This study examined how the relationship between perceived mutual understanding and accuracy of understanding is moderated by media richness. The study involved 51 teams completing a crisis management task either via email (low richness) or face-to-face (high richness). Results showed that in the low richness condition, perceived mutual understanding was not related to accuracy of understanding. However, in the high richness face-to-face condition, perceived high mutual understanding was positively related to accuracy, while perceived low mutual understanding was negatively related to accuracy. The findings suggest that media richness influences whether perceptions of mutual understanding accurately reflect the level of shared understanding within teams.

1. 1
Perceived Mutual Understanding and Accuracy of Understanding:
The Moderating Role of Media Richness
Authors: Sigmund Valaker, Thorvald Hærem & Dominique Kost
An earlier version of this article was accepted for presentation at the Academy of management
conference 2014

2. 2
ABSTRACT
In this article we examined empirically, whether the congruence between perceived mutual
understanding and accuracy of understanding others information depends on the level of
media richness. We explored this research question by performing an experiment in which 51
three-member teams, 27 in a low media rich condition, email, and 24 in a high media rich
condition, face to face, engaged in a complex crisis management task. Results indicated that
perception of high mutual understanding is related to high accuracy of understanding in face
to face, but not in email. Perceived low mutual understanding is related to low accuracy of
understanding, in both media conditions. Theoretical and practical implications, limitations
and future directions for research are discussed.
Keywords: Perceived Mutual understanding, Accuracy of understanding, Media richness

3. 3
INTRODUCTION
When teams work together, it is often a problem that team members believe they know
what is going on, when they don’t. This problem may be accentuated in settings with virtual
teams and distributed problem solving (Cramton, 2001). This article aims to shed light on the
relation between what teams believe about their mutual understanding and what they actually
know about it. Specifically we study the relation between team’s perceived mutual
understanding and wheter the team actually understands others information, and whether this
relation is moderated by the use of different communication media. The distinction between
what team members believe they know and what they actually know is important both
theoretically and methodologically. Much research assumes what team believes about their
knowledge is a good proxy for what they actually know (e.g. Katz & Te’eni, 2007), but when
team members believe they have a good mutual understanding, they may actually hold
different understandings.
Congruence between perceived mutual understanding and accurate understanding is
important from a practical point of view as well. Shared accurate understanding of
information is important for achieving coordinated action. Handover of patient information
among medical doctors, or interagency antiterrorism collaboration, exemplify situations were
sharing an accurate understanding of each others` information is important (Blatt,
Christianson, Sutcliffe & Rosenthal, 2006; Weick, 2005). By knowing what information other
team members hold, it can be possible to develop a mutual understanding of the task which
can then aid performance (Krauss & Fussell, 1990). This is corroborated by recent meta-
analysis indicating that shared mental models increase team performance (DeChurch &
Mesmer-Magnus, 2010).
Other research, such as Cramton (2001), has suggested that people have problems
identifying what they know in a less rich media, yet to our knowledge this assumption has not
been empirically tested. Studies do suggest that people are less able to achieve accurate
communication when they have fewer cues for communicating (Brennan, 2004). Kruger,
Epley, Parker & Ng, (2005) tested the hypothesis that people were more prone to overestimate
the accuracy of their communication in email versus face to face communication and their
results indicated support for this hypothesis. Our study aim to extend this current research in
the following ways: Firstly it specifically look at the construct of mutual understanding
which means that it takes into account knowledge of not only the message has been properly
understand but also whether this is shared knowledge among the communication partners. We

