Multi-communicating

Last updated

Multi-communicating is the act of managing multiple conversations simultaneously. [1] The term was coined by Reinsch, Turner, and Tinsley, who proposed that simultaneous conversations can be conducted using an array of media, including face-to-face, phone, and email tools for communication. The practice allows individuals to utilize two or more technologies to interact with each other. [2]

Contents

Multi-communicating has evolved with the rapid development of information and communications technology (ICT), where behavior within digital media applications like Slack and Skype thrive. With the emergence of portable devices like laptops, people can use multi-communication tools during meetings and non-meeting activities. [3]

Currently, most academic research focuses on its professional implications, outlining several key factors that shape the act of multi-communicating; the flexibility of communication tempo, the compartmentalization of conversations, topics discussed, and the intensity of interactions contribute to a person's choice to engage in multi-communication, as well as their ultimate success with the practice. [2] Many people engage in multiple conversations as a direct response to the requests of others. Employees frequently believe that multi-communication increases their productivity and work efficiency, but in-depth interviews about the practice of multi-communication have often revealed mixed results. Research has also shown that the most common combinations used for multi-communicating are the telephone and email, followed by text-based messaging (text messaging, instant messaging, etc.). [4]

Multi-communicating and multitasking

Multi-communicating is similar in nature to multitasking. Differentiating between multi-communication and media multitasking can be difficult, as both of the terms concern the participation of people in two or more events at the same time. Multitasking refers to the behavior of performing two or more unrelated tasks concurrently, [5] simply emphasizing task independence and performance concurrency, while multi-communication involves individuals participating in more than one simultaneous conversations, which not only requires adequate attention to both tasks, but also coordination between each task. The timing and the pace of communication are also, at least partially, controlled by others and must mediate between different times of exchanges. [6] As such, multi-communication can be considered a complex form of multitasking. [7]

In addition to multi-communication, multitasking also includes electronic multitasking, [8] which entails consuming one-way media while actively performing another activity, such as watching television while doing homework; [9] invisible whispering, where individuals secretively use media to communicate with others during a meeting, such as texting a person within the same conference room; [10] and social multitasking, which involves tasks that are primarily social-interactive, such as switching between face-to-face conversation and texting. [11]

Foundational theories

Multi-communication primarily builds off Edward T. Hall's work on polychronicity, Erving Goffman's presentation of self, and Richard L. Daft and Robert H. Lengel's theory of media richness.The practice also bears relevance to media ecology and channel expansion theory.

Polychronicity (Hall)

Turner and Reinsch, who coined the term multi-communicating in 2008, initially introduced the term polychronic communication in one of their first presentations to the wider academic community. [12]

Media richness theory (Daft and Lengel)

Another concept in multi-communication is Daft and Lengel's research on media richness theory, which concerns how employees choose which technologies to use in the workplace. [13] [14]

In their study on the relationship between managerial communication and media selection, Daft and Lengel encourage communication media that emphasizes face-to-face interaction. [13]

Multi-communicating takes the medium selection concept from media richness theory and suggests that some of the same characteristics that contribute to making medium choices may also contribute to the reasons a person might multi-communicate. For example, if a conversation is not very complicated or equivocal[ clarification needed ], a person might be more likely to engage in multiple conversations. A conversation that is more complicated might make it hard for multi-communication to take place. [15]

Media ecology theory

Organizational norms shape the frequency and usage of multi-communication within an organization. In this sense, the practice of multi-communicating is a type of multimedia practice, as people often use more than one media when engaging in multiple conversations. [16]

Media ecology theory centers on the principles that there is a strong connection between media, technology and communication, and how media and communication processes influence human perception, feeling, understanding and value; usually all three are used when engaged in multiple conversations in a technology-enriched workplace. [17]

Characteristics and factors

Characteristics

Research suggests that there are two characteristics that help to determine a person's choice of communication media when engaging in multi-communicating: compartmentalization and flexibility of tempo. [18]

Compartmentalization

Compartmentalization refers to the ability to perform and ease of cross-conversations. For instance, an online chat allows one to move relatively freely from one conversation to another. Cameron and Webster mention that "a medium with invisibility does not allow visual cues to be exchanged during the interaction, and using two media with invisibility makes it easier to compartmentalize the conversation while multi-communicating". In this case, the ability to hide conversations from multiple communication partners is also important factor of compartmentalization. [19]

