Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 765–786 | Cite as

Anonymity in Computer-Mediated Communication: More Contrarian Ideas with Less Influence

  • Russell HainesEmail author
  • Jill Hough
  • Lan Cao
  • Douglas Haines


Anonymity is thought to be an important means for ensuring a free exchange of ideas by encouraging the expression of minority viewpoints. However, we suggest that anonymity’s reduction in awareness of others potentially affects the expression and interpretation of comments that are made during a discussion. In particular, anonymity will increase the likelihood that comments will be made that are contrary to the majority opinion while at the same time decreasing the effect that those contrary arguments have on other group member’s opinions. This paper reports experimental results showing that anonymity led to more overall participation in discussions of ethical scenarios. However, equality of member participation did not differ between anonymous and member-identified groups, and anonymous groups had significantly higher awareness-related comments. This leads to the conclusion that additional participation in anonymous groups accommodates reduced awareness rather than reflecting the increased participation of normally reticent group members. In addition, anonymity led to more arguments in support of questionable behavior, suggesting that the freeing effects of anonymity apply to the social desirability of arguments. Finally, there was less change in opinion under conditions of anonymity than when comments were identified, suggesting that anonymous arguments have less influence on opinions than identified comments.


Anonymity Awareness Computer-mediated communication and collaboration Laboratory experiments 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aiken LS, West SG (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  2. Barua A, Lee CHS, Whinston AB (1995) Incentives and computing systems for team-based organizations. Organ Sci 6(4): 487–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck L, Ajzen I (1991) Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. J Res Pers 25(3): 285–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chidambaram L, Tung LL (2005) Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Inf Syst Res 16(2): 149–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Connolly T, Jessup LM, Valacich JS (1990) Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Manag Sci 36(6): 689–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper RB, Haines R (2008) The influence of workspace awareness on group intellective decision effectiveness. Eur J Inf Syst 17(6): 631–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dennis AR (1996) Information exchange and use in group decision making: you can lead a group to information, but you can’t make it think. MIS Q 20(4): 433–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dennis AR, Garfield MJ (2003) The adoption and use of GSS in project teams: toward more participative processes and outcomes. MIS Q 27(2): 289–323Google Scholar
  9. Dennis AR, Kinney ST, Hung YTC (1999) Gender differences in the effects of media richness. Small Group Res 30(4): 405–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeSanctis GL, Gallupe B (1987) A foundation for the study of group support systems. Manag Sci 33(5): 589–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diener E (1980) Deindividuation: the absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. In: Paulus PB (eds) Psychology of group interaction. Hillsdale, Erlbaum, pp 209–242Google Scholar
  12. Dubrovsky VJ, Kiesler S, Sethna BN (1991) The equalization phenomenon: status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Hum Comput Interact 6(2): 119–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. El Shinnawy M, Vinze AS (1998) Polarization and persuasive argumentation: a study of decision making in group settings. MIS Q 22(2): 165–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frößler F (2006) Communication genres for dispersed collaboration: towards an understanding of presence and awareness. In: Proceedings of the twenty-seventh international conference on information systems, pp 1401–1414Google Scholar
  15. Gopal A, Prasad P (2000) Understanding GDSS in symbolic context: shifting the focus from technology to interaction. MIS Q 24(3): 509–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gutwin C, Greenberg S (2002) A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real time groupware. Comput Support Coop Work 11: 411–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haines R, Leonard LN (2007) Individual characteristics and ethical decision- making in an IT context. Ind Manag Data Syst 107(1): 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haines R, Riemer K (2011) The user-centered nature of awareness creation in computer-mediated communication. In: ICIS 2011 proceedings, Paper 8Google Scholar
  19. Hayne SC, Pollard CE, Rice RE (2003) Identification of comment authorship in anonymous group support systems. J Manag Inf Syst 20(1): 301–329Google Scholar
  20. Helms SC (2001) Translating privacy values with technology. Boston Univ J Sci Technol Law 7: 288Google Scholar
  21. Hiltz S, Turoff M, Johnson K (1989) Experiments in group decision making, 3: disinhibition, deindividuation, and group process in pen name and real name computer conferences. Decis Supp Syst 5(2): 217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Isenberg DJ (1986) Group polarization: a critical review and meta-analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 50(6): 1141–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jarvenpaa SL, Knoll K, Leidner DE (1998) Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. J Manag Inf Syst 14(4): 9–64Google Scholar
  24. Kahai SS, Cooper RB (1999) The effect of computer-mediated communication on agreement and acceptance. J Manag Inf Syst 16(1): 165–188Google Scholar
