Videoconferencing in the Field: A Heuristic Processing Model

References

• Alavi M., Wheeler B. C., Valacich J. S. Using IT to reengineer business education: An exploratory investigation of collaborative telelearning. MIS Quart. (1995) 19(3):293–312Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson A. H., Newlands A., Mullin J., Fleming A. M., Doherty-Sneddon G., Van der Velden J. Impact of video-mediated communication on simulated service encounters. Interacting Comput. (1996) 8(2):193–206Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bailey J. E., Pearson S. W. Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Sci. (1983) 29(5):530–546Link, Google 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(6):1173–1182Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bogner W. C., Barr P. S. Making sense in hypercompetitive environments: A cognitive explanation for the persistence of high velocity competition. Organ. Sci. (2000) 11(2Link, Google Scholar
• Brazel J. F., Agoglia C. P., Hatfield R. C. Electronic versus face-to-face review: The effects of alternative forms of review on auditors' performance. Accounting Rev. (2004) 79(4):949Crossref, Google Scholar
• Browne M. W., Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol. Methods Res. (1992) 21(2):230–258Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell J. A. Participation in videoconferenced meetings: User disposition and meeting context. Inform. Management (1998) 34(6):329–338Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaiken S. Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1979) 37(8):1387–1397Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaiken S. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1980) 39(5):752–766Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaiken S., Eagly A. H. Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1983) 45(2):241–256Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaiken S., Liberman A., Eagly A. H., Uleman J. S., Bargh J. A. Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. Unintended Thought (1989) (Guilford Press, New York) 212–252Google Scholar
• Chidambaram L. Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quart. (1996) 20(2):143–166Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen A. R., Hovland C. I. Need for cognition and order of communication as determinants of opinion change. The Order of Presentation in Persuasion (1957) (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT) 79–97Google Scholar
• Crede M., Sniezek J. A. Group judgment processes and outcomes in video-conferencing versus face-to-face groups. Internat. J. Human-Comput. Stud. (2003) 59(6):875–897Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daft R. L., Lengel R. H. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Sci. (1986) 32(5):554–571Link, Google Scholar
• Davids M. Smiling for the camera. J. Bus. Strategy (1999) 20(3):20–24Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis A. W., Beattie M. F., Nilssen A. H. Rich media conferencing, Vol. 2: Enterprise Group and Personal Videoconferencing Clients. (2004) . Report RP-RMC04-V2, Wainhouse Research, Brookline, MAGoogle Scholar
• Deutsch M., Gerard H. B. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. J. Abnormal Soc. Psych. (1955) 51:624–636Crossref, Google Scholar
• Doherty-Sneddon G., Anderson A., O'Malley C., Langton S., Garrod S., Bruce V. Face-to-face and video-mediated communication: A comparison of dialogue structure and task performance. J. Experiment. Psych.: Appl. (1997) 3(2):105–125Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eagly A. H., Chaiken S.The Psychology of Attitudes (1993) (Hartcourt Brace College Publishers, New York) Google Scholar
• Eagly A. H., Ashmore R. D., Makhijani M. G., Longo L. C. What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on physical attractiveness stereotype. Psych. Bull. (1991) 110(1):109–128Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferran-Urdaneta C., Storck J. Truth or deception: The impact of videoconferencing for job interviews. Proc. 18th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (1997) (Association for Information Systems, Atlanta) 183–196Google Scholar
• Fulk J. Social construction of communication technology. Acad. Management J. (1993) 36(5):921–950Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilly M. C., Graham J. L., Wolfinbarger M. F., Yale L. J. A dyadic study of interpersonal information search. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. (1998) 26(2):83–100Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hart S. G., Staveland L. E., Hancock P. A., Meshkati N. Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Human Mental Workload (1988) 52(Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam) 139–183Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hill S. G., Iavecchia H. P., Byers J. C., Bittner A. C., Zaklad A. L., Christ R. E. Comparison of four subjective workload rating scales. Human Factors (1992) 34:429–439Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jonasson D. H., Kwon H. I. Communication patterns in computer-mediated versus face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Tech. Res. Development (2001) 49:35–51Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kelman H. C. Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quart. (1961) 25(1):57–78Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kiesler S., Sproull L. Group decision making and communication technology. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1992) 52:96–123Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liberman A., Chaiken S. The direct effect of personal relevance on attitudes. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. (1996) 22(3):269–279Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacKinnon D., Lockwood C., Hoffman J., West S., Sheets V. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psych. Methods (2002) 7(1):83–104Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGuire W. J., Lindzey G., Aronson E. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. The Handbook of Social Psychology (1969) 32nd ed.(Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA) 136–314Google Scholar
