Multicommunicating

Multicommunicating is the practice of engaging in more than one conversations at a time.[1] The possibility and likelihood of such interactions has accelerated with the advent of digital technology and its ubiquitous nature in the form of the smartphone.[2]

The term was coined by Reinsch, Turner, and Tinsley (2008),[3] who proposed that simultaneous conversations can be conducted using an ever-increasing array of media, including face-to-face, phone, and email tools for communication. Multicommunication has since evolved with the rapid development of information and communications technology (ICT) and is a common form of behavior within new and emerging digital media applications such as Slack and Skype.

The increasing prevalence of the practice in recent years has also garnered attention from academic fields. From a physiological and cognitive perspective, multicommunication is possible because humans, or presence allocators,[4] are typically able to think faster than they are able to speak or type.[3] Nonetheless, most neuroscientific studies imply that we are not truly cognitively capable of multitasking; we are just able to switch between tasks. This means that those who are most skilled at apparent multitasking, or multicommunicating, are essentially very quick at juggling their attention between messages.[5]

Currently, the majority of academic research into the subject focuses on its professional implications, outlining a number of key factors that shape the act of multicommunicating. For instance, the flexibility of communication tempo, the compartmentalization of conversations, topics discussed, and the intensity of interactions are all factors that contribute toward a person's choice to engage in multicommunication, as well as their ultimate success with the practice. Notably, many people engage in multiple conversations as a direct response to the requests of others. Employees frequently believe that multicommunication increases their productivity and work efficiency; however, in-depth interviews about the practice of multicommunicating have often revealed mixed results. Research has also shown that the most common combinations used for multicommunicating are the telephone and email, followed by the telephone and text-based messaging (text message, instant message, etc.).[6]

Foundational theories

Multicommunicating 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 (2005), who coined the term multicommunicating in 2008, initially introduced the term polychronic communication in one of their first scholarly presentations of the concept to the wider academic community.[7]

Multicommunicating is thus closely related to the work of Edward T. Hall, who coined the term polychronicity in his 1959 book, The Silent Language. In subsequent works, Hall developed the argument that polychronicity is a measure of a culture's preference toward engaging in several activities at a time. An important conceptual transition occurred in the late 1990s, when Bluedorn, et al (1999)[8] became one of the first scholars to adopt the term polychronicity from the cultural context and apply it to the workplace.

Presentation of self (Goffman)

The notion of the presentation of self, which suggests that people engage in a world of multistage dramas, was introduced by Erving Goffman and also plays an informing role in the construction of multicommunicating.

The idea that we tailor our behavior to suit our environmental contexts and situations is indeed true for conversations, too. Where multicommunicating differentiates itself from Goffman's theory, however, is that a presence allocator adopts their appropriate behavior cues from both the interaction and medium themselves; in contrast, the actor picks up behavioral cues from their physical environment. Nonetheless, Goffman's theory set the stage for further studies, wherein computer-mediated contexts (CMC) shape online self-presentation.[9]

Media richness theory (Daft and Lengel)

Another important concept in multicommunication is Richard L. Daft and Robert H. Lengel's research on media richness theory, which concerns how employees choose which technologies to use in the workplace.[10][11] Similar to "the medium is the message" concept proposed by Marshall McLuhan, Daft and Lengel argue that different media have varying qualities that make them more or less suited for certain interactions.

In their study on the relationship between managerial communication and media selection, Daft and Lengel encourage communication media that emphasizes face-to-face interaction.[10] For example, a relatively complex interaction, such as an important conversation with a new business partner, will likely be carried out with as rich of a medium as possible. This rich medium would be a communication technology, like Skype or even a face-to-face conversation, which would allow for maximum information and submersion in the interaction. Conversely, a more casual and routine conversation, such as the making of lunch plans with a coworker, could easily be carried out over a less contextually rich medium like an office chat or a text message.

Multicommunicating 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 multicommunicate. For example, if a conversation is not very complicated or equivocal, a person might be more likely to engage in multiple conversations. A conversation that is more complicated might make it hard for multicommunicating to take place.[4]

Channel expansion theory

Closely connected to media richness theory is also the notion of channel expansion theory,[12] which suggests that, as an individual becomes more familiar with a specific technology, his or her perception of its capabilities and richness expands. Thus, somebody who is very comfortable with a certain chat site may perceive it to be richer in contextual nature than somebody who is only familiar with its most basic functionalities.

This contributes to the understanding of multicommunicating in the sense that people's experience with various media may make them more skilled at picking up contextually-rich conversation signals as well as more prepared for handling certain communication technologies. However, even though channel expansion theory implies there are positive effects associated with the familiarity of technology, this does not necessarily suggest that as a person's perception of media richness increases, the process of multicommunicating becomes simplified.