Flexibility of tempo

Flexibility of tempo refers to the amount of time a person has to respond to a certain message. Face-to-face communication often allows for less flexibility of tempo than does a text message. Most typically, users choose to combine media technologies such as the telephone (described as non-flexible in tempo and partially compartmentalized) with those such as electronic text (described as high in both flexibility and compartmentalization capabilities). [2] Sometimes presence allocators do not have a choice about one or more of the media they engage with, but specific combinations of communication media may contribute strongly toward the success or, lack thereof, one has with multi-communicating. [15]

Outcome factors

Several factors may help to determine the outcomes of an episode of multi-communicating, including intensity, the topic of conversation, equivocality, and the presence allocator[ clarification needed ].

Intensity of communication

The intensity of communication is one of the key factors in multi-communicating because it helps to predict the amount of attention and importance a specific conversation holds. Typically, conversation intensity increases with more, simultaneous conversations, a faster pace of conversion, a broader range of topics, and a wider mix of social roles. Social roles are based on the position an individual holds in a conversation, such as a supervisor communicating with a subordinate. Overly high intensity has sometimes been reported as a factor for unsuccessful multi-communicating. [2]

Topic of conversation

The more similar the themes of the simultaneous conversations are, the easier it is for the presence allocator to process information and engage in conversation-switching. Similarly, the more divergent the topics or themes of conversation, the bigger the cognitive strain on the presence allocator and the higher the chance for confusion. [2]

Equivocality

Equivocality refers to the possibility for multiple interpretations of an issue. These multiple interpretations can lead to disagreements regarding an issue. Reinsch and Turner's study suggests that the higher the potential for equivocality in a conversation, the more likely an individual is to pick a medium of communication that is rich in contextual cues or has high media-richness. [15]

Presence allocator

Presence allocators will divide their presence among multiple interactions. The physiological and cognitive perspectives are presented in presence allocators, [15] which typically show how people are able to think faster than they are able to speak or type. [2] Most neuroscientific studies imply that people are not truly cognitively capable of multitasking, but only able to switch between tasks. This means that those who are most skilled at apparent multitasking, or multi-communicating, are essentially very quick at juggling their attention between messages. [20]

There are limits to an individual's working memory that restricts cognitive information processing capabilities. [21] Performance deteriorates when these limits are exceeded. Because of these limits, performing two tasks at the same time or rapidly switching between two tasks results in decreased task performance in terms of accuracy and response time. These problems can be partially alleviated (but not eliminated) by practice. [1]

Research suggests that presence allocators have the most successful experiences with multi-communicating episodes when engaged in multiple conversations with contextually appropriate media around similar topics. [15]

Implications

Studies on multi-communicating began when instant messaging became common practice. [22]

Productivity

Most people indicate that they multi-communicate in order to be more efficient. Barber and de Bruin suggest that "electronic multitasking can be considered a citizenship behavior when there are benefits to using technology in the workplace". [4] They further explain that electronic multitasking can be efficient when multi-communication is task-relevant. However, this goal of efficiency has received some mixed results. Despite the notion that completing multiple tasks simultaneously promotes productivity to communication and multiple conversations, many people reveal a breaking point at which they can no longer juggle synchronous messages. Significant numbers of research subjects also indicate that they prefer to stay away from multi-communicating altogether when it comes to important conversations that require strong attention. [4]

Several scholars hypothesized that increased workload can influence people engaging in multi-communicating. Since a heavy workload gives people a sense of loss of time, this may result in people compensating by multi-communicating. However, perceived communication overload did not predict meeting multitasking behaviors. [8]

Perceived incivility

Cameron and Webster examined the relational outcomes of multi-communicating from the following aspects: conversation leveraging, multi-communicating performance, focal individual accessibility, partner's polychronic communication orientation, awareness, and media fit. [19] In their research, a multi-communicator's secrecy in regards to what they are and who they are conversing with led to higher perceptions of incivility. [23]

Practical uses

Personal interaction

Staying connected has become a norm and a habit pervasive at the societal level, especially with the development of new information and communications technologies (ICTs).

Bayer, Campbell, & Ling described how individuals internalize and enable social connectedness within their daily lives. The model outlines: types of connection cues; factors that moderate sensitivity to connection norms; and activation paths for connection habits. [24]

Turner & Foss developed their "attentional social presence theory," which suggests that there are four types of presences when one engages in multiple conversations, each involving the control of one's audience and technology, the choices they make, and how they interact: [25]

In attempts to determine whether social presence can be measured, Biocca, Harms & Burgoon emphasize the need for understanding social behavior in mediated environments. They argue that such environments allow researchers to predict and measure differences among interfaces and guide the design of new social environments and interfaces. [26]

Group interactions

Multi-communicating is especially present in team collaborations. [27] In order to be more effective in their workplace, teams use different platforms for their communication practices. There are a number of communication platforms, such as Slack, that include multiple social media channels (social networking platforms and instant messaging). The media capabilities of these platforms, including integration for diverse ICTs, enable affordances for both highly adaptable and centralized team communication practices. A recent study shows that team-communication platforms enable affordances for multi-communication and attention allocation, including flexible scaling of media modality and synchronicity. [28]

In organizational settings, research suggests that the decision by individuals to use informational technologies is influenced by what they observe other members in the organization doing, which is positively correlated to their multi-communicational behaviors. [3]

The perception of what others think about multi-communicating is also a significant predictor on this behavior. [4] Due to an underlying perception of rudeness or partiality of conversational investment associated with multi-communicating, people will often hide their multi-communication from their conversational partners. However, when people perceive multi-communicating as acceptable within their organizations, they are less likely to feel embarrassed and will engage in such behaviors more often. [19]

Likewise, depending on the organizational culture, multi-communicating can become crucial and bear negative effects in a professional or office setting. Conversely, research suggests that employees who follow organizational communication norms receive higher performance ratings than those who do not. Therefore, if multi-communicating were considered an organizational norm, its practice could also bring positive feedback. [19]

Productivity

Multi-communication can change the ways in which teams work and interact within the organization. [1]

Stephens and Davis discuss the social influences on electronic multitasking in organizational meetings. ICTs have infiltrated meetings and allowed for a new range of communicative behaviors to emerge. The perception of what others think of the use of ICTs for multitasking, explain why individuals use or do not use CTs to communicate electronically in meetings. [29] Cardon and Dai (2014) examine the nature of mobile phone use in meetings among Chinese professionals. [30]

Relating to this point, Belanger and Watson made a study exploring how virtual team members structure their use of multiple media to attain strategic goals. [31]

Criticisms

Criticisms of multi-communication theory at large are not prevalent, considering that it is a relatively newly defined and studied behavior. However, as multi-communicating has been largely studied for its professional implications, recent critical research suggests that multi-communicating behavior may have adverse effects on individual productivity, [32] workplace relationships, [33] and stress management. [34]

Psychology

Cameron (2016) draws from several disciplines, including management and cognitive and social psychology, to provide several misconceptions about multi-communication. After conducting empirical research, she claims that multi-communicating, contrary to popular belief, may render an individual less accessible, less productive, and potentially more rude in certain professional contexts. She points out that multi-communicating behavior, especially among those with a weak ability to focus, has often increased errors, reduced contribution between ongoing conversations, and increased confusion in the workplace. In doing so, many people multi-communicate as an uncontrolled habit rather than a strategic form of communication, offering more negative implications than positive. Cameron, does not advocate against multi-communication, but rather for people to better understand their multi-communicating behaviors and to practice multi-communicating more intentionally. [35]

Gender

The practical implications of multi-communicating have drawn criticism in gender studies. Paskewitz and Beck conducted research about texting during workplace meetings, and determined that women perceive individuals who practice multi-communicating more negatively than men. At the same time, the gender of the multi-communicator did not play a role in these perceptions. [23]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remote work</span> Employees working from any location

Remote work is the practice of working at or from one's home or another space rather than from an office.

Human communication, or anthroposemiotics, is a field of study dedicated to understanding how humans communicate. Humans' ability to communicate with one another would not be possible without an understanding of what we are referencing or thinking about. Because humans are unable to fully understand one another's perspective, there needs to be a creation of commonality through a shared mindset or viewpoint. The field of communication is very diverse, as there are multiple layers of what communication is and how we use its different features as human beings.

Within the realm of communication studies, organizational communication is a field of study surrounding all areas of communication and information flow that contribute to the functioning of an organization. Organizational communication is constantly evolving and as a result, the scope of organizations included in this field of research have also shifted over time. Now both traditionally profitable companies, as well as NGO's and non-profit organizations, are points of interest for scholars focused on the field of organizational communication. Organizations are formed and sustained through continuous communication between members of the organization and both internal and external sub-groups who possess shared objectives for the organization. The flow of communication encompasses internal and external stakeholders and can be formal or informal.

Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) is the study of how people utilize technology collaboratively, often towards a shared goal. CSCW addresses how computer systems can support collaborative activity and coordination. More specifically, the field of CSCW seeks to analyze and draw connections between currently understood human psychological and social behaviors and available collaborative tools, or groupware. Often the goal of CSCW is to help promote and utilize technology in a collaborative way, and help create new tools to succeed in that goal. These parallels allow CSCW research to inform future design patterns or assist in the development of entirely new tools.

Impression management is a conscious or subconscious process in which people attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction. It was first conceptualized by Erving Goffman in 1956 in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, and then was expanded upon in 1967.

A virtual team usually refers to a group of individuals who work together from different geographic locations and rely on communication technology such as email, instant messaging, and video or voice conferencing services in order to collaborate. The term can also refer to groups or teams that work together asynchronously or across organizational levels. Powell, Piccoli and Ives (2004) define virtual teams as "groups of geographically, organizationally and/or time dispersed workers brought together by information and telecommunication technologies to accomplish one or more organizational tasks." As documented by Gibson (2020), virtual teams grew in importance and number during 2000-2020, particularly in light of the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic which forced many workers to collaborate remotely with each other as they worked from home.

Theories of technological change and innovation attempt to explain the factors that shape technological innovation as well as the impact of technology on society and culture. Some of the most contemporary theories of technological change reject two of the previous views: the linear model of technological innovation and other, the technological determinism. To challenge the linear model, some of today's theories of technological change and innovation point to the history of technology, where they find evidence that technological innovation often gives rise to new scientific fields, and emphasizes the important role that social networks and cultural values play in creating and shaping technological artifacts. To challenge the so-called "technological determinism", today's theories of technological change emphasize the scope of the need of technical choice, which they find to be greater than most laypeople can realize; as scientists in philosophy of science, and further science and technology often like to say about this "It could have been different." For this reason, theorists who take these positions often argue that a greater public involvement in technological decision-making is desired.

Media richness theory (MRT), sometimes referred to as information richness theory, is a framework used to describe a communication medium's ability to reproduce the information sent over it. It was introduced by Richard L. Daft and Robert H. Lengel in 1986 as an extension of information processing theory. MRT is used to rank and evaluate the richness of certain communication media, such as phone calls, video conferencing, and email. For example, a phone call cannot reproduce visual social cues such as gestures which makes it a less rich communication media than video conferencing, which affords the transmission of gestures and body language. Based on contingency theory and information processing theory, MRT theorizes that richer, personal communication media are generally more effective for communicating equivocal issues in contrast with leaner, less rich media.

Business communication is the act of information being exchanged between two-parties or more for the purpose, functions, goals, or commercial activities of an organization. Communication in business can be internal which is employee-to-superior or peer-to-peer, overall it is organizational communication. External communication is business-to-business or business-to-consumer, the act being outside the organization. These methods can happen verbally, non-verbally, or written. It is often that these external and internal forms come with barriers which can cause conflicts between the sender to the receiver. Barriers that can effect communication on both external and internal is language, intercultural communication and behavior, and environmental.

Expectancy violations theory (EVT) is a theory of communication that analyzes how individuals respond to unanticipated violations of social norms and expectations. The theory was proposed by Judee K. Burgoon in the late 1970s and continued through the 1980s and 1990s as "nonverbal expectancy violations theory", based on Burgoon's research studying proxemics. Burgoon's work initially analyzed individuals' allowances and expectations of personal distance and how responses to personal distance violations were influenced by the level of liking and relationship to the violators. The theory was later changed to its current name when other researchers began to focus on violations of social behavior expectations beyond nonverbal communication.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Media multitasking</span> Concurrent use of multiple media streams

Media multitasking is the concurrent use of multiple digital media streams. Media multitasking has been associated with depressive symptoms and social anxiety by a study involving 318 participants. A 2018 review found that while the literature is sparse and inconclusive, people who do a heavy amount of media multitasking have worse performance in several cognitive domains. One of the authors commented that while the data does not "unambiguously show that media multitasking causes a change in attention and memory," media multitasking is an inefficient practice that requires "task switching" costs including "limitations in auditory and visual processing".

