Advertisement

European Journal of Information Systems

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 156–167 | Cite as

A new perspective on de-individuation via computer-mediated communication

  • Russell HainesEmail author
  • Joan Ellen Cheney Mann
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Research examining de-individuation via computer-mediated communication (CMC) suggests that group pressure is more pronounced in CMC-using groups than in groups meeting face to face, because CMC strips away non-verbal cues and makes individuals feel more similar to the others in their group. Similarly, electronic voting research suggests that group influence is more pronounced via group support systems when the opinions of others are communicated in real time. However, recent research involving complete anonymity suggests that group influence is mitigated via anonymous CMC because of a lack of awareness of others. Thus, we propose that increased group influence is facilitated when others’ opinions are communicated, and is heightened with the common identity created through the use of nominal labels. This paper reports the results of a laboratory experiment involving groups making an organization decision via a text-based chat room. The results show that a simple electronic voting interface element increased the amount of group influence on individual members, and led to decreased participation and higher dispensability.

Keywords

de-individuation computer-mediated communication electronic voting media richness theory social information processing theory anonymity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barua A, Lee CHS and Whinston AB (1995) Incentives and computing systems for team-based organizations. Organization Science 6 (4), 487–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chin WW (1998a) Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly 22 (1), vii–xvi.Google Scholar
  3. Chin WW (1998b) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research (MARCOULIDES GA, Ed.), pp 295–336, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoicates, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  4. Cline RJW (1990) Detecting groupthink: methods for observing the illusion of unanimity. Communication Quarterly 38 (2), 112–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper RB and Haines R (2008) The influence of workspace awareness on group intellective decision effectiveness. European Journal of Information Systems 17 (6), 631–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diener E (1980) Deindividuation: the absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. In Psychology of Group Interaction (PAULUS PB, Ed.), pp 209–242, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  7. Diener E, Fraser SC, Beaman AL and Kelem RT (1976) Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33 (2), 178–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. George JM (1992) Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 35 (1), 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenberg J, Ashton-James CE and Ashkanasy NM (2007) Social comparison processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 102 (1), 22–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greenberg J and Eskew DE (1993) The role of role playing in organizational research. Journal of Management 19 (2), 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guetzkow H and Simon HA (1955) The impact of certain communication nets upon organization and performance in task-oriented groups. Management Science 1, 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gutwin C and Greenberg S (2002) A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real time groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 11, 411–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haines R, Cao L and Haines D (2006) Participation and persuasion via computer-mediated communication: anonymous versus identified comments. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Conference on Information Systems, [WWW document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2006/50/.
  14. Hill NS, Bartol KM, Tesluk PE and Langa GA (2009) Organizational context and face-to-face interaction: influences on the development of trust and collaborative behaviors in computer-mediated groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 108 (2), 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hiltz S, Turoff M and Johnson K (1989) Experiments in group decision making, 3: disinhibition, deindividuation, and group process in pen name and real name computer conferences. Decision Support Systems 5 (2), 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Joinson AN (1998) Causes and implications of disinhibited behaviour on the net. In Psychology of the Internet (GACKENBACH J, Ed.), pp 43–60, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Kahai SS, Avolio BJ and Sosik JJ (1998) Effects of source and participant anonymity and difference in initial opinions in an EMS context. Decision Sciences 29 (2), 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kameda T, Stasson MF, Davis JH, Parks CD and Zimmerman SK (1992) Social dilemmas, subgroups, and motivation loss in task-oriented groups: in search of an “optimal” team size in division of work. Social Psychology Quarterly 55 (1), 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kiesler S, Siegel J and Mcguire TW (1984) Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist 39 (10), 1123–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lebon G (1896) The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Lee E (2004) Effects of visual representation on social influence in computer-mediated communication: experimental tests of the social identity model of deindividuation effects. Human Communication Research 30 (2), 234–250.Google Scholar
  22. Lee E and 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. Human Communication Research 28 (3), 349–381.Google Scholar
  23. Mcgrath JE and Hollingshead AB (1994) Groups Interacting With Technology: Ideas, Evidence, Issues, and an Agenda. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Mcleod PL (2000) Anonymity and consensus in computer-supported group decision making. Research on Managing Groups and Teams 3, 175–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mohan K, Xu P and Ramesh B (2006) Supporting dynamic group decision and negotiation processes: a traceability augmented peer-to-peer network approach. Information & Management 43 (5), 650–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Murthy US and Kerr DS (2003) Decision making performance of interacting groups: an experimental investigation of the effects of task type and communication mode. Information & Management 40 (5), 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Neck CP and Manz CC (1994) From groupthink to teamthink: toward the creation of constructive thought patterns in self-managing work teams. Human Relations 47 (8), 929–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parks CD and Sanna LJ (1999) Group Performance and Interaction. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  29. Pinsonneault A and Heppel N (1997) Anonymity in group support systems research: a new conceptualization, measure, and contingency framework. Journal of Management Information Systems 14 (3), 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Postmes T, Spears R and Lea M (1998) Breaching or building social boundaries: SIDE-Effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 25 (6), 689–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Postmes T, Spears R, Lee AT and Novak RJ (2005) Individuality and social influence in groups: inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (5), 747–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prentice-Dunn S and Rogers RW (1982) Effects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43 (3), 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rice RE (1993) Media appropriateness: using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research 19 (4), 451–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Riemer K, Klein S and Flössler F (2007) Towards a practice understanding of the creation of awareness in distributed work. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, [WWW document] http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2007/157/.
  35. Robin DP, Reidenbach RE and Forrest PJ (1996) The perceived importance of an ethical issue as an influence on the ethical decision-making of ad managers. Journal of Business Research 35 (1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salisbury WD, Chin WW, Gopal A and Newsted PR (2002) Research report: better theory through measurement–developing a scale to capture consensus on appropriation. Information Systems Research 13 (1), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Short J, Williams E and Christie B (1976) The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  38. Tidwell LC and Walther JB (2002) Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations. Human Communication Research 28 (3), 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Valacich JS, Jessup LM, Dennis AR and Nunamaker Jr. JF (1992) A conceptual framework of anonymity in group support systems. Group Decision and Negotiation 1, 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wagner JA (1995) Studies of individualism-collectivism: effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal 38 (1), 152–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Walther JB (1992) Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Communication Research 19 (1), 52–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whitworth B, Gallupe B and Mcqueen R (2001) Generating agreement in computer-mediated groups. Small Group Research 32 (5), 625–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Whitworth B and Mcqueen R (2003) Voting before discussing. Group Facilitation 5, 4–16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of IT and Decision SciencesOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations