Los sistemas de apoyo informático han dado lugar a nuevas formas de trabajo en grupo permitiendo la interacción en situaciones en las que los componentes del grupo están física, temporal y funcionalmente separados. El objetivo del presente trabajo es analizar los efectos del anonimato y el género sobre el nivel de consenso, la cohesión y la satisfacción de los individuos, en una situación de trabajo en grupo asistido por sistemas informáticos.
Mediante un diseño experimental de laboratorio se consideran dos condiciones experimentales: Grupos con apoyo de sistemas informáticos (GSS) y grupos cara a cara y dos situaciones: de anónimo e identificados. Los resultados, no muestran diferencias en los niveles de acuerdo pre-discusión y post-discusión, en función del anonimato, del género ni del uso de la tecnología. Sin embargo, a nivel individual, se advierten diferencias significativas en la cohesión grupal y satisfacción con el proceso y la decisión final, considerando la situación de anonimato y la variable género.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllportF. H. (1924). The group fallacy in relation to social science. Journal Abnormal and Social Psychology, 29, 60–73.
2.
AllportF. H. (1967). Attitudes. EnMurchisonC. (Ed.), A handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 798–844). Nueva York. Russell and Russell.
3.
AndersonL. R.BlanchardE. N. (1982). Sex differences in task and social-emotional behavior.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 109–139.
4.
ArrowH.BercahlK. B.CraigK. M.CummingA.LebieL.McgrathJ. E.O'connerK. M.RhoadesJ. A.SchlosserA. (1996). Time, techonology and group: an interaction. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 4, 253–261.
5.
BairdJ. E. (1976). Sex differences in group communication: A review of relevant research. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62, 179–192.
6.
BeckA. T. (1988). Love is never enough.Nueva York: Harper and Row.
7.
BerdahlJ. L.CraigK. M. (1996). Equality of participation and influence in groups: the effects of communication medium and sex composition. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 4, 179–201.
8.
BoyacigillerN.AdlerN. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in global context. Academy of Management Review, 16, 262–290.
9.
BriggsR. O.NunamakerJ.SpragueR. (1997). 1001 Unanswered research questions in GSS. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 3–21.
10.
ConnollyT.JessupL.ValacichJ. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea gegeration in generation computer-mediated groups. Managemen Science, 36, 689–703.
11.
DealJ. J. (2000). Gender differences in the intentional use of information in competitive negotiations. Small Group Research, 31, 6, 702–724.
12.
DennisA. R.NunamakerJ. F.VogelD. R. (1990). A comparison of laboratory experiments and field studies in the study of electronic meeting systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7, 2, 107–135.
13.
DesanctisG.GallupeR. B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems.Management Science, 33, 5, 589–609.
14.
DienerE. (1979). Desindividuacion: The absence of self-awarenes and self-regulation in group members. EnPaulusP. (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 209–242). Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
DoiseW.MoscoviciS. (1973). Les decisions collectives. EnMoscoviciS. (Ed.), Introduction à la Psychologie Sociale (pp. 261–278). París: Larousse.
16.
Festinger, (1951) Comunicación social informal. En CartwrightD.ZanderA., Dinamica de grupos. (1971) (pp. 205–214). México: Trillas.
17.
GallupeR. B.DesanctisG.DicksonG. (1988). Computer based support for group problem-finding: an experimental investigation. MIS Quarterly, 12, 2, 277–296.
18.
GallupeR. B.DennisA. R.CooperW. H.ValacichJ. S.BastianuttiL. M.NunamakerJ. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 350–369.
19.
GeorgeJ. F.EastonG.NunamakerJ.NorthcraftG. (1990). A study of collaborative group work with and without computer-based support. Information Systems Research, 1, 394–415.
20.
GilF.GarcíaM. (1994). Grupos en las organizaciones.Madrid: Eudema.
21.
GraciaF. J.ArcosJ. L.CaballerA. (2000). Influencia de la presión temporal en el trabajo en grupo en función del tipo de tarea y del canal de comunicación. Psicothema, 12, 2, 241–246.
22.
GreenS.TaberT. (1990). The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 97–106.
23.
GroosE. (1954). Primary functions of the small group. American Journal Sociological Review, 21, 174–179.
24.
HawkinsK.PowerC. B. (1999). Gender differences in questions asked during small decision-making group discussions. Small Group Research, 30, 2, 235–256.
25.
HiltzS.TurloffM.JohnsonK. (1989). Disinhibition, deindivuduation, and group processes in pen name and real name computer conference. Decision Support Systems, 5, 217–232.
26.
HoffmanL. R.HarburgE.MaierN. R. E. (1962). Differences and disagreemere as factors in creative group problem solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 206–214.
27.
HollingsheadA. B.McgrathJ. E.O'connorK. M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technology: a longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Groups Research, 3, 307–333.
28.
JessupL.ConnollyT.GalegherJ. (1990). The effects of anonymity on GDSS Group processes with an idea generating task. MIS Quarterly, 14, 3, 313–321.
29.
JessupL.TansikD.LaaseT. (1988). Group Problem solving in an automated environment: The effects of anonymity and proximity on group process and outcome with a GDSS”, Proceedings of the9th Academy of Management Conference, Organizational Communication Division, 9, August, 1–20.
30.
JexS. M.BlieseP. D.BuzzellS.PrimeauJ. (2001). The impact of self-efficacy on stresor-strain relations: coping style as an explanatory mechanism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 3, 401–409.
31.
JohnsonR. D.DowningL. J. (1979). Deindividuation and valence of cues: Effects of prosocial and antisocial behavior. Journal of Personality ans Social Psychology, 37, 1532–1538.
