leadership journal submission 9-30-10

8/3/2019 Leadership Journal Submission 9-30-10

1/17

Effect of Personality on VirtualCommunications In Warfare

HARRY I. NIMON AND GEORGE J. GRAHAM

Individuals and corporations worldwide are increasing utilization of computer-

mediated-communications (CMC) systems and processes. Such endeavors are shortening lines

of communications, yet simultaneously distancing understanding. Winston Churchill once

opined that the British and American peoples are two great peoples separated by a common

language. Some relate aspects of culture as the source ofChurchills quote. Separating factors

may be more engrained than previously believed or theorized.

The authors examined a high-stress setting determined to be one where the trappings

of culture disappear leaving only the basic emotional and cognitive survival aspects of

personality; the environment of military combat. Observing the results of the studys individual-

environment relations raises the question of whether personality is a factor in virtual team

efficiency. The study examined the relationship of an individuals ability to function efficientlyutilizing virtual communications and processes while under extreme stress. This article is a

summarization of the findings from that study.

The world is experiencing a revolution in the availability and use of information,

specifically concerning the utilization of internet and computer-mediated

communications (CMC) (Wagner, 2002). Researchers such as Kerr and Tindale (2004)

and Wagner (2002) discussed the growing tendency within organizations to utilize CMC

and virtual communications in the creation and processes of work teams, which they

called virtual teams. Organizations link individuals of varied cultures and nationalities in

virtual teams to perform tasks once limited to collocated groups (Gupta & Govindarajan,

2004; Kring, 2004).

Kerr and Tindale (2004) reviewed studies conducted since 1992, examining the

question of whether electronic groupswhere inter-member communication is managed

electronically rather than in face-to-face interactionmight have certain performance

advantages (p. 626). Kerr and Tindales research, supported by the work by Wagner

(2002), concluded that, while a viable and growing process with many positive

tendencies, the structure of virtual groups is so complex as to render the reviewed studies

overly simplistic. Most research, according to the researchers, was limited to examining

only the relationships of group size, task type, available choices, stress conditions, or

decision scheme rather than the deeper cognitive structures of intelligence, personality,

social structure, and other non-face-to-face issues (Aldridge, 2001; Gibson et al., 2003;


2/17

Goh, 2004; Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Wagner, 2002). Maxwell (2006) cited numerous

psychological studies linking cognition and interpersonal aspects to adaptive behavior, or

personality. Maxwell (2006) further stated that a primary faculty of emotion, or

personality, is to reflect and motivate the modification of individual-environment

relations in an advantageous manner.

The linkage of personality to individual-environment relations raises the question

of whether personality is a factor in virtual team efficiency. This study examined the

potential of such a linkage, exacerbated by the introduction of a high-stress environment,

considered and examined by J. Burgoon and others as a critical aspect of autonomic

cognitive response (Burgoon, Blair, & Moyer, 2003, J. K. Burgoon et al., 2005; J. K.

Burgoon, Blair, & Moyer, 2003; Buller & J.K. Burgoon, 1996).

In situations of high stress, the communications receiver expects a particular

message based upon the cues, verbal and nonverbal, presented by the sender. Thus, when

the cues are not present, the receiver misses or ignores the actual message as the brain is

engaged in replacing this missing information to complete the picture. Bermudez et al.

(2004), Goh (2004), Halone and Pecchioni (2001), Hawkins (2002), and Higgins (2003)

established that a situation of missing cues is particularly prevalent in virtual teams due to

the use of electronic communications media.

CMC expansion throughout government, industry, and academia is a result of the

fact that virtual teams are viable solutions to the issues of distance, cost, and globalization

of resources (Jang, 2003; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998; Scholtz, 2003). Government

utilizes virtual/CMC systems in intelligence, military, and operational roles. Industry is

increasing the use of virtual meeting technology as travel costs continue to increase.

Academia utilizes virtual classrooms to expand their breadth of student coverage. In each

of these situations, information passes in pictorial and/or text format without the benefit

of non-verbal support inputs.

