Effects of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development

Bos, Nathan; Olson, Judy; Gergle, Darren; Olson, Gary M.; Wright, Zach

doi:10.1145/503376.503401

Cited by 300 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results point to a slight reduction in reviewer engagement in virtual panels, which is consistent with the literature on distributed teams (Rogelberg 2002). Lowered engagement and reduced levels of trust among virtual team members is well documented, more so in text based communication (Driskoll 2003, Zheng 2002, Cooke 2015, Bos 2002. In addition to the lack of visual cues, opportunities to generate intra-panel trust during panel breaks and meals are also missing in virtual settings (Blatner, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Moreover, the 2015 NIH survey results suggest much lower reviewer comfort levels with potentially having their own applications reviewed via a Wb panel versus a Vcon/Tcon panel. Taken together, these results are supported by the team science literature which suggests virtual team members in text only communication situations have great difficulty in developing team trust, even when compared to Vcon/Tcon teams, and need richer forms of communication to participate in cooperative tasks (Bos, 2002, Cooke, 2015. Generally, in our results Rev7 reviewers seem to be resistant to the communication limitations in virtual settings, perhaps because they have higher trust developed across their teams due to longer term membership, although some of this data is in contrast to NIH results (NIH 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of panel discussion

Gallo

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In efforts to increase efficiency and convenience and reduce administrative cost, some granting agencies have been exploring the use of alternate review formats, particularly virtual panels utilizing teleconference-based (Tcon) or Web based (Wb) technologies. However, few studies have compared these formats to standard face-to-face (FTF) reviews; those that have compared formats have observed subtle differences in scoring patterns and discussion time, as well as perceptions of a decrease in discussion quality in virtual panels. Here we present data from a survey of reviewers focused on their perceptions of the facilitation and effectiveness of panel discussion from their last peer review experience in virtual (Vcon/Tcon/Wb) or FTF panel settings. Reviewers indicated that, in terms of participation, clarifying differing opinions, informing unassigned reviewers and chair leadership, the facilitation of panel discussion was viewed similarly for FTF versus Vcon/Tcon reviewers. However, significant differences were found for many of these parameters between FTF and Wb reviews, which may suggest better panel communication (and thus more effective discussion) in FTF panels. Importantly, these differences disappear for respondents with high frequency of review participation (likely study section members), suggesting perhaps that long standing teams may be more resilient in virtual communication settings. Surprisingly, no significant differences were found between any of the reviewers' experiences in virtual or FTF settings in terms of the discussion affecting the outcome, in choosing the best science, or even whether the discussions were fair and balanced. However, significant differences were reported between Wb and FTF reviewers in terms of their perceptions of how well their expertise (as well as the expertise of their fellow reviewers) was utilized on the panel, which may suggest that the level of communication provided in FTF panels allows for better integration of expertise across panel members when evaluating research proposals as a team. Again, these differences across review setting disappeared for respondents that reviewed more often. Overall, despite clear preferences by reviewers for FTF panels, the lack of differences between FTF and Vcon/Tcon panel facilitation or discussion quality potentially supports the use of this review format by granting agencies, although subtle differences may exist that were not reported by reviewers in this survey. These results also provide some evidence of the perceived limitations in discussion quality in Wb panels, at least in non-recurring panels.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of panel discussion

Gallo

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In CMC research, trust has been found to be positively related to performance (Cascio, 2000;, problem and uncertainty resolution, and social information exchange . Like other relational dynamics, trust has been found to diminish with the relative lack of visual and vocal cues that text-based CMC implies (Bos, Olson, Gergle, Olson, & Wright, 2002;Rocco, 1998), although not universally (e.g., Feng, Lazar, & Preece, 2003).…”

Section: Impacts Of Virtualitymentioning

confidence: 97%

The Rules of Virtual Groups: Trust, Liking, and Performance in Computer-Mediated Communication

Walther

Bunz

2005

Journal of Communication

205

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on virtual groups reflects concerns about the development of trust and liking and about the performance of partners who do not see each other or workproximally. Previous studies have explored behaviors leading to subjectively experienced trust and/or liking, or trusting behaviors associated with group output, but have not linked behaviors, subjective affect, and output quality. Deriving principles from the social information processing theory of computer-mediated communication, this research identified and tested six communication rules for virtual groups. Employing a quasi-experimental procedure to maximize the variance in rule-following behavior, some distributed groups in a cross-university course were assigned to follow rules as part of their grades on group assignments conducted using computer-mediated communication from which messages were collected and later coded. Through self-reported measures of rule following and affect, results reveal correlations between each rule with trust and liking. Less consistent are the relationships between rule following, specific observed behaviors, and actual performance quality. Interpretations suggest that a powerful set of collaboration rules has been identified or that the mere following of any rules and norms reduces uncertainty and enhances trust in distributed work teams.A surge of research and increasing adoption of distributed groups in various settings indicate the growing reach of virtual teams. Understanding the promise and problems of these entities can inform contemporary theory in the areas of new technology and group communication and improve the management of distributed groups, learning communities, and virtual organizations.

show abstract

“…However, digital media are known to be less able to deliver social cues and social information (e.g., Daft and Lengel 1984) and are therefore not always appropriate for sharing important team-relevant information and for developing trust (e.g., Bos et al 2002). In line with this, research on the domain of virtual teams has yielded considerable evidence that digital media are not able to replace the physical proximity of team partners.…”

Section: Physical Proximity and Visibility Of Employees -Increasing Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choosing where to work at work – towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of activity-based flexible offices

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although there is a trend in today's organisations to implement activity-based flexible offices (A-FOs), only a few studies examine consequences of this new office type. Moreover, the underlying mechanisms why A-FOs might lead to different consequences as compared to cellular and open-plan offices are still unclear. This paper introduces a theoretical framework explaining benefits and risks of A-FOs based on theories from work and organisational psychology. After deriving working conditions specific for A-FOs (territoriality, autonomy, privacy, proximity and visibility), differences in working conditions between A-FOs and alternative office types are proposed. Further, we suggest how these differences in working conditions might affect work-related consequences such as well-being, satisfaction, motivation and performance on the individual, the team and the organisational level. Finally, we consider task-related (e.g. task variety), person-related (e.g. personality) and organisational (e.g. leadership) moderators. Based on this model, future research directions as well as practical implications are discussed. Practitioner Summary: Activity-based flexible offices (A-FOs) are popular in today's organisations. This article presents a theoretical model explaining why and when working in an A-FO evokes benefits and risks for individuals, teams and organisations. According to the model, A-FOs are beneficial when management encourages employees to use the environment appropriately and supports teams.

show abstract

Effects of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development

Cited by 300 publications

References 13 publications

Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of panel discussion

Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of panel discussion

The Rules of Virtual Groups: Trust, Liking, and Performance in Computer-Mediated Communication

Choosing where to work at work – towards a theoretical model of benefits and risks of activity-based flexible offices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About