Straight Talk: Delivering Bad News through Electronic Communication

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.10.2.150

References

  • Allaire Y., Firsirotu M. E. Theories of organizational culture. Organ. Stud. (1984) 5(3):193–226CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Applegate L. M., Konsynski B. R., Nunamaker J. F., Krasner H., Greif I. A group decision support system for idea generation and issue analysis in organization planning. Proc. First Conf. Comput. Supported Cooperative Work (1986) (ACM Press, Austin, TX) 16–34CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Baron R. M., Kenny D. A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1986) 51:1173–1182CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bailey J., Pearson S. W. Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Sci. (1983) 29:530–545LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bond C. F., Anderson E. L. The reluctance to transmit bad new: Private discomfort or public display? J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (1987) 23:176–187CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Breckler S. J. Empirical validation of affect, behavior and cognition as distinct components of attitude. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1984) 47:1191–1205CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Briggs S. R., Cheek M., Buss A. H. An analysis of the selfmonitoring scale. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1980) 38:679–686CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Brown P., Levinson S.Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (1987) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Campion M. A., Lord R. G. A control-systems conceptualization of the goal-setting and changing process. Organ. Behavior Human Performance (1982) 30:265–287CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Carver C. S., Scheier M. F.Attention and Self-Regulation: A Control Theory Approach to Human Behavior (1981) (Springer-Verlag, New York and Berlin, Germany) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Chapanis A. Studies in interactive communication: The effects of four communications modes on the behavior of teams during cooperative problem-solving. Human Factors (1972) 14:487–509CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Connolly T., Jessup L. M., Valacich J. S. Effects of anonymity and evaluation tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Sci. (1990) 36:689–703LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Daft R. L., Lengel R. H. A proposed integration among organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Sci. (1986) 23:554–571LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Dennis A. R., Valacich J. S. Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. J. Appl. Psych. (1993) 78:531–537CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fisher C. D. Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: A laboratory investigation. J. Appl. Psych. (1979) 64:533–540CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fulk J., Mani S., McLaughlin M. Distortion of communication in hierarchical relationships. Communication Yearbook 9 (1986) (Sage, Newbury Park, CA) Google Scholar
  • Gabrenya W. K., Arkin R. M. Self-monitoring scale: Factor structure and correlates. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. (1980) 6:13–22CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gallupe R. B., Dennis A. R., Cooper W. H., Valacich J. S., Nunamaker J. F., Bastianutti L. Electronic brainstorming and group size. Acad. Management J. (1992) 35:350–369CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Geen R. G., Gange J. J. Drive theory of social facilitation: Twelve years of theory and research. Psych. Bull. (1977) 15:1267–1288CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • George J. F., Easton G. K., Nunamaker J. F., Northcraft G. B. A study of collaborative group work with and without computer-based support. Inform. Systems Res. (1990) 1:394–415LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Giddens A.Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis (1979) (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Graen G., Schiemann W. Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. J. Appl. Psych. (1978) 63:206–212CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Greist J. H., Klein M. H., VanCura L. J. A computer interview by psychiatric patient target symptoms. Amer. Psych. (1973) 39:1123–1134Google Scholar
  • Guerin B. Mere presence effects in humans: A review. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (1986) 22:38–77CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hiltz S. R., Johnson K., Turoff M. Experiments in group decision making. Human Comm. Res. (1986) 13:225–252CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ickes W., Barnes R. D. The role of sex and self-monitoring in unstructured dyadic interactions. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1977) 35:315–330CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ilgen D. R., Knowlton W. Performance attributional effects on feedback from superiors. Organ. Behavior Human Performance (1980) 25:441–456CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kiesler S., Sproull L. Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quart. (1986) 50:402–413CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kiesler S., Sproull L. Group decision making and communication technology. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1992) 52:96–123CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kiesler S., Zubrow D., Moses A. M., Geller V. Affect in computer-mediated communication: An experiment in synchronous terminal-to-terminal discussion. Human Comput. Interact. (1985) 1:77–104CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kivlighan D. M. Feedback in group psychotherapy: Review and implications. Small Group Behavior (1985) 16:373–385CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Larson J. R. Supervisors' performance feedback to subordinates: The impact of subordinate performance valence and outcome dependence. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1986) 37:391–408CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lave J., Chaiklin S., Lave J. The practice of learning. Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context (1993) (Cambridge University Press, New York) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lave J., Wenger E.Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (1991) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lazarus R. S.Psychological Stress and the Coping Process (1966) (McGraw Hill, New York) Google Scholar
  • Lee F. Being polite and keeping MUM: How bad news is communicated in organizational hierarchies. J. Appl. Psych. (1993) 23:1124–1149Google Scholar
  • Marcoulides G. A., Heck R. H. Organizational culture and performance: Proposing and testing a model. Organ. Sci. (1993) 4(2):209–225LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Markus M. L. Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organ. Sci. (1994) 5(4):502–527LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Martin C. L., Nagao D. H. Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. J. Appl. Psych. (1989) 74:72–80CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Maynard D. W. On “realization” in everyday life: The forecasting of bad news as a social relation. Amer. Sociological Rev. (1996) 61:109–131CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • McGuire W. J., Lindzey G., Aronson E. Attitudes and attitude change. Handbook of Social Psychology 2 (1985) (Random House, New York)Google Scholar
  • Miell D., Le Voi M. Self-monitoring and control in dyadic interactions. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1985) 49:1652–1661CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • O'Neal E., Levine D., Frank J. Reluctance to transmit bad news when the recipient is unknown: Experiments in five nations. Soc. Behavior and Personality (1979) 7(1):39–47CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • O'Reilly C., Roberts K. Information filtering in organizations: Three experiments. Acad. Management J. (1974) 17:205–215CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Perse E. Normative images of communication media: Mass and interpersonal channels in the new media environment. Human Comm. Res. (1993) 19:485–503CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Powers W. T.Behavior: The Control of Perception (1973) (Aldine, Chicago, IL) Google Scholar
  • Rice R. E. Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Comm. Res. (1993) 19:451–484CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rice K., Warner N. Breaking the bad news: What do psychiatrists tell patients with dementia about their illness? Internat. J. Geriatric Psychiat (1994) 9(6):467–471CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Richman W., Kiesler S., Weisband S., Drasgow. A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. J. Appl. Psych.(in press)Google Scholar
  • Rosen S., Grandison R. J., Stewart J. E. Discriminatory buckpassing: Delegating transmission of bad news. Organ. Behavior and Human Performance (1974) 12:249–263CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rosen S., Tesser A. On the reluctance to communicate undesirable information: The Mum effect. Sociometry (1970) 33:253–263CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Seale C. Communication and awareness about death: A study of a random sample of dying people. Soc. Sci. Medicine (1991) 32(8):943–952CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Shamp S. A. Mechanomorphism in perception of computer communication partners. Comput. Human Behavior (1991) 7:147–161CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Schein E. Organizational culture. Amer. Psych. (1990) 45(2):109–119CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Short J., Williams F., Christie B.The Social Psychology of Telecommunications (1976) (John Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
  • Siegel J., Dubrovsky V., Kiesler S., McGuire T. Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1986) 37:157–187CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Snyder M., Pliner P., Blankstein K. R., Spigel I. M., Alloway T., Krames L. Cognitive, behavioral, and interpersonal consequences of self-monitoring. Advances in the Study of Communication and Affect: Vol. 5. Perception of Emotion in Self and Other (1979) (Plenum Press, New York) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Snyder M., Berkowitz L. Self-monitoring processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 13 (1974) (Academic Press, New York) Google Scholar
  • Sproull L., Kiesler S. Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Sci. (1986) 32:1492–1512LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Steele G. L.The Hackers Dictionary(Harper & Row, New York) Google Scholar
  • Tesser A., Rosen S., Berkowitz L. The reluctance to transmit bad news. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 8 (1975) (Academic Press, New York) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tesser A., Rosen S., Batchelor T. Some message variables and the Mum effect. J. Comm. (1972) 22:239–256CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tesser A., Rosen S., Tesser M. On the reluctance to communicate undesirable messages (the Mum effect): A field study. Psych. Rep. (1971) 29:651–654CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Trevino L. K., Daft R. L., Lengel R. H., Fulk J., Steinfeld C. Understanding managers media choices: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Organizations and Communications Technology (1990) (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Valacich J. S., Dennis A. R., Connolly T. Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1994) 57:448–467CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Vecchio R. P., Gobdel B. C. The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1984) 34:5–20Google Scholar
  • Waitzkin H. Doctor-patient communication: Clinical implications of social scientific research. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. (1984) 252:2441–2446CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Walther J. B. Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Comm. Res. (1992) 19(1):52–91CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Waterton J. J., Duffy J. C. A comparison of computer interviewing techniques and traditional methods in the collection of self-report alcohol consumption data in a field study. Internat. Statist. Rev. (1984) 52:173–182CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Wayne S. J., Ferris G. R. Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and a field study. J. Appl. Psych. (1990) 75:487–499CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Webster J., Trevino L. K. Rational and social theories as complementary explanations of communication media choices: Two policy-capturing studies. Acad. Management J. (1995) 38(6):1554–1572Weisband, S. P. 1992. Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes 53 352-380CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Weisband S. P., Schneider S. K., Connolly T. Electronic communication and social information: Status salience and status differences. Acad. Management J. (1995) 38(4):1124–1151CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Zajonc R. B. Social facilitation. Science (1965) 149:269–274CrossrefGoogle Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.