• Mennecke B. E., Valacich J. S., Wheeler B. C. The effects of media and task on user performance: A test of the task-media fit hypothesis. Group Decision Negotiation (2000) 9(6):507–529Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morgan-Lopez A. A., MacKinnon D. P. Demonstration and evaluation of a method for assessing mediated moderation. Behav. Res. Methods (2006) 38(1):77–87Crossref, Google Scholar
• Muller D., Yzerbyt V. Y., Judd C. M. When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2005) 89(6):852–863Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nunnally J. C., Bernstein I. H.Psychometric Theory (1994) 3rd ed.(McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• O'Conaill B., Whittaker S., Wilbur S. Conversations over video conferences: An evaluation of the spoken aspects of video-mediated communication. Human Comput. Interaction (1993) 8(4):389–428Crossref, Google Scholar
• O'Malley C., Langton S., Anderson A., Doherty-Sneddon G., Bruce V. Comparison of face-to-face and video-mediated interaction. Interacting Comput. (1996) 8(2):177–192Crossref, Google Scholar
• Olson G. M., Olson J. S., Finn K. E., Sellen A. J., Wilbur S. B. Making sense of the findings: Common vocabulary leads to the synthesis necessary for theory building. Video-Mediated Communication (1997) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ) 75–92Google Scholar
• Petty R. E., Cacioppo J. T.Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change (1986a) (Springer-Verlag, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Petty R. E., Cacioppo J. T., Berkowitz L. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (1986b) 19(Academic Press, New York) 123–205Google Scholar
• Reger R. K., Palmer T. B. Managerial categorization of competitors: Using old maps to navigate new environments. Organ. Sci. (1996) 7(1):22–39Link, Google Scholar
• Rice R. E., Love G. Electronic emotion. Comm. Res. (1987) 14:85–108Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robert L. P., Dennis A. R. Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Trans. Professional Comm. (2005) 48(1):10–21Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubio S., Díaz E., Martín J., Puente J. M. Evaluation of subjective mental workload: A comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods. Appl. Psych.: An Internat. Rev. (2004) 53(1):61–86Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sanford A., Anderson A. H., Mullin J. Audio channel constraints in video-mediated communication. Interacting Comput. (2004) 16:1069–1094Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sellen A. Remote conversations—The effects of mediating talk with technology. Human Comput. Interaction (1995) 10(4):401–444Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shachtman N. Pentagon preps mind fields for smarter war stations. Wired News (2007) March 21). http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/03/72996?currentPage=allGoogle Scholar
• Short J., Williams E., Christie B.The Social Psychology of Telecommunications (1976) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• Sproull L., Kiesler S. Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Sci. (1986) 32(11):1492–1512Link, Google Scholar
• Stamm K., Dube R. The relationship of attitudinal components to trust in media. Comm. Res. (1994) 21(1):105–123Crossref, Google Scholar
• Storck J. S. Oh say, can you see: The impact of video communication on attention, workload, and decision-making. (1995) . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, BostonGoogle Scholar
• Suh K. S. Impact of communication medium on task performance and satisfaction: An examination of media-richness theory. Inform. Management (1999) 35(5):295Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suh K. S., Jenkins A. M. A comparison of linear keyword and restricted natural language data base interfaces for novice users. Inform. Systems Res. (1992) 3(3):252–272Link, Google Scholar
• Sumner M., Hostetler D. A comparative study of computer conferencing and face-to-face communications in systems design. J. Interaction Learn. Res. (2002) 13:277–291Google Scholar
• Sussman S. W., Seigal W. S. Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Inform. Systems Res. (2003) 14(1):47–66Link, Google Scholar
• Sussman S. W., Sproull L. Straight talk: Delivering bad news through electronic communications. Inform. Systems Res. (1999) 10(2):150–166Link, Google Scholar
• Taylor S. E., Thompson S. C. Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psych. Rev. (1982) 89(2):155–181Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trumbo C. W. Information processing and risk perception: An adaptation of the heuristic-systematic model. J. Comm. (2002) 52(2):367–382Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walther J. B. Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Comm. Res. (1992) 19(1):52–90Crossref, Google Scholar
• Webster J. Desktop videoconferencing: Experiences of complete users, wary users, and non-users. MIS Quart. (1998) 22(3):257–286Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weinstein I. M., Davis A. W. The business case for videoconferencing. (2005) . White paper, Wainhouse Research, Brookline, MA. http://www.wrplatinum.com/BekijkSamenvatting.asp?Inhoud snummer=3463Google Scholar
• Weisband S. P., Schneider S. K., Connolly T. Computer-mediated communication and social information: Social salience and status differences. Acad. Management J. (1995) 38(4):1124–1151Crossref, Google Scholar