4. 4
look at the degree of congruence between mutual understanding and accurate understanding at
the group level.
We draw media richness theory as well as theories of common ground to theorize on
the degree to which people develop an accurate understanding of others information (Daft &
Lengel, 1986; Weick & Meader, 1993; Cramton, 2001). Media that provide more cues and
faster feedback, characteristics of rich media, are thought to lead to more accurate
understanding of others information because they make it possible to have a shared reference
or common ground (Clark & Brennan, 1991). Specifically we argue that perception of mutual
understanding and accurately understanding others information are more congruent in a rich
media than in less rich media and ask the question: To what extent is the relationship between
perceived mutual understanding and accuracy of understanding moderated by media richness?
Our article intends to contribute to the discussion of what factors influence the relation
between media characteristics and organizational communication (Dennis et al., 2008). By
investigating the relation between perceived mutual understanding, media richness and
accuracy of understanding we seek to respond to a call for research on how media
characteristics affect mutual knowledge seen as a combination of accurate understanding and
knowledge that the information is shared (Krauss & Fussell, 1990; Cramton, 2007, Katz and
Te’eni, 2007). By investigating accuracy and perceived mutual understanding, a more
nuanced insight could be gained into the phenomenon of mutual knowledge.
This article is structured in the following way: We first hypothesize how perceived
mutual understanding influence accuracy of understanding, and then hypothesize how media
richness may moderate this relation. We then present the method and results from an
experimental study, and finally discuss our findings with respect to theoretical implications,
limitations, future research directions and practical implications.
----------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
----------------------------------
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
The relation between perceived mutual understanding and accuracy of understanding
Perception of mutual understanding refers to perceiving that the speaker is aware that the
listener has understood it and the listener knows that the speaker knows this (based on Katz &

5. 5
Te ’ eni, 2007). Perceived mutual understanding could lead to better accuracy of
understanding as people acknowledge the information received by others by perceiving it as
understood (Huber & Lewis, 2010). On the other hand the theory of common ground suggest
that if people do not have a reference that is readily available perception of mutual
understanding may not relate to actual high accuracy of understanding (Clark, 1996). One
example that illustrate this is the use of nonstandard phraseology during collaboration.
Although people believe they use words in similar ways they may actually be using it
differently (Weick, 1990). Such problems of lack of reference suggest that breakdowns in
accuracy can occur despite of perceived mutual understanding (Clark, 1996). Thus it could be
argued that whether there is a congruence between perception and accuracy may not be
guaranteed by perceiving their to be a mutual understanding alone and we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1: Perceived mutual understanding is not significantly related to more
accurate understanding of others information.
The influence of perceived mutual understanding on accuracy of understanding
moderated by media richness.
Although there may not be a significant relationship between perceived mutual understanding
and accuracy of understanding this may depend on the degree of media richness of the
communication media used. Using a media-richness and sense-making perspective, it can be
suggested that multiplicities of cues could lead to better accuracy in understanding other
messages (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001; Byron, 2008). One explanation
offered for why media richness, i.e., a medium’s ability to affect change of understanding in a
time interval, positively affects accuracy of understanding, is that the communication partners
are able to understand more of the sender’s intended meaning due to the presence of
nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions. This in turn enables the confirming or
disconfirming of whether one has a correct understanding (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001).
Similarly Te`eni (2001) suggest that richness of media impact the ability to convey accurately
information to others through the possibilities for richer descriptions of core content.
Furthermore, the availability of feedback in rich media could allow for checking whether a
message is understood more rapidly than in a less-rich communication medium (Cramton,
2001). This should lead to the possibility that varieties in availability of cues and rapid
feedback would positively impact accuracy of understanding by allowing a more rapid
turntaking among communication partners (Clark, 1996).
Specifically richer media may imply more shared common ground which
communication partners can relate to in order to achieve correct communication (Clark &

