Can a GSS stimulate group polarization? an empirical study

This study investigates the impact of the electronic communication and anonymity capabilities of a group support system (GSS) on group polarization. Three support levels were studied: verbal support, identified GSS support, and anonymous GSS support. Information exposure was varied at two levels: exposure to positions without arguments and exposure to positions with arguments. The dependent variables were preference change and choice shift. Anonymous GSS groups produced higher choice shift than verbal groups. Anonymous GSS groups who were exposed to positions with arguments also had higher preference change than groups in other treatments. These results indicate that the anonymity and electronic communication capabilities of a GSS can be used conjointly to stimulate group polarization, especially when groups exchange mutual positions and arguments.

[1]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  An experimental investigation of the effects of group size in an electronic meeting environment , 1990, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[2]  T. Pettigrew,et al.  Dramatic events and attitude change. , 1976 .

[3]  M. Kaplan.  Discussion Polarization Effects in a Modified Jury Decision Paradigm: Informational Influences , 1977 .

[4]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind , 1991 .

[5]  Russell Spears,et al.  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION, DEINDIVIDUATION AND GROUP DECISION-MAKING , 1991 .

[6]  Terri L. Griffith,et al.  Distinguishing Between the Forest and the Trees: Media, Features, and Methodology in Electronic Communication Research , 1994 .

[7]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Electronic meeting systems , 1991, CACM.

[8]  D. Myers,et al.  The group polarization phenomenon. , 1976 .

[9]  V. A. Harris,et al.  The Attribution of Attitudes , 1967 .

[10]  Johannes A. Zuber,et al.  Choice shift and group polarization : an analysis of the status of arguments and social decision schemes , 1992 .

[11]  J. George,et al.  Physical Proximity Effects on Computer-Mediated Group Idea Generation , 1994 .

[12]  C. Judd,et al.  The effects of repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group discussions. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group processes in computer-mediated communication☆ , 1986 .

[14]  A. Mehrabian,et al.  Nonverval concomitants of perceived and intended persuasiveness. , 1969, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  T. Hassard,et al.  Applied Linear Regression , 2005 .

[16]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  A Study of Collaborative Group Work With and Without Computer-Based Support , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[17]  Bernard C. Y. Tan,et al.  Hypertext: A new approach to construct group support systems , 1996 .

[18]  A. Vinokur,et al.  Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group-induced shifts: A group-problem-solving approach. , 1974 .

[19]  Kwok Kee Wei,et al.  National culture and group support systems: filtering communication to dampen power differentials , 1995 .

[20]  B. Latané.  The psychology of social impact. , 1981 .

[21]  J. Singer,et al.  Some aspects of deindividuation: Identification and conformity , 1965 .

[22]  A. Vinokur,et al.  Novel argumentation and attitude change: The case of polarization following group discussion , 1978 .

[23]  David G. Myers,et al.  Group-Induced Polarization of Attitudes and Behavior , 1978 .

[24]  Ping Zhang,et al.  Fast timing estimation for CDMA waveforms in a near-far environment , 1996, Proceedings of GLOBECOM'96. 1996 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference.

[25]  Glen Whyte,et al.  Escalating Commitment in Individual and Group Decision Making: A Prospect Theory Approach , 1993 .

[26]  H. Toch.  The social psychology of social movements , 1965 .

[27]  G. Keppel,et al.  Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook , 1976 .

[28]  J. Neter,et al.  Applied linear statistical models : regression, analysis of variance, and experimental designs , 1974 .

[29]  D. G. Pruitt.  Choice shifts in group discussion: An introductory review. , 1971 .

[30]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for Information Systems , 1987, MIS Q..

[31]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. , 1987 .

[32]  M. E. Tubbs,et al.  Framing Effects and Choice Shifts in Group Decision Making , 1993 .

[33]  A. L. Beaman,et al.  Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. , 1976 .

[34]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[35]  David W. Park,et al.  Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1994 .

[36]  Ederyn Williams,et al.  Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review. , 1977 .

[37]  J. T. Muehleman,et al.  The generosity shift. , 1976 .

[38]  Amiram D. Vinokur,et al.  What a person thinks upon learning he has chosen differently from others: Nice evidence for the persuasive-arguments explanation of choice shifts , 1975 .

[39]  J. Valacich,et al.  Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups , 1990 .

[40]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[41]  I. Janis.  Victims Of Groupthink , 1972 .

[42]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  Interaction with Others Increases Decision Confidence but Not Decision Quality: Evidence against Information Collection Views of Interactive Decision Making , 1995 .

[43]  J. Walther.  Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations over Time , 1995 .

[44]  H. Fromkin.  Effects of experimentally aroused feelings of undistinctiveness upon valuation of scarce and novel experiences. , 1970, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[45]  D. Isenberg.  Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. , 1986 .

[46]  L. Festinger,et al.  When Prophecy Fails , 1956 .

[47]  Charles Pavitt.  Another View of Group Polarizing: The “Reasons for” One-Sided Oral Argumentation , 1994 .

[48]  M. Gordon,et al.  The “Science of the Sophomore” Revisited: from Conjecture to Empiricism , 1986 .

[49]  J. Valacich,et al.  Group Size and Anonymity Effects on Computer-Mediated Idea Generation , 1992 .

[50]  Leonard M. Jessup,et al.  The Effects of Anonymity on GDSS Group Process with an Idea-Generating Task , 1990, MIS Q..