organization is easier to maintain.
• In negotiations, evidence is more persuasive • Participants can exchange more messages
than personality. quicker.
• Participants may pay more attention to what • Important nonverbal information (facial
is said. expressions, uses of space) is available.
• In conflict, more opinion change may occur • People generally prefer face-to-face meetings.
than in face-to-face meetings. • Participants are more confident of their perceptions
• Audioconferences/computer conferences are in face-to-face meetings.
cost-effective.
Source: Adapted from Gene D. Fowler and Marilyn E. Wackerbarth, “Audio Teleconferencing versus Face-to-Face Conferencing:
A Synthesis of the Literature,” Western Journal of Speech Communication 44 (Summer 1980): 236–52.

gal37018_ch02_021_050.indd 35 3/30/18 11:13 AM