Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T23:21:07.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

General Group Process Systems

from Part V - Coding Schemes for Interaction Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2018

Edited by
Elisabeth Brauner ,
Margarete Boos  and
Michaela Kolbe
Elisabeth Brauner
Affiliation:
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Margarete Boos
Affiliation:
University of Göttingen
Michaela Kolbe
Affiliation:
ETH Zürich
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis , pp. 421 - 458
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Primary Sources

Kauffeld, S. (2006a). Kompetenzen messen, bewerten, entwickeln [Measuring, evaluating, and developing competencies]. Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer-Poeschel.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S., Grote, S., & Frieling, E. (2000). Die Diagnose beruflicher Handlungskompetenz: Das Kasseler-Kompetenz-Raster [Diagnosis of professional competence: The Cassel competency grid]. In Geißler, K. A. & Loos, W. (Eds.), Handbuch Personalentwicklung (pp. 1–22). Cologne, Germany: Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst.Google Scholar
Meinecke, A. L., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2015). Social dynamics at work: Meetings as a gateway. In Allen, J. A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Rogelberg, S. G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of meeting science (pp. 325–356). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Secondary Sources

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bales, R. F., & Cohen, S. P. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Fisch, F. (1994). Eine Methode zur Analyse von Interaktionsprozessen beim Problemlösen in Gruppen [A method for the analysis of interaction processes during group problem solving]. Gruppendynamik, 25, 149–168.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S. (2006b). Self-directed work groups and team competence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 1–21. doi:10.1348/096317905X53237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S. (2007). Jammern oder Lösungsexploration: Eine sequenzanalytische Betrachtung des Interaktionsprozesses in betrieblichen Gruppen bei der Bewältigung von Optimierungsaufgaben [Complaining or exploration of solutions: A sequential examination of interaction processes in work groups when completing optimization tasks]. German Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 51, 55–67. doi:10.1026/0932-4089.51.2.55Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S. (2010). Das Kasseler-Kompetenz-Raster [The Cassel competency grid]. In Sarges, W., Wottawa, H., & Roos, C. (Eds.), Handbuch wirtschaftspsychologischer Testverfahren, Band II: Organisationspsychologische Instrumente (2nd edn., pp. 165–173). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S., Grote, S., & Frieling, E. (2000). Die Diagnose beruflicher Handlungskompetenz: Das Kasseler-Kompetenz-Raster [Diagnosis of professional competence: The Cassel competency grid]. In Geißler, K. A. & Loos, W. (Eds.), Handbuch Personalentwicklung (pp. 1–22). Cologne, Germany: Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meeting communication on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 128–156. doi:10.1177/1046496411429599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Meyers, R. (2009). Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 267–294. doi:10.1080/13594320701693209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klonek, F. E., Quera, V., Burba, M., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Group interactions and time: Using sequential analysis to study group dynamics in project meetings. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20, 209–222. doi:10.1037/gdn0000052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Allen, J. A. (2014). How fun are your meetings? Investigating the relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1278–1287. doi:10.1037/a0038083CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Allen, J. A. (2017). Well, now what do we do? Wait … : A group process analysis of meeting lateness. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2329488417696725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Meinecke, A. L. (2014). Observing culture: Differences in U.S.-American and German team meeting behaviors. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 252–271. doi:10.1177/1368430213497066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Beck, S. J., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Emergent team roles in organizational meetings: Identifying communication patterns via cluster analysis. Communication Studies, 67, 37–57. doi:10.1080/10510974.2015.1074087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Chiu, M. M., Lei, Z., & Kauffeld, S. (2017). Understanding positivity within dynamic team interactions: A statistical discourse analysis. Group & Organization Management, 42, 39–78. doi:10.1177/1059601116628720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2010). The downside of communication: Complaining cycles in group discussions. In Schuman, S. (Ed.), The handbook for working with difficult groups: How they are difficult, why they are difficult, what you can do (pp. 33–54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.Google Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Meinecke, A. L., Rowold, J., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). How transformational leadership works during team interactions: A behavioral process analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 1017–1033. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangold. (2014). INTERACT user manual. Retrieved from www.mangold-international.comGoogle Scholar
van der Haar, S., Koeslag-Kreunen, M., Euwe, E., & Segers, M. (2017). Team leader structuring for team effectiveness and team learning in command-and-control teams. Small Group Research, 48, 215–248. doi:10.1177/1046496417689897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schermuly, C. C., & Scholl, W. (2011). Instrument zur Kodierung von Diskussionen (IKD) [Discussion Coding System (DCS)]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Schermuly, C. C., & Scholl, W. (2012). The Discussion Coding System (DCS). A new instrument for analyzing communication processes. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 12–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Boos, M. (1995). Die sequentielle Strukturierung sozialer Interaktion [The sequential structure of social interaction]. In Langenthaler, W. & Schiepek, G. (Hrsg.), Selbstorganisation und Dynamik in Gruppen (pp. 209–221). Münster: Lit.Google Scholar