Howard Giles' communication accommodation theory (CAT), "seeks to explain and predict when, how, and why individuals engage in interactional adjustments with others,” such as a person changing their accent to match the individual they are speaking with. Additionally, CAT studies “recipients’ inferences, attributions, and evaluations of, and responses to, them." This means when speakers change their communication style, listeners are interpreting such alterations. For example, when the speaker adjusts their accent to match the listener's, the recipient may interpret this positively, perceiving it as the speaker trying to fit in, or negatively—questioning whether they are mocking them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social information processing (theory)</span> Theory of human interactions

Social information processing theory, also known as SIP, is a psychological and sociological theory originally developed by Salancik and Pfeffer in 1978. This theory explores how individuals make decisions and form attitudes in a social context, often focusing on the workplace. It suggests that people rely heavily on the social information available to them in their environments, including input from colleagues and peers, to shape their attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions.

The hyperpersonal model is a model of interpersonal communication that suggests computer-mediated communication (CMC) can become hyperpersonal because it "exceeds [face-to-face] interaction", thus affording message senders a host of communicative advantages over traditional face-to-face (FtF) interaction. The hyperpersonal model demonstrates how individuals communicate uniquely, while representing themselves to others, how others interpret them, and how the interactions create a reciprocal spiral of FtF communication. Compared to ordinary FtF situations, a hyperpersonal message sender has a greater ability to strategically develop and edit self-presentation, enabling a selective and optimized presentation of one's self to others.

In the social sciences, coordinated management of meaning (CMM) provides an understanding of how individuals create, coordinate and manage meanings in their process of communication. Generally, CMM is "how individuals establish rules for creating and interpreting the meaning and how those rules are enmeshed in a conversation where meaning is constantly being coordinated", and where "human communication is viewed as a flexible, open and mutable process evolving in an ongoing joint interaction, which enables movement, shifts and evolving ways with each other". CMM embodies this vision and allows interpersonal connection and open conversation among individuals or groups, and can be applicable across multiple academic fields and social scenarios.

Media naturalness theory is also known as the psychobiological model. The theory was developed by Ned Kock and attempts to apply Darwinian evolutionary principles to suggest which types of computer-mediated communication will best fit innate human communication capabilities. Media naturalness theory argues that natural selection has resulted in face-to-face communication becoming the most effective way for two people to exchange information.

Social presence theory explores how the "sense of being with another" is influenced by digital interfaces in human-computer interactions. Developed from the foundations of interpersonal communication and symbolic interactionism, social presence theory was first formally introduced by John Short, Ederyn Williams, and Bruce Christie in The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Research on social presence theory has recently developed to examine the efficacy of telecommunications media, including SNS communications. The theory notes that computer-based communication is lower in social presence than face-to-face communication, but different computer-based communications can affect the levels of social presence between communicators and receivers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert E. Kraut</span> American social psychologist

Robert E. Kraut is an American social psychologist who studies human-computer interaction, online communities, internet use, group coordination, computers in organizations, and the role of visual elements in interpersonal communication. He is a Herbert Simon University Professor Emeritus of Human-computer Interaction at the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interpersonal communication</span> Exchange of information among people

Interpersonal communication is an exchange of information between two or more people. It is also an area of research that seeks to understand how humans use verbal and nonverbal cues to accomplish several personal and relational goals. Communication includes utilizing communication skills within one's surroundings, including physical and psychological spaces. It is essential to see the visual/nonverbal and verbal cues regarding the physical spaces. In the psychological spaces, self-awareness and awareness of the emotions, cultures, and things that are not seen are also significant when communicating.