Background and Supporting Theories

Three major theories were considered. They are the expectations violations model

and theory (Burgoon, et al, 1998), collaborative decision making theory (Bridgland &

Watro, 1987; Buchanan & Kock, 2000; Higgins, 2003; Pidd et al., 2003; Ryan, 2002;

Thomas, 2003; Warner & Wroblewski, 2004), and fault-tolerant decision making theory


3/17

(Brown, 2004). Each theory held, in different ways, that in a CMC environment, the

receivers of electronic communications are free to interpret the communications while

not providing non-verbal feedback to the sender. Such a situation potentially negates

participation of the sender to the idioms of individual personality. Thus, unification of

information and processes effects can occur resulting in receiver decision anomalies. The

theories do not examine the source of these anomalies, concluding the need for additional

study.

Decision support systems include options for making human collective choices;

decision support systems require optimal rules such as laws, ethical standards, and others

that make human interaction mandatory. The interaction establishes the basis for

cognitive process misunderstandings (Brown, 2004). A misunderstanding within the

cognitive process creates additional areas of uncertainty in the CMC environment,

leaving the individual more reliant upon individual expectations and personal preferences

of action.

People are social animals reared and developed within the confines of society

(Darwin, 1965; Dickson et al., 2004; Kincaid, 1987). People establish themselves as an

element of society and conform to social and normative strictures. The necessary

communications of a societal organization result from a lifetime of learning acceptable

and unacceptable standards of interaction. As cited by Allot (2001), researchers such as

Levins (1570), Butler (1634), Flint (1740), and De Saussure (1916) studied the innate

character of language or communications as the basis for the creation of society.

In a study published in 2002 at the 130th Annual Meeting of the American Public

Health Association, Campo et al. (2002) reported the link between social norms and

expectancy violation. Their work demonstrated that socially developed expectations

create inaccurate perceptions when required information is not present. The violations

cause misconceptions of correct attitude or behavior, leading to incorrect attitude changes

in the participants.

The information from Campo et al.s 2002 study pointed to the powerful effects

social norms have on behavior. Behavioral change effects link to and derive from the

societal need of humans for acceptance and social membership.


4/17

The structure of the human mind, in particular mental processes for all human

beings, is indicative of the extent to which external, nonverbal communications stimulate

mental activity and decision making (Zaltman, 2005). Zaltman noted that language is

limited and should not be confused with the process of thinking or thought. People think

not simply in words, but in pictures, feelings, and other factors(Mahoney, 2003;

Yoogalingam, 2003).

The research cited abovedemonstrated a significant relationship between

expectation and the foundations of communications structure in all forms. The research

led to the conclusion that the basis for expectation develop within each human being from

birth as the means to develop the ability to communicate, interact, and survive within

society (Lee, 1999). The research also demonstrated an increasing reliance upon

expectation norms as stress and external uncertainty increase (Henderson, 1999; Hoch,

Kunreuther, & Gunther, Eds., 2001; Lussier, 2002). It is, therefore, logical to infer that

violation of these expectations will have an effect on the mental activities of humans in

an uncertain environment. Additionally, it is logical to infer that, as cognitive processes

rely heavily on the aspects identified by Mahoney (2003) and Yoogalingam (2003) as

well as the basics of culture and language, that the individuals personality is the foci of

cognitive behavior and determination.

Method

Due to the qualitative nature of the information gathered and the position on

psychological research methodologies espoused by Jung (1968), a mixed method process

was utilized to study the relationship of personality to CMC efficacy. Jung stated that the

construct of individual personalities defies detailed analysis in a quantitative structure

due to the variation in environments within which one finds the subject and that exhibited

personality adjusts to fit the environment (Laszlo, 1990). However, Jung did not have the

specific tools available today for the assessment and quantification of behavioral

personalities.

This study utilized a bidirectional approach similar to that utilized by Wagner

(2002). The subject pool derived from a set of U.S. Army personnel with appropriate

virtual communications experience. The experience was set within a combat


5/17

environment, being the highest stress environment considered available and supportable

as such.

A questionnaire, the Military CMC Effectiveness Survey (M-CMCE), established

what information, data, and knowledge existed within the unique environment of the

individuals involved in high-stress combat situations. Participants were interviewed for

data on experiences, concerns, problems with systems where understanding were

involved, and overall impressions of communications accuracy using on-line systems.

