Examining Functional Communication as Egocentric or Group-Centric: Application of a Latent Group Model

Bonito, Joseph A.; Meyers, Renée A.

doi:10.1080/03637751.2011.618138

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participation. Consistent with previous research (Bonito, 2003;Bonito & Meyers, 2011;Meyers, 1989), we evaluated participation at the thought-unit level (Auld & White, 1956). Thought units correspond to an independent clause, though shorter units that imply a complete thought (e.g., backchannels) were also included.…”

Section: Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hewes (2009) argued that egocentric speech as a basis for discussion can be ruled out if evidence suggests turn-by-turn influence. However, such evidence is difficult to measure and assess (Bonito & Sanders, 2009) and not entirely indicative of group-related processes (Bonito & Meyers, 2011; Corman & Kuhn, 2005). A more fruitful form of evidence is longitudinal data comprised of multiple discussions that would allow an assessment of the extent to which group- and individual-processes develop and persist.…”

Section: Intra- and Interpersonal Models Of Group Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Building on previous work, our solution (Bonito & Meyers, 2011; Bonito et al, 2014; Bonito & Ruppel, 2011) to the analytical problem identified above is to apply the LGM (Gonzalez & Griffin, 2002) to longitudinal participation data. Gonzalez and Griffin suggested that group constructs (e.g., group mind) can be conceptually and statistically distinguished from the same construct measured at the individual level.…”

Section: Intra- and Interpersonal Models Of Group Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Bonito and Ruppel (2011) demonstrated that individuals working on an information-sharing task tended to exhibit moderate levels of homogeneity for noninformational contributions (e.g., task management) but not for information-based contributions. Bonito and Meyers (2011) analyzed previously published group interaction data sets and found that participation tends to be homogeneous (i.e., reflecting group-level processes) and heterogeneous (i.e., exhibiting individual-level properties). Finally, Bonito et al (2014) examined longitudinal participation data in which groups worked on several different tasks over a period of time.…”

Section: Intra- and Interpersonal Models Of Group Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Role-Related Participation in Product Design Teams

Bonito

Keyton

Ervin

2016

Communication Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizations often delegate decision-making tasks to groups and teams. At issue is the extent to which participation during discussion reflects both individual-level characteristics and emergent (i.e., group-level) processes. Drawing upon Hewes's socio-egocentric model and team meeting literature, we used a multilevel approach to examine participation in product-design teams across a series of tasks. Findings indicate that participation consists of both intra-and group-level processes. Team members who were talkative initially continued to participate frequently during the later tasks, and, as predicted, project managers also spoke more often than team members in any other role. In addition, group-level trends became stronger over time, as evidenced by behavioral convergence. Discussion addresses implications for a "middle ground" approach to modeling communicative behavior in groups.

show abstract

Section: Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intra- and Interpersonal Models Of Group Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intra- and Interpersonal Models Of Group Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intra- and Interpersonal Models Of Group Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Role-Related Participation in Product Design Teams

Bonito

Keyton

Ervin

2016

Communication Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study may hold the key to helping us understand why members believe shared meaning has occurred but have difficulty locating exactly what that meaning is. Coordinating these efforts with communication scholars, particularly, Joe Bonito (see, e.g., Bonito & Meyers, 2011), could be especially fruitful. Khawaja, Chen, and Marcus (2012) examine the potential of using linguistic cues as evidence of cognitive load and hypothesize that working collaboratively with high-cognitive-load tasks, group members will speak more with each other to manage the high task complexity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commentary

Keyton

2012

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this commentary, the author reflects on the articles chosen for the special section on communications analysis. These articles problematize communication and raise an interesting set of questions for both human factors and communication scholars to ponder. In the end, both sets of scholars seek the same goal: How do we better examine communication to improve it? Problematizing communication requires scholars to challenge their fundamental assumptions about the phenomenon as well as to tease out the distinctions of methodological approaches typically used by both human factors and communication scholars. Human factors scholars tend to favor forms of communication in which technology or task roles control who can communicate and how. Communication scholars tend to favor contexts in which information flows more freely with fewer explicit restrictions. Creating opportunities to collaborate in research on the communication process may create the best understanding of technology that can better serve our understanding of communication.

show abstract