Skip to main content

E-Mail Communication and Group Cooperation in Mixed Motive Contexts

Abstract

Two empirical studies are presented that explore how and why e-mail communication (versus face-to-face communication) influences cooperation in mixed motive group contexts. Results indicate that, relative to those engaging in face-to-face interaction, those who interacted via e-mail were (1) less cooperative and (2) felt more justified in being noncooperative. Feelings of justification mediated the relationship between communication media and the decision to cooperate or not.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. Although there are some studies that elucidate personality characteristics that affect one’s decision to cooperate or not (e.g., Hertel, Neuhof, Theuer, & Kerr, 2000; Kerr & Kaufman-Gilliland, 1997; Kramer, McClintock, & Messick, 1986) the bulk of research has addressed situations under which people are more likely to focus on either the individual or the collective needs in social dilemma situations, and we follow in the line of this situationally based research.

  2. This case can be obtained from the Dispute Resolution Research Center at Northwestern University.

References

  • Aiken, M. W., & Riggs, M. (1993). Using a group decision to support system creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27, 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alsop, S. (2003, April). I’ve seen the real future of tech—and it is virtual. Fortune Magazine, 147, 390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 156–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B., & Fulmer, I. S. (2004). The medium and the message: The adaptive use of communication media in dyadic influence. Academy of Management Review, 29, 272–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsness, Z., & Tenbrunsel, A. (1998). Technologically mediated communication and negotiation: Do relationships matter? Paper presented at the International Association for Conflict Management, College Park, MD.

  • Bochet, O., Page, T., & Putterman, L. (2006). Communication and punishment in voluntary contribution experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60, 11–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouas, K. S., & Komorita, S. S. (1996). Group discussion and cooperation in social dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1144–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, J. M., & Kacmar, C. J. (1997). The impact of communication mode and task complexity on small group performance and member satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 23–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnevale, P. J., & Probst, T. M. (1997). Conflict on the Internet. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 233–255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., & Komorita, S. S. (1994). The effects of communication and commitment in a public goods social dilemma. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 367–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croson, R. T. A. (1999). Look at me when you say that: An electronic negotiation simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 30, 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M., & Messick, D. M. (2000). Social dilemmas. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 111–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Cooperation in social dilemmas and the need to belong: The moderating effect of group size. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 168–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2002). Reactions to group success and failure as a function of identification level: A test of the goal-transformation hypothesis in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 435–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 858–866.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., & van Vugt, M. (1999). Social identification effects in social dilemmas: A transformation of motives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 871–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., Hilmer, K. M., & Taylor, N. J. (1997). Information exchange and use in Group Decision Support Systems and verbal group decision-making: Effects of minority influence. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 61–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer brainstorm: More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 531–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (2001). Cooperation and conflict resolution: Implications for consulting psychology. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53, 76–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann, K. A., Samuels, S. M., Ross, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1997). Self-interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: Allocators versus recipients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1061–1074.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drolet, A. L., & Morris, M. W. (2000). Rapport in conflict resolution: Accounting for how face-to-face contact fosters mutual cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 26–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision groups. Human Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farra, Straus, and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallupe, R. B., & McKeen, J. D. (1990). Enhancing computer-mediated communication: An experimental investigation into the use of a group decision support system for face-to-face versus remote meeting. Information and Management, 18, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30, 269–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertel, G., Neuhof, J., Theuer, T., & Kerr, N. L. (2000). Mood effects on cooperation in small groups: Does positive mood simply lead to more cooperation? Cognition and Emotion, 14, 441–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead, A. B. (1996a). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision-making: The effects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23, 193–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead, A. B. (1996b). The rank-order effect in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 181–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, W., Wei, K., & Tan, B. C. Y. (1999). Compensating effects of GSS on group performance. Information and Management, 35, 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791–815.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, C., Farnham, S. D., Drucker, S. M., & Kollack, P. (2000). The effect of communication modality on cooperation in online environments. Paper presented at the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Hague, Netherlands.