The personality element was determined utilizing the Insights-Discovery

Personality Determination Questionnaire resulting in a quantifiable personality matrix.

The Insights-Discovery process relates the matrix to an internationally validated

psychological profile (Insights Learning and Discovery, 2006). The profile derives from

the work of Jung in The archetypes and collective unconscious (Collected Works of C.J.

Jung, Vol. 9, Part 1) (Jung, Adler, & Hull, 1968) and has been validated through

repetitive and detailed study by Westminster University, London, England (Lothian,

2002). Figures 1 and 2 are depictions of the output of the methodology.

Figure 1: Insights-Discovery learning

dynamics structure matrix. Note. From

Insights Learning and Discovery, Ltd.

(2006). The Insights-Discovery System.

Retrieved January 1, 2006, from

http://www.insights.com/core/English/

TheDiscoverySystem/default.shtm.

Reprinted with permission.


6/17

Figure 2: Insights-Discovery personality

matrix compilation wheel. Note. From

Insights Learning and Discovery, Ltd.

(2006). The Insights-Discovery System.

Retrieved January 1, 2006, from

http://www.insights.com/core/English/

TheDiscoverySystem/default.shtm.

Reprinted with permission.

The specific analysis methodology is depicted in Figure 3 below.

Data Development

M-CMC

Survey

Analysis

Mind-Stretch

Database

SoldierSubject

Insight-Discovery

PersonalitySurvey

Combat CMC ExperiencePersonality Type Data

Soldiers with CMC/Combat experience are surveyed via internet Personality Data Independent Variable

Education/Demographic Data Independent VariableExperiential Information with CMC Dependent Variable

Data obtained using single survey combining Insight-Discovery and Military-Computer MediatedCommunications (M-CMC) surveys into one interface

M-CMC gathers demographic and experiential data as to the subject s CMC activities/experiences incombat

Personality/Likert data stored in Mind-Stretch, Inc. (Insight-Discovery Company) servers and fed to theIDTA Tool for base analysis and display as Insights Wheel

Textual information fed to Analysis Software for Word-based Records (AnSWR) and codified based oncommonalities such as recurring themes, etc.

Codified information compared to personality and demographic ele ments

AnSWR

AnalysisTool

Insight-DiscoveryTeam Analysis

Tool

Text Data

Personality-LikertInformation

Likert

Data

Structured CommonAttribut es

Study Data Development and Analysis Process

PersonalityData

Figure 3: Study Methodology

RESULTS

The study data provided information indicating that there were specific

differences associated with the respondents perceptions of their ability to work within a

virtual environment. The survey investigated specific domains ranging from normal face-

to-face and purely virtual communications methodologies. The resulting information

included perceptions of the clarity of the information being passed; perception of the


7/17

message being communicated vice the intended message; and perception of error in

understanding leading to abandonment of the CMC system process. The data depicted a

nearly bi-modal structure between normal human communications and the virtual (CMC)

domains. The issue then became one of whether there existed any specific similarities

between the CMC-successful and CMC-unsuccessful groups.

Personality Results

The results from the Insights-Discovery survey consisted of four identifying

colors or labelsred, green, yellow, and bluewhich correlate to specific Jungian

personality typology functions or attributes described in Table 1. The functions or

attributes shown relate to personality characteristics, how individual participants display

the typology characteristics during personal interactions.

Table 1

Insight-Discovery Color Dynamics

A combination of Table 1 and Figure 4 indicates participants expressing a

perception of full CMC efficacy have primary personality functionality of thinking and

introverted, or what Insights-Discovery labels the Blue factor. Blue emerged as 31% of

the respondent structure. Blue individuals have primary personality traits of being highly

analytical and precise; however, others see Blue individuals as indecisive and prone to

focus on minutiae.


8/17

Focused Respondents Personality Structure

31%

23%

20%

26%

Blue

Green

Yellow

Red

Figure 4. Focused respondents personality structure summary.

