바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

  • P-ISSN1738-3110
  • E-ISSN2093-7717
  • SCOPUS, ESCI

ISSN : 1738-3110

논문 상세

이전 다음
선공개 논문 논문 투고

Vol.14 No.8

Citation Share

Mobile Communication Group Polarization: Effects of Communication Cues and Anonymity

Mobile Communication Group Polarization: Effects of Communication Cues and Anonymity

The Journal of Distribution Science(JDS) / The Journal of Distribution Science, (P)1738-3110; (E)2093-7717
2016, v.14 no.8, pp.101-112
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.14.8.201608.101
Suh, Eung-Kyo (Graduate School of Business, Dep't of General Education, Dankook University)
Suh, Eung-Kyo. (2016). Mobile Communication Group Polarization: Effects of Communication Cues and Anonymity. The Journal of Distribution Science(JDS), 14(8), 101-112, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.14.8.201608.101

Abstract

Purpose - The objective of this study is to identify the effects of the communication cues and anonymity on group polarization in mobile communication settings, both in terms of route and extent. Research design, data and methodology - Laboratory experiments were conducted to achieve the above research objective; the effect of communication cues on group polarization with social presence as mediation and the direct effect of anonymity, social presence, and perceived cohesion were analyzed. The experiments were conducted by the participation of 240 people, who were divided into 48 groups of 5 people. Results - According to the results, the difference in intergroup polarization due to communication cues and anonymity was insignificant. From this analysis, the structural equation model, communication cues and anonymity did not affect group polarization through social presence. Moreover, anonymity did not affect group polarization through perceived cohesion; however, anonymity directly affected group polarization. Conclusions - This research can help to explain the discussions and the related decision-making actions on internet forums, which have recently come to the rise as well as provide foundational basis in newly establishing policies for the forums.

keywords
Mobile Communication, Group Polarization, Social Presence, Perceived Cohesion

참고문헌

1.

Aikin, S. F. (2013). Poe’s Law, group polarization, and argumentative failure in religious and political discourse. Social Semiotics, 23(3), 301-317.

2.

Albanese, R., & Vleet, Van. D. D. (1985). Rational behavior in groups: the free riding tendency. Academy of Management Reivew, 10, 244-255.

3.

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.

4.

Anderson, N. H., & Graesser, C. C. (1976). An informational integration analysis of attitude change in group discussion. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 34, 210-222.

5.

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.

6.

Bishop, G. D., & Myers, D. G. (1974). Informational influences in group discussion. Organizational behavior and Human Performance, 12, 92-104.

7.

Brown, R. (1965). Social Psychology (1st ed.). New York:The Free Press.

8.

Carr, S. C., Pearson, S., & Provost, S. C. (1996). Learning to Manage Motivation Gravity: An Application of Group Polarization. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 251.

9.

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.

10.

Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, L. R. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, (53), 159-163.

11.

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.

12.

Cook, M., & Lallijee, M. G. (1972). Verbal substitutes for visual signals in interaction. Semiotica, 6, 212-221.

13.

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.

14.

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.

15.

Fornell, C., & Larcker. D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.

16.

Furnham, A. (2000). Decision Concerning The allocation of scarce medical resource, Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 15, 185.

17.

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.

18.

Hahn, K. S., Ryu, S. J., & Park, S. J. (2015). Fragmentation in the Twitter Following of News Outlets: The Representation of South Korean Users' Ideological and Generational Cleavage. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(1), 56-76.

19.

Halim, R. E., & Muttaqin, F. (2013). The effect of warning Labels on cigarette packages: Textual, Text-visual, and self efficiency. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 1, 25-30.

20.

Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1141-1151.

21.

Jains, I. L. (1982). Groupthink (1st ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Press.

22.

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.

23.

Jessup, L. M., & Kukalis, S. (1990). Better Planning using group support systems. Long Range Planning, 23(3), 100-105.

24.

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.

25.

Kaplan, M. F. (1977). Discussion polarization effects in a modified jury decision paradigm: Informational influences. Sociometry, 40(3), 262-271.

26.

Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, C. E. (1977). Judgments and group discussion: Effect of presentation and memory factors on polarization. Sociometry, 40(4), 337-343.

27.

Kerr, N. L., Davis, J. H., Meek, D., & Rissman, A. K. (1975). Group Position as a Function of member attitudes: Choice shift from the Perspective of Social Decision Scheme Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(3), 574-593.

28.

Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: free-rider effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 78-94.

29.

Kim, Y. M., Kireyeva, A. A., & Youn, M. K. (2014). Effects of SNS characteristics upon Consumer’s Awareness, Purchase Intention, & Recommendation. Journal of Industrial & Business, 5(1), 27-37.

30.

Krizan, Z., & Baron, R. S. (2007). Gruop polarization and choice dilemmas: How important is self- categorization?. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 191-201.

31.

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, 385-403.

32.

Lee, J. K., Choi, J. H., Kim, C. S., & Kim, Y. H. (2014). Social Media, Network Heterogeneity, and Opinion Polarization. Journal of Communication, 64, 702-722.

33.

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.

34.

Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the Heart of it all: The concept of Telepresence. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(2), 1-39.

35.

Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2), 125-135.

36.

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.

37.

Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 602-627.

38.

Myers, D. G., & Bach, P. J. (1976). Group Discussion Effect on Conflict Behavior and Self-Justification. Psychological Report, 38(1), 135-140.

39.

Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R., & George, J. F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40-61.

40.

Pavitt, C. (1994). Another view of Group polarization: The reason for one side oral Argumentation. Communication Research, 21(5), 625-642.

41.

Pfitzmann, A., & Hansen, M. (2005). Anonymity, unlinkability, unobservability, pseudonymity, and identity management – A consolidated proposal for terminology. Retrieved January 8, 2016, from http://freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/terminology.pdf.

42.

Pissarra, J., & Jesuino, J. C. (2005). Idea generation through computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3), 275-291.

43.

Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 451-484.

44.

Rajecki, D. W. (1990). Attitudes (2n d ed.). Sunderland, MA, US: Sinaneur Associates.

45.

Sanders, G. S., & Baron, R. S. (1977). Is social comparison irrelevant for producing choice shift?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(4), 303-314.

46.

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.

47.

Short, J., E., & Williams, B. Christie. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunication. New York: John Wiley.

48.

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.

49.

Stoner, J. A. F. (1961). A Comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk, Working paper of Sloan school of Management, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

50.

Suh, E. K. (2015). A Study of Factors Affecting Group Polarization in Online Communication: Based on Anonymity. Journal of Distribution Science, 13(2), 75-83.

51.

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.

52.

Swol, L. M. V. (2009). Extreme members and group polarization. Social influence, 4(3), 185-199.

53.

Usman, H. (2015). Customer Communication Strategy for Islamic Banks. International Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business, 6(2), 17-24.

54.

Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Group size and anonymity effects on computermediated idea generation. Small Group Research, 23(1), 49-73.

55.

Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Connolly, T. (1994). Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57(3), 448-467.

56.

Williams, S. (1992). Unanimous versus Majority Influences on Group Polarization in Business Decision Making. Journal of Social Psychology, 132(2), 265-267.

57.

Yanagihara, S., & Koga, H. (2015). The significance of ICT in the generation of code of conduct: from the perspective of polarization of ICT and organizational citizenship behavior. SIGCAS Computers & Society, 45(3), 33-37.

58.

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.

The Journal of Distribution Science(JDS)

선공개 논문 논문 투고 OA 정책