- Log In/Sign Up
- P-ISSN1738-3110
- E-ISSN2093-7717
- SCOPUS, ESCI
ISSN : 1738-3110
A Study of Factors Affecting Group Polarization in Online Communication : Based on Anonymity
Abstract
Purpose - This study aims to identify the effects of communication cues, anonymity, and social presence on group polarization in computer-mediated communication (CMC) settings. Extant literature has introduced some theoretical backgrounds of social presence and SIDE (Social Identity model of Deindividuation Effects) to explain the effects of communication cues and anonymity. The concept of social presence emphasized the mediating role on communication cues and anonymity. However, most literature did not measure social presence and compare group polarization of all condition groups. This does not sufficiently explain the result of group polarization. Research design, data, and methodology - We believe that the direct impact of anonymity on group polarization can provide a more admissible and clearer explanation for the results. In addition, this study categorizes anonymity into two levels, as anonymity of group and anonymity of self. To justify the anonymity view, a laboratory experiment was conducted. The experiment was conducted in communication cues settings (visual cue; without visual cue) and anonymity settings (identified; anonymous). Each of the four settings has 10 groups consisting of five subjects each (total 200 subjects). The subjects are undergraduates from a large university, majoring in business. All experimental procedures and calculations of choice shift and preference change follow the literature. Results - First, the removal of visual cues does not produce a significant impact on group polarization, which cannot be explained by the social presence view. Second, the anonymous condition does not significantly affect group polarization, which also cannot be explained by the social presence view. However, the anonymous condition directly affects group polarization. Specifically, anonymity of self has a stronger effect on group polarization than anonymity of group. The result explains about the leading factor affecting group polarization. This study examines another view of how computer-mediated communication may be associated with group polarization. The process and outcome data from the experiment reveal that group polarization is not affected by level of social presence, but by level of anonymity. Group discussions conducted with visual cue CMC setting and identified CMC setting result in weaker group polarization. Conversely, group discussions conducted without visual cue CMC setting and anonymous CMC setting lead to stronger group polarization. The results of the study have the following implications. First, they provide clues for business organizations to design the most appropriate media conditions and preemptive social conditions to implement when making group decisions through CMC, to maximize achievements, generate amicable agreements, or actively share information. Second, this study can be useful in analyzing different adverse effects generated through Internet use. Conclusions - This research can help explain discussions and decision-making actions on Internet forums, which have recently increased, as well as providing a foundational basis in newly establishing policies for the forums. Finally, it should be noted that many other factors such as group size, topics, and group history may affect group polarization. These should be examined in future studies.
- keywords
- Group Polarization, Communication Cue, Anonymity, Social Presence, Computer Mediated Communication
Reference
Aikin. S. F. (2013). Poe’s Law, group polarization, and argumentative failure in religious and political discourse. Social Semiotics, 23(3), 301-317.
Albanese, R., & Vleet, Van. D. D. (1985). Rational behavior in groups: the free riding tendency. Academy of Management Reivew, 10(2), 244-255.
Aloka, P. J. O., & Bojuwoye, O. (2013). Group polarization effects on Decisions by selected Kenyan secondary school disciplinary panels. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 23(2), 275-282.
Anderson, N. H., & Graesser, C. C. (1976). An informational integration analysis of attitude change in group discussion. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 34(2), 210-222.
Arima. Y. (2013). Effect of World List Consistency on the Correlation between Group memory and Group polarization. Psychological Reports: Human Resources &Marketing, 112(2), 375-389.
Bishop, G. D., & Myers, D. G. (1974). Informational influences in group discussion. Organizational behavior and Human Performance, 12, 92-104.
Brown, R. (1965). Social Psychology (1st ed.). New York, NY:The Free Press.
Carr, S. C., Pearson, S., & Provost, S. C. (1996). Learning to Manage Motivation Gravity: An Application of Group Polarization. Journal of Social Psychology, 136(2), 251-254.
Cason, T. N., & Mui, V. L. (1997). A Laboratory study of Group Polarization in the Team dictator game. The Economic Journal, 26(2), 1465-1483.
Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(2), 159-163.
Connolly, T., Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36(6), 689-703.
Ebbesen, E. B., & Bowers, R. J. (1974). Proportion of risky to conservative arguments in a group discussion and choice shifts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 316-327
El-Shinnawy, M., & Vinze, A. S. (1998). Polarization and Persuasive argumentation: A study of decision making in group settings. MIS Quarterly, 22(2), 165-198.
