Participants' Opinions of Communication Effectiveness in
Online Group Interaction
Paul L. Witt
Texas Christian University
About the author: Paul L. Witt (Ph.D., University of North Texas, 2000) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Texas Christian University. An earlier version of this study, co-authored with L. R. Wheeless, J. Reyna, and K. Swigger, was presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA. For information, contact the author at the TCU Department of Communication Studies, Box 298045, Fort Worth, TX 76129 (Telephone 817-257-6683), or e-mail .
This study explored the possible association between degrees of verbal immediacy and feelings of communication effectiveness among members of online, real-time, problem-solving groups. The unedited transcripts of eight online groups of three students each were analyzed for proximity and participation, two components of the verbal immediacy construct. The effectiveness of group members' communication was measured by their response to a post-task survey. Results indicated that participants in groups using more frequent expressions of verbal immediacy reported significantly higher perceptions of their group's communication effectiveness. These findings have importance for communicators seeking to adapt to computer- mediated contexts and maximize the effectiveness of online interactions.
When group interactions occur online rather than face-to-face, the computer-mediated context presents group members with certain communication challenges. To a large degree, the nonverbal channels associated with face-to-face interactions are absent, a condition which presumably places greater responsibility on verbal messages for feedback, affect, and nuances of meaning. For example, members of face-to-face groups typically communicate interpersonal liking and approach through nonverbal immediacy cues such as eye contact, smiles, proximity, touch, open body positioning, and vocal expressiveness (Mehrabian, 1971, 1981; Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968). Because these types of nonverbal cues cannot be transmitted through text-based computer-mediated messages, some early researchers judged the online context as an unsatisfactory medium for meaningful interpersonal exchange (e.g., Sproull & Kiesler, 1986).
Nevertheless, current research indicates that small groups can and do work successfully in the online context (Finholt & Sproull, 1990; Walther, 1995; Watson, DeSanctis, & Poole, 1988), and group members sometimes report relational intimacy and communication satisfaction similar to or greater than that of face-to-face groups (e.g. Walther & Burgoon, 1992). The communication effectiveness of these online groups may be enhanced by members who make frequent use of verbal immediacy-using words to express messages of involvement usually conveyed through a smile, touch, or direct eye gaze. Because such verbal immediacy cues have been shown to reduce psychological distance between participants in distance learning (e.g., Hackman & Walker, 1990), it stands to reason that these communication behaviors may have similar effects in online work groups. Among the components of verbal immediacy are expressions of participation (we vs. you people), probability (I will vs. I could), mutuality (we met each other vs. I met her), proximity (these vs. those), concern, openness, inclusiveness, and a variety of other distance-reducing messages (Gorham, 1988; Jordan, 1989; Mehrabian, 1969, Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968).
Some of these communication cues are subtle, highly contextual, and difficult to measure and interpret, prompting a few scholars to question studies of verbal immediacy beyond Mehrabian's initial theoretical development (Robinson & Richmond, 1995; Sprague, 2002). However, a common practice in social scientific research is to select individual components of complex theoretical constructs, analyze them in isolation or in context, and interpret findings of the individual analyses in relation to the overall construct (e.g., Gorham, 1988; Guerrero & Miller, 1998; Kelley & Gorham, 1988). Following established practice, then, this research focused on two verbal immediacy components --proximity (this, here, these) and participation (we, us, our). Although contextual in usage and subtle in effect, these two types of verbal immediacy cues were selected because they require no interpretation by coders and lend themselves to direct measurement in terms of frequency of occurrence in group interactions. Moreover, since pronoun usage has been shown to be a significant communication strategy in the expression of organizational involvement in CMC (Sherblom, 1990), there is every reason to believe that verbally immediate expressions of participation and proximity may have similar results in online problem-solving groups.
The purpose of this study, then, was to examine the possible association between these two types of verbal immediacy and participants' opinions about the communication effectiveness of their online, real-time, problem-solving groups. Specifically, are group members' perceptions about the group's communication and decision-making effectiveness related to the frequency of use of these types of verbal immediacy during the group's online interaction? The following hypotheses guided the investigation:
H1: The frequency of verbally immediate participation expressions in online group interaction is positively associated with participants' opinions about the group's communication effectiveness.H2: The frequency of verbally immediate proximity expressions in online group interaction is positively associated with participants' opinions about the group's communication effectiveness.
Sample and Procedure
Data for this study consisted of unedited transcripts of group interaction among students enrolled in an undergraduate course in interpersonal communication at a metropolitan research university. The 88 students in this classroom course were organized into problem-solving groups of 3 students each, as part of a project to test an online, real-time, collaborative environment called Virtual Collaborative University (Card, Robertson, & Mackinlay, 1991; Reinhart, 1995; Swigger & Brazile, 1995; Swigger, Brazile, Lopez, & Livingston, 1997). The VCU environment supported chat, whiteboard, and application-sharing functions similar to those of Microsoft NetmeetingTM and other widely-used communication interfaces.
The online groups were randomly created for the purpose of this study, and the 3-person groups had no face-to-face meetings and no previous experience working together as a problem-solving team. Because the lecture course was occasionally subdivided into 4 sections of 22 students each, however, some students already had at least a casual acquaintance with each other. One student from each online group was identified by his or her graduate teaching assistant as the group leader, usually a person with some demonstrated computer skills. The function of the leader was to verify that each member of the group was connected and to report any technical difficulties to the monitor. Participation was required by the course but completion of the post-task questionnaire was optional, and points were given to students who completed the project and turned in the feedback form evaluating the online group experience. From a total of 88 students in 28 online work groups, 24 students (8 work groups of 3 students each) completed both the group activity and the post-task questionnaire, representing a 27% participation rate. Transcripts of these 8 online groups provided an unedited record of group interaction, and these transcripts formed the basis for analysis in the study.
Prior to the project, participants had received training in small group communication as part of the usual course content, including some online communication strategies such as avoiding long messages and sarcastic humor. The concept of nonverbal substitutions had been introduced, including the use of emoticons such as <:)> and <grin> and abbreviated messages such as <LOL> (Laughing Out Loud). Strategies for online group leaders had also been identified, such as frequent check-ins with each member, recapping discussion, and polling for group consensus. However, group leaders were not informed of their role until the activity began, and specific use of verbal immediacy was not discussed with participants prior to the study.
During regular class time, students were accompanied by their graduate teaching assistants to one of the campus computer labs, where they were instructed to log onto the network and establish contact with the other two members of their group. Group participants were dispersed throughout the lab, such that they were not seated in proximity to one another. Monitors ensured that no face-to-face interaction or visual contact occurred during the online session. The transcripts analyzed for this study were taken from a single online session of approximately 45 minutes in length, during which group members worked to solve the following problem: "You have just received $50, and the goal of your group is to use the $50 to make $1000 as soon as possible." As the groups worked to complete the problem-solving task, the collaborative environment software archived each group member's interaction.
Measurement
Communication effectiveness. Overall perceptions of the effectiveness of group members' communication during the online experience was measured by their paper-pencil responses to two items on the post-task feedback form: First, "In your opinion, how effectively did your team communicate using VCU?" Participants responded by circling Very well, Fairly well, Not very well, or Didn't work out at all. Second, "How effective was your team's discussion and decision-making using VCU?" to which participants responded by circling Very effective, Fairly effective, Not very effective, Didn't work out at all. Inter-item analysis yielded a correlation of .81, so item scores were summed to create a 2-item unidimensional measure of communication effectiveness.
Verbal immediacy. Because two components of the verbal immediacy construct, proximity and participation, lend themselves to objective, valid, and easily quantifiable measurement using computer-assisted techniques, these two immediacy types were selected for analysis in this study. Content analysis of group transcripts provided quantitative data that measured the frequency of the use of verbal expressions of proximity (this, these, here) and verbal expressions of participation (we, us, our). Two researchers associated with the study used Microsoft Word independently to perform computer-assisted word counts of the target words in the transcripts. Coding consisted of word counts only and involved no contextual interpretation. Incidents of the use of the words here, this, these to indicate proximity and we, us, our to indicate participation were calculated, using the word processor's "Find" feature to scan the transcripts. Inter-coder reliability was determined by comparing the words counts recorded for each of the two groups of words by each researcher independently, and 100% agreement on all word counts was readily achieved.
The directional hypotheses were tested at a .05 level of significance. The first hypothesis, predicting a positive association between communication effectiveness and verbally immediate participation expressions was supported. A positive correlation was detected (r = .38, p = .03). The second hypothesis, predicting a positive association between communication effectiveness and verbally immediate proximity expressions was also supported. A positive correlation was detected (r = .37, p = .04). The magnitude of these correlations indicated that participants in this study held substantially higher opinions of their group's communication effectiveness when group interaction contained more frequent expressions of verbal immediacy.
The rationale for this investigation was based on integrating findings from interpersonal and organizational communication studies and distance learning research. When small groups meet in face-to-face settings, both verbal and nonverbal communication channels are employed to transmit expressions of involvement and positive attitudes, as well as task-oriented messages of information and decision-making exchange. However, when small group interactions occur online in the computer-mediated context, the absence of most nonverbal channels requires that those expressions of involvement be carried by the exchange of words rather than through visual cues, voice inflection, or physical closeness or touch. Because some distance educators rely on verbal immediacy as a means of replacing nonverbal channels (Comeaux, 1995; Hackman & Walker, 1990), it stands to reason that members of online groups may use similar language cues to enhance the group's communication effectiveness. Likewise, if organizational involvement can be expressed through specific pronoun usage (Sherblom, 1990), there is every reason to believe that similar word strategies will have positive effects in online group contexts, as well.
This study found evidence to support relationships between the use of two components of verbal immediacy and group members' opinions about their group's overall communication effectiveness. Verbal immediacy was operationalized as frequency of expressions of participation (we, us, our) and proximity (this, these, here). Communication effectiveness was operationalized as participants' opinions about their group's discussion and decision-making, as well as the overall effectiveness of their group's communication.
For the online decision-making groups in this study the frequency of verbal expressions of immediacy in group interactions was a significant predictor of perceptions of the group's communication effectiveness.
These results indicate that groups who communicate more effectively are probably more likely to use more verbally immediate language that reflects participation--"we should, better for us, our project." Such language is not only immediate but may also indicate identification with others and greater social/relational closeness. The language itself may contribute to group cohesion and perceptions of commonalities which, in turn, might contribute to greater communication effectiveness. The proximity component of verbal immediacy-"here is an idea, these plans, this project"--places the object of discussion psychologically closer to the interactants. This process might well produce greater identification with the group's task functions of discussion and decision-making. If so, then persons who participate in online groups may use verbal immediacy as a communication strategy to help the group accomplish its task goals, as well as its social and relational goals.
These findings should also be interpreted in view of the larger construct of verbal immediacy. Mehrabian (1969) and Wiener and Mehrabian (1968) developed taxonomies of verbally immediate cues, some of which are more contextual, subtle, and require greater interpretation than the specific types included in this study. During the course of the online student interactions in this study, verbally immediate group participants probably employed not only participation and proximity, but perhaps other types of verbal behaviors as well. Collectively, these cues probably contributed to reducing the psychological distance between group members and enhancing the perceived effectiveness of the group's communication. Physical distance, an unavoidable factor in online contexts, poses a challenge to expressing involvement in the manner described in approach-avoidance theory, which suggests that "people approach what they like and avoid what they don't like" (Mehrabian, 1981, p. 22). Verbally immediate communication strategies apparently serve to overcome this geographic and psychological barrier by reducing the perceived distance between communicators and thereby enhancing the online group's effectiveness.
These results have importance for communicators who seek to adapt to online contexts and maximize the effectiveness of online interactions. Findings suggest that the use of verbal immediacy may be an effective communication strategy not only in student work groups, but in other computer-mediated communication contexts. If subtle verbal strategies such as increasing the use of we, us, our and this, these, here enhanced perceptions of group communication effectiveness for these students, perhaps similar language usage can positively influence perceptions of effectiveness in other online settings. Some examples from the actual group transcripts serve to illustrate the subtle but collectively important effects of verbally immediate messages. Immediate words are underscored for clarity; otherwise, excerpts are reproduced exactly as they appeared in the transcripts.