Twenty-three percent of the respondents had thinking and extroverted, or Red,

tendencies. Individuals with a Red tendency have as their personality traits a value of

taking action, making decisions, and mental challenges. However, Red individuals

generally do not tolerate indecision in others or themselves (Jung et al., 1968). Red

individuals also have a high degree of confidence in their own abilities, but communicate

to others a degree of lack of trust that may not truly be a part of their personality

construct. Individuals having a score of Blue are analytical, precise, cautious, deliberate,

and others perceive this as indecisive (Jung et al.). Figure 4 depicts the results of the color

dynamics in a related scoring value for comparative analysis.

Of specific interest are the positions of the various result points in Figure 5. The

Insights Wheel segregates into the various typology color zones and further subdivided

into degrees of strength in three concentric circles. The closer the respondent scores are

toward the center of the graph, the lower the strength of the typology. Additionally, the

closer the respondent scores are toward one of the dividers, the greater is the focus of the

respondent to that typology subcategory. For example, the respondent scoring 35 on the

wheel is a primary Blue with strong observer tendencies, yet edges toward a reformer

attitude. The participant with a score of 36 is a strong Blue reformer. Each has specific

traits not part of the current study.


9/17

Figure 5: The Insights Wheel asterisk

group. Note. Figure created expressly

for the current study and reprinted with

the permission of Insights Learning and

Discovery, Ltd. via MindStretch, Inc.

Copyright 2008 by MindStretch, Inc.

Discussions with Insights-Discovery analysts revealed that what appear to be

outliers on this graph are, in fact, not (personal discussions with Amerman, 2008). The

coordinator/supporter structures reflect similar aspects to the other structures with the

primary differentiation being the coordinator/ supporter group represents introversion

rather than extraversion, which reflects a greater selection to attention on the preference

of sensing rather than thinking. Jung discussed that these preferences are focused

typologies or human differences (Jung et al., 1968). The Jungian typologies, when

combined, describe specific differences among people (Amerman, 2008). The

introversion typology focuses energy and attention inward (Jung et al., 1968). The inner

world is the real world, which determines the persons behavior. The outer world is less

real, exerting less influence on behavior (Jung et al.).

The individual in the supporter, or Green, position focuses on introverted feeling

and shows more attention to others. A Green person has a need to observe others level of

honesty, available in face-to-face communications and not CMC. Confirmation of this

evaluation comes from the respondents textual survey responses. Participants scoring in

the Green typology revealed the need to observe which responses exist in the nonverbal

communication of others and a concern for ensuring the others complete understanding

of the message sent by the respondents. However, the respondents also discussed a


10/17

comfort with CMC systems not mentioned by participants scoring virtual systems lower.

The respondents comments may come from a high degree of experience and training in

the CMC systems not indicated in the limited Likert range of the M-CMCE survey.

Figure 6 contains the personality rankings for the respondents who registered their

perception of CMC efficacy as lower than face-to-face communications. Although the

rankings appear similar, the scorings show a typology strength difference. Figure 7

diagrams a reversal of strength in both the Blue (observer/reformer) scales as well as the

Red (reformer/director) scales in side-by-side depictions. The comparison demonstrates

the relationship between the two sets and the change in typology strengths. The lines

between the two charts are not depicting a change in scorings that are from the same

individuals, but are rather of different individuals from the two separated groups.

Figure 6. The Insights Wheel nonasterisk group.Note. Figure created expressly

for the current study and reprinted with the permission of Insights Learning and

Discovery, Ltd. via MindStretch, Inc. Copyright 2008 by MindStretch, Inc.


11/17

11

Figure 7. The Insights Wheel nonasterisk group.Note. Figure created expressly for the

current study and reprinted with the permission of Insights Learning and Discovery, Ltd.

via MindStretch, Inc. Copyright 2008 by MindStretch, Inc.

The rankings in Figure 7 reflect the respondent personality types where each respondent

is in a leadership or leadership staff position. Claxton (2004) focused on participants in

leadership or leadership staff positions within the U.S. DOD. Thus, the relationship of the Blue

and Red rankings indicate similar findings to the findings discussed by Claxton (2004) in his

dissertation involving personality types and leadership roles in the U.S. Department of Defense.

