Advertisement

Affect and Dyads: Conflict Across Different Technological Media

  • Jamika D. Burge
  • Deborah Tatar
Part of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work book series (CSCW)

Communication is as, or more, important under conditions of conflict or disagreement as when agreement prevails. An experiment looked at couples engaged in discussing a topic that they disagreed about, either face-to-face, over the phone, or via instant messaging. At least one member of a couple was more likely to suffer an above-median decline in mood in the mediated condition as compared to the face-to-face condition. Couples in the face-to-face condition used the most words, while those in the instant messaging used the least. Couples in the phone condition nearly covered the spectrum. Current indications suggest that while the answer to the question, “Does arguing via mediated means have worse effects than all the other things in relationships, known and unknown, that contribute to the outcome of an argument?” is “No,” the answer to the question, “Does arguing via mediated means have bad effects compared to arguing face-to-face?” is “Quite likely.” At the minimum, the course of the argument and the facial expressions differ from medium to medium.

Keywords

Technological Medium Negative Mood Mood Change Instant Messaging Social Information Processing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aoki, P. & Woodruff, A. (2000). “Improving Electronic Guidebook Interfaces Using a Task-Oriented Design Approach,” Third Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, New York. Aronson, E., T. Wilson, & Akert, R. (1994). Social Psychology: The Heart and the Mind. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  2. E., T. Wilson, & Akert, R. (1994). Social Psychology: The Heart and the Mind. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  3. Bargh, J. A. (2002). Beyond simple truths: the human-Internet interaction. Journal of Social Issues 58(1): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimmons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues 58: 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Lemery, C. R., & Mullett, J. (1986). I show how you feel: motor mimicry as a communicative act. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 322–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, A. T. (1972). Depression: Causes and Treatment. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boehner, K., DePaula, R., Dourish, P., & Sengers, P. (2007). How emotion is made and measured. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65(4): 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brosch, T., Grandjean, D., Sander, D., & Scherer, K. (2007). Behold the voice of wrath: cross-modal modulation of visual attention by anger prosody. Cognition 106(3): 1497–1503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cherny, L. (1999). Conversation and Community: Chat in a Virtual World. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, H. H. & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. D. Behrens (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition., Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, M. (1984). Record keeping in two types of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47: 549–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, M. S. & J. Mills (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connell, J. B., Mendelsohn, G. A., Robins, R. W., & Canny, J. (2001). Effects of Communication Medium on Interpersonal Perceptions: Don't Hang Up on the Telephone Yet!, Proceedings of GROUP 2001, pp. 117–124.Google Scholar
  15. Corbin, J. & A. Strauss (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology 13(1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Culnan, M. J. & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 420–443.Google Scholar
  17. Curtis, P. (1997). MUDDING: Social phenomena in text-based virtual realities. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 121–142.Google Scholar
  18. Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: a new approach to manager information processing and organization design. In B. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  19. Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science 32: 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ekman, P. (1982). Methods for measuring facial action. In K. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Recent methods in nonverbal behavior research. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 45–90.Google Scholar
  21. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ellsworth, P. (1972). Emotion in the human face. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  22. Généreux, M., Auger, N., Goneau, M., & Daniel, M. (2008). Neighbourhood socioeconomic status, maternal education and adverse birth outcomes among mothers living near highways, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 62: 695–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gottman, J. (1994) Why Marriages Succeed or Fail, and How You Can Make Yours Last. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  24. Gross, J. J., Richards, J., & John, O. (2006). Emotion regulation in everyday life. In D. K. Snyder, J. A. Simpson, & J. N. Hughes (Eds.), Emotion Regulation in Families: Pathways to Dysfunction and Health. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jordan, B. & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences 4(1) 39–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., Irmer, B., & Chang, A. (2002). The expression of conflict in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research 33(4): 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horowitz, L. (2004). Interpersonal Foundations of Psychopathology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horowitz, L. M., Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (2000). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  29. Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary Interpersonal Theory and Research. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Lea, M. & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 39: 283–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mantei, M. M., Baecker, R. M., Sellen, A. J., Buxton, W. A. S., Milligan, T., & Wellman, B. (1991). Experiences in the use of a media space. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, CHI′91. New Orleans, LA, pp. 203–208.Google Scholar
  32. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lea, M., & Reicher, S. (2000). SIDE-Issues Centre-Stage: Recent Developments in Studies of De-individuation in Groups. Amsterdam: KNAW.Google Scholar
  34. Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation. New York: CSLI Publications/Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Managing intercultural conflicts effectively. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural Communication: A Reader, 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 360–372.Google Scholar
  38. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Voida, A., Newstetter, W. C., & Mynatt, E. D. (2002). When conventions collide: The tensions of instant messaging attributed. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (SigCHI). New York: ACM Press, pp. 187–194.Google Scholar
  40. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer- mediated interaction: a relational perspective. Communication Research 19(1): 52–90.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Walther, J. B., Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 26: 460–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. “The PANAS-X: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule — Expanded Form,” http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/Clark/PANAS-X.pdf, University of Iowa (Copyright 1994).
  43. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist 35: 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zornoza, A., Ripoll, P., & Peiro, J. M. (2002). Conflict management in groups that work in two different communication contexts: face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Small Group Research 33(5): 481–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jamika D. Burge
    • 1
  • Deborah Tatar
    • 2
  1. 1.SMART Technologies ULC Jamika BurgeThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Associate Professor of Computer Science and, by courtesy, PsychologyVirginia Polytechnic Institute and Sate UniversityBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations