Comparative Studies On Computer Mediated And Face-To-Face Decision-Making Of Groups In Problem Solving

With the development of network techniques, computer mediated (CM) decision-making of groups has been general progressively. Comparing with face-to-face (FTF) decision-making of groups, the advantages and disadvantages of CM decision-making, and how to improve decision quality under different communicating conditions, are central topics in the field of group decision-making research. The procedure of group decision-making is thought to be an important factor in improving the quality of decisions. The procedure of group decision-making refers to the manner in which members process and choose among decision alternatives. A procedure can affect how groups process information and on decision quality in turn. Some studies introduced cognitive conflicts to force the group members to consider every choice in detail in order to improve efficiency of decision-makingO. However these methods could impair members' satisfaction with group decisions.This study redesigned the experimental materials based on the "hidden profile" advised by Stasser (1985,1992), and constructed a decision task of problem solving. In the experiment, we used the rank order method suggested by Hollingshead (1996) and dedicated to group procedure under CM and FTF communicating conditions.Based on the studies of Stasser and Hollingshead, our study investigated the effects of communicating condition, information sharing, and rank-order on the information processing and decision quality by simulated decision-making of personnel selection in laboratory experiments. In this study, 3-person groups made a decision to choose the best candidate among three candidates for English teaching in a University. Our results showed: (1) Information sharing before discussion affected the group decision through different member configuration. Comparing to information unsharing, information sharing improved members' satisfaction. (2) The method of rank-order affected communicating key information under FTF communication condition only when information is unshared before discussion, or under CM communicating condition when information is all shared beforediscussion, which were new findings not shown in the study of Hollingshead. Finally, rank-order did not impair members' satisfaction with discussion. (3) Comparing to face-to-face communication, CM communication led members to concentrate on text more. Members were shown less influenced by the pressure of group norm, more deviated from topic, more explanation, questions etc. under CM communicating condition. (4) FTF and CM communication conditions were no different in decision veracity.