Furnham, A., Simmons, K., & McClelland, A. (2000). Decision Concerning The allocation of scarce medical resource. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 15, 185-200.
Griffith, T. L., Fuller, M. A., & Northcraft, G. B. (1998), Facilitator influence in group support systems: Intended and unintended effects. Information Systems Research, 9(1), 20-36.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1141-1151.
Jains, I. L. (1982), Groupthink (1st ed.). Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin Press.
Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., & Galegher, J. (1990). The effects of anonymity on GDSS group process with an idea-generating task. MIS Quarterly, 14(3), 313-321.
Jessup, L. M., & Kukalis, S. (1990). Better Planning using group support systems. Long Range Planning, 23(3), 100-105.
Jessup, L. M., & Transik, D. A. (1991). Decision making in an automated environment: the effects of anonymity and proximity with a group decision support systems. Decision Science, 22(2), 266-279.
Kaplan, M. F. (1977). Discussion polarization effects in a modified jury decision paradigm: Informational influences. Sociometry, 40(3), 262-271.
Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, C. E. (1977). Judgments and group discussion:Effect of presentation and memory factors on polarization. Sociometry, 40(4), 337-343.
Kerr, N. L., Davis, J. H., Meek, D., & Rissman, A. K. (1975). Group Position as a Fuction of member attitudes:Choice shift from the Perspective of Social Dicision Scheme Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(3), 574-593.
Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 78-94.
Krizan, Z., & Baron, R. S. (2007). Gruop polarization and choice dilemmas: How important is self-categorization?. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(1), 191-201.
Lee, E. J. (2007). Deindividuation Effects on Group Polarization in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Role of Group Identification, Public-Self-Awareness, and Perceived Argument Quality. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 385-403.
Lee, H. T., & Suh, E. K. (2009). The Effects of Communication Method on Computer Mediated Communication Decision Making. Korean Journal of Communication Studies, 17(2), 65-96.
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the Heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(2). Retrieved December 2, 2014, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101. 1997. tb00072.x/
Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2), 125-135.
Muste, C. P. (2012). Bringing Culture Back In: Social Grop Polarization and the Culture Wars in the U.S.. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(20), 12-22.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 602-627.
Myers, D. G., & Bach, P. J. (1976). Group Discussion Effect on Conflict Behavior and Self-Justification. Psychological Report, 38(1), 135-140.
Na, E. Y. (2006). Internet Communication: Anonymity, Interactivity and Group Polarization. Communication Theories, 2(1), 93-127.
Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R., & George, J. F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems to supprot group work. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40-61.
Pavitt, C. (1994). Another view of Group polarization: The reason for one side oral Argumentation. Communication Research, 21(5), 625-642.
Pfitzmann, A., & Hansen, M. (2005). Anonymity, unlinkability, unobservability, pseudonymity, and identity management - A consolidated proposal for terminology, Retrieved January 8, 2015, from http://freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/terminology.pdf.
Pissarra, J., & Jesuino, J. C. (2005). Idea generation through computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3), 275-291.
Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media, Human Communication Research, 19(4), 451-484.
Rajecki, D. W. (1990). Attitudes, Themes and Advances (2nd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinaneur Associates.
Sanders, G. S., & Baron, R. S. (1977). Is social comparison irrelevant for producing choice shift?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(4), 303-314.
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. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 463-480.
Shen, Q., & Chung, J. K. H. (2002). A group decision support system for value management studies in the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 247-252.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunication (1st ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Sia, C. L., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2002). Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity. Information Systems Research, 13(1), 70-90.
Stoner, J. A. F. (1961). A Comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Thesis for Master of Science in Sloan school of Management, MIT.
Suh, K. S., Im, K. S., Shim, S. M., & Suh, E. K. (2009). Revisiting Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Anonymity. Yonsei Business Review, 46(2), 195-215.
Swol, L. M. V. (2009). Extreme members and group polarization. Social influence, 4(3), 185-199.
Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Group size and anonymity effects on computer-mediated idea generation. Small Group Research, 23(1), 49-73.
Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & T. Connolly. (1994). Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57(3), 448-467.
Williams, S., & Taormina R. J. (1992). Group Polarization on Business Decision in Singapore. Journal of Social Psychology, 132(2), 265-267.
Williams, S. (1993). Unanimous versus Majority Influences on Group Polarization in Business Decision Making. Journal of Social Psychology, 133(2), 199-205.
Yardi, S., & Boyd, D. (2010). Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization Over Time on Twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316-327.
- Downloaded
- Viewed
- 0KCI Citations
- 0WOS Citations