Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Overcoming social awareness in computer-supported groups

Does anonymity really help?

  • Published:
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examined status effects in face-to-face and computer-mediated three-person groups. Our expectation that low status members in computer-mediated group discussions would participate more equally, and have more influence over decisions, than their counterparts in face-to-face groups was not confirmed. The results suggest that knowledge of status differences and labels were used to form cognitive impressions of other group members. It seems that when group members are aware of the status characteristics of the group, social cues were magnified rather than redüced. Implications of these findings for mixed status cooperative work groups and for the design of computer communication systems are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alker, H.R. (1965):Mathematics and Politics, Macmillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billig, M. and Tajfel, H. (1973): Social Categorization and Similarity in Intergroup Behavior,European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 3, pp. 27–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clapper, D.L., McLean, E. R., and Watson, R. T. (1991): An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Group Decision Support on Normative Influence in Small Groups. In J.I. DeGross, I. Benbasat, G. DeSanctis, C. M. Beath (eds.),Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Information Systems, New York, NY, pp. 273–282.

  • Connolly, T., Jessup, L. M., and Valacich, J. S. (1990): Effects of Anonymity and Evaluative Tone on Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups,Management Science, vol. 36, pp. 689–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culnan, M. J. and Markus, L. (1987). Information Technologies: Electronic Media and Intraorganizational Communication. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts and L. W. Porter (eds).Handbook of Organizational Communication, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 420–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L. and Lengel, R. H. (1986). Information Richness: A New Approach to Managerial Information Processing and Organizational Design,Management Science, vol. 32, pp. 554–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. (1991): Productivity Loss in Idea- Generation Groups: Tracking Down the Blocking Effect,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 61, pp. 392–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E. (1980): De-individuation: The Absence of Self-Awareness and Self-Regulation in Group Members. In P. Paulus (ed.).The Psychology of Group Influence, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., and Sethna, B. N. (1991): The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision Making Groups,Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 6, pp. 119–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T. and Neuberg, S. L. (1990): A Continuum of Impression Formation, from Category-Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and Interpretation,Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 23, pp. 1–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, J.F., Easton, G.K., Nunamaker, J.F., Jr., Northcraft, G (1990): A Study of Calloborative Group Work With and Without Computer-Based Support.Information Systems Research, vol. 1, pp. 394–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (1976): Group Influence on Individuals. In M. R. Dunnette (ed.).Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand-McNally, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1984): The Nature and Design of Post-Industrial Organizations,Management Science, vol. 8, pp. 195–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1990): A Theory of the Effect of Advanced Information Technologies on Organizational Design, Intelligence, and Design Making,Academy of Management Review, vol. 15, pp. 47–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I.L. (1972).Victims of Groupthink Houghton-Mifflin, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., and Galegher, J. (1990): The Effects of Anonymity on Group Process in an Idea-Generating Task,MIS Quarterly, vol. pp. 313–321.

  • Jessup, L. M. and Tansik, D. A. (1991): Decision Making in an Automated Environment: The Effects of Anonymity and Proximity on Group Process and Outcome With a Group Decision Support System,Decision Sciences, vol. 22, pp. 266–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. (1978):The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd edition, New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M. (1993): Cooperation and Organizational Identification. In J. K. Murnighan (ed.),:Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 244–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J.E. (1984):Groups: Interaction and Performance. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S., and Siegel, J. (1987): Group and Computer-Mediated Discussion Effects in Risk Decision Making,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 52, pp. 917–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. G. and Lamm, H. (1976): The Group Polarization Phenomenon,Psychological Review, vol. 83, pp. 602–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J. (1986): Differential Contributions of Majority and Minority Influence,American Psychologist, vol. 93, pp. 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Applegate, L. M., and Konsynski B. R. (1987): Facilitating Group Creativity With GDSS,Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 3, pp. 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, J.F., Jr., Dennis, A. R., George, J. F., Valacich, J. S., and Vogel, D. R. (1991): Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work: Theory and Practice at Arizona,Communications of the ACM, vol. 34, pp. 40–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, R. E. (1984): Mediated Group Communication. In R. E. Rice (ed.),The New Media, Sage, Beverly Hills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., and McGuire, T. (1986). Group Processes in Computer-Mediated Communication,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 37, pp. 157–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spears, R. and Lea, M. (1992): Social Influence and the Influence of the ‘Social’ in Computer-Mediated Communication. In M. Lea (ed.).Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hewel-Hempstead.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1991):Connections, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, W. G. (1985): Intergroup Relations. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.)The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2 Random House, New York, pp. 599–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strodtbeck, F. L., James, R. M., and Hawkins, C. (1957): Social Status in Jury Deliberations,American Sociological Review, vol. 22, pp. 713–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1978):Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in Social, Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turer, J. C. (1975): Social Comparison and Social Identity: Some Prospects for Intergroup Behavior,European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 5, pp. 5–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., and Connolly, T. (1994): Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, forthcoming.

  • Van Gelder, L. (1991): The Strange Case of the Electronic Lover. Reprinted in C. Dunlap and R. Kling (eds.).Computerization and Controversy, Academic Press, Boston, pp. 364–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilder, D. A. (1981): Perceiving Persons as a Group: Categorization and Intergroup Relations. In D. Hamilton (ed.).Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisband, S. P. (1992): Group Discussion and First Advocacy Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision Making Groups,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 53, pp. 352–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, E. A. (1990): Self-Assessment Procedure XXII,Communications of the ACM, vol. 33, pp. 110–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zigurs, I., Poole, M. S. and DeSanctis, G. (1988): A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making.MIS Quarterly, vol. 12, pp. 625–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of MIS, University of Arizona, 85721, Tucson, Arizona, USA

    Suzanne Weisband

Authors
  1. Suzanne Weisband
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weisband, S. Overcoming social awareness in computer-supported groups. Comput Supported Coop Work 2, 285–297 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00805695

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00805695

Key words

Search

Navigation