skip to main content
10.1145/1718918.1718980acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Groups in groups: conversational similarity in online multicultural multiparty brainstorming

Published: 06 February 2010 Publication History

Abstract

Online collaboration, in comparison to face-to-face collaboration, is advantageous in making multiparty teamwork possible at a very low cost. As multicultural multiparty collaboration becomes ubiquitous, it is crucial to understand how communication processes are shaped in the social and media environments that computer-mediated communication affords. We conducted a laboratory study investigating how different types of cultural asymmetry in group composition (Chinese of the majority versus American of the majority) and communication media (text-only versus video-enabled chatroom) influence conversational similarity between Chinese and Americans. The paper presents an analysis identifying that the selection of media and the cultural composition of the group jointly shape intercultural conversational closeness.

References

[1]
Anderson, A. (2006). Achieving understanding in face-to-face and video-mediated multiparty interactions. Discourse Processes, 41, 251--287.
[2]
Carletta, J., Isard, A., Isard, S., Kowtko, J. C., Doherty-Sneddon, G., Anderson, A. H. (1997). The reliability of a dialogue structure coding scheme. Computational Linguistics, 23, 13--31.
[3]
Chen, C. C., Chen, X.-P., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism-collectivism. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 285--304.
[4]
Cheng, C.-Y., Lee, F., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Assimilation and contrast effects in cultural frame switching: Bicultural identity integration and valence of cultural values. J. Cross-Cultural Psych., 37, 742--760.
[5]
Chua, H. F., Boland, J. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (2005). Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 102, 12629--12633.
[6]
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127--149). Washington, DC: APA.
[7]
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Ed. NJ: Erlbaum.
[8]
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirement, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32. 554--571.
[9]
Diamant, E. I., Fussell, S. R. & Lo, F.-L. (2008). "Where did we turn wrong?" Unpacking the effects of culture and technology on attributions of team performance. Proc. of CSCW 2008.
[10]
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. J. Personality and Social Psych., 53, 497--509.
[11]
Dugosh, K. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2005). Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 313--320.
[12]
Gallois, C., Franklyn-Stokes, A., Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1988). Communication accommodation in intercultural encounters. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[13]
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sci., 8, 8--11.
[14]
Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15, 87--105.
[15]
Giles, H., Coupland, J. & Coupland, N. (1991). Contexts of Accommodation. NY: Cambridge University Press.
[16]
Hall, E. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York, NY: Doubleday/Anchor Books.
[17]
Jackson, M. H., & Poole, M. S. (2003). Idea generation in naturally occurring contexts: complex appropriation of a simple group procedure. Human Comm. Research, 29, 560--591.
[18]
Jones, E., Gallois, C., Callan, V., & Barker, M. (1999). Strategies of accommodation: Development of a coding system for conversational interaction. J. Language and Social Psychology, 18, 123--152.
[19]
Kangasharju, H. (1996). Aligning as a team in multiparty conversation. J. Pragmatics, 26, 291--319.
[20]
Kenny, D. A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Livi, S. (2002). The statistical analysis of data from small groups. J. Personality and Social Psych., 83, 126--137.
[21]
Kullback, S., & Leibler, R. A. (1951). On information and sufficiency, Annals of Math. Stat., 22, 79--86.
[22]
Littell, R., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., & Wolfinger, R. D. (1996). SAS system for mixed models. SAS Inst.
[23]
Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. J. Personality and Social Psych., 81, 922-934.
[24]
Mauer, R. E., & Tindall, J. H. (1983). Effects of postural congruence on client's perceptions of counselor empathy. J. Counseling Psych., 30, 158--163.
[25]
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291--310.
[26]
Niederhoffer, K. G., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2002). Linguistic style matching in social interaction. J. Language and Social Psych., 21, 337--360.
[27]
Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: a cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality & Social Psych. Rev., 10, 186--213.
[28]
Osborn, A. (1957). Applied imagination. NY: Scribner.
[29]
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169--190.
[30]
Salaff, J. (2002). Where Home is the Office: The New Form of Flexible Work. In Wellman, B. and Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life (pp. 431--463), Oxford: Blackwell.
[31]
Scissors, L. E., Gill, A. J., Geraghty, K., & Gergle, D. (2009). In CMC we trust: the role of similarity. Proc. of CHI 2009.
[32]
Setlock, L D., Fussell, S. R., & Neuwirth. C. (2004). Taking it out of context: collaborating within and across cultures in face-to-face settings and via instant messaging. Proc. of CSCW 2004.
[33]
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communications. Management Science, 32, 1492--1512.
[34]
Street, R. L. (1984). Speech convergence and speech evaluation in fact-finding interviews. Human Comm. Research, 11, 139--169.
[35]
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
[36]
Wang, H.-C., Fussell, S. R., & Setlock, L. D. (2009). Cultural difference and adaptation of communication styles in computer--mediated group brainstorming. Proc. of CHI 2009.
[37]
Wang, H.-C., & Rosé, C. P (2007). Supporting collaborative idea generation: A closer look using statistical process analysis techniques. Proc. AI-ED 2007.
[38]
Wang, H.-C., & Fussell, S. R. (2009). Cultural adaptation of conversational style in intercultural computer-mediated group brainstorming. Proc. IWIC 2009.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)A Socio-Pragmatic Study of Impolite Expressions in The American Action Movie ‘‘The Kill Team (2019)”Journal of AlMaarif University College10.51345/.v33i4.608.g32133:4(473-492)Online publication date: 7-Dec-2022
  • (2022)Understanding Social Influence in Collective Product Ratings Using Behavioral and Cognitive MetricsProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3517726(1-16)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022
  • (2022)Cultural Influences on Chinese Citizens’ Adoption of Digital Contact Tracing: A Human Infrastructure PerspectiveProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3517572(1-17)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
CSCW '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work
February 2010
468 pages
ISBN:9781605587950
DOI:10.1145/1718918
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 06 February 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. communication accommodation
  2. computer-mediated communication
  3. cross-cultural communication
  4. group brainstorming
  5. multiparty teamwork