  25. Kahai SS, Avolio BJ, Sosik JJ (1998) Effects of source and participant anonymity and difference in initial opinions in an EMS context. Decis Sci 29(2): 427–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahai SS, Sosik JJ, Avolio BJ (2003) Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity- relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context. Leadersh Q 14(4–5): 499–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koeszegi ST, Pesendorfer E, Stolz SW (2006) Gender salience in electronic negotiations. Electron Mark 16(3): 173–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 33(2): 363–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lea M, Spears R, de Groot D (2001) Knowing me, knowing you: anonymity effects on social identity processes within groups. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 27(5): 526–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee E (2007) Deindividuation effects on group polarization in computer-mediated communication: the role of group identification, public-self-awareness, and perceived argument quality. J Commun 57(2): 385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee E, Nass C (2002) Experimental tests of normative group influence and representation effects in computer-mediated communication: when interacting via computers differs from interacting with computers. Hum Commun Res 28(3): 349–381Google Scholar
  32. Leonard LNK, Haines R (2007) Computer-mediated group influence on ethical behavior. Comput Hum Behav 23(5): 2302–2320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McLeod PL (1997) A comprehensive model of anonymity in computer-supported group decision making. In: Proceedings of the eighteenth international conference on information systems, pp 223–234Google Scholar
  34. McLeod PL (2000) Anonymity and consensus in computer-supported group decision making. Res Manag Groups Teams 3: 175–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McLeod PL, Baron RS, Marti MW, Yoon K (1997) The eyes have it: minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion. J Appl Psychol 82(5): 706–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Myers DG, Lamm H (1976) The group polarization phenomenon. Psychol Bull 83(4): 602–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Brien J (2002) Putting a face to a (screen) name: the first amendment implications of compelling isps to reveal the identities of anonymous internet speakers in online defamation cases. Fordham Law Rev 70: 2745Google Scholar
  38. Pinsonneault A, Heppel N (1997) Anonymity in group support systems research: a new conceptualization, measure, and contingency framework. J Manag Inf Syst 14(3): 89–108Google Scholar
  39. Pinsonneault A, Barki H, Gallupe RB, Hoppen N (1999) Electronic brainstorming: the illusion of productivity. Inf Syst Res 10(2): 110–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Postmes T, Lea M (2000) Social processes and group decision making: anonymity in group decision support systems. Ergonomics 43(8): 1252–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Postmes T, Spears R, Lea M (1998) Breaching or building social boundaries: side-effects of computer-mediated communication. Commun Res 25(6): 689–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Postmes T, Spears R, Sakhel K, de Groot D (2001) Social influence in computer-mediated communication: the effects of anonymity on group behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 27(10): 1243–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW (1982) Effects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. J Pers Soc Psychol 43(3): 503–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rao SV, Jarvenpaa SL (1991) Computer support of groups: theory-based models for GDSS research. Manag Sci 37(10): 1347–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reidenbach RE, Robin DP, Dawson L (1991) An application and extension of a multidimensional ethics scale to selected marketing practices and marketing groups. J Acad Mark Sci 19(2): 83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Riemer K, Klein S, Frößler F (2007) Towards a practice understanding of the creation of awareness in distributed work. In: Proceedings of the twenty-eighth international conference on information systemsGoogle Scholar
  47. Robin DP, Reidenbach RE, Forrest PJ (1996) The perceived importance of an ethical issue as an influence on the ethical decision-making of ad managers. J Bus Res 35(1): 17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sassenberg K, Postmes T (2002) Cognitive and strategic processes in small groups: effects of anonymity of the self and anonymity of the group on social influence. Br J Soc Psychol 41: 463–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Spears R, Lea M (1992) Social influence and the influence of the ‘Social’ in computer-mediated communication. In: Lea M (eds) Contexts of computer-mediated communication. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, pp 30–65Google Scholar
  51. Spears R, Lea M, Lee S (1990) De-Individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. Br J Soc Psychol 29: 121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stanley J, Weare C (2004) The effects of internet use on political participation: evidence from an agency online discussion forum. Admin Soc 36(5): 503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Valacich JS, Jessup LM, Dennis AR, Nunamaker Jr JF (1992) A conceptual framework of anonymity in group support systems. Group Decis Negotiat 1: 219–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Valacich JS, Sarker S, Pratt M, Groomer M (2002) Computer-Mediated and face-to-face groups: who makes riskier decisions? In: Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii international conference on system sciencesGoogle Scholar
  55. Walczuch RM, Watson RT (2001) Analyzing group data in MIS research: including the effect of the group. Group Decis Negotiat 10(1): 83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Walther JB (1992) Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Commun Res 19(1): 52–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weisband S (1994) Overcoming social awareness in computer-supported groups: does anonymity really help?. Comput Supp Coop Work 2(4): 285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Whitlock JL, Powers JL, Eckenrode J (2006) The virtual cutting edge: the internet and adolescent self-injury. Dev Psychol 42(3): 407–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Russell Haines
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jill Hough
    • 2
  • Lan Cao
    • 1
  • Douglas Haines
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Information Technology and Decision Sciences, College of Business and Public AdministrationOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Management and Marketing, Collins College of BusinessUniversity of TulsaTulsaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Business, College of Business and EconomicsUniversity of IdahoGarden ValleyUSA

Personalised recommendations