Channel expansion theory (CET) states that individual experience serves as an important role in determining the level of richness perception and development towards certain media tools. It is a theory of communication media perception that incorporates experiential factors to explain and predict user perceptions of a given media channel. The theory suggests that the more knowledge and experience users gain from using a channel, the richer they perceive the medium to be. The more experience, the more stable the knowledge base the person builds, the more knowledge he gains from the given media channel, thus the richer communication he would have using that channel, and ultimately the richer he would perceive the channel. There are four experiential factors that shapes individual's perceived media richness: experience with the channel, experience with the message topic, experience with the organizational context, and experience with a communication partner.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Cameron, Ann-Frances; Webster, Jane (2012-11-08). "Multicommunicating: Juggling Multiple Conversations in the Workplace". Information Systems Research. 24 (2): 352–371. doi:10.1287/isre.1120.0446. ISSN   1047-7047.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Reinsch, N. Lamar, Jeanine Warisse Turner, and Catherine H. Tinsley (2008). "Multicommunicating: A practice whose time has come?". Academy of Management Review. 33 (2): 391–403. doi:10.5465/amr.2008.31193450.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. 1 2 Stephens, Keri K.; Davis, Jennifer (2009-06-08). "The Social Influences on Electronic Multitasking in Organizational Meetings". Management Communication Quarterly. 23 (1): 63–83. doi:10.1177/0893318909335417. ISSN   0893-3189. S2CID   145199900.
  4. 1 2 3 4 De Bruin, Rushika; Barber, Larissa K. (2020-11-17). "Is Electronic Multitasking Always Viewed as a Counterproductive Meeting Behavior? Understanding the Nature of the Secondary Task". Psychological Reports. 125 (1): 422–447. doi:10.1177/0033294120973946. ISSN   0033-2941. PMID   33201783. S2CID   227038568.
  5. ↑ Benbunan-Fich, Raquel; Adler, Rachel F.; Mavlanova, Tamilla (2011-07-01). "Measuring Multitasking Behavior with Activity-based Metrics". ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 18 (2): 7:1–7:22. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.657.3098 . doi:10.1145/1970378.1970381. ISSN   1073-0516. S2CID   15854432.
  6. ↑ Ann-Frances, Cameron, et al. "Four Common Multicommunicating Misconceptions." European Journal of Information Systems 25.5 (2016): 465-71. ProQuest. Web.
  7. ↑ Turner, Jeanine (2018). "Multicommunicator Aspirational Stress, Suggestions for Teaching and Research, and Other Insights After 10 Years of Multicommunication Research". Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 33 (2): 141–171.
  8. 1 2 Stephens, Keri K.; Davis, Jennifer (2009-06-08). "The Social Influences on Electronic Multitasking in Organizational Meetings". Management Communication Quarterly. 23 (1): 63–83. doi:10.1177/0893318909335417. ISSN   0893-3189. S2CID   145199900.
  9. ↑ Bardhi, F.; Rohm, A. J.; Sultan, F. (2010). "Tuning in and tuning out: Media multitasking among young consumers". Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 9 (4): 316–32. doi: 10.1002/cb.320 .
  10. ↑ Dennis, A. R.; Rennecker, J. A.; Hansen, S. (2010). "Invisible whispering: Restruc- turing collaborative decision making with instant messaging". Decision Sciences. 41 (4): 845–886. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00290.x.
  11. ↑ Baron, N. S. 2008. "Adjusting the volume: Technology and multitasking in discourse control." Pp. 177–93 in Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies, edited by J. E. Katz. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  12. ↑ Turner, J. W., & Reinsch, L. (2005). Polychronic Communication in the Workplace: The Temporal Structure of "Connected Time". Paper Presented at the National Communication Association Conference, Boston, MA, November, 2005.
  13. 1 2 Daft, Richard L.; Lengel, Robert H.; Trevino, Linda Klebe (1987). "Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for Information Systems". MIS Quarterly. 11 (3): 355–366. doi:10.2307/248682. JSTOR   248682.
  14. ↑ Suh, Kil Soo (1999). "Impact of communication medium on task performance and satisfaction: An examination of media-richness theory". Information & Management. 35 (5): 295–312. doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00097-4.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 Turner, J. W.; Reinsch, N. L. (2007). "The Business Communicator as Presence Allocator: Multicommunicating, Equivocality, and Status at Work". Journal of Business Communication. 44: 36–58. doi:10.1177/0021943606295779. S2CID   145133803.