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

CSCW '10
Sponsor:
CSCW '10: Computer Supported Cooperative Work
February 6 - 10, 2010
Georgia, Savannah, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 2,235 of 8,521 submissions, 26%

Upcoming Conference

CSCW '25

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)22
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 14 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)A Socio-Pragmatic Study of Impolite Expressions in The American Action Movie ‘‘The Kill Team (2019)”Journal of AlMaarif University College10.51345/.v33i4.608.g32133:4(473-492)Online publication date: 7-Dec-2022
  • (2022)Understanding Social Influence in Collective Product Ratings Using Behavioral and Cognitive MetricsProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3517726(1-16)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022
  • (2022)Cultural Influences on Chinese Citizens’ Adoption of Digital Contact Tracing: A Human Infrastructure PerspectiveProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3517572(1-17)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022
  • (2021)Bridging Fluency Disparity between Native and Nonnative Speakers in Multilingual Multiparty Collaboration Using a Clarification AgentProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/34795795:CSCW2(1-31)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2021
  • (2021)Bridging social distance during social distancing: exploring social talk and remote collegiality in video conferencingHuman–Computer Interaction10.1080/07370024.2021.199485937:5(404-432)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2021
  • (2019)Increasing Native Speakers' Awareness of the Need to Slow Down in Multilingual Conversations Using a Real-Time Speech SpeedometerProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/33592733:CSCW(1-25)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2019
  • (2019)Structuring Online DyadsProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Creativity and Cognition10.1145/3325480.3325486(306-318)Online publication date: 13-Jun-2019
  • (2018)The Role of Social Constructivist Instructional Approaches in Facilitating Cross-Cultural Online Learning in Higher EducationOnline Course Management10.4018/978-1-5225-5472-1.ch012(221-240)Online publication date: 2018
  • (2017)Beyond Information ContentProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/31346831:CSCW(1-18)Online publication date: 6-Dec-2017
  • (2017)Does Collectivism Inhibit Individual Creativity?Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing10.1145/2998181.2998261(2344-2358)Online publication date: 25-Feb-2017
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media