Asparouhov, T., Hamaker, E., & Muthén, B. (2017). Dynamic structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25, 359–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1406803CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2008). Multilevel mixture models. In Hancock, G. R. & Samuelsen, K. M. (Eds.), Advances in latent variable mixture models (pp. 27–51). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Auld, F. Jr., & White, A. M. (1956). Rules for dividing interviews into sentences. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 42, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1956.9713040CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Back, M. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2010). The social relations model: How to understand dyadic processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(10), 855–870. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00303.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (Vol. 2nd). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Bales, R. F., Cohen, S. P., & Williamson, S. A. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Balkwell, J. W. (1994). Status. In Foschi, M. & Lawler, E. J. (Eds.), Group processes: Sociological analyses (pp. 119–148). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar

Bonito, J. A. (2001). An information-processing approach to participation in small groups. Communication Research, 28(3), 275–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A. (2002). The analysis of participation in small groups: Methodological and conceptual issues related to interdependence. Small Group Research, 33(4), 412–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640203300402CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A. (2007). A local model of information sharing in small groups. Communication Theory, 17(3), 252–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00295.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A., Ervin, J. N., & Staggs, S. M. (2016). Estimation and application of the latent group model. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20(3), 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000044CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1997). Participation in small groups. In Burleson, B. R. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 20 (Vol. 20, pp. 227–261). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Bonito, J. A., & Meyers, R. A. (2011). Examining functional communication as egocentric or group-centric: Application of a latent group model. Communication Monographs, 78(4), 463–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2011.618138CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A., & Ruppel, E. K. (2011). An application of the socioegocentric model to information-sharing discussions: In search of group-level communication influences. Communication Research, 38(3), 356–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210377195CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A., Ruppel, E. K., & Keyton, J. (2012). Reliability estimates for multilevel designs in group research. Small Group Research, 43(4), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412437614CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A., & Sanders, R. E. (2009). A different approach to answering a good question: A response to Hewes’s models of communication effects on small group outcomes. Human Communication Research, 35(2), 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01351.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonito, J. A., & Sanders, R. E. (2011). The existential center of small groups: Member’s conduct and interaction. Small Group Research, 42(3), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410385472CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100105CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corman, S. R., & Kuhn, T. (2005). The detectability of socio-egocentric group speech: A quasi-Turing test. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111849CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cornwell, B. (2015). Social sequence analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coulter, P. (1989). Measuring inequality: A methodological handbook. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (1983). Introduction. In Craig, R. T. & Tracy, K. (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy (pp. 10–22). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Dansereau, F. (2006). Avoiding the “fallacy of the wrong level”: A within and between analysis (WABA) approach. Group & Organization Management, 31(5), 536–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106291131CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2002). Task versus relationship conflict: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2002(1), B1–B6. https://doi.org/10.5465/APBPP.2002.7516590CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, J. A. (1993). Principles and contrasting systems of discourse transcription. In Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Ervin, J. N., Bonito, J. A., & Keyton, J. (2017). Convergence of intrapersonal and interpersonal processes across group meetings. Communication Monographs, 84(2), 200–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2016.1185136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fisek, M. H., & Ofshe, R. (1970). The process of status evolution. Sociometry, 33(3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786161CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Folger, J. P., Hewes, D. E., & Poole, M. S. (1984). Coding social interaction. In Dervin, B. & Voight, M. J. (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (pp. 115–161). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (2002). Modeling the personality of dyads and groups. Journal of Personality, 70(6), 901–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gottman, J. M., & Roy, A. K. (1990). Sequential analysis: A guide for behavorial researchers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gouran, D. S., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1996). Functional theory and communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups: An expanded view. In Hirokawa, R. Y. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (pp. 55–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Morgan, P. C. (Ed.) pp. (41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Guetzkow, H. (1950). Unitizing and categorizing problems in coding qualitative data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 47–58. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(195001)6:1%3C47::AID-JCLP2270060111%3E3.0.CO;2-I3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heck, R. H., & Thomas, S. L. (2015). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques: MLM and SEM approaches using Mplus (3rd edn.). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hewes, D. E. (1996). Small group communication may not influence decision making: An amplification of socio-egocentric theory. In Hirokawa, R. Y. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd edn., pp. 179–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hewes, D. E. (2009). The influence of communication processes on group outcomes: Antithesis and thesis. Human Communication Research, 35(2), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01347.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hirokawa, R. Y. (1982). Group communication and problem-solving effectiveness I: A critical review of inconsistent findings. Communication Quarterly, 30(2), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378209369440CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hirokawa, R. Y. (1988). Group communication and decision-making performance: A continued test of the functional perspective. Human Communication Research, 14(4), 487–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00165.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hirokawa, R. Y. (1990). The role of communication in group decision-making efficacy: A task-contingency perspective. Small Group Research, 21(2), 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496490212003CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd edn). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5, 43–46.Google Scholar

Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar

Kameda, T., Ohtsubo, Y., & Takezawa, M. (1997). Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence: An illustration in a group decision-making context. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 73(2), 296–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.296CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 451–477). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google ScholarPubMed

