skip to main content
10.1145/2441776.2441782acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Effect of message content on communication processes in intercultural and same-culture instant messaging conversations

Authors Info & Claims
Published:23 February 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper we explore how and why communication problems such as lack of understanding, low involvement, and negative emotions emerged during the computer-mediated conversations of same-culture and cross-culture pairs. We used retrospective analysis, in which pairs of cross-culture and same-culture American and Chinese participants collaborated on a crime-solving task via Instant Messaging (IM), and later reviewed their IM conversations to report their thoughts and feelings on a minute-by-minute basis. We found differences in the types of messages people produced based on the cultural combination of the pairs. We also found that the content of their partner's messages influenced participants' involvement and negative emotions during the conversation. Our results provide insights into the conversational processes of computer-mediated intercultural teams, and have implications for the design of intercultural collaboration tools.

References

  1. Bales, R. F. (1950). A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction. American Sociological Review, 15, 257--263.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Black, S., Levin, J., Mehan, H. & Quinn, C. (1983). "Real and Non-real Time Interaction: Unraveling Multiple Threads of Discourse". Discourse Processes, 6, 59--75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Cegala, D. J., Savage, G. T., Brunner, C. C., & Conrad, A. (1982). An elaboration of the meaning of interaction involvement: Toward the development of a theoretical concept. Communication Monograghs, 49, 229--248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Chen, L. (1995). Interaction involvement and patterns of topical talk: A comparison of intercultural and intracultural dyads. International journal of Intercultural Relations, 19, 463--482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, R. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington DC: APA Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346--371. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Cramton, C. D. & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning? Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 231--263.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlations Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Coker, D. & Burgoon, J. (1987). The nature of conversational involvement and non-verbal encoding patterns. Human Communication Research, 13, 463--494.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Gallois, C., Franklyn-Stokes, A., Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1988). Communication accommodation in intercultural encounters. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gill, A. J., French, R. M., Gergle, D., & Oberlander, J. (2008). The Language of Emotion in Short Blog Texts. Proceedings of CSCW 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Rituals: Essays in Face to Face Behavior. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Gottman, J. M. & Levenson, R. W. (1985). A valid procedure for obtaining self-report of affect in marital interaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 151--160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Comm. Research, 22, 510.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Hancock, J. T., Gee, K., Ciaccio, K. & Mae-Hwah Lin, J. M.-H. (2008). I'm sad you're sad: emotional contagion in CMC. Proc. CSCW '08. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Herring, S. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4, 4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Hinds, P. & Kiesler, S. (2002). Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Hung, Y. T. & Nguyen, D. (2008). The impact of cultural diversity on global virtual team collaboration - A social identity perspective. Proc. of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2000). The global virtual manager: A prescription for success. European Management Journal, 18, 183.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. (2001). Emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 99--130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. & McGuire, T. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123--1134.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Kiesler, S., Zubrow, D., Moses, A., & Geller, V. (1985). Affect in computer-mediated communication: an experiment in synchronous terminal-to-terminal discussion. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 77--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Kraut, R., Lewis, S., Swezey, L. W. (1982). Listener responsiveness and the coordination of conversation. J. Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 718--731.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Leshed, G., Hancock, J., Cosley, D., McLeod, P. & Gay, C. (2007). Feedback for guiding reflection on teamwork practices. Proc. GROUP 2007. 217--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Li, H. Z. (1999a). Grounding and information communication in intercultural and intracultural dyadic discourse. Discourse Processes, 28, 195.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Li, H. Z. (1999b). Communicating information in conversations: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 387.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Li, H. Z. (2006). Backchannel responses as misleading feedback in intercultural discourse. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35, 2, 99--116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Lipnack, J. & Stamp, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching Across Space, Time and Organizations with Technology. NY: John Wiley & Sons. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Littell, R., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., & Wolfinger, R. D. (1996). SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Nguyen, D. & Fussell, S. (2012). How did you feel during our conversations: Retrospective analysis of intercultural and same-culture instant messaging conversations. Proc. CSCW 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Olson, G. M. & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human Computer Interaction, 15, 139--178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Otondo, R. F., Van Scotter, J. R., Allen, D. G., & Palvia, P. (2008). The Complexity of Richness: Media, Message, and Communication Outcomes. Information & Management, 40, 21--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Patterson, M. L. (1983). Nonverbal behavior: A functional perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Rice, R. & Love, G. (1987). Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14, 1, 85--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of "uh huh'' and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71--93).Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Setlock, L. D. & Fussell, S. R. (2010). What's it worth to you? The costs and affordances of CMC tools to Asian and American users. Proc. CSCW 2010, 341--350. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Setlock, L. D., Quinones, P. & Fussell, S. R. (2007). Does culture interact with media richness? The effects of audio vs. video conferencing on Chinese and American dyads. Proc. HICSS 2007, 13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Setlock, L. D., Fussell, S. R. & Neuwirth, C. (2004). Taking it out of context: collaborating within and across cultures in face-to-face settings and via instant messaging. Proc. CSCW 2004, 604--613. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Villaume, W. A. & Cegala, D. J. (1988). Interaction involvement and discourse strategies: The patterned use of cohesive devices in conversation. Communication Monographs, 55, 20--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Walther, J. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6, 186--203.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Wang, H., Fussell, S. F. & Setlock, L. D. (2009). Cultural difference and adaptation of communication styles in computer-mediated group brainstorming. Proc. CHI 2009, 669--678. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Yuan, Y., Bazarova, N., Zhang, Z. X., & Fulk, J. (2012). Recognition of Expertise and Perceived Influence in Intercultural Group Collaboration: A Study of Mixed American and Chinese Intercultural Groups. Paper presented at the 2012 Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Effect of message content on communication processes in intercultural and same-culture instant messaging conversations

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CSCW '13: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work
      February 2013
      1594 pages
      ISBN:9781450313315
      DOI:10.1145/2441776

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 23 February 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CSCW '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader