IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v15y2004i3p327-348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Psychobiological Model: Towards a New Theory of Computer-Mediated Communication Based on Darwinian Evolution

Author

Listed:
  • Ned Kock

    (Department of MIS and Decision Science, Texas A&M International University, 5201 University Boulevard, Laredo, Texas 78041)

Abstract

This article reviews theories of organizational communication with a special emphasis on theories that have been used to explain computer-mediated communication phenomena. Among the theories reviewed, two—social presence and media richness—are identified as problematic and as posing obstacles to future theoretical development. While shortcomings of these theories have been identified in the past, some of these theories' predictions have been supported by empirical evidence. It is argued that this theoretical dilemma can be resolved based upon principles derived from a modern version of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and the application of those principles to the understanding of human evolution. A new theoretical model called the psychobiological model is developed, which predicts variations in cognitive effort in computer-mediated collaborative tasks. The model proposes that there is a negative causal link between the “naturalness” of a computer-mediated communication medium, which is the similarity of the medium to the face-to-face medium, and the cognitive effort required from an individual using the medium for knowledge transfer. The model also states that this link is counterbalanced by what are referred to as “schema alignment” and “cognitive adaptation.” The schema alignment construct refers to the similarity between the mental schemas of an individual and those of other participant(s). The cognitive adaptation construct refers to an individual's level of schema development associated with the use of a particular medium. Finally, the model states that the degree to which the medium supports an individual's ability to convey and listen to speech is particularly significant in defining its naturalness, more so than the medium's degree of support for the use of facial expressions and body language. An example is offered of how the psychobiological model can be tested in the context provided by the customer support area of an online broker.

Suggested Citation

  • Ned Kock, 2004. "The Psychobiological Model: Towards a New Theory of Computer-Mediated Communication Based on Darwinian Evolution," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 327-348, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:15:y:2004:i:3:p:327-348
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0071
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0071
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1040.0071?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee Sproull & Sara Kiesler, 1986. "Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(11), pages 1492-1512, November.
    2. Ronald E. Rice & Douglas E. Shook, 1990. "Relationships Of Job Categories And Organizational Levels To Use Of Communication Channels, Including Electronic Mail: A Meta‐Analysis And Extension," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 195-229, March.
    3. Richard J. Boland & Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi, 1995. "Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(4), pages 350-372, August.
    4. Henrich, Joseph, 2004. "Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 3-35, January.
    5. Richard L. Daft & Robert H. Lengel, 1986. "Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 554-571, May.
    6. Peter Todd & Izak Benbasat, 1999. "Evaluating the Impact of DSS, Cognitive Effort, and Incentives on Strategy Selection," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 356-374, December.
    7. Alan R. Dennis & Susan T. Kinney, 1998. "Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 256-274, September.
    8. Linda Klebe Treviño & Jane Webster & Eric W. Stein, 2000. "Making Connections: Complementary Influences on Communication Media Choices, Attitudes, and Use," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 163-182, April.
    9. M. Lynne Markus, 1994. "Electronic Mail as the Medium of Managerial Choice," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 502-527, November.
    10. Pierre Cossette & Michel Audet, 1992. "Mapping Of An Idiosyncratic Schema," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 325-347, May.
    11. Detmar Straub & Elena Karahanna, 1998. "Knowledge Worker Communications and Recipient Availability: Toward a Task Closure Explanation of Media Choice," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 160-175, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Koo, Chulmo & Wati, Yulia & Jung, Jason J., 2011. "Examination of how social aspects moderate the relationship between task characteristics and usage of social communication technologies (SCTs) in organizations," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 445-459.
    2. Willem Standaert & Steve Muylle & Amit Basu, 2016. "An empirical study of the effectiveness of telepresence as a business meeting mode," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 323-339, December.
    3. Michele Griessmair & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2009. "Exploring the Cognitive-Emotional Fugue in Electronic Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 213-234, May.
    4. Jonathan W. Palmer, 2002. "Web Site Usability, Design, and Performance Metrics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 151-167, June.
    5. Nada Korac-Kakabadse & Alexander Kouzmin & Andrew Korac-Kakabadse, 2000. "Information Technology-Enabled Communication and Organizational Effectiveness," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 17-36, June.
    6. Ofir Turel & Catherine E. Connelly, 2012. "Team Spirit: The Influence of Psychological Collectivism on the Usage of E-Collaboration Tools," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 703-725, September.
    7. Stefan Hoffmann & Tom Joerß & Robert Mai & Payam Akbar, 2022. "Augmented reality-delivered product information at the point of sale: when information controllability backfires," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 743-776, July.
    8. Meissner, Jens O., 2005. "Relationship Quality in the Context of Computer-Mediated Communication - A social constructionist approach," Working papers 2005/15, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    9. Sumita Raghuram & Philipp Tuertscher & Raghu Garud, 2010. "Research Note ---Mapping the Field of Virtual Work: A Cocitation Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 983-999, December.
    10. Martha L. Maznevski & Katherine M. Chudoba, 2000. "Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(5), pages 473-492, October.
    11. Sidhu, Jatinder S. & Volberda, Henk W., 2011. "Coordination of globally distributed teams: A co-evolution perspective on offshoring," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 278-290, June.
    12. Jeanine Warisse Turner & N. Lamar Reinsch, 2010. "Successful and unsuccessful multicommunication episodes: Engaging in dialogue or juggling messages?," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 277-285, July.
    13. Stephanie Watts Sussman & Wendy Schneier Siegal, 2003. "Informational Influence in Organizations: An Integrated Approach to Knowledge Adoption," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 47-65, March.
    14. Lionel P. Robert & Alan R. Dennis & Manju K. Ahuja, 2008. "Social Capital and Knowledge Integration in Digitally Enabled Teams," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 314-334, September.
    15. Chih-Hung Peng & Nicholas H. Lurie & Sandra A. Slaughter, 2019. "Using Technology to Persuade: Visual Representation Technologies and Consensus Seeking in Virtual Teams," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 948-962, September.
    16. France Bélanger & Mary Beth Watson-Manheim, 2006. "Virtual Teams and Multiple Media: Structuring Media Use to Attain Strategic Goals," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 299-321, July.
    17. Zakaria, Norhayati, 2017. "Emergent Patterns of Switching Behaviors and Intercultural Communication Styles of Global Virtual Teams During Distributed Decision Making," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 350-366.
    18. Mareike Schoop & Frank Köhne & Dirk Staskiewicz & Markus Voeth & Uta Herbst, 2008. "The antecedents of renegotiations in practice—an exploratory analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 127-139, March.
    19. Gabriel Szulanski & Dimo Ringov & Robert J. Jensen, 2016. "Overcoming Stickiness: How the Timing of Knowledge Transfer Methods Affects Transfer Difficulty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 304-322, April.
    20. Ingmar Geiger, 2020. "From Letter to Twitter: A Systematic Review of Communication Media in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 207-250, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:15:y:2004:i:3:p:327-348. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.