The impact of physical and discursive anonymity on group members’ multiple identifications during computer‐supported decision making

Drawing on the social identity and deindividuation (SIDE) model, and adding insights from research on multiple targets of identification and physical/discursive anonymity, this research examined the relationship between identity and anonymity in the use of computer‐based group decision support systems (GDSSs). Results suggested that identification with all targets was lower in GDSS meetings than it was in general. Additionally, discursively anonymous participants had less identification with their group (especially when also hidden), contributed more total comments, used more expressions with no identifications or disidentifications, and used fewer expressions of multiple identifications than did discursively identified participants. Visually hidden participants also expressed fewer comments indicating identification with their group. Overall, this research extends SIDE (as it relates to anonymity, group communication technologies, and identification with multiple targets) and offers several practical imp...

[1]  K. Burke,et al.  Attitudes toward history , 1937 .

[2]  H. Simon,et al.  Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. , 1959 .

[3]  Ralf D. Brown,et al.  THE PRONOUNS OF POWER AND SOLIDARITY , 1968 .

[4]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[5]  P. Zimbardo.  The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. , 1969 .

[6]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[7]  Robin Cook.  The Year of the Intern , 1973 .

[8]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNICATION NETWORKS AS A PREDICTOR OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT , 1983 .

[9]  George Cheney,et al.  On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study of organizational identification , 1983 .

[10]  George Cheney.  The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication , 1983 .

[11]  J. McGrath.  Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

[12]  S. Reicher.  Social influence in the crowd: Attitudinal and behavioural effects of de‐individuation in conditions of high and low group salience* , 1984 .

[13]  George Cheney,et al.  Communication and Unobtrusive Control in Contemporary Organizations , 1985 .

[14]  Arnon E. Reichers,et al.  A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. , 1985, Academy of management review. Academy of Management.

[15]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

[16]  Phillip K. Tompkins,et al.  Coming to terms with organizational identification and commitment , 1987 .

[17]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Computer-based systems for cooperative work and group decision making , 1988, CSUR.

[18]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Computer-Aided Deliberation: Model Management and Group Decision Support: Special Focus Article , 1988, Oper. Res..

[19]  Robert B. Williams,et al.  Reflections on Anonymity , 1988 .

[20]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making , 1988, MIS Q..

[21]  Leonard Michael Jessup,et al.  Group Problem Solving in an Automated Environment: The Effects of Anonymity and Proximity on Group Process and Outcome with a Group Decision Support System. , 1988 .

[22]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making, 3: disinhibition, deindividuation, and group process in pen name and real name computer conferences , 1989, Decis. Support Syst..

[23]  S. Zaccaro,et al.  Contrasting group and organizational commitment: Evidence for differences among multilevel attachments , 1989 .

[24]  Dominic Abrams,et al.  Self-Consciousness and Social Identity: Self-Regulation as a Group Member , 1989 .

[25]  M. Hogg,et al.  Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. , 1989 .

[26]  Phillip K. Tompkins,et al.  The forest ranger revisited: A study of control practices and identification , 1989 .

[27]  Fred A. Mael,et al.  Social identity theory and the organization , 1989 .

[28]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Computer Communication and Organizational Commitment: Tracing the Relationship in a City Government , 1989 .

[29]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  Interaction analysis in GDSS research: description of an experience and some recommendations , 1989, Decis. Support Syst..

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

[31]  C. Steinfield,et al.  A Social Influence Model of Technology use , 1990 .

[32]  R. Spears,et al.  De‐individuation and group polarization in computer‐mediated communication , 1990 .

[33]  Clifford Nass,et al.  On the Study of Technology and Task: A Variable-Based Approach , 1990 .

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

[35]  A. Pinsonneault,et al.  The effects of electronic meetings on group processes and outcomes: An assessment of the empirical research , 1990 .

[36]  T. Connolly,et al.  Toward Atheory of Automated Group Work , 1990 .

[37]  James D. McKeen,et al.  Enhancing Computer-Mediated Communication: An experimental investigation into the use of a Group Decision Support System for face-to-face versus remote meetings , 1990, Inf. Manag..

[38]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Understanding the use of Group Decision Support Systems: The Theory of Adaptive Structuration , 1990 .

[39]  P. Mühlhäusler,et al.  Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity , 1990 .

[40]  Michael T. Vanecek,et al.  Dispersed Group Decision Making Using Nonsimultaneous Computer Conferencing: A Report of Research , 1990, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[41]  J. Dutton,et al.  Keeping An Eye on the Mirror: Image and Identity In Organizational Adaptation , 1991 .

[42]  Russell Spears,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication, De-Individuation and Group Decision-Making , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[43]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Making connections: Computers can enhance employee commitment—at a cost , 1991 .

[44]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Electronic Meeting Support: The GroupSystems Concept , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

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

[46]  C. Bullis.  Communication practices as unobtrusive control: An observational study , 1991 .

[47]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group decision making and communication technology , 1992 .

[48]  Varghese S. Jacob,et al.  A framework for supporting distributed group decision-making , 1992, Decis. Support Syst..

[49]  Fred A. Mael,et al.  Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification , 1992 .

[50]  Michael A. Hogg,et al.  The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity , 1992 .

[51]  Marshall Scott,et al.  Microlevel Structuration in Computer-Supported Group Decision Making , 1992 .

[52]  George Cheney,et al.  Rhetoric in an organizational society : managing multiple identities , 1992 .

[53]  Craig J. Hansen.  Communication Technologies in Corporate Settings , 1992 .

[54]  Charles Steinfield,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communications in Organizational Settings , 1992 .

[55]  I. Benbasat,et al.  The Effects of Group, Task,Context, and Technology Variables on the Usefulness of Group Support Systems , 1993 .

[56]  John P. Meyer,et al.  Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. , 1993 .

[57]  Jean E. Wallace.  Professional and Organizational Commitment: Compatible or Incompatible? , 1993 .

[58]  H. Gregersen.  Multiple commitments at work and extrarole behavior during three stages of organizational tenure , 1993 .

[59]  Vida Scarpello,et al.  A longitudinal assessment of the determinant relationship between employee commitments to the occupation and the organization. , 1994 .

[60]  S. Hunt,et al.  Organizational Commitment: One of Many Commitments or Key Mediating Construct? , 1994 .

[61]  Articulating Identity in an Organizational Age , 1994 .

[62]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[63]  R. Spears,et al.  Panacea or Panopticon? , 1994 .

[64]  Celia V. Harquail,et al.  Organizational images and member identification. , 1994 .

[65]  Barbara Czarniawska-Joerges,et al.  Narratives of Individual and Organizational Identities , 1994 .

[66]  J. McGrath.  Groups interacting with technology: the complex and dynamic fit of group, task, technology, and time , 1992, CSCW '92.

[67]  J. Barker,et al.  Identification in the Self-Managing Organization Characteristics of Target and Tenure , 1994 .

[68]  Fred A. Mael,et al.  LOYAL FROM DAY ONE: BIODATA, ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION, AND TURNOVER AMONG NEWCOMERS , 1995 .

[69]  Brian Bemmels.  Dual commitment: Unique construct or epiphenomenon? , 1995 .

[70]  Craig E. Carroll.  Rearticulating Organizational Identity , 1995 .

[71]  Craig R. Scott,et al.  Examining Equality of Influence in Group Decision Support System Interaction , 1996 .

[72]  Linda L. Putnam,et al.  Bona Fide Groups: An Alternative Perspective for Communication and Small Group Decision Making , 1996 .

[73]  John J. Sosik,et al.  Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. , 1997 .

[74]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Attribution accuracy when using anonymity in group support systems , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[75]  John P. Meyer,et al.  Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application , 1997 .

[76]  Craig R. Scott,et al.  Identification with Multiple Targets in a Geographically Dispersed Organization , 1997 .

[77]  J. Walther.  Group and Interpersonal Effects in International Computer-Mediated Collaboration , 1997 .

[78]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  1001 Unanswered Research Questions in GSS , 1997, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[79]  Steven R. Corman,et al.  Development of a Structurational Model of Identification in the Organization , 1998 .

[80]  Tracy Callaway Russo,et al.  Organizational and Professional Identification , 1998 .

[81]  Alain Pinsonneault,et al.  Anonymity in Group Support Systems Research: A New Conceptualization, Measure, and Contingency Framework , 1997, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[82]  T. Postmes,et al.  Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? , 1998 .

[83]  Stacey L. Connaughton,et al.  The Impacts of Communication and Multiple Identifications on Intent to Leave , 1999 .

[84]  James R. DiSanza,et al.  “Everybody Identitiefies with Smokey the Bear” , 1999 .

[85]  Craig R. Scott,et al.  Multiple identifications during team meetings: A comparison of conventional and computer‐supported interactions , 1999 .