Brauner, E. (2006). Kodierung transaktiver Wissensprozesse (TRAWIS). Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Wissenstransfers in Interaktionen [Transactive Knowledge Coding System (TRAWIS): A schema for the assessment of knowledge transfer in interactions]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37, 99–112. doi:10.1024/0044-3514.37.2.99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, R. (1994). Eine Methode zur Analyse von Interaktionsprozessen beim Problemlösen in Gruppen [A method for the analysis of interaction processes during group problem solving]. Gruppendynamik, 25, 149–168.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2006). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heise, D. R. (2007). Expressive order. Confirming sentiments in social action. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Ianiro, P. M., & Kauffeld, S. (2014). Take care what you bring with you: How coaches’ mood and interpersonal behavior affect coaching success. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 66, 231–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ianiro, P. M., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). Coaches and clients in action: A sequential analysis of interpersonal coach and client behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 435–456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9374-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ianiro, P. M., Schermuly, C. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Why interpersonal affiliation and dominance matter: An interaction analysis of the coach-client relationship. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research & Practice, 6, 25–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2012.740489Google Scholar
Jacobs, I., & Scholl, W. (2005). Interpersonale Adjektivliste (IAL): Die empirische Umsetzung theoretischer Circumplex-Eigenschaften für die Messung interpersonaler Stile [Interpersonal Adjective List (IAL): The empirical implementation of theoretical circumplex characteristics for the measurement of interpersonal styles]. Diagnostica, 51, 145–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.51.3.145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kämmer, J. E., Gaissmaier, W., Reimer, T., & Schermuly, C. C. (2014). The adaptive use of recognition in group decision making. Cognitive Science, 38, 911–942. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolbe, M. (2007). Koordination von Entscheidungsprozessen in Gruppen. Die Bedeutung expliziter Koordinationsmechanismen. [Process coordination in decision making groups. The meaning of explicit coordination mechanisms]. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Luxen, M. F. (2005). Gender differences in dominance and affiliation during a demanding interaction. The Journal of Psychology, 139, 331–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.4.331-347CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, B., Burtscher, M. J., Jonas, K., Feese, S., Arnrich, B., Tröster, G., & Schermuly, C. C. (2016). What good leaders actually do: Micro-level leadership behavior, leader evaluations, and team decision quality. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 773–789. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1189903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, B., & Schermuly, C. C. (2012). When beliefs are not enough: Examining the interaction of diversity faultlines, task motivation, and diversity beliefs on team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 456–487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.560383CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sachs, L. (1999). Angewandte Statistik. Anwendung statistischer Methoden (Applied statistics. Application of statistical methods). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Scharpf, U., & Fisch, R. (1989). Das Schicksal von Vorschlägen in Beratungs- und Entscheidungssitzungen. Ein Beitrag zur Analyse inhaltlicher Aspekte der Interaktion bei der Entscheidungsfindung in Gruppen [The fate of proposals in consultation and decision situations. A contribution to the analysis of content aspects of interaction in group decision-making]. Gruppendynamik, 20, 283–296.Google Scholar
Schermuly, C. C., Schröder, T., Nachtwei, J. & Scholl, W. (2010). Das Instrument zur Kodierung von Diskussionen (IKD): Ein Verfahren zur zeitökonomischen und validen Kodierung von Interaktionen in Organisationen [The Discussion Coding System (DCS): An instrument for valid and time-efficient coding of interactions in organizations]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 54, 149–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schröder, T., Netzel, J., Schermuly, C. C., & Scholl, W. (2013). Culture-constrained affective consistency of interpersonal behavior. A test of affect control theory with nonverbal expressions. Social Psychology, 44, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjøvold, E. (2007). Systematizing person-group relations (SPGR). A field theory of social interaction. Small Group Research, 38, 615–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950b). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Allen, W. R., Comerford, R. A., & Ruhe, J. A. (1989). Factor analytic study of Bales’ Interaction Process Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 701–707. doi:10.1177/001316448904900325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950a). A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction. American Sociological Review, 15, 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F., & Cohen, S. P. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 485–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, D., & Fisch, R. (2000). Argumentation and emotional processes in group decision-making: Illustration of a multilevel interaction process analysis approach. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 183–201. doi:10.1177/1368430200003002005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. J., & Keyton, J. (2009). Perceiving strategic meeting interaction. Small Group Research, 40, 223–246. doi:10.1177/1046496408330084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. J., & Keyton, J. (2012). Team cognition, communication, and message interdependence. In Salas, E., Fiore, S. F., & Letsky, M. (Eds.), Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 471–494). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beck, S. J., & Keyton, J. (2014). Facilitating social support: Member-leader communication in a breast cancer support group. Cancer Nursing, 37, E36–43. