Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:43:29.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Interdependence in Small Group Discussion

from Part IV - Data Analysis and Data Presentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2018

By
Joseph A. Bonito  and
Sarah M. Staggs
Edited by
Elisabeth Brauner ,
Margarete Boos  and
Michaela Kolbe
Elisabeth Brauner
Affiliation:
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Margarete Boos
Affiliation:
University of Göttingen
Michaela Kolbe
Affiliation:
ETH Zürich
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis , pp. 354 - 369
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Asparouhov, T., Hamaker, E., & Muthén, B. (2017). Dynamic structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25, 359–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1406803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2008). Multilevel mixture models. In Hancock, G. R. & Samuelsen, K. M. (Eds.), Advances in latent variable mixture models (pp. 27–51). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Auld, F. Jr., & White, A. M. (1956). Rules for dividing interviews into sentences. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 42, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1956.9713040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Back, M. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2010). The social relations model: How to understand dyadic processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(10), 855–870. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00303.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (Vol. 2nd). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bales, R. F., Cohen, S. P., & Williamson, S. A. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Balkwell, J. W. (1994). Status. In Foschi, M. & Lawler, E. J. (Eds.), Group processes: Sociological analyses (pp. 119–148). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Bonito, J. A. (2001). An information-processing approach to participation in small groups. Communication Research, 28(3), 275–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A. (2002). The analysis of participation in small groups: Methodological and conceptual issues related to interdependence. Small Group Research, 33(4), 412–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640203300402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A. (2007). A local model of information sharing in small groups. Communication Theory, 17(3), 252–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00295.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A., Ervin, J. N., & Staggs, S. M. (2016). Estimation and application of the latent group model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20(3), 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1997). Participation in small groups. In Burleson, B. R. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 20 (Vol. 20, pp. 227–261). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bonito, J. A., & Meyers, R. A. (2011). Examining functional communication as egocentric or group-centric: Application of a latent group model. Communication Monographs, 78(4), 463–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2011.618138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A., & Ruppel, E. K. (2011). An application of the socioegocentric model to information-sharing discussions: In search of group-level communication influences. Communication Research, 38(3), 356–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210377195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A., Ruppel, E. K., & Keyton, J. (2012). Reliability estimates for multilevel designs in group research. Small Group Research, 43(4), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412437614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A., & Sanders, R. E. (2009). A different approach to answering a good question: A response to Hewes’s models of communication effects on small group outcomes. Human Communication Research, 35(2), 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01351.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonito, J. A., & Sanders, R. E. (2011). The existential center of small groups: Member’s conduct and interaction. Small Group Research, 42(3), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410385472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corman, S. R., & Kuhn, T. (2005). The detectability of socio-egocentric group speech: A quasi-Turing test. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornwell, B. (2015). Social sequence analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulter, P. (1989). Measuring inequality: A methodological handbook. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (1983). Introduction. In Craig, R. T. & Tracy, K. (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy (pp. 10–22). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dansereau, F. (2006). Avoiding the “fallacy of the wrong level”: A within and between analysis (WABA) approach. Group & Organization Management, 31(5), 536–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106291131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2002). Task versus relationship conflict: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2002(1), B1–B6. https://doi.org/10.5465/APBPP.2002.7516590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. A. (1993). Principles and contrasting systems of discourse transcription. In Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ervin, J. N., Bonito, J. A., & Keyton, J. (2017). Convergence of intrapersonal and interpersonal processes across group meetings. Communication Monographs, 84(2), 200–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2016.1185136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisek, M. H., & Ofshe, R. (1970). The process of status evolution. Sociometry, 33(3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folger, J. P., Hewes, D. E., & Poole, M. S. (1984). Coding social interaction. In Dervin, B. & Voight, M. J. (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (pp. 115–161). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (2002). Modeling the personality of dyads and groups. Journal of Personality, 70(6), 901–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottman, J. M., & Roy, A. K. (1990). Sequential analysis: A guide for behavorial researchers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouran, D. S., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1996). Functional theory and communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups: An expanded view. In Hirokawa, R. Y. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (pp. 55–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Morgan, P. C. (Ed.) pp. (41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 47–58. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(195001)6:1%3C47::AID-JCLP2270060111%3E3.0.CO;2-I3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, R. H., & Thomas, S. L. (2015). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques: MLM and SEM approaches using Mplus (3rd edn.). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewes, D. E. (1996). Small group communication may not influence decision making: An amplification of socio-egocentric theory. In Hirokawa, R. Y. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd edn., pp. 179–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewes, D. E. (2009). The influence of communication processes on group outcomes: Antithesis and thesis. Human Communication Research, 35(2), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01347.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1982). Group communication and problem-solving effectiveness I: A critical review of inconsistent findings. Communication Quarterly, 30(2), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378209369440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1988). Group communication and decision-making performance: A continued test of the functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 14(4), 487–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00165.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirokawa, R. Y. (1990). The role of communication in group decision-making efficacy: A task-contingency perspective. Small Group Research, 21(2), 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496490212003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd edn). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5, 43–46.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Kameda, T., Ohtsubo, Y., & Takezawa, M. (1997). Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence: An illustration in a group decision-making context. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 73(2), 296–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 451–477). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Kenny, D. A., & Garcia, R. L. (2012). Using the actor–partner interdependence model to study the effects of group composition. Small Group Research, 43(4), 468–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412441626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (1986). Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 422–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Keyton, J. (1991). Evaluating individual group member satisfaction as a situational variable. Small Group Research, 22(2), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496491222004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In Frey, L. R., Gouran, D. S., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192–224). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Waller, M. J., Wacker, J., Grande, B., Burtscher, M. J., & Spahn, D. R. (2014). Monitoring and talking to the room: Autochthonous coordination patterns in team interaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1254–1267. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, J. R. (1997). Modeling the entry of shared and unshared information into group discussion: A review and BASIC language computer program. Small Group Research, 28(3), 454–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496497283007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). A sequential analysis of procedural meeting communication: How teams facilitate their meetings. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(4), 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2013.844847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lei, Z., Waller, M. J., Hagen, J., & Kaplan, S. (2016). Team adaptiveness in dynamic contexts: Contextualizing the roles of interaction patterns and in-process planning. Group & Organization Management, 41(4), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115615246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, F., Duncan, T. E., & Hops, H. (2001). Examining developmental trajectories in adolescent alcohol use using piecewise growth mixture modeling analysis. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2001.62.199CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Littlepage, G. E., Schmidt, G. W., Whisler, E. W., & Frost, A. G. (1995). An input-process-output analysis of influence and performance in problem-solving groups. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69(5), 877–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (2010). Extending the conversational argument coding scheme: Argument categories, units, and coding procedures. Communication Methods and Measures, 4(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312451003680467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, V.-A., Boyd-Graber, J., Resnik, P., Cai, D. A., Midberry, J. E., & Wang, Y. (2014). Modeling topic control to detect influence in conversations using nonparametric topic models. Machine Learning, 95(3), 381–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-013-5417-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, K. C. (1988). Speaking turns in small group interaction: A context-sensitive event sequence model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 965–971. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavitt, C. (2014). An interactive input–process–output model of social influence in decision-making groups. Small Group Research, 45(6), 704–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414548353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavitt, C., & Johnson, K. K. (1999). An examination of the coherence of group discussions. Communication Research, 26(3), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavitt, C., & Johnson, K. K. (2002). Scheidel and Crowell revisited: A descriptive study of group proposal sequencing. Communication Monographs, 69(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750216535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S. (1998). The small group should be the fundamental unit of communication research. In Trent, J. S. (Ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the 21st century (pp. 94–97). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. E. (2000). Organizational change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research. Oxford, UK, and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, L. L., & Jones, T. S. (1982). The role of communication in bargaining. Human Communication Research, 8(3), 262–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1982.tb00668.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Pickles, A. (2004). Generalized multilevel structural equation modeling. Psychometrika, 69(2), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, G. P. (1979). The lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity in behavioral interaction research. In Osofsky, J. D. (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (Vol. 1, pp. 623–649). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Seibold, D. R., & Meyers, R. A. (2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38(3), 312–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407301966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelly, R. K., & Troyer, L. (2001). Emergence and completion of structure in initially undefined and partially defined groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(4), 318–332. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skvoretz, J. (1988). Models of participation in status-differentiated groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith-Lovin, L., Skvoretz, J., & Hudson, C. G. (1986). Status and participation in six-person groups: A test of Skvoretz’s comparative status model. Social Forces, 64(4), 992–1005. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/64.4.992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soller, A. (2004). Understanding knowledge-sharing breakdowns: A meeting of the quantitative and qualitative minds. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00081.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soller, A., & Lesgold, A. (2003). A computational approach to analyzing online knowledge sharing interaction. In U. Hoppe, F. Verdejo, & J. Kay (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Shaping the future of learning through intelligent technologies (pp. 253–260). Amsterdam, NL: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Stapleton, L. M., Yang, J. S., & Hancock, G. R. (2016). Construct meaning in multilevel settings. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 41(5), 481–520. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998616646200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasser, G., & Taylor, L. A. (1991). Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14(3), 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1403&4_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasser, G., & Vaughan, S. I. (1996). Models of participation during face-to-face unstructured discussion. In Witte, E. H. & Davis, J. H. (Eds.), Understanding group behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 165–192). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Tschan, F. (1995). Communication enhances small group performance if it conforms to task requirements: The concept of ideal communication cycles. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(3), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1703_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Balliet, D. (2015). Interdependence theory. In Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Simpson, J. A., & Dovidio, J. F. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 65–92). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14344-003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingart, L. R., Brett, J. M., Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2007). Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 994–1010. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.994CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weingart, L. R., Prietula, M. J., Hyder, E. B., & Genovese, C. R. (1999). Knowledge and the sequential processes of negotiation: A Markov chain analysis of response-in-kind. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(4), 366–393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, R. E., & Knee, C. R. (2012). Interdependence theory and the actor–partner interdependence model: Where theory and method converge. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(4), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312447897CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., & Botero, I. C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71(3), 286–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000299894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., Paulus, P. B., Hirokawa, R. Y., Ancona, D. G., Peterson, R. S., … Yoon, K. (2004). The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups. Small Group Research, 35(1), 17–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403259459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zijlstra, F. R. H., Waller, M. J., & Phillips, S. I. (2012). Setting the tone: Early interaction patterns in swift-starting teams as a predictor of effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(5), 749–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.690399CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×