The importance of the developed data of the current study, and an issue not considered byClaxton (2004), is the strength of the rankings. There are four zones or circles within the Insights

Wheel. The further toward the outer circle, the more embedded in the category the respondent

lies, and the less the secondary personality preference influences behavior. Conversely, the

nearer the center, the stronger the relationship between the types the personality becomes

(Amerman, 2008). Thus, while the current study both supports and is supported by Claxtons

work, the aspect of the general nature of personality types of individuals in leadership positions

becomes non sequitur as it is a constant.

CONCLUSIONS

The study conclusion is that personality typology may influence decision-making

efficacy of individuals utilizing CMC systems in combat environments. From the conclusion, the

identification of three specific elements as likely influencing factors was possible: strength of

individual personality typology, trust, and cognitive expectation.


12/17

12

Strength of Individual Personality Typology

When the use of fully capable CMC systems, identified as CMC with full graphics, was

under consideration, one set of the respondents recorded increased perceptions of efficacy while

the other set did not. The divergence in perception did not derive from differences in the

respondents education, virtual system experience, knowledge of information technology

systems, or level of authority while in combat environments. Rather, the respondents data

revealed nearly identical demographics. The most likely remaining element of influence, as

derived from the data, is individual typology.

More accurately, the data indicate the possibility that the strength of the personality

typology may be the primary influence. The M-CMCE survey participant textual responses,

which included verbiage indicative of experiences directly tied to the respondents perception

scores, such as a need for visual cues for those scoring CMC system efficacy low and the

disassociation of these cue requirements for those scoring CMC system efficacy high, provided

further support for this conclusion. Therefore, given the similar results of the Claxton (2004)

study and the current study, the conclusion may be drawn that a relationship exists between

personality typology strength and decision-making.

Moreover, as the Claxton (2004) study methodology and personality tool base and the

current studys methodology and tool base are sufficiently similar for close comparison, the

similarities of the study results further support the concept that specific leadership personality

relationships are a possible constant. The theory possibility is that a relationship exists between

personality strength and communications clarity within a CMC structure in a combat

environment. Given the researched relationship between both personality and communications

clarity and decision-making, there exists a potential relationship between personality and

decision making efficacy when utilizing CMC systems within a combat environment.

Trust

Although the current studys methodology was limited to typologies, some of the

developed data addressed the issue of trust. The trust issue developed from the M-CMCE survey

data focuses on two primary domains: trust of the information arriving through the CMC systems

and the participants trust of their own ability to communicate effectively via CMC systems. The

M-CMCE survey was constructed to develop data on decision-making efficacy, not individual

trust issues such as addressed in the Wagner (2002) and Walters (2004) studies. However,


13/17

13

comparisons with the Wagner and Walters studies resulted in information similar to the two trust

domains identified in the current studys data.

Wagner (2002) identified correlations in the importance or risk associated with a specific

communication message and the communications technology utilized. The nature of the issue

open for discussion by the virtual team members, according to Wagner, is a key to the

technology the teams chose to use. Walters (2004) concluded that the less confidence or trust in

the team, the sensitive or personal nature of the message, or its possible negative reception, the

more likely an individual is to select a lower technology such as e-mail. If the message is of high

importance or requires verification of understanding, is volatile, or is of high criticality, the team

member is more likely to select a face-to-face meeting or visual technology. When trust

relationships are high, advanced technology receives primary selection (Walters).

The developed data and conclusions contained in the Walters (2004) study are similar to

the data developed in the current study. Specifically, M-CMCE survey text and Likert-like score

data indicated an enhanced trust in the CMC systems by participants scoring CMC system use

high. Simultaneously, the M-CMCE survey participants scoring CMC system perceived efficacy

low likewise expressed low trust in both the systems and team members. Thus, a comparison

with the Walters study also supported acceptance of the current studys primary hypothesis.

Cognitive Expectation

A key factor in the current studys conclusion had a basis in the individuals nature to

rely upon experiences and cultural dynamics to establish expectations of which verbal and

nonverbal inputs are cognitively necessary to formulate decisions. The expectations, when

violated through their absence, result in the brain substituting potentially inappropriate memories

for missing data points. A similar occurrence exists in the psychology rubric in which a

participant reads a paragraph from which all vowels are removed. Because the cognitive

expectation has the vowels present, the brain inserts the absent vowels, enabling the reader to

understand the paragraph.

The M-CMCE survey data supported the premise of the individuals need to revert to

familiar mental processes due to the emotional comfort the processes provide. The support

derives from the participant statements expressing the desire for face-to-face communications in

sensitive situations and the participants simultaneous low scoring of CMC system perceived


14/17

14

efficacy. Reversion to familiar mental processes is the basis for the expectation violation theory

(Burgoon & Hale, 1988).

Comparison with the Wagner (2002), Claxton (2004), and Walters (2004) studies again

supported the conclusion that expectation violation may constitute a primary factor in the

observed participants perception differences. As stated in the Trust section, Wagner (2002)

found that participants perception of cognitive efficacy on the part of team members was a key

to the participants selection of virtual team involvement. Lewis and Weigert (1975), as quoted

in Wagner (2002, p. 47), noted We cognitively choose whom we will trust in what respects and

under what circumstances, and we base the choice on what we take to be good reasons

constituting evidence of trustworthiness (p. 969). A cognitive choice creates an expectation as

the choice derives from what we take to be good reasons (Lewis & Weigert, as cited in

Wagner, p. 47). The reasons derive from experience, a key elemen t in Burgoons theory of

expectation violation (Burgoon & Hale, 1998). Violation of what the individual considers a good

reason results in stress and cognitive dissonance.

The conclusion of the current study, based on available survey data and the exegetic

information, is that personality typology may directly influence perceived CMC and decision

making efficacy, particularly in the highly stressful environment of combat conditions.

Additionally, there is sufficient information present to hypothesize a direct relationship in

typology strength and degree of individual reliance upon previous experiences and decision-

making efficacy based upon expectation violation in virtual CMC environments.

George J. Graham is a faculty member for the University of Phoenixs School of Advanced Studies. He isa PhD in political science/public policy from Northern Arizona University. He holds a bachelors degreefrom the University of Southern California and a masters degree from California State University LongBeach. He may be reached [email protected].

Harry I. Nimon is a Sr. Analyst for The Boeing Corporation, Defense Systems Division. He is a PhD fromthe University of Phoenix, in Phoenix, Arizona. He holds a bachelors degree in Education from AkronUniversity, Akron, Ohio and masters degrees from Central Michigan University(MBA), Mt. Pleasant, MIand the US Army Command and General Staff College (MS in Operations Management Science). Hemay be reached [email protected].
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


15/17

15

REFERENCES

Alberts, D. S. (1996). The unintended consequences of information age technologies. Washington, DC: National DefenseUniversity.

Aldridge, J. W. (2001).A multidimensional model for building knowledge assets: Applying socio-technical systems to online

action research. Santa Barbara, CA: Fielding Graduate Institute. Retrieved November 20, 2004, from the EBSCO database.

Allot, R. (2001). The physical foundation of language. Hebworth, UK: Able. Retrieved on June 10, 2005 fromhttp://www.percepp.demon.co.uk/hypothesis.htm.

American Neurological Association. (2006). Retrieved on January 2, 2006 from http://www.aneuroa.org/

Amerman, L. (2008). The structure of Jungian psychology. Houston, TX: MindStretch.

Bermudez, J., Westenskow, D., Foresti, D., Strayer, D., Agutter, J., Syroid, N., et al. (2004). Visual representation of integratedphysiological data. Retrieved March 12, 2005, from http://faculty.arch.utah.edu/people/faculty/julio/res.htm

Bissoonauth, B. (2002). Virtual project work: Investigating critical success factors of virtual project performance. Unpublished

masters thesis, Concordia University. (UMI No. 0-612-77952-1)

Boudreau, M., Loch, K. D., Robey, D., & Straud, D. (1998). Going global: Using information technology to advance thecompetitiveness of the virtual transnational organization. Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 120-128. Retrieved

November 28, 2005, from EBSCOhost.