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e3182813829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. J., Paskewitz, E. A., Anderson, W. A., Bourdeaux, , & Currie-Mueller, J. (2017). The task and relational dimensions of online social support. Health Communication, 32, 347–355. doi:10.1080/10410236.2016.1138383CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, K. S., Im, I., & Hofstede, G. J. (2016). A cross-cultural comparative analysis of small group collaboration using mobile twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 308–318. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, M. R., Kunkel, A., & Keyton, J. (2008). Problematic integration theory, appraisal theory, and the Bosom Buddies Breast Cancer Support Group. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 415–436. doi:10.1080/00909880802094315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin, J., Bonito, J., & Keyton, J. (2017). Convergence of intrapersonal and interpersonal processes across group meetings. Communication Monographs, 84, 200–220. doi:10.1080/03637751.2016.1185136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahy, , P. (2005). Online and face-to-face group interaction processes compared using Bales’ Interaction Process Analysis (IPA). Retrieved February 14, 2018, from www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Patrick_J_Fahy.htmGoogle Scholar
Fisher, B. A. (1970). Decision emergence: Phases in group decision‐making. Speech Monographs, 7, 53–66. doi:10.1080/03637757009375649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, H., & Goh, D.H-L. (2014). ‘‘I Have AIDS”: Content analysis of postings in HIV/AIDS support group on a Chinese microblog, 34, 219–226. Retrieved February 14, 2018, from www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Patrick_J_Fahyhtm.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 45–99. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60248-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225–252 doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00104.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyton, J. (1997). Coding communication in decision-making groups: Assessing effective and ineffective process. In Frey, L. R. & Barge, J. K. (Eds.), Managing group life: Communication in decision-making groups (pp. 236–269). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Keyton, J. (2003). Observing group interaction. In Hirokawa, R. Y., Cathcart, R. S., Samovar, L. A., & Henman, L. D., Small group communication: Theory and practice (8th edn., pp. 256–266). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.Google Scholar
Keyton, J., & Beck, S. J. (2009). The influential role of relational messages in group interaction. Group Dynamics, 13, 14–30. doi:10.1037/a0013495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology. American Journal of Sociology, 44, 868–896. doi:10.1086/218177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., Rau, P-L. P., Li, H., & Maedche, A. (2017). Effects of a dyad’s cultural intelligence on global virtual collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60, 56–75. doi:10.1109/TPC.2016.2632842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lofstrand, P., & Zakrisson, I. (2014). Competitive versus non-competitive goals in group decision-making. Small Group Research, 45, 451–464. doi:10.1177/1046496414532954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mabry, E. A. (1975). An instrument for assessing content themes in group interaction. Speech Monographs, 42, 191–297. doi:10.1080/03637757509375904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2002). The meaning of an online health community in the lives of its members: Roles, relationships and group dynamics. Published in the proceedings of the IEEE 2002 International Symposium on Technology and Society: Social Implications of Information and Communication Technology. doi:10.1109/ISTAS.2002.1013791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2005). Multilevel analysis of sociability, usability, and community dynamics in an online health community. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 12, 201–232. doi:10.1145/1067860.1067864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pena, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2006). An analysis of socioemotional and task communication in online multiplayer video games. Communication Research, 33, 92–109. doi:10.1177/0093650205283103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Folger, J. P. (1981). A method for establishing the representational validity of interaction coding systems: Do we see what they see? Human Communication Research, 8, 26–42. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1981.tb00654.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2004). Validity in quantitative content analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futoran, G. C., Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1989). TEMPO: A time-based system for analysis of group interaction process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 211–232. doi:10.1207/2s15324834basp1003.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Karau, S. J., & Kelly, J. R. (1992). The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 542–571. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(92)90045-LCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130–158. doi:10 1177/1046496411429599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolbe, M., Strack, M., Stein, A., & Boos, M. (2011). Effective coordination in human group decision making: MICRO_CO: A micro-analytical taxonomy for analyzing explicit coordination mechanisms in decision-making groups. In Boos, M. et al. (Eds.), Coordination in Human and Primate Groups (pp. 199–219). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15355-6_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y. C., & Burn, J. M. (2007). Improving the performance of online learning teams – A discourse analysis. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18, 369–379.Google Scholar
McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Research, 22, 147–174. doi:10.1177/1046496491222001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordback, E., & Sivunen, A. (2013). Leadership behaviors in virtual team meetings taking place in a 3D virtual world. 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2013.380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, S. G. (1997). Technology, group process, and group outcomes: Testing the connections in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 227–266. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1203_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, S. G. (1999). Testing a typology of tasks: An empirical validation of McGrath’s (1984) Group Task Circumplex. Small Group Research, 30, 166–187. doi:10.1177/104649649903000202CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×