Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- General Group Process Systems
- Argument, Conflict, and Negotiations
- Coordination and Coherence
- 30 CoCo
- 31 Co-ACT
- 32 SO-DIC-OR
- Cognition and Metacognition
- Personality and Team Behavior
- Roles and Relationships
- Appendix
- Index
- References
30 - CoCo
A Category System for Coding Coherence in Conversations
from Coordination and Coherence
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2018
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- General Group Process Systems
- Argument, Conflict, and Negotiations
- Coordination and Coherence
- 30 CoCo
- 31 Co-ACT
- 32 SO-DIC-OR
- Cognition and Metacognition
- Personality and Team Behavior
- Roles and Relationships
- Appendix
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis , pp. 502 - 509Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Primary Sources
Boos, M., & Cornelius, C. (2001). Bedeutung und Erfassung konversationaler Kohärenz in direkter und computervermittelter Kommunikation [Meaning and Measurement of Conversational Coherence in Direct and Computer-mediated Communication]. In Hesse, F.W. & Friedrich, H.F. (Eds.). Partizipation und Interaktion im virtuellen Seminar (pp. 55–80). Muenster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Cornelius, C., & Boos, M. (2003). Enhancing mutual understanding in synchronous computer-mediated communication by training: Trade-offs in judgmental tasks. Communication Research, 30, 147–177. doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secondary Sources
Boos, M., Riethmüller, M., & Cornelius, C. (2013). Sozialer Einfluss in Chat‐Gruppen: Geschlechtsspezifische Auswirkungen auf konversationale Partizipation und Kohärenz [Social influence in chat groups: Gender-specific effects on conversational participation and coherence]. Gruppendynamik & Organisationsberatung, 44, 445‐460. doi.org/10.1007/s11612-013-0226-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappella, J. N. (1994). The management of conversational interaction in adults and infants. In Knapp, M. L. & Miller, G. R. (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 380–418). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cornelius, C. (1996). Themenentwicklung in Gruppendiskussionen [Topic development in group discussions]. University of Konstanz: Unpublished Diploma Thesis.Google Scholar
Cornelius, C. (2001). Gegenseitiges Verständnis in Computerkonferenzen. Voraussetzungen und Folgen konversationaler Kohärenz in Entscheidungsfindungsgruppen im Medienvergleich [Mutual understanding in computer conferences: Conditions and effects of conversational coherence in decision-making groups]. Muenster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Cornelius, C., & Boos, M. (1999). Es lohnt sich, kohärent zu sein! [It is worthwile to be coherent!] In Reips, U.-D. (Ed.), Aktuelle Online Forschung – Trends, Techniken, Ergebnisse [Current internet science – trends, techniques, results]. Zürich, Switzerland: Online Press. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from http://iscience.deusto.es/archive/reips/books/tband99/pdfs/a_h/cornelius.pdfGoogle Scholar
Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Crow, B. K. (1983). Topic shifts in couples’ conversations. In Craig, R. T. & Tracy, K. (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy (pp. 136–156). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd edn.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Grosz, B. J. (1977). The representation and use of focus in a system for understanding dialogs. Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 67–76). Cambridge, Massachusetts. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/77-1/Papers/009.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hewes, D. E. (1996). Small group communication may not influence decision making. An amplification of socio-egocentric theory. In Hirokawa, R. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (pp. 179–211). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1972). Einfache Sozialsysteme [Simple social systems]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 1, 51–65. doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-1972-0105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcomb, T. M. (1959). Individual systems of orientation. In Koch, S. (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science, Vol. 3 (pp. 384–422). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ng, S. H., & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pavitt, C., & Johnson, K. K. (1999). An examination of the coherence of group discussions. Communication Research, 26, 303–321. doi.org/10.1177/009365099026003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piontkowski, U., Oehlschlegel-Haubrock, S., & Hoelker, P. (1997). Annaeherung oder Abgrenzung? [Approximation or avoidance?] Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 26, 128–138. doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-1997-0204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichman, R. (1978). Conversational coherency. Cognitive Science, 2, 283–327. doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0204_1Google Scholar
Tracy, K. (1985). Conversational coherence: A cognitively grounded rules approach. In Street, R. L. & Cappella, J. N. (Eds.), Sequence and pattern in communicative behaviour (pp. 30–49). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Tschan, F. (1995). Communication enhances small group performance if it conforms to task requirements: The concept of ideal communication cycles. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 371–393. doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1703_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. New York, NY: Longmann.Google Scholar
Willke, H. (1978). Elemente einer Systemtheorie der Gruppe: Umweltbezug und Prozesssteuerung [Elements of a systems theory of groups: Environment relationship and process steering]. Soziale Welt, 29, 343–357. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from www.jstor.org/stable/40877230Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by