32.
KemperS. (1984). When to speak like a lady. Sex Roles, 10, 435–443.
33.
MajchrzakA.BorysB. (1998). Computer-aided technology and work: moving the field forward. EnCooperC. L.RobertsonI. T. (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13, 305–354. Chischester: Wiley & Sons.
34.
MannL. (1981). The baiting crowd in episodes of threatened suicide. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 703–709.
35.
MarquisD. G. (1962). Individual responsability and group decision involving risk. Industrial Management Review, 3, 8–23.
36.
MartínezI. M.MejíasR. (2001). Efectos del anonimato en grupos con apoyo de sistemas informáticos. un estudio longitudinal. Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada, 54, 4, 671–680.
37.
MartínezI. M.CifreE.LlorensS.SalanovaM. (2000). Contagio de emociones en grupo en tareas de laboratorio asistidas por ordenador. EnCaballeroD.MéndezM.T.PastorJ. (Eds.), La Mirada Psicológica: Grupos, Procesos Lenguaje y Culturas (pp. 266–272). Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
38.
MartínezI. M.CifreE.LlorensS.SalanovaS. (2002a). Efectos de la tecnología asistida por ordenador en el bienestar psicológico afectivo: un estudio experimental longitudinal. Psicothema, 14, 1, 118–123.
39.
MartínezI. M.CifreE.LlorensS.SalanovaM. (2002b). Study of health variables in working teams with ICT: An experimental-longitudinal lab study.Castellón: Publicaciones Universitat Jaume I.
40.
MejiasR.ShepherdM.VogelD.LazaneoL. (1996). Consensus and perceived satisfaction levels: A cross-cultural comparison of Gss and non-Gss outcomes within and between the U.S. and Mexico. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 137–161.
41.
MoralesB.MorieraH.VogelD. (1995). Group support for regional development in Mexico. Proceding of the28th Hawai International Conference on System Sciences.
42.
NunamakerJ.DennisA.ValacichJ.VogelD. (1991). Information technology for negotiation groups: Generating opinions for mutual gain. Management Science, 37, 1325–1346.
43.
NunamakerJ.BriggsR. O.MittlemanD. D.VogelD. R.BalthazardP. A. (1997). Lessons from a dozen years of group support systems research: A discussion of lab and field findings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 163–207.
44.
PostmesT.SpearsR. (1998). Deindividuation and anti-normative behaviour: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238–259.
45.
PostmesT.SpearsR.LeaM. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication research, 25, 689–715.
46.
ReicherS. (1987). Conducta de masa como acción social. EnTurnerJ. C., Redescubrir el grupo Social (1990) (pp. 235–274). Madrid: Morata.
47.
RogelbergS. G.RumeyS. M. (1996). Gender diversity, team decision quality, time on task, and interpersonal cohesion.Small Group Research, 27, 1, 78–90.
48.
SalanovaM.MartinezI. M.BravoM. J.RodriguezI. (1998). Development of shared mental models and expertise in teams working with new information technologies: a longitudinal experiment. Paper presented atFirst International Work Psychology Conference. Sheffield, July, 1–3.
49.
SashkinM.MaierN. R. E. (1971). Sex effects in delegation. Personnel Psychology, 86, 291–298.
50.
ShawM. E. (1994). Dinamica de Grupo. Barcelona. Herder.
51.
SheriffM. (1966). The Psychology of social norms.Nueva York: Harper and Row.
52.
SpiveyC. B.PrenticeDUN. S. (1990). Assessing the directionality of deindividuated behavior: Effects for deindividuation, modeling, and private self-consciousness on aggresive and prosocial responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 115–127
53.
StevikM. (1987). Beyond the chalkboard: Computer support for collaboration and problem-solving meetings. Communications of the ACM, 30, 1.
54.
StonerJ. A. F. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Tesis de maestría no publicada. Massachusetts Institute os Technology. Cambridge. Citada en M. A. Wallac, N. Kogan & D. J. Bem (1992), Group influence on individual risk taking.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 75–86.
55.
TajfelH. (1981). Human Group and Social Categories: studies in Social Psychology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Trad. cast.: Grupos humanos y categorías sociales, Barcelona: Herder, 1984).
56.
TannenD. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation.Nueva York: William Morrow, Ballantine.
57.
TannenD. (1994). Talking from 9 to5. Nueva York: William Morrow
58.
ValacichJ.DennisA.NunamakerJ. (1991). Electronic meeting support: The group systems concept.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 261–282.
59.
ValacichJ. S.JessupL. M.DennisA. R.NunamakerJ. F. (1992). Conceptual Framework of anonymity in group support systems. Group Decision and Negotiations, 1, 219–241
60.
VENTANA CORPORATION SOFTWARE (1999). Group Systems 2.1. Tucson. Arizona. Workgroup Edition
61.
WaltersA. E.StuhlmacherA. F.MeyerL. L. (1998). Gender and negotiator competitiveness: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 76, 1, 1–29
62.
WatsonR.DesanctisG.PooleM. (1988). Using a GDSS to facilitate group consensus: Some intended and unintended consequences. MIS Quarterly, 12, 3, 463–478.
63.
WoodW.PoleckD.AtkinC. (1985). Sex differences in group task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 63–71.
64.
ZigursI.PooleM.DesanctisG. (1988). A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making. MIS Quarterly, 13, 4, 625–644.
65.
ZimbardoP. G. (1970). The human choice: individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impluse and chaos. EnArnoldW. J.LevineD. (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on motivation, 1969 (pp. 237–307). Lincolm: University of Nebraska Press.
