DOC PREVIEW
MTU CS 6461 - A COMPREHENSIVE MODEL OF ANONYMITY IN COMPUTER SUPPORTED GROUP DECISION MAKING

This preview shows page 1-2-3-4 out of 12 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 12 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 12 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 12 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 12 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 12 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

223A COMPREHENSIVE MODEL OF ANONYMITY INCOMPUTER-SUPPORTED GROUPDECISION MAKINGPoppy Lauretta McLeodWeatherhead School of ManagementCase Western Reserve UniversityAbstractDrawing on recent theoretical efforts, a three dimensional model of anonymity in computer-sup-ported group discussion is developed. Applying this model to a review of empirical literature showsthat studies of the idea generation phase of decision making have dominated this literature, and thatthe role of anonymity in discussion and consensus reaching has received much less attention.Propositions on the effects of anonymity on consensus decision making discussions are developed.It is argued that anonymity removes some tools of persuasion and increases the difficulty of coordi-nating discussion. It is proposed that participants in anonymous discussions will find substitutes forthe persuasion and coordination functions served by identity cues. It is also proposed that the degreeof anonymity is affected by acquaintance among group members, and that anonymity changes overtime.Keywords: Anonymity, group support systems.1. INTRODUCTIONAnonymity has been hailed as one of the cardinal benefits of computer-based group support systems, especiallyamong practitioners (Dennis et al. 1990; Nunamaker et al. 1993; Wilson and Jessup 1995). Anonymity is thoughtto facilitate participation by reducing social barriers associated, for example, with differences in social status andpower within groups (Spears and Lea 1994). Anonymous expression, therefore, should equalize the opportunitiesfor all group members to contribute their ideas and opinions, and as a result of this broader information sharing groupdecision making should improve (Rao and Jarvenpaa 1991). But anonymity has also been argued to affect groupdiscussion and decision making in ways that may not be so positive. Anonymity may increase conflict and negativelytoned discussion, social loafing, unproductive and non-task oriented periods, and difficulty in reaching consensus(Jessup and George 1997; Valacich et al. 1992). When the literature on anonymity is closely examined it becomesclear that our understanding of anonymity’s effects, separate from other features of electronic group support, islimited. This limitation can be attributed to both empirical and theoretical reasons.Empirically, the research on anonymity has focused primarily on one aspect of group decision making—ideageneration—and much less on the information exchange, consensus reaching, and choice-making facets of thedecision-making process (Dennis 1996; Weisband 1994). A second empirical issue is that it is difficult to generalizeacross the results from different groups of researchers because of differences in technologies, tasks, and experimentalparadigms (cf. Hollingshead and McGrath 1995). These empirical issues have theoretical implications. The variationin research procedures means that different kinds of anonymity may have been operationalized in different studies.Until very recently (e.g., Valacich et al. 1992; Hayne et al. 1994), little consideration has been given to the conceptualdefinition of anonymity and the notion that anonymity is a multifaceted construct. This further complicates attemptsMcLeod224to generalize across studies. It is argued here that, as a result, the effects of anonymity on decision making incomputer-supported groups remains poorly understood.In the current paper a comprehensive model of anonymity is proposed and will be used to review empirical researchon anonymity in computer-supported group decision making. Drawing upon this review, propositions for futureresearch will then be developed.2. ANONYMITY IN COMPUTER-SUPPORTED GROUP DECISION MAKING Anonymity has been operationally defined in the existing empirical literature as not having participants’ real namesattached to their inputs. Some studies have created anonymity by having nothing whatever attached to participantinput (e.g., Jessup et al. 1990a; Jessup and Tansik 1991), while others have supplied the anonymous participants withnominal labels or pseudonyms (e.g., Hiltz et al. 1989; Siegel et al. 1985; Weisband et al. 1995). The assumptionsunderlying these practices are that participants will be disabled from identifying authors of specific statements, thatanonymity is a dichotomous construct, that a group’s state of anonymity is fixed, and that anonymity is an objectivecharacteristic of the situation. Recent theoretical work has challenged these assumptions (Hayne et al. 1994; Valacichet al. 1992). Valacich et al. argued that anonymity is more complex than a static switch that can simply be turned on and off.They suggested that anonymity is subjectively experienced and that participants can feel varying degrees ofanonymity and different kinds of anonymity. The degree of anonymity depends on features of the technology andthe specific situation. For example, participants might feel less anonymous if their comments are displayed simulta-neously as they are typed than if there is a delay between typing and display.Valacich et al. proposed that anonymity can be divided into two kinds: content and process. They define contentanonymity as “the extent to which group members can identify the source of a particular contribution by recognizingthe author through an identifier embedded in the contribution,” and process anonymity as “the extent to which groupmembers can determine who is participating by directly observing who is making a contribution” (p. 225). It is notdifficult to comprehend how the degree of these two types of anonymity can vary independently of each other. Forinstance, in a large group where members are in the same room, but not able to see each other’s computer screens,the members can observe who is present and what percentage of the group is typing at a given moment, but cannotmatch contributions to specific people. This example describes low process and high content anonymity. Hayne et al. argued that the Valacich et al. conceptualization did not go far enough, and introduced a distinctionbetween social and technical aspects of anonymity. They maintained that the Valacich et al. model conceptualizedanonymity as a technical feature, as does all of the existing empirical research. Hayne et al. contended that partici-pants’ subjective experience of anonymity may not match the technically defined condition of anonymity. Thissubjective experience refers to social anonymity, which they define


View Full Document

MTU CS 6461 - A COMPREHENSIVE MODEL OF ANONYMITY IN COMPUTER SUPPORTED GROUP DECISION MAKING

Documents in this Course
Tapestry

Tapestry

13 pages

Load more
Download A COMPREHENSIVE MODEL OF ANONYMITY IN COMPUTER SUPPORTED GROUP DECISION MAKING
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view A COMPREHENSIVE MODEL OF ANONYMITY IN COMPUTER SUPPORTED GROUP DECISION MAKING and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view A COMPREHENSIVE MODEL OF ANONYMITY IN COMPUTER SUPPORTED GROUP DECISION MAKING 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?