Media ecology theory

Organizational norms shape the frequency and usage of multicommunication within an organization. In this sense, the practice of multicommunicating is a type of multiple media (i.e., multimedia) practice, as people often use more than one media when engaging in multiple conversations.[13]

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, and usually, all three are used when engaged in multiple conversations in a technology-enriched workplace.[14]

Multicommunicating and multitasking

Multicommunicating is similar in nature to the notion of multitasking. Differentiating between multicommunicating 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.

In essence, multitasking refers to the behavior of performing two or more unrelated tasks concurrently,[15] simply emphasizing task independence and performance concurrency. Multicommunicating, however, 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.[16]

Therefore, in essence, multicommunicating is a complex form of multitasking.[17]

Multicommunicating departs from multitasking in that it refers specifically to the management of multiple conversations, people, and media—rather than just any task—at the same time. Stephen, Cho, and Ballard (2011) elucidate this distinction by comparing dovetailing (sequential communication) with multicommunication (simultaneous interactions).[18] In addition, multicommunicating often occurs unbeknown to one's communication partners.

In addition to multicommunicating, multitasking also includes electronic multitasking,[19] "invisible whispering,"[20] and, social multitasking.[21] Electronic multitasking entails consuming one-way media while actively performing another activity, such as watching television while doing homework.[22] Invisible whispering consists of secretively using media to communicate with an individual during a meeting, such as texting a person within the same conference room.[23] Lastly, social multitasking involves tasks that are primarily social-interactive, such as switching between face-to-face conversation and texting.[24] While these subcategories have particular defining characteristics, they are largely overlapping with other categories.

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 multicommunicating: compartmentalization and flexibility of tempo.

Compartmentalization

Compartmentalization refers to the ability and ease of cross-conversations. For instance, an online chat allows one to move relatively freely from one conversation to another. In this case, the ability to hide conversations from the multiple communication partners is an important factor of compartmentalization, too.

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). Of course, sometimes presence allocators do not have a choice about one or more of the media they engage with. However, specific combinations of communication media may contribute strongly toward the success or, lack thereof, one has with multicommunicating.

Outcome factors

Several factors may help to determine the outcomes of an episode of multicommunicating, including intensity, topic of conversation, equivocality, and the presence allocator themselves.

Intensity of communication

Intensity of communication is one of the key factors in multicommunicating 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. Overly high intensity has sometimes been reported as a factor for unsuccessful multicommunicating.

Topic of conversation

The topics or themes of episodes of multicommunicating are another key factor determining overall success. Put simply, the more alike the themes of the simultaneous conversations, the more congruent an experience and easier a time the presence allocator has in information processing and 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 or conversation mix-ups.

Equivocality

The notion of equivocality is closely related to topic or theme of communication and is another key factor, which may help to determine the success of multicommunicating. Equivocality refers to the possibility for misinterpretation and studies suggest 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 that has high media-richness. The possibility for equivocality extends to episodes of multicommunicating, too, and could potentially be compounded if one has to switch their attention between media—or does not engage in rich-media conversations when necessary.

Presence allocator

There are limits to our working memory that in turn restrict our cognitive information processing capabilities. 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 and physical compatibility of the tasks being performed, but they increase with task complexity.[25]

Overall, research advocates that presence allocators have the most successful experiences with multicommunicating episodes when engaged in multiple conversations with contextually appropriate media around similar topics. Likewise, the frequent reports of unsuccessful multicommunicating episodes include a sense of high intensity, equivocality and theme confusion. In those cases, information overload can occur to the point where a conversation slows down, becomes confounded or altogether stops.

Implications

The first studies of multicommunicating began when instant messaging first became common practice.[26] While the study of multicommunicating is still in its emergent stages, it appears to be increasingly relevant to a fast-paced, multitasking society.

Productivity

Most people indicate that they multicommunicate in order to become more efficient. However, this goal of efficiency has received some mixed results. Despite the notion that getting several things done at once makes us more productive, research has indicated that polychronicity is negatively correlated with deadlines.[27] More specifically, when it comes 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 multicommunicating altogether when it comes to important conversations which require strong attention.

