Group Size and Anonymity Effects on Computer-Mediated Idea Generation

Some for,ns of computer-mediated communication enable groups to engage simultaneously in multiple electronic conversations. One interesting aspect of this technology, in addition to this parallelism, is that the channel is configurable to support forms of group interaction that were previously difficult, if not impossible. This article reports a laboratory experiment that examined the effects of group size (3 and 9 members) and group member anonymity on the performance of groups using a computer-mediated idea-generation system. Although group members in all conditions made, on average, the same number of comments, larger groups generated significantly more ideas (and higher-quality ideas as rated by judges) than did smaller groups. Anzonymity had no effect on ideational performance. Members of small-idenitified groups made the fewest critical remarks, were the most satisfied, and rated themselves more effective than group members from the other experimental conditions.

[1]  Herbert A. Thelen,et al.  Group Dynamics in Instruction: Principle of Least Group Size , 1949, The School Review.

[2]  L. Festinger,et al.  Some consequences of de-individuation in a group , 1952 .

[3]  Donald W. Taylor,et al.  DOES GROUP PARTICIPATION WHEN USING BRAINSTORMING FACILITATE OR INHIBIT CREATIVE THINKING , 1958 .

[4]  N. Dalkey,et al.  An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts , 1963 .

[5]  John P. Campbell,et al.  The effect of group participation on brainstorming effectiveness for 2 industrial samples. , 1963 .

[6]  L. R. Anderson,et al.  Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. , 1969, The Journal of applied psychology.

[7]  T. Bouchard,et al.  Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. , 1970, The Journal of applied psychology.

[8]  J. Hackman,et al.  Effects of size and task type on group performance and member reactions , 1970 .

[9]  A. Delbecq,et al.  Nominal Versus Interacting Group Processes for Committee Decision-Making Effectiveness , 1971 .

[10]  W. Haythorn,et al.  Effects of compatibility, crowding, group size, and leadership seniority on stress, anxiety, hostility, and annoyance in isolated groups. , 1972, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  J. P. Wanous,et al.  Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction. , 1972 .

[12]  Helmut Lamm,et al.  Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency , 1973 .

[13]  Thomas J. Bouchard,et al.  Brainstorming procedure, group size, and sex as determinants of the problem-solving effectiveness of groups and individuals. , 1974 .

[14]  Carolyn M. Callahan,et al.  Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality as a Function of Group Size , 1974 .

[15]  Thomas J. Bouchard,et al.  A comparison of individual, subgroup, and total group methods of problem solving. , 1974 .

[16]  William K. Graham,et al.  Tasks and Task Consequences as Factors in Individual and Group brainstorming , 1975 .

[17]  A. C. Lewis,et al.  The effectiveness of group brainstorming in engineering problem solving , 1975, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[18]  A. Schiffenbauer,et al.  Physical distance and attraction: An intensification effect , 1976 .

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

[20]  David R. Seibold,et al.  Implications for problem‐solving groups of empirical research on ‘brainstorming’: A critical review of the literature , 1978 .

[21]  D. Madsen,et al.  Comparison of a written feedback procedure, group brainstorming, and individual brainstorming. , 1978 .

[22]  G. Evans,et al.  Behavioral and Physiological Consequences of Crowding in Humans , 1979 .

[23]  E. Diener.  Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. , 1979 .

[24]  N. Kerr,et al.  Ringelmann Revisited , 1981 .

[25]  S. Harkins,et al.  Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. , 1982 .

[26]  G. W. Hill.  Group versus individual performance: are n + 1 heads better than one?" psychological bulletin , 1982 .

[27]  Sammy W. Pearson,et al.  Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction , 1983 .

[28]  N. Kerr,et al.  Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects , 1983 .

[29]  Robert Albanese,et al.  Rational Behavior in Groups: The Free-Riding Tendency , 1985 .

[30]  S. Harkins,et al.  The Role of Evaluation in Eliminating Social Loafing , 1985 .

[31]  D. Schweiger,et al.  Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil's Advocacy, and Consensus , 1986 .

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

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

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

[35]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Facilitating Group Creativity: Experience with a Group Decision Support System , 1987, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[36]  M. Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. , 1987 .

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

[38]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Information Technology to Support Electronic Meetings , 1988, MIS Q..

[39]  E. Weldon,et al.  Felt dispensability in groups of coactors: The effects of shared responsibility and explicit anonymity on cognitive effort , 1988 .

[40]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences , 1988, MIS Q..

[41]  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..

[42]  N. Melone.  A theoretical assessment of the user-satisfaction construct in information systems research , 1990 .

[43]  George P. Huber,et al.  A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence , 1990 .

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

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

[46]  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..

[47]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Bringing automated support to large groups: The Burr-Brown experience , 1990, Inf. Manag..

[48]  Thomas A. Finholt,et al.  Electronic Groups at Work. , 1990 .

[49]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  An Attribute Space for Organizational Communication Channels , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

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

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