Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T21:14:25.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - The Discussion Coding System (DCS)

from General Group Process Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2018

Elisabeth Brauner
Affiliation:
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Margarete Boos
Affiliation:
University of Göttingen
Michaela Kolbe
Affiliation:
ETH Zürich
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Primary Sources

Schermuly, C. C., & Scholl, W. (2011). Instrument zur Kodierung von Diskussionen (IKD) [Discussion Coding System (DCS)]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Schermuly, C. C., & Scholl, W. (2012). The Discussion Coding System (DCS). A new instrument for analyzing communication processes. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Secondary Sources

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Boos, M. (1995). Die sequentielle Strukturierung sozialer Interaktion [The sequential structure of social interaction]. In Langenthaler, W. & Schiepek, G. (Hrsg.), Selbstorganisation und Dynamik in Gruppen (pp. 209221). Münster: Lit.Google Scholar
Brauner, E. (2006). Kodierung transaktiver Wissensprozesse (TRAWIS). Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Wissenstransfers in Interaktionen [Transactive Knowledge Coding System (TRAWIS): A schema for the assessment of knowledge transfer in interactions]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37, 99112. doi:10.1024/0044-3514.37.2.99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, R. (1994). Eine Methode zur Analyse von Interaktionsprozessen beim Problemlösen in Gruppen [A method for the analysis of interaction processes during group problem solving]. Gruppendynamik, 25, 149168.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2006). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 7783. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heise, D. R. (2007). Expressive order. Confirming sentiments in social action. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Ianiro, P. M., & Kauffeld, S. (2014). Take care what you bring with you: How coaches’ mood and interpersonal behavior affect coaching success. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 66, 231257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ianiro, P. M., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). Coaches and clients in action: A sequential analysis of interpersonal coach and client behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 435456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9374-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ianiro, P. M., Schermuly, C. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Why interpersonal affiliation and dominance matter: An interaction analysis of the coach-client relationship. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research & Practice, 6, 2546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2012.740489Google Scholar
Jacobs, I., & Scholl, W. (2005). Interpersonale Adjektivliste (IAL): Die empirische Umsetzung theoretischer Circumplex-Eigenschaften für die Messung interpersonaler Stile [Interpersonal Adjective List (IAL): The empirical implementation of theoretical circumplex characteristics for the measurement of interpersonal styles]. Diagnostica, 51, 145155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.51.3.145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kämmer, J. E., Gaissmaier, W., Reimer, T., & Schermuly, C. C. (2014). The adaptive use of recognition in group decision making. Cognitive Science, 38, 911942. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolbe, M. (2007). Koordination von Entscheidungsprozessen in Gruppen. Die Bedeutung expliziter Koordinationsmechanismen. [Process coordination in decision making groups. The meaning of explicit coordination mechanisms]. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Luxen, M. F. (2005). Gender differences in dominance and affiliation during a demanding interaction. The Journal of Psychology, 139, 331347. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.4.331-347CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, B., Burtscher, M. J., Jonas, K., Feese, S., Arnrich, B., Tröster, G., & Schermuly, C. C. (2016). What good leaders actually do: Micro-level leadership behavior, leader evaluations, and team decision quality. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 773789. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1189903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, B., & Schermuly, C. C. (2012). When beliefs are not enough: Examining the interaction of diversity faultlines, task motivation, and diversity beliefs on team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 456487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.560383CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sachs, L. (1999). Angewandte Statistik. Anwendung statistischer Methoden (Applied statistics. Application of statistical methods). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Scharpf, U., & Fisch, R. (1989). Das Schicksal von Vorschlägen in Beratungs- und Entscheidungssitzungen. Ein Beitrag zur Analyse inhaltlicher Aspekte der Interaktion bei der Entscheidungsfindung in Gruppen [The fate of proposals in consultation and decision situations. A contribution to the analysis of content aspects of interaction in group decision-making]. Gruppendynamik, 20, 283296.Google Scholar
Schermuly, C. C., Schröder, T., Nachtwei, J. & Scholl, W. (2010). Das Instrument zur Kodierung von Diskussionen (IKD): Ein Verfahren zur zeitökonomischen und validen Kodierung von Interaktionen in Organisationen [The Discussion Coding System (DCS): An instrument for valid and time-efficient coding of interactions in organizations]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 54, 149170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schröder, T., Netzel, J., Schermuly, C. C., & Scholl, W. (2013). Culture-constrained affective consistency of interpersonal behavior. A test of affect control theory with nonverbal expressions. Social Psychology, 44, 4758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjøvold, E. (2007). Systematizing person-group relations (SPGR). A field theory of social interaction. Small Group Research, 38, 615635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×