Identification of Comment Authorship in Anonymous Group Support Systems

This study examines whether technically "anonymous" comments entered by participants during group support system (GSS) brainstorming sessions are, in fact, unidentifiable. Hypotheses are developed and tested about the influences of comment length, comment evaluative tone, duration of group membership, and prior communication among group members on the accuracy of attributions they made about the identity of the authors of these technically anonymous comments. Data on prior communication and group history about each of the 32 small groups was collected before participants began using a GSS for brainstorming. Immediately after the session, each member was asked to attribute authorship to a sample of the session's anonymous comments (comment authorship was known to the researchers). The study's participants made attributions that were significantly more accurate than chance guessing. Factors that had a positive influence on attribution accuracy include evaluative tone of comments (especially humorous comments) and amount of prior communication received from other group members. Vividness of comment tone and comment length was not significantly correlated with attribution accuracy. Although the attributions of anonymous comments were more accurate than expected by chance, most of the attributions were incorrect. Implications and consequences of both accurate and inaccurate attribution are discussed along with suggestions for future research.

[1]  Leonard Michael Jessup,et al.  Decision Making in an Automated Environment: The Effects of Anonymity and Proximity with a Group Decision Support System* , 1991 .

[2]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Investigating the Moderators of the Group Support Systems Use with Meta-Analysis , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[3]  B. E. Wynne,et al.  The Implications of Group Development and History for Group Support System Theory and Practice , 1992 .

[4]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Group Support Systems: A Descriptive Evaluation of Case and Field Studies , 2000, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[5]  Poppy Lauretta McLeod,et al.  An Assessment of the Experimental Literature on Electronic Support of Group Work: Results of a Meta-Analysis , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[6]  B. Depaulo,et al.  Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar. , 1983 .

[7]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Invoking Social Comparison to Improve Electronic Brainstorming: Beyond Anonymity , 1995, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[8]  Charles D. Samuelson.  Perceived Task Difficulty, Causal Attributions, and Preferences for Structural Change in Resource Dilemmas , 1991 .

[9]  J. McGrath,et al.  Group Task Performance and Communication Technology , 1993 .

[10]  P. Ekman.  Telling lies: clues to deceit in the marketplace , 1985 .

[11]  C. Scott.  The impact of physical and discursive anonymity on group members’ multiple identifications during computer‐supported decision making , 1999 .

[12]  R. Blank.  The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review , 1991 .

[13]  T. Postmes,et al.  Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Effects of Anonymity on Group Behavior , 2001 .

[14]  Suzanne P. Weisband,et al.  Overcoming social awareness in computer-supported groups , 1993, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[15]  L. Hubert,et al.  Quadratic assignment as a general data analysis strategy. , 1976 .

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

[17]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  A conceptual framework of anonymity in Group Support Systems , 1992 .

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

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

[20]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Stalking the elusive "vividness" effect. , 1982 .

[21]  S. Blount.  When Social Outcomes Aren't Fair: The Effect of Causal Attributions on Preferences , 1995 .

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

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

[24]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[25]  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..

[26]  J. Kagan,et al.  Rational choice in an uncertain world , 1988 .

[27]  Rob Kling,et al.  Assessing Anonymous Communication on the Internet: Policy Deliberations , 1999, Inf. Soc..

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

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

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

[31]  Jerry M. Burger,et al.  Changes in Attributions Over Time: The Ephemeral Fundamental Attribution Error , 1991 .

[32]  R. Spears,et al.  Knowing Me, Knowing You: Anonymity Effects on Social Identity Processes within Groups , 2001 .

[33]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Lessons from a Dozen Years of Group Support Systems Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field Findings , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[34]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication , 1986 .

[35]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A Theory of Task/Technology Fit and Group Support Systems Effectiveness , 1998, MIS Q..

[36]  L. Freeman.  Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[37]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Salience, Attention, and Attribution: Top of the Head Phenomena , 1978 .

[38]  M. Johnson,et al.  Rate of false source attributions depends on how questions are asked. , 1993, The American journal of psychology.

[39]  J. Valacich,et al.  Group Support Systems: New Perspectives , 1992 .

[40]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Social cues and anonymous group interaction using group support systems , 1994, 1994 Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[41]  R. Hastie,et al.  The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line , 1986 .

[42]  B. R. Schlenker,et al.  The Self and social life , 1987 .

[43]  T. Mitchell,et al.  Attributional processes of leaders in leader–member interactions. , 1979 .

[44]  J. Walther.  Impression Development in Computer-Mediated Interaction. , 1993 .

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

[46]  Beryl Hesketh,et al.  Attribution theory, judgmental biases, and cognitive behavior modification: Prospects and problems , 1989, Cognitive Therapy and Research.

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

[48]  Paul Gray,et al.  Assessing GDSS empirical research , 1990 .

[49]  Sherry K. Schneider,et al.  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL INFORMATION: STATUS SALIENCE AND STATUS DIFFERENCES , 1995 .

[50]  Á. M. Hernáez.  Borgatti, Stephen; Martin Everett i Lin Freeman. UCINET IV. Network Analysis Software. Version 1.0. Columbia: Analytic Technologies, 1992 , 1995 .

[51]  F. Heider.  The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .

[52]  A. Tversky,et al.  Rational choice and the framing of decisions , 1990 .

[53]  Bernard C. Y. Tan,et al.  Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..

[54]  Douglas R. Vogel,et al.  Consensus and Perceived Satisfaction Levels: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of GSS and Non-GSS Outcomes within and between the United States and Mexico , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[55]  Marie Wilson,et al.  Information competition and vividness effects in on-line judgments , 1989 .

[56]  Bruce J. Avolio,et al.  Effects of Source and Participant Anonymity and Difference in Initial Opinions in an EMS Context , 1998 .

[57]  John J. Sosik,et al.  Computer-supported work group potency and effectiveness : The role of transformational leadership, anonymity, and task interdependence , 1998 .

[58]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Book Review Nisbett, R. , & Ross, L.Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. , 1982 .

[59]  R. Rice.  Computer-Mediated Communication and Organizational Innovation , 1987 .

[60]  Janet Fulk,et al.  Organizations and Communication Technology , 1990 .

[61]  Gary T. Marx,et al.  What's in a Name? Some Reflections on the Sociology of Anonymity , 1999, Inf. Soc..

[62]  Sarah E. Peterson.  A comparison of causal attributions and their dimensions for individual and cooperative group tasks. , 1992 .

[63]  Gert-Jan de Vreede,et al.  Why Some GSS Meetings Just Don't Work: Exploring Success Factors of Electronic Meetings , 1997, ECIS.

[64]  John H. Gerdes,et al.  Anonymous mechanisms in group decision support systems communication , 1998, Decis. Support Syst..

[65]  A. Joinson.  Self‐disclosure in computer‐mediated communication: The role of self‐awareness and visual anonymity , 2001 .

[66]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

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

[68]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Groups are not always the same , 1993, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[69]  Leonard M. Jessup,et al.  A field experiment on GSS anonymity and group member status , 1995, Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[70]  T. Kuran,et al.  Mitigating the tyranny of public opinion: Anonymous discourse and the ethic of sincerity , 1993 .

[71]  R. Rice,et al.  Cross-Cultural Comparison of Organizational Media Evaluation and Choice. , 1998 .

[72]  T. Postmes,et al.  Social processes and group decision making: anonymity in group decision support systems , 2000, Ergonomics.

[73]  J. Walther.  Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1992 .

[74]  Eileen M. Trauth,et al.  Understanding Computer-Mediated Discussions: Positivist and Interpretive Analyses of Group Support System Use , 2000, MIS Q..

[75]  Andrew J. Flanagin,et al.  Computer-Mediated Group Work: The Interaction of Sex and Anonymity , 2002, Commun. Res..

[76]  B. Weiner,et al.  Spontaneous" causal thinking. , 1985 .

[77]  Poppy Lauretta McLeod,et al.  A comprehensive model of anonymity in computer-supported group decision making , 1997, ICIS '97.

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

[79]  Terri L. Griffith,et al.  Media Effects and Communication Bias in Diverse Groups , 1997 .

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

[81]  G. Kelly.  The Psychology of Personal Constructs , 2020 .