6. 6
Brennan, 1991). Visual references can be made to a larger extent if one is collocated or see
what the other team member sees, which could aid in tailoring ones message to the specific
situation of the ones interlocutors (Kraut, Fussell, Siegel, 2003). It can thus be grounds to
believe that people will not be accurate in judging whether there is a high versus low mutual
understanding in a less rich media, in particular when people are not used to working on a
task (Hollingshead, Brandon, Yoon & Gupta, 2011). On the other hand in a rich media
condition, perception of mutual understanding may be an indicator of a better communication
because there are available cues and information that could lead to a more accurate
perception. Based on this reasoning we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2: Perceived low mutual understanding is related to low accuracy in high
and low media rich conditions. The perception of high mutual understanding is related
to low accuracy in a low rich medium, while perception of high mutual understanding
is related to high accuracy in a high rich media condition.
METHOD
Participants and procedure
The study participants were 153 students at a business school who were placed in 51
teams consisting of three members each and played a system-dynamic command-and-control
simulation. 27 groups were placed in a low media rich condition, and 24 teams were placed in
a high media rich condition.The participants were 49 percent female and 51 percent male with
an age range from 19–53 years and a mean age of 24 years. After listening to instructions and
playing a test scenario, the teams solved three tasks lasting 20 minutes each. For the purpose
of another study, three tasks were played, but for this study, only the last task was analyzed.
After the task, the participants answered a survey on their background, perceived mutual
understanding, and measures of their knowledge of what the content of each others
intelligence updates was as well as a control measure of whether they knew the other team
members.
The participants played a simulation through a map and email interface. See Figure 2
for a screenshot of the graphical user interface in the simulation game. The task in the
simulation was to protect oil rigs in the North Sea from possible attacks from terrorists. The
terrorists operated from commercial fishing vessels. In order to hinder the attack, the team had
to accomplish the following: make fishing vessels visually appear (detection), search fishing

7. 7
vessels for information that could confirm whether they were friend or foe (infosearch), and
intercept the fishing vessel if they were confirmed as being a foe (attack). Each team member
was specialized in either detection, infosearch or attack. In order to find the hostile object the
team members needed to share information about its location. We provided the three team
members with differing information about the location of the terrorists: “Intelligence
updates”. In order to solve the task more efficiently the team members needed to integrate this
information. This resembled an established way of inducing differences in the information
provided to each participant so as to investigate how the team solves communication
problems (Schober & Brennan, 2003; Katz & Teeni, 2007).
----------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about here
-----------------------------------
Manipulations and Measures
Accuracy of understanding. This measure is constructed as a measure of whether one
correctly recalls the content of each others’ “Intelligence updates”. This operationalization
draws on the one used by Stewart and Stasser, (1995) to measure whether people accurately
recall what kind of information were connected to a specific expertise. See Appendix A for an
example item were the three first alternatives reflect the three different team members
intelligence updates so that only one alternative is correct for one role. We gave each team
member three items, one concerning its own messages, and two for the two other roles.
During the task the team members in both email and face to face condition were free to
exchange and talk about the intelligence updates to other team members.
Mutual understanding. We adapted Katz and Te’eni (2007) measure of perceived
mutual understanding to a setting with three member teams. Items 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 loaded
above 0.5 on one factor and had an alpha reliability of 0.91 (Hair et al., 2010). These five
items formed the perceived mutual-understanding scale in this study. See Appendix B for a
presentation of the items.
Media richness. In the email condition, participants were only allowed to
communicate through email. In the face-to-face condition, the teams were collocated and
could talk to each other as well as use email. For a separate sample we checked the
effectiveness of this manipulation with a perceived media richness scale (Dennis and Kinney,
1998, items are presented in Appendix B). There was a significant difference (p <.001)

8. 8
between the mean of the two conditions with a mean of 4.18 and 3.37 for face to face and
email respectively.
Control variables. We controlled for team member role and the degree to which one
knew other team members personally and professionally. Whether a particular team role were
less engaged in the task could inflict on information sharing and hence the degree to which his
or hers messages were understood. Knowing other team members could also motivate people
to be more open with the kind of information they received and hence lead to better accuracy.
By four items we asked how well they knew the two other persons in their team personally
and professionally. We retained four items loaded above 0.5 on one factor (varimax rotation)
and had an alpha reliability of 0.70 (Hair et al, 2010). These four items formed the knowing
team members scale.
RESULTS
In Table 1, the descriptive statistics and correlations of the study and the control
variable for knowing other team members are reported. We conducted a multilevel analysis
using hierarchical linear modelling in SPSS version 20, as the responses for each individual
were nested in groups (Hox, 2010). The group-level variance of mutual understanding was
moderately strong (ICC(1)=.26, p<.05). In order to avoid multicollinearity problems the
variables were mean centered before creating the interaction term. The results of the
regression analysis are presented in table 2. As shown none of the control variables were
significantly related to accuracy.
----------------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 and Table 2 about here
---------------------------------------------
The media richness accuracy relation
As suggested by the nonsignificant effect of perceived mutual understanding on
accuracy of understanding, see Table 2, our results indicated support for hypothesis 1.
Perceived mutual understanding as a moderator of the media richness accuracy relation
As shown in Table 2, the effect from the interaction between perceived mutual
understanding and media richness on accuracy of understanding was significant. To probe the
interaction, we plotted the slopes for values one standard deviation above and one standard
deviation below the mean, as recommended by Aiken and West (1991). The slopes in Figure 3

9. 9
suggest a more positive relationship between perceived mutual understanding and accuracy of
understanding for participants who were in a media rich condition (slope gradient=0.40,
p<0.10) when compared to participants who were in a low media rich condition (slope
gradient=-0.41, p>0.10). The slopes were significantly different from each other
(t=1.97,p<0.05). Additionally the difference between perceived high and perceived low
mutual understanding was not significantly different in the low rich media condition, whereas
it was significantly different in the high rich media condition (p<0.05). This indicated support
for hypothesis 2.
----------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 3 about here
---------------------------------------------
DISCUSSION
To elucidate whether perceptions of mutual understanding influence accuracy of
understanding we asked the following research question: To what extent is the relationship
between perceived mutual understanding and accuracy of understanding moderated by media
richness? Our findings indicate that media richness moderate the relationship between
perceived mutual understanding and accuracy of understanding. Specifically in a low media
rich context both high and low perceived mutual understanding was related to low accuracy.
However, in a high media rich condition high perceived mutual understanding reflected high
accuracy and low perceived mutual understanding reflected low accuracy.
Implications for theory
The theories of mutual knowledge suggest that both actually sharing knowledge and knowing
that one share the knowledge are important aspects of this construct, and that these factors
could be affected by media characteristics (Krauss & Fussell, 1990; Cramton, 2001). On this
basis research has called for empirical investigations that examine the influence from media
on mutual knowledge (Cramton, 2001; Katz & Te’eni, 2007).
Our findings indicate that the effect of perceived mutual understanding on accuracy of
understanding is conditioned by the level of media richness. This finding support previous
suggestions in theorizing on mutual understanding which claim that understanding others in
team collaboration consist of both knowing the information other possess as well as

10. 10
perceiving this information to be shared and that media could affect this relation (Cramton,
2001). One way to explain this is that although people perceive their mutual understanding to
be high in a less rich context they are exposed to less of the uncertainty with respect to
whether team members hold different information. As a consequence people may develop less
congruence between what they think they understand and what they actually understand in a
less rich media.
Limitations and directions for future research
Our findings may not fully capture the extent to which current distributed
communication aids may enable convergence on a mutual knowledge (Dennis et al., 2008).
Specifically we did not look into contextualization support as a factor that could enhance the
degree to which people develop accurate understanding. Contextualization are one of the
crucial ways that people enable understanding of messages by linking a content to a shared
reference (Weick & Meader, 1993). Research has suggested that this can be crucial for mutual
knowledge in a distributed media (Katz & Te’eni, 2007). However, research has not
investigated the link between various supports for contextualization in distributed media,
accuracy and perceptions of mutual understanding and so this could be an interesting avenue
for future research. A longer duration of the task may have made those in a less rich context
more able to learn how to achieve accurate understanding. Additionally meta-analysis
indicates that media effects are less prominent over time, and this can also apply to our
findings (de Guinea, Webster, & Staples, 2012).
This study was conducted with the intention of studying the relationship between
perception of mutual understanding, accuracy of understanding and media richness. We
deliberately focused on investigating the influence of one particular type of information. This
was information that we induced as different in order to constitute a challenge in terms of
developing accurate understanding. A potential limitation and direction for future research is
whether we would have similar findings for other kinds of information, for example whether
the information is more or less salient to the role people have in a group (Cramton & Orvis,
Wilson, 2007). In addition examining other influences, such as overconfidence, on the
congruence between perceived mutual understanding and understanding of others messages
could be interesting.
One potential threat to our design is the degree to which people know each other
before going in to the simulation. However by controlling for knowledge of others we sought
to minimize the influence from this potential threat. As shown in the results none of the