  • Katsh, E., & Rifkin, J. (2001). Online dispute resolution: Resolving conflicts in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71, 111–120.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 233–265). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., Gast, J., Lewandsowski, D. A., & Harris, S. E. (1997). That still small voice: Commitment to cooperate as an internalized versus a social norm. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1300–1311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., & Kaufman-Gilliland, C. M. (1997). “And besides, i probably couldn’t have made a difference anyway”: Justification of social dilemma defection via perceived self-inefficacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 211–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluck, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 67–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluck, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 175–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluck, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). Enhancing the transfer of computer-assisted training proficiency in geographically distributed teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 706–716.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kock, N. (2004). The psychobiological model: Towards a new theory of computer-mediated communication based on Darwinian evolution. Organization Science, 15, 327–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komorita, S. S., & Parks, C. D. (1994). Social dilemmas. Debuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M., McClintock, C. G., & Messick, D. M. (1986). Social values and cooperative response to a simulated resource conservation crisis. Journal of Personality, 54, 576–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R. E., Brynin, M., & Kiesler, S. (2006). Computers, phones, and the internet: Domesticating information technology. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtzberg, T. R., Belkin, L. Y., & Naquin, C. E. (2006). The effect of e-mail on attitude towards performance feedback. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 14, 4–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtzberg, T. R., Naquin, C. E., & Belkin, L. (2005). Electronic performance appraisals: The effects of e-mail communication on peer ratings in actual and simulated environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 216–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebrand, W. B. G., Messick, D. M., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1992). Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings. Oxford, England: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruping, L. M., & Agarwal, R. (2004). Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: A task-technology fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 975–990.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11, 473–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M. (1999). Alternative logics for decision making social situations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 39, 11–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M., & Brewer, M. (1983). Solving social dilemmas: A review. In L. Wheeler & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D. A., Kurtzberg, T. R., Thompson, L. L., & Morris, M. W. (1999). Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiation: Group affiliations and good vibrations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 22–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. W., Nadler, J., Kurtzberg, T. R., & Thompson, L. (2002). Schmooze or lose: Social friction and lubrication in e-mail negotiations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naquin, C. E., & Paulson, G. D. (2003). Online bargaining and interpersonal trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 113–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ocker, R. J., & Yaverbaum, G. J. (1999). Asynchronous computer-mediated communication versus face-to-face collaboration: Results on student learning, quality and satisfaction. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 427–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olarniran, B. A. (1994). Group performance in computer mediated communication and face-to-face meetings. Behavior and Information Technology, 15, 24–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulson, G., & Naquin, C. E. (2004). Establishing trust via technology: Long distance practices and pitfalls. International Negotiation, 9, 229–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillutla, M. M., & Chen, X. (1999). Social norms and cooperation in social dilemmas: The effects of context and feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 81–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Purdy, J. M., Nye, P., & Balakrishnan, P. V. (2000). The impact of communication media on negotiation outcomes. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 162–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, A. (1985). Provision of public goods and the MCS experimental paradigm. American Political Science Review, 79, 148–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sally, D. F. (1995). Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: Experimental evidence from 1958 to 1992. Rationality and Society, 7, 58–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 241–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. A. P., & Hayne, S. E. (1997). Decision-making under time pressure: An investigation of decision speed and decision quality of computer-supported groups. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 97–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, S. G. (1996). Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and information distribution on participation and performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 27, 115–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (1999). Sanctioning systems, decision frames, and cooperation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 684–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L. (2001). The mind and heart of the negotiator (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L. (2004). Making the team: A guide for managers (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Brett, J. M., Tenbrunsel, A. E., Okumura, T., Moore, D. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (2002). Cognition and behavior in asymmetric social dilemmas: A comparison of two cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 87–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996a). Egocentric interpretations of fairness in asymmetric, environmental social dilemmas: Explaining harvesting behavior and the role of communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996b). Shark harvesting and resource conservation. In A. R. Beckenstein, F. J. Long, M. B. Arnold & T. N. Gladwin (Eds.), Stakeholder negotiations: Exercises in sustainable development. Chicago: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilke, H. A. M., & Braspenning, J. (1989). Reciprocity: Choice shift in a social trap. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. M., Straus, S. G., & McEvily, B. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 16–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Rutgers Business School Research Resource Committee and the Rutgers Business School Technology Management Research Center for grants that supported this research. We also wish to express our appreciation to Sandra Cha, Jennifer Mueller, John Jost, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions on this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles E. Naquin.

Appendix: Payoff Calculations for SHARC Roles

Appendix: Payoff Calculations for SHARC Roles

Current Harvest levels in metric tons by role prior to meeting

1

Large commercial harvest =

1400

2

Small commercial harvest =

1300

3

Recreational competitive harvest =

1200

4

Recreational tours harvest =

1100

Payoff Calculations by role after meeting

1

Large commercial payoff =

$10,000 × (Harvest level* + .3(Future))

2

Small commercial payoff =

$10,000 × (Harvest level* + .4(Future))

3

Recreational competitive payoff =

$10,000 × (Harvest level* + .5(Future))

4

Recreational tours payoff =

$10,000 × (Harvest level* + .6(Future))

5

Future =

Smaller of 2500 or (5000 − total harvest level)

6

* Harvest level =

Harvest level for that particular role

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Naquin, C.E., Kurtzberg, T.R. & Belkin, L.Y. E-Mail Communication and Group Cooperation in Mixed Motive Contexts. Soc Just Res 21, 470–489 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0084-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0084-x

Keywords

  • E-mail
  • Cooperation
  • Group work
  • Decision-making
  • Social dilemmas