Bridgland, M. F., & Watro, R. J. (1987). Fault-tolerant decision making in totally asynchronous distributed systems. Bedford,MA: MITRE. Retrieved December 10, 2004, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=41845

Brown, M. (2004, June 15-17). Rapid knowledge formation in an information rich environment. Paper presented at theDODCRTS Symposium, San Diego, CA. Retrieved September 12, 2004, from http://www.dodccrp.org/events/2004/

CCRTS_San_Diego/CD/foreword.htm

Buchanan, J., & Kock, N. (2000).Information overload: A decision making perspective (MCDM2000).Retrieved February 18,2005, from http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/depts/mnss/john/iomcdm2000_1.pdf

Buller, D., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory,6, 203-242.

Burgoon, J. K. (2000). Mindfulness and interpersonal communication.Journal of Social Issues, 105-128. Retrieved October 1,2004, from www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0342/is_1_56/ai_63716504

Burgoon, J. K., Adkins, M., Kruse, J., Jensen, M. L., Meservy, T., Twitchell, D. P., et al. (2005). An approach for intentidentification by building on deception detection. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from

http://cbim.rutgers.edu/papers/Hawaii2_2005.pdf#search=%22Effects%20of%20Communications%20Modality%20on%20Arousal%2C%20Cognitive%20Complexity%2C%20Behavioral%20Control%20and%20Deception%20Detection%20During%20Deceptive%20Episodes%22

Burgoon, J. K., Blair, J. P., & Moyer, F. (2003, November 19-23) Effects of communications modality on arousal, cognitivecomplexity, behavioral control and deception detection during deceptive episodes. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the

National Communication Association, Miami, FL.

Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacybehavior. Communication Monographs, 55, 58-79.

Burgoon, J. K., & Saine, T. (1978). The unspoken dialogue: An introduction to nonverbal communication. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

Burgoon, M., Hunsaker, F. G., & Dawson, E. J. (1994). Human communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burgoon, M., & Ruffner, M. (1978).Human communication. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Caldwell, B. S., & Everhart, N. C. (1998). Information flow and development of coordination in distributed supervisory control

teams.International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 10, 51-70.

Campo, S., Cameron, K. A., Broussard, D., & Frazier, M. S. (2002, November 11). Social norms and expectancy violationtheories: Assessing the effectiveness of health communication campaigns. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Public Health Association, Ithaca, NY.

Claxton, J. D. (2004).An Examination of Personality Type Dominating Leadership Positions in Department of Defense ProgramManagement. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California (UMI No. 3140458).


16/17

16

Comadena, M. A. (1990). Book reviews. [Review of the books Nonverbal communications: The unspoken dialogue; Nonverbalcommunications: Studies and applications (2nd ed.); and The nonverbal communication reader]. Communication Education, 38,161.

Cooper, J. (2004, October 7). Vicarious cognitive dissonance: Attitude change based on someone elses behavior[Lecture].Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

De Saussure, F. (1993). Third course of lectures on general linguistics (1910-1911). London: Pergamon PressDickson, M. W., BeShears, R. S., & Gupta, B. (2004). The impact of societal culture and industry on organizational culture. In R.J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBEstudy of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1957).A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Gadanho, S. C., & Custodio, L. (2002). Asynchronous learning by emotions and cognition. Lisbon, Portugal: Institute of Systems

and Robotics. Retrieved November 28, 2004, from http://omni.isr.ist.utl.pt/~sandra/papers/ Gadanho_sab02.pdf

Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G., Alcordo, T. C., Ahanassiou, N. A., Baba, M. L., Blackburn, R., et al. (2003). Virtual teams thatwork. Jossey-Bass Business and Management Series. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Goh, K. (2004). The role of cognition and emotion regulation in conflict: A study of the impact on organizational and virtual

teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. (UMI No. 3145203)

Griffin, E., McClish, G., & Bacon, J. (2003).A first look at communication theory. Washington, DC: McGraw-Hill

Hale, J. L., Burgoon, J. K., & Householder, B. (2005). The relational communication scale. Unpublished manuscript.Halone, K. K., & Pecchioni, L. L. (2001). Relational listening: A grounded theoretical model. Communications Reports, 14, 1-4.

Hawkins, D. R. (2002). Power vs. force: The hidden determinants of human behavior. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House.