11. 11
control variables were significantly related to accuracy. On the other hand future research
could probe the degree to which our findings are similar for teams where the participants
know each other versus teams were members are strangers to each other. Furthermore, with
respect to participants we used students from a business school as our sample. Our research
could therefore be extended further by investigating expert decision makers. This could
enhance the generalizability of our findings as we investigated our research question in
simulated crisis management setting.
Finally our research specifically concerned the effect on accuracy of understanding.
Substantiating the findings in this study with an analysis of the effects of accuracy on
performance could thus be a valuable.
Managerial Implications
Collaboration in teams is increasingly performed through distributed communication.
One challenge is that of having less access to cues of what information other holds which can
lead to misunderstandings (Cramton 2001; Byron, 2008). Our research suggest that for ad hoc
teams collaborating in a short time interval there is a particular challenge involved in peoples
monitoring of whether the information is accurate or not when working distributed. Indicators
of whether information is shared may enhance the ability of collaborators in a distributed
setting to achieve mutual knowledge, as well as contextualization of messages.

12. 12
References
Blatt, R., Christianson, M. K., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Rosenthal, M. M. 2006. A sensemaking lens
on Reliability. Journal of Organizatonal Behavior, 27, 897-917.
Brennan, S. E. 2004. How conversation is shaped by visual and spoken evidence. In Trueswell
J., Tanenhaus M. (Eds.) Approaches to Studying world-situated language use: Bridging the
language as-product and language-action traditions (pp. 95-129). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Byron, K. 2008. Carrying too Heavy a Load? The Communication and Miscommunication
by Email. Academy of Management Review, 33(2): 309-327.
Carlson J. R., and Zmud, R. W. 1999. Channel Expansion Theory and the Experiential Nature
of Media Richness Perceptions,Academy of Management Journal 42(2), 153-170.
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Stanford: Cambridge University Press
Clark, H. H., Brennan, S.E. 1991. Grounding in Communication. In Perspectives on socially
shared cognition. Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., Teasley, S. D. (eds.). Washington, American
Psychological Association, 127-149.
Clark, H. H. 1995. Using Language, New York, Cambridge University Press
Cramton, C. D. 2001. The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed
Collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346-371.
Cramton, C. D., Orvis, Wilson, K. L., Wilson, J. M. 2007. Situation Invisibility and
Attribution in Distributed Collaborations. Journal of Management, 33(4), 525-546
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. 1986. Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness
and Structural Design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
DeChurch, L.A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. 2010. The cognitive underpinnings of team
effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1, 32-53.
DeChurch, L.A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. 2010. Measuring Shared Team Mental Models: A
Meta-Analysis. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 1: 1-14
deGuniea, A. O., Webster, J., Staples, D. 2012. A meta-analysis of the consequences of
virtualness on team functioning. Information & Management 49, 301-308
Dennis A. R., Fuller R. M. & Valacich J. S., 2008. Media, Tasks, and Communication
Processes. A Theory of Media Synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32, 3, 575-600
Hollingshead, A.B., Brandon, D.P., Yoon, K. & Gupta, N., 2010. Communication and
Knowledge sharing Errors in Groups: A Transactive Memory Perspective. In H. E. Canary
and R. D. McPhee (Eds.), Communication and Organizational Knowledge: Contemporary
Issues for Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Taylor Francis/Routledge.
Hollingshead, A.B., & Fraidin, S.N. 2002. Gender stereotypes and assumptions about
expertise in transactive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 355 – 363.
Hox, J. 2010. Multilevel Analysis. Techniques and Application. London: Routledge
Huber, George P., & Lewis, Kyle. 2010. Cross - Understanding: Implications for group
cognition and performance. Academy of Management Review, 35(1): 6-26.
Katz, A., Te ́eni, D. 2007. The Contingent Impact of Contextualization on Computer-Mediated
Collaboration. Organization Science, 18(2), 261-279.
Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., & Siegel, J. 2003. Visual information as a conversational resource
in collaborative physical tasks. Human-Computer Interaction, 18, 13-49.
Krauss, R., S. Fussell. 1990. Mutual knowledge and communicative effectiveness. In J.
Galegher, R. Kraut, C. Egido, (Eds.) Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological

13. 13
Foundations of Cooperative Work. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ 111–146.
Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z. W. 2005. Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we
communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6): 925-
936.
Lind, M.R. & Zmud, A.W. 1991. The Influence of a Convergence in Understanding Between
Technology Providers and Users on Information Technology Innovativeness, Organization
Science (2)2: 195-217.
Schober & Brennan, 2003. Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role of the partner.
In Graesser, A. C., Gernsbacher, M. A., Goldman, S. R. (Eds.) Handbook of discourse
processes (pp. 123-164). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. 1986. Reducing social-context cues: Electronic mail in
organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11): 1492-1512.
Stewart, D.D., Stasser, G., Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective
recall and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 4, 619-628
Te'eni D. (2001). A Cognitive-Affective Model of Organizational Communication for
Designing IT. MIS Quarterly 25 (2), 251-312
Weick, K. E. 1990. The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster. Journal of
Management, 16(3): 571-593.
Weick, K. E., & Meader, D. K. (1993). Sensemaking support systems. In L. M. Jessup & J. S.
Valecich (Eds.), Group support systems: New perspectives (pp. 230-252). New York:
Macmillan.
Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: assuring high performance
in an age of complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meser-Magnus, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. 2010. Measuring Shared Team Mental Models:
A Meta-Analysis. Group Dynamics, 14(1):1-14
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of
sensemaking, Organization Science, 16(4): 409-421

14. 14
APPENDIX A
Items
Accuracy of understanding (example item)
What was the content of the intelligence update received by the Frigate? Answer alternatives:
-We have unverified information that the terrorists are operating from commercial fishing vessels. These vessels
can be located near Faraoe Islands (1)
-We have unverified information that the terrorists use commercial fishing vessels. These vessels can be located
near the westcoast of Denmark (2)
-We have verified informaiton that the terrorists operate from commercial fishing vessels. These vessels are
located in the Barents Sea between the northern part of Norway and Svalbard. (3)
-We have unverified information that the terrorists operate from commercial fishing vessels. These vessels are
located at the northern part of (4)
-None of the answers (5)
Perceived Mutual understanding a)
-I understood my partner’s messages.
-I successfully monitored incoming messages during the task.
-My partner’s actions indicated that they understood my messages.
-I knew when my communication partners understood my messages and when they did not.
-My communication partners and I understood each other.
a) Scored on a likert type scale from 1-7 strongly disagree to strongly agree.
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Variables Mean s.d. Max. Min. 1. 2. 3.
1. Mutual understanding 5.03 1.00 6.00 1.40
2.Accuracyof understanding 0 1 6.00 -1.40 0.15†
3. Media richnessa
0.47 0.50 1.00 1 0.30**
0.22**
4. Knowing team members 1.8 1.14 5.50 1 0.10 -0.01 0.16*
Note. N=153.
†p<.10
*p<.05
**p<.01
A) Media richness: email = ”0”, face-to-face = “1”

15. 15
TABLE 2
Regression Analyses
Accuracy of understanding
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Intercept 0.03 -0.11 -0.12
Orion 0.21 0.27 0.28
Patrol -0.20 -0.13 -0.12
Frigatte 0.00 0.00 0.00
Knowing team members -0.02 -0.06 -0.06
Mutual understanding 0.13 -0.00
Media richness 0.37* 0.30†
Mutual understanding X Media richness 0.40*
Deviance (AIC) 447.30 433.25 431.42
Pseudo-R2
0.02 0.09 0.10
∆Pseudo-R2
0.07 0.01
Note.Unstandardized regression coefficients are shown.
†p<.10
*p<.05
**p<.01
***p<.001
Figure 1
Research model

16. 16
Figure 2
Game interface
FIGURE 3
Two-way Interaction with Accuracy of Understanding as Dependent Variable