Calendar

May 22

Knowing (by) Designing 2013

May 27

13th Intl. Conf. on New Interfaces for Musical Expression

May 28

Graphics Interface 2013

May 21

“ Computer analyst to programmer: "You start coding. I'll go find out what they want." ”

-- Popular computer one-liner

Share this quote on...
Get more quotes via RSS or by joining our Usability Quote of the Day Facebook Page

Featured chapter

Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann

Read Steve's chapter !

Help us help you!

Spread the word:
Donate
Other ways to help

Susan G. Straus

Add description

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Rename / change spelling

Add publication

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Publications by Susan G. Straus (bibliography)

1997

Edit | Del

Straus, Susan G. (1997): Technology, Group Process, and Group Outcomes: Testing the Connections in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Groups. In Human-Computer Interaction, 12 (3) pp. 227-266.

“This article examines the effect of communication media on group processes and the consequent effect of processes on group cohesiveness, satisfaction, and productivity using mediated regression analysis. Data are based on Straus and McGrath (1994), in which 72 three-person groups worked on idea generation, intellective, and judgment tasks in either computer-mediated (CM) or face-to-face (FTF) discussions. Straus and McGrath found that in comparison to FTF groups, CM groups were less productive across tasks and expressed lower satisfaction in the judgment task. This article adds to findings about group outcomes by showing that CM groups expressed lower cohesiveness than did FTF groups. Analysis of communication processes shows that CM groups had higher proportions of task communication and disagreement and greater equality of participation. In contrast to prior reports that people using electronic communication are depersonalized, CM groups did not engage in more attacking behavior and they exchanged higher rates of supportive communication than did FTF groups. Mediated regression analysis reveals that the group process accounted for the effect of communication mode on cohesiveness and satisfaction but not on productivity. Results suggest that media effects on outcomes, as well as on processes such as task focus and equality of participation, are due to the rates by which CM and FTF groups operate and not necessarily because of any inherently depersonalizing feature of electronic communication.”

1989

Edit | Del

Straus, Susan G. and Cooper, Russell S. (1989): Crew Structure, Automation, and Communication: Interaction of Social and Technological Factors on Complex Systems Performance. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 783-787.

“The effects of automation and task group social structure on group communication and performance are investigated in a simulated flight experiment. Fifty, two-person crews flew a ninety minute mission in a fully instrumented, GAT-II simulator. Crews were composed to be either homogeneous or heterogeneous with respect to crew members' flight experience and age. Approximately half of the crews flew with the aid of automated control the other half flew manually. All cockpit Communications were recorded and subjected to content analysis. Based on the analysis of twenty-four transcripts, there was no overall difference in communication patterns as a function of crew composition. However, the results indicated that heterogeneous crews tended to exchange a higher ratio of task relevant to task irrelevant statements compared to homogeneous crews, but this tendency was moderated by automation level. This interaction corresponds to performance data that show enhanced performance for heterogeneous crews in the automated condition. Additional evidence and discussion suggest that group structure and interaction may contribute to the observed performance differences.”

Add publication