Several scholars also hypothesized that perceived communication workload can influence people engaging in multicommunicating. Since perceived heavy workload gives people a sense of loss of time, which may result to people compensating for the effect of being overloaded by multicommunicating. However, as revealed by related research results, perceived communication overload did not predict meeting multitasking behaviors.[28]

Perceived incivility

By employing the social exchange theory, which views social behavior as "an exchange of goods, material goods but also non-material ones, such as the symbols of approval or prestige" where "persons that give much to others try to get much from them, and persons that get much from others are under pressure to give much to them."[29]

Carmeno and Webster (2010) examine the relational outcomes of multicommunicating from the following aspects: conversation leveraging, multicommunicating performance, focal individual accessibility, partner's polychronic communication orientation, awareness and media fit. In their research, they suggest that multicommunicating has the potential to build up or damage our workplace relationships. And the incivility perceived in multicommunicating may lead to mistrust in working places.[30]

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 (2015) explain how individuals internalize and enable social connectedness within their daily lives.[31] The model outlines: types of connection cues; factors that moderate sensitivity to connection norms; and activation paths for connection habits.

However, the question still remains of what "stay connected" really means. One could argue that perhaps it means that their physical presence also determines their social presence. Taking on this concern, Turner & Foss (2018) 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:[32]

  1. Budgeted presence occurs when one engages in multiple conversations at once, for instance, talking to one's friend while also sending an email.
  2. Entitled presence occurs when one can take one's audience’s technology away or someone takes one's technology away, for instance, one's in class and the professor asks to put one's phones away.
  3. Competitive presence occurs when one try to persuade other people or group of people to pay attention to one, and one seem to have to compete with their communication technology, for instance, when one's trying to share a personal story with one's friend, but they're on their phone and are not paying attention to one.
  4. Invitational presence occurs when one decide to focus on one's audience and one is making a concrete effort to be in the moment (only one conversation), one is focused only on that interaction, for instance, one is having a one-on-one conversation with one's friend, there is no technology involved and there are no distractions.

In attempts to determine whether social presence can be measured, Biocca, Harms & Burgoon (2003) emphasize the need for understanding of social behavior in mediated environments.[33] They argue that such environments allow researchers to predict and measure differences among interfaces and guide the design of new social environments and interfaces.[33]

Group interactions

Multicommunicating is especially present in team collaborations. In order to be more effective in their workplace, teams would 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 (TCPs) enable affordances for multicommunication and attention allocation, including flexible scaling of media modality and synchronicity.[34]

Another important factor to consider with multicommunicating is the organizational context and the perception of others.[30] 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 multicommunicational behaviors.[35]

The perception of what others think about multicommunicating is also another significant predictor on this behaviors. Due to an underlying perception of rudeness or partiality of conversational investment associated with multicommunicating, people will often hide from their conversational partners the fact that they are multicommunicating. However, when people perceive multicommunicating as acceptable within their organizations, they are less likely to feel embarrassed and will engage in such behaviors more often.

Likewise, depending on the organizational culture, multicommunicating can become particularly 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 multicommunicating were considered an organizational 'norm', its practice could also bring positive feedback.[30]

Productivity

Multicommunication can change the ways in which teams work and interact within the organization. An important factor to consider with multicommunicating is the organizational context and the perception of others.[36]

Stephens and Davis (2009) discuss the social influences on electronic multitasking in organizational meetings.[37] ICTs have infiltrated meetings and allowed for a new range of communicative behaviors to emerge. The observation of organizational norms, and the perception of what others think of the use of ICTs for multitasking, explain a considerable amount of variance in how individuals use ICTs to communicate electronically in meetings.[37]

Relating to this point, Belanger and Watson (2006) made a study exploring how virtual team members structure their use of multiple media to attain strategic goals.[38] In today’s work environment, individuals working in teams must learn to manage their time for communication and coordination, and to add to this complexity teams can range from completely virtual environments to face-to-face and all the technologies that are involved. Cardon and Dai (2014) examine the nature of mobile phone use in meetings among Chinese professionals.[39] The etiquette associated with mobile phone use differ across cultures, hence multicommunicating via mobile phones in meetings, a practice that is mostly client-based and relationship-based, changes among cultures and across generations.

Criticisms

Criticisms of multicommunication theory at large are not prevalent considering the obvious reason that multicommunicating is a relatively newly defined and studied behavior. However, due to the fact that multicommunicating has been largely studied for its professional implications, recent critical research suggests that multicommunicating behavior may have adverse effects on individual productivity,[36] workplace relationships,[40] and stress management.[41]

Psychology

Cameron (2016) draws from several disciplines, including management and cognitive and social psychology, to provide several misconceptions about multicommunication. After conducting empirical research, she claims that multicommunicating, contrary to popular belief, may render an individual less accessible, less productive, and potentially more rude in certain professional contexts. She points out that multicommunicating 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.[42] In doing so, many people multicommunicate as an uncontrolled habit rather than a strategic form of communication, offering more negative implications than positive. Cameron, however, does not advocate against multicommunication, but rather for people to better understand their multicommunicating behaviors and to practice multicommunicating more intentionally.