| Group 2 | ||
| S1: | We've got 50$, and our goal is to use this money to make a total of $1000 as soon as possible. | |
| S3: | Ok, what do we do? | |
| S1: | So, the first step is to brainstorm how we are going to achieve this goal. | |
| S3: | we could invest | |
| S1: | This is a proposal though, not a discussion of what we did to come up with our answer. | |
| S2: | Then say something like this is a great idea and it should be pushed. | |
| S3: | Do we need to use those steps from class | |
| S1: | Not on this one. | |
| Group 3 | ||
| S2: | This is kind of fun, once you get on | |
| S1: | wasn't such a bad idea | |
| S3: | We could sell candy bars door to door. | |
| Group 8 | ||
| S2: | how should we proceed? | |
| S1: | lets set a time to go to LA and bet it all | |
| S2: | we go and gamble and hopefully win. But we may need a backup plan for this experiment. | |
| S1: | 1/2 the money will be our back up plan | |
| S2: | sure. We could go for a day because it is only 4 hrs away, we could leave early in the morning. | |
| S2: | if we lost the other 1/2, would you want to still gamble? | |
| S1: | yes | |
| Group 1 | ||
| S3: | we are going to start application sharing. hang on. | |
| S1: | so we all decided we will use the 50 for advertising to sell your car? | |
| S3: | yes | |
In groups whose interactions are marked by subtle but numerous expressions of verbal immediacy, the collective effect appears to be a positive association with perceived group effectiveness. By contrast, the following excerpt is drawn from the transcript of a group whose members perceived relatively low communication effectiveness. Note the less frequent occurrence of verbal immediacy cues.
| Group 5 | ||
| S2: | gambling sounds good | |
| S3: | I'm not sure how well that would fly | |
| S1: | What do yall think about it? | |
| S2: | even though I like the b-ball tourney | |
| S2: | hear me out | |
| S2: | hear me out | |
| S1: | Well Paul said that everyone pretty much gambles. | |
| S2: | hear me out | |
| S3: | I'm listening | |
| S1: | okay | |
| S2: | players pay to play | |
This study constituted an initial exploration of a previously unrecognized relationship; it is only a first step toward thorough research and continuing study of verbal immediacy and group communication effectiveness. Quantitative measurement of verbal immediacy beyond the proximity and participation components continues to pose challenges to future research in this area. Careful transcript analysis of larger samples likewise could extend and clarify findings. Furthermore, the effects of verbal immediacy may be different for group members who meet exclusively online, as opposed to those who meet occasionally face-to-face. Despite these limitations, the findings of this investigation lead to the conclusion that the frequency of verbal immediacy cues of the type we counted is significantly associated with group members' opinions about the communication effectiveness of their online groups.
Card, S., Robertson, G., & Mackinlay, J. (1991). The information visualizer, an information workspace. Boston: Proceedings of Human Factors in Computer Science, 105-115.
Comeaux, P.(1995). The impact of an interactive distance learning network on classroom communication. Communication Education,44, 353-361.
Finholt, T., & Sproull, L. (1990). Electronic groups at work. Organization Science, 1, 41-64.
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53.
Guerrero, L. K., & Miller, T. A. (1998). Associations between nonverbal behaviors and initial impressions of instructor competence and course content in videotaped distance education courses. Communication Education, 47, 30-42.
Hackman, M. Z., & Walker, K. B. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised classroom: The effects of system design and teacher immediacy on student learning and satisfaction. Communication Education, 39, 196-206.
Jordan, F. F. (1989). An examination of the relationship between perceived verbal and paralinguistic immediacy and accommodation to perceived cognitive learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
Kelley, D. H., & Gorham, J. (1988). Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37, 198-207.
Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1, 213-217.
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Reinhart, A. (1995, March). New ways to learn. Byte, pp. 50-71.
Robinson, R. Y., & Richmond, V. P. (1995). Validity of the verbal immediacy scale. Communication Research Reports, 12(1), 80-84.
Sherblom, J. C. (1990). Organizational involvement expressed through pronoun use in computer mediated communication. Communication Research Reports, 7, 45-50.
Sprague, J. (2002). Communication education: The spiral continues. Communication Education, 51, 337-354.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
Swigger, K., & Brazile, R. (1995). Evaluating group effectiveness through a computer-supported cooperative problem-solving environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 523-528.
Swigger, K., Brazile, R., Lopez, V., & Livingston, A. (1997). The virtual collaborative university. Computers in Education, 29, 55-61.
Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time. Organizational Science, 6, 186-203.
Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.
Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
In citing this document please use the following style:
Witt, Paul L. (2004). An initial examination of observed verbal immediacy and participants' opinions of communication effectiveness in online group interaction. Journal of Online Behavior, 2 (1). Retrieved