Henderson, E. D. (1999).Model for adaptive decision making behavior of distributed hierarchical teams under high temporalworkload. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. (UMI No. 733980671)

Heylighen F., Joslyn, C., & Turchin V. (Eds.). (1995). The quantum of evolution. World Futures: The Journal of General

Evolution,45, 1-4.

Higgins, M. A. (2003). Persuasion, pitch and presentation: The effects of information style on individual decision making.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. (UMI No. 765028771)

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. (Eds.). (2001). Wharton on making decisions. New York: Wiley

Insights Learning and Discovery, Ltd. (2006). The Insights-Discovery System. Retrieved January 1, 2006, from

http://www.insights.com/core/English/ TheDiscoverySystem/default.shtm

Jang, C. Y. (2003).Awareness in global virtual teams: Its antecedents and implications. Lansing: Michigan State University.(UMI No. 3115982)

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication, 13(4). Retrieved July 25, 2004, from www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html

Jung, C. J., Adler, G., & Hull, R. F. C. (1968). The archetypes and collective unconscious (Collected Works of C.J. Jung, Vol. 9,Part 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kanawattanachai, P. and Yoo, Y. (2005).Dynamic Nature of Trust in Virtual Teams. Retrieved on March 12, 2006 from

http://sprouts.case.edu/2002/020204.pdf

Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Reviews in Psychology,55, 623-655.

Kring, J. P. (2004). Communication modality and after action review performance in a distributed immersive virtual

environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando. (UMI No. 862908891)

Lane, D. R. (n.d.). Function and impact of nonverbal communication in a computer mediated communication context: Aninvestigation of defining issues. Retrieved February 18, 2005, from http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/techno/nvcmc.htm

Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63, 967-985. Retrieved April 6, 2008, fromhttp://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=95735570

Lussier, C. M. (2002).Does dynamic assessment reduce the influence of stress on memory and reasoning. Unpublisheddocument, University of California-Riverside. Retrieved September 3, 2004, fromhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.html
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=95735570http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=95735570http://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=95735570


17/17

17

Mahoney, M. (2003, January 13). The subconscious mind of the consumer (and how to reach it). Harvard Business SchoolWeekly Publication. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://www.olsonzaltman.com/oza/NEWS/WorkingKnowledge.htm

Maxwell, J.S. (2006).Emotion-Related Asymmetries and Individual Differences in Cognition and Behavior. Doctoral

dissertation, University of Wisconsin (UMI No. 3234721)

McPhee, R., & Cushman, D. P. (1980). Message-attitude-behavior relationship: Theory, methodology and application. HumanCommunication Research Series. New York: Academic Press. Retrieved November 28, 2004, from the ProQuest database.

Nimon, H. I. (2004).Issues and requirements for information processing modeling within the scenarios and wargaming group(White paper). Huntington Beach, CA: Boeing.

Reynolds, R. A., Koper, R. J., & Burgoon, M. (1982). The effects of communication context, source credibility and messagevalence as predictors of perceived compliance-gaining message appropriateness and social influence. Communication: The

Journal of the Communication Association of the Pacific, 11, 58-77. Retrieved November 18, 2004, from the ProQuest database.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006).Analysis Software for Word-based Records (AnSWR). Retrieved May10, 2006, from http://www.cdc.gov/Hiv/ SOFTWARE/answr.htm

Wagner, K. H. (2002).An investigation of conflict management in global virtual teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of California, Los Angeles. (UMI No. 3076600)

Walters, K.K.G. (2004).A Study of the Relationship Between Trust and Perceived Effectiveness in Virtual Teams. Doctoraldissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, Mn. (UMI No. 3138510.

Warner, N., & Wroblewski, E. (2004, June 15-17). The cognitive processes used in team collaboration during asynchronous,distributed decision making. Naval Air Systems Command. Paper presented at the DODCRTS Symposium, San Diego, CA.

Retrieved September 12, 2004, from http://www.dodccrp.org/events/2004/ CCRTS_San_Diego/CD/foreword.htm
http://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.htmlhttp://www.dynamicassessment.com/_wsn/page8.html

leadership journal submission 9-30-10

Documents