Kenny, D. A., & Garcia, R. L. (2012). Using the actor–partner interdependence model to study the effects of group composition. Small Group Research, 43(4), 468–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412441626CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (1986). Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 422–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.422CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Keyton, J. (1991). Evaluating individual group member satisfaction as a situational variable. Small Group Research, 22(2), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496491222004CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In Frey, L. R., Gouran, D. S., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192–224). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Waller, M. J., Wacker, J., Grande, B., Burtscher, M. J., & Spahn, D. R. (2014). Monitoring and talking to the room: Autochthonous coordination patterns in team interaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1254–1267. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037877CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larson, J. R. (1997). Modeling the entry of shared and unshared information into group discussion: A review and BASIC language computer program. Small Group Research, 28(3), 454–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496497283007CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). A sequential analysis of procedural meeting communication: How teams facilitate their meetings. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(4), 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2013.844847CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lei, Z., Waller, M. J., Hagen, J., & Kaplan, S. (2016). Team adaptiveness in dynamic contexts: Contextualizing the roles of interaction patterns and in-process planning. Group & Organization Management, 41(4), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115615246CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, F., Duncan, T. E., & Hops, H. (2001). Examining developmental trajectories in adolescent alcohol use using piecewise growth mixture modeling analysis. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2001.62.199CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Littlepage, G. E., Schmidt, G. W., Whisler, E. W., & Frost, A. G. (1995). An input-process-output analysis of influence and performance in problem-solving groups. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69(5), 877–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.877CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (2010). Extending the conversational argument coding scheme: Argument categories, units, and coding procedures. Communication Methods and Measures, 4(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312451003680467CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nguyen, V.-A., Boyd-Graber, J., Resnik, P., Cai, D. A., Midberry, J. E., & Wang, Y. (2014). Modeling topic control to detect influence in conversations using nonparametric topic models. Machine Learning, 95(3), 381–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-013-5417-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parker, K. C. (1988). Speaking turns in small group interaction: A context-sensitive event sequence model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 965–971. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.965CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pavitt, C. (2014). An interactive input–process–output model of social influence in decision-making groups. Small Group Research, 45(6), 704–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414548353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pavitt, C., & Johnson, K. K. (1999). An examination of the coherence of group discussions. Communication Research, 26(3), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365099026003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pavitt, C., & Johnson, K. K. (2002). Scheidel and Crowell revisited: A descriptive study of group proposal sequencing. Communication Monographs, 69(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750216535CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poole, M. S. (1998). The small group should be the fundamental unit of communication research. In Trent, J. S. (Ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the 21st century (pp. 94–97). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar

Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. E. (2000). Organizational change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research. Oxford, UK, and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Putnam, L. L., & Jones, T. S. (1982). The role of communication in bargaining. Human Communication Research, 8(3), 262–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1982.tb00668.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Pickles, A. (2004). Generalized multilevel structural equation modeling. Psychometrika, 69(2), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295939CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sackett, G. P. (1979). The lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity in behavioral interaction research. In Osofsky, J. D. (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (Vol. 1, pp. 623–649). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar

Seibold, D. R., & Meyers, R. A. (2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38(3), 312–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407301966CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shelly, R. K., & Troyer, L. (2001). Emergence and completion of structure in initially undefined and partially defined groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(4), 318–332. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090157CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Skvoretz, J. (1988). Models of participation in status-differentiated groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith-Lovin, L., Skvoretz, J., & Hudson, C. G. (1986). Status and participation in six-person groups: A test of Skvoretz’s comparative status model. Social Forces, 64(4), 992–1005. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/64.4.992CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Soller, A. (2004). Understanding knowledge-sharing breakdowns: A meeting of the quantitative and qualitative minds. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(3), 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00081.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Soller, A., & Lesgold, A. (2003). A computational approach to analyzing online knowledge sharing interaction. In U. Hoppe, F. Verdejo, & J. Kay (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Shaping the future of learning through intelligent technologies (pp. 253–260). Amsterdam, NL: IOS Press.Google Scholar

Stapleton, L. M., Yang, J. S., & Hancock, G. R. (2016). Construct meaning in multilevel settings. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 41(5), 481–520. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998616646200CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stasser, G., & Taylor, L. A. (1991). Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.675CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14(3), 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1403&4_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stasser, G., & Vaughan, S. I. (1996). Models of participation during face-to-face unstructured discussion. In Witte, E. H. & Davis, J. H. (Eds.), Understanding group behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 165–192). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Tschan, F. (1995). Communication enhances small group performance if it conforms to task requirements: The concept of ideal communication cycles. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(3), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1703_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Lange, P. A. M., & Balliet, D. (2015). Interdependence theory. In Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Simpson, J. A., & Dovidio, J. F. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 65–92). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14344-003CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weingart, L. R., Brett, J. M., Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2007). Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 994–1010. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.994CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Weingart, L. R., Prietula, M. J., Hyder, E. B., & Genovese, C. R. (1999). Knowledge and the sequential processes of negotiation: A Markov chain analysis of response-in-kind. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(4), 366–393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wickham, R. E., & Knee, C. R. (2012). Interdependence theory and the actor–partner interdependence model: Where theory and method converge. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(4), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312447897CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., & Botero, I. C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71(3), 286–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000299894CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., Paulus, P. B., Hirokawa, R. Y., Ancona, D. G., Peterson, R. S., … Yoon, K. (2004). The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups. Small Group Research, 35(1), 17–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403259459CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zijlstra, F. R. H., Waller, M. J., & Phillips, S. I. (2012). Setting the tone: Early interaction patterns in swift-starting teams as a predictor of effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(5), 749–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.690399CrossRefGoogle Scholar