Gender

The practical implications of multicommunicating have also drawn criticism in gender studies. Soukup's (2000) analysis of computer-mediated communication through a critical ethnography of gendered chat rooms illustrates the normative forms of behavior among genders online. In distinct gendered chat rooms, masculine participants mostly demonstrated more aggressive and argumentative, while feminine participants mostly sought relationships and intimacy.[43] These earlier findings have significant implications on multicommunicating behavior. Paskewitz and Beck (2019) conducted research about texting during workplace meetings and determined that women perceive individuals who practice multicommunicating more negatively than men. At the same time, the gender of the multicommunicator did not play a role in these perceptions.[44]

See also

References
  1. "Multicommunicating Effectively to Increase Productivity". DeGarmo. 2010-07-07. Retrieved 2016-03-25. ...engaging in two or more overlapping, synchronous conversations.
  2. Turner, Jeanine Warisse, and Sonja K. Foss. 2018. "Options for the Construction of Attentional Social Presence in a Digitally Enhanced Multicommunicative Environment." Communication Theory 28:22–45. doi:10.1093/ct/qty002.
  3. 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.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. Turner, Jeanine Warisse, and N. Lamar Reinsch. 2007. "The Business Communicator as Presence Allocator: Multicommunicating, Equivocality, and Status at Work." The Journal of Business Communication (1973) 44(1):36–58. doi:10.1177/0021943606295779.
  5. Ocasio, W (2011). "Attention to Attention". Organizational Science. 22 (5): 1–11. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0602.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Bluedorn, Allen C., Thomas J. Kalliath, Michael J Strube, and Gregg D. Martin (1999). "Polychronicity and the inventory of polychronic values (IVP): The development of an instrument to measure a fundamental dimension of organizational culture". Journal of Managerial Psychology. 14 (3/4): 205–30. doi:10.1108/02683949910263747.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. Kuznekoff, Jeffrey H. 2012 "The Online Presentation of Self: Re-Examining Goffman’s Presentation of Self Across Contemporary CMC Contexts (PDF)" (dissertation). Ohio University. – via OhioLINK. document #:ohiou1335883419.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Carlson, J.; Zmud, R. (1995). "Channel Expansion Theory and the Experiential". The Academy of Management Journal. 42 (2): 153–170.
  13. 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.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. West, Richard L., and Lynn H. Turner. Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application (5th ed.). New York. ISBN 9780073534282. OCLC 844725577.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. 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.
  16. Ann-Frances, Cameron, et al. "Four Common Multicommunicating Misconceptions." European Journal of Information Systems 25.5 (2016): 465-71. ProQuest. Web.
  17. 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.
  18. Stephens, K.; Cho, J.; Ballard, D. (2012). "Simultaneity, Sequentiality, and Speed: Organizational Messages About Multiple-Task Completion". Human Communication Research. 38 (1): 23–47. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01420.x.
  19. 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.
  20. Dennis, Alan R.; Rennecker, Julie A.; Hansen, Sean (2010-11-01). "Invisible Whispering: Restructuring Collaborative Decision Making with Instant Messaging". Decision Sciences. 41 (4): 845–886. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00290.x. ISSN 1540-5915.
  21. Baron, Naomi S. (2008). "Adjusting the Volume: Technology and Multitasking in Discourse Control". Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies: 177–93. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262113120.003.0014. ISBN 9780262113120. (see unpublished version).
  22. Bardhi, F.; Rohm, A. J.; Sultan, F. (2010). "Tuning in and tuning out: Media multitasking among young consumers". Journal of Consumer Behavior. 9 (4): 316–32. doi:10.1002/cb.320.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. Kaufman, C.F.; Lane, P.M.; Lindquist, J.D. (1991). "Exploring More than 24 Hours a Day: A Preliminary Investigation of Polychronic Time Use". Journal of Consumer Research. 18 (3): 392–401. doi:10.1086/209268.
  28. 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.
  29. Homans, G. C. 1958. "Social behavior as exchange." American Journal of Sociology 63(3):597–606.
  30. Cameron, Ann-Frances; Webster, Jane (2010). "Relational Outcomes of Multicommunicating: Integrating Incivility and Social Exchange Perspectives". Organizational Science. 22 (3): 754–771. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0540.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. Stephens, Keri K. (2009). "The Social Influences on Electronic Multitasking in Organizational Meetings". Management Communication Quarterly Online. 23: 63–83. doi:10.1177/0893318909335417. S2CID 145199900.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. Soukup, Charles. 2000. "Building a Theory of Multi-Media CMC: An Analysis, Critique and Integration of Computer-Mediated Communication Theory and Research." New Media & Society 2(4):407–25. doi:10.1177/1461444800002004002.
  44. 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.

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.