  16. ↑ Scott, Craig R., Laurie K. Lewis, James R. Barker, Joann Keyton, and Timothy Kuhn (2017). The International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell. ISBN   9781118955604. OCLC   951778628.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. ↑ West, Richard L., and Lynn H. Turner (17 September 2013). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application (5th ed.). New York. ISBN   9780073534282. OCLC   844725577.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. ↑ Reinsch, N. Lamar; Turner, Jeanine Warisse (2018-12-09). "Multicommunicator Aspirational Stress, Suggestions for Teaching and Research, and Other Insights After 10 Years of Multicommunication Research". Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 33 (2): 141–171. doi:10.1177/1050651918816356. ISSN   1050-6519. S2CID   69749210.
  19. 1 2 3 4 Cameron, Ann-Frances; Webster, Jane (2010). "Relational Outcomes of Multicommunicating: Integrating Incivility and Social Exchange Perspectives". Organization Science. 22 (3): 754–771. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0540.
  20. ↑ Ocasio, W (2011). "Attention to Attention". Organization Science. 22 (5): 1–11. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0602.
  21. ↑ Turner, Jeanine W., and N. Lamar Reinsch, Jr. 2011. "Multicommunicating and Episodic Presence: Developing New Constructs for Studying New Phenomena." Pp. 181–93 in Computer-mediated Communication in Personal Relationships , edited by K. B. Wright, L. M. Webb. New York: Peter Lang.
  22. ↑ Turner, Jeanine (2018). "Multicommunicator Aspirational Stress, Suggestions for Teaching and Research, and Other Insights After 10 Years of Multicommunication Research". Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 33 (2): 141–71.
  23. 1 2 Paskewitz, Emily A; Beck, Stephenson J (2019). "Exploring Perceptions of Multicommunicator Texting During Meetings". Computers in Human Behavior. 101: 238–247. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.032. S2CID   201406055.
  24. ↑ Bayer, Joseph B.; Campbell, Scott W.; Ling, Rich (2015). "Connection Cues: Activating the Norms and Habits of Social Connectedness". Communication Theory. 26 (2): 128–49. doi: 10.1111/comt.12090 . ISSN   1050-3293.
  25. ↑ Turner, Jeanine Warisse, and Sonja K. Foss (2018). "Options for the Construction of Attentional Social Presence in a Digitally Enhanced Multicommunicative Environment". Communication Theory. 28 (1): 22–45. doi:10.1093/ct/qty002. ISSN   1050-3293.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  26. ↑ Biocca, Frank; Harms, Chad; Burgoon, Judee K. (October 2003). "Toward a More Robust Theory and Measure of Social Presence: Review and Suggested Criteria". Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. 12 (5): 456–480. doi:10.1162/105474603322761270. ISSN   1054-7460. S2CID   34210666.
  27. ↑ Stephens, Keri K. (2012-01-18). "Multiple Conversations During Organizational Meetings". Management Communication Quarterly. 26 (2): 195–223. doi:10.1177/0893318911431802. ISSN   0893-3189. S2CID   145568130.
  28. ↑ Anders, Abram (2016-01-19). "Team Communication Platforms and Emergent Social Collaboration Practices". International Journal of Business Communication. 53 (2): 224–261. doi:10.1177/2329488415627273. ISSN   2329-4884. S2CID   167807666.
  29. ↑ Stephens, Keri K.; Davis, Jennifer (2009). "The Social Influences on Electronic Multitasking in Organizational Meetings". Management Communication Quarterly. 23 (1): 63–83. doi:10.1177/0893318909335417. ISSN   0893-3189. S2CID   145199900.
  30. ↑ W., Cardon, Peter; Ying, Dai (2014). "Mobile Phone Use in Meetings among Chinese Professionals: Perspectives on Multicommunication and Civility". Global Advances in Business Communication. 3 (1). ISSN   2164-1692.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  31. ↑ Bélanger, France; Watson-Manheim, Mary Beth (July 2006). "Virtual Teams and Multiple Media: Structuring Media Use to Attain Strategic Goals". Group Decision and Negotiation. 15 (4): 299–321. doi:10.1007/s10726-006-9044-8. ISSN   0926-2644. S2CID   60912280.
  32. ↑ Cameron, A-F; Webster, J (2013). "Multicommunicating: juggling multiple conversations in the workplace". Information Systems Research. 24 (2): 352–371. doi:10.1287/isre.1120.0446.
  33. ↑ Cameron, A-F; Webster, J (2011). "Relational outcomes of multicommunicating: integrating incivility and social exchange perspectives". Organization Science. 22 (3): 754–771. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0540.
  34. ↑ Marulanda-Carter, L; Jackson, TW (2012). "Effects of e-mail addiction and interruptions on employees". Journal of Systems and Information Technology. 14 (1): 82–94. doi:10.1108/13287261211221146. S2CID   10052505.
  35. ↑ Ann-Frances, Cameron; et al. (2016). "Four Common Multicommunicating Misconceptions". European Journal of Information Systems. 25 (5): 465–471. doi:10.1057/ejis.2016.8. S2CID   5107015.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.