The Impact of Anonymity on Perceptions of Source Credibility and Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Communication: A Test of Two Competing Hypotheses
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2007
The Impact of Anonymity on Perceptions of Source Credibility and Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Communication: A Test of Two Competing Hypotheses
As scholars and practitioners have endeavored to develop computer-based tools that foster effective communication and collaboration in groups, anonymity has played a key role. Anonymity purportedly minimizes status differences, liberates team members from a fear of retribution, and makes members feel more comfortable contributing to discussions. Yet these benefits may be outweighed by the impact of anonymity on receiver perceptions and behavior. Two competing hypotheses, drawn from adaptive structuration theory, were tested in this study to determine the impact of anonymity on receiver perceptions of sources and messages in computer-mediated group communication. The results of the multilevel models offer evidence in support of the discounting hypothesis and suggest that anonymity provided by electronic meeting systems may undermine source credibility and influence.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
2.
Anonymous [Author is C. R. Scott]. (1998). To reveal or not to reveal: A theoretical model of anonymous communication. Communication Theory, 8, 381-407.
3.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
4.
Bonito, J. A. (2002). The analysis of participation in small groups: Methodological and conceptual issues related to interdependence. Small Group Research, 33, 412-438.
5.
Cacioppo, J. T., Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1981). The nature of attitudes and cognitive responses and their relationship to behavior. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrum, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive response in persuasion (pp. 31-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A guided tour. Personal Relationships, 9, 327-342.
7.
Clawson, V., & Bostrom, R. (1996). Research-driven facilitation training for computer support environments. Group Decision and Negotiation, 5, 7-29.
8.
Connolly, T., Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36, 689-703.
9.
Dennis, A. R. (1996). Information exchange and use in group decision making: You can lead a group to information, but you can't make it think. MIS Quarterly, 20, 433-457.
10.
Dennis, A. R., Hilmer, K. M., & Taylor, N. J. (1997). Information exchange and use in GSS and verbal group decision making: Effects of minority influence. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 61-88.
11.
Dennis, A. R., Wixom, B. H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2001). Understanding fit and appropriation effects in group support systems via meta-analysis. MIS Quarterly, 25, 169-173.
12.
DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, R. B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33, 589-609.
13.
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5, 121-147.
14.
Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119-146.
15.
Eckel, M. W. (1968). The ethics of decision-making. New York: Morehouse-Barlow.
16.
El-Shinnawy, M., & Vinze, A. S. (1997). Technology, culture, and persuasiveness: A study of choice-shifts in group settings. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47, 473-496.
17.
Flanagin, A. J., Tiyaamornwong, V., O'Connor, J., & Seibold, D. R. (2002). Computer-mediated group work: The interaction of member sex and anonymity. Communication Research, 29, 66-93.
18.
Garlick, R., & Mongeau, P. A. (1992). Majority/minority size and the evaluations of persuasive arguments. Communication Research Reports, 9, 43-53.
19.
Garlick, R., & Mongeau, P. A. (1993). Argument quality and group member status as determinants of attitudinal minority influence. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 289-308.
20.
George, J. F., Easton, G. K., Nunamaker, J. F., & Northcraft, G. B. (1990). A study of collaborative group work with and without computer-based support. Information Systems Research, 1, 394-415.
21.
Gordijn, E. H., De Vries, N. K., & De Dreu, C. K. (2002). Minority influence on focal and related attitudes: Change in size attributions and information processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1315-1326.
22.
Gouran, D. S., Brown, D., & Henry, D. R. (1978). Behavioral correlates of perceptions of quality in decision-making discussion. Communication Monographs, 45, 51-63.
23.
Hanke, J. L. (1998). Can technology save you from meeting hell?Presentations, 12, 36-44.
24.
Hardy, M. A. (1993). Regression with dummy variables. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
Hayne, S. C., Pollard, C. E., & Rice, R. E. (2003). Identification of comment authorship in anonymous group support systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 301-329.
26.
Hayne, S. C., & Rice, R. E. (1997). Attribution accuracy when using anonymity in group support systems. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 47, 429-452.
27.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
28.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communications and persuasion: Psychological studies in opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
30.
Huang, W. W., & Wei, K. K. (2000). An empirical investigation of the effects of group support systems (GSS) and task type on group interactions from an influence perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17, 181-206.
31.
Johnson, B. T. (1991). Insights about attitudes: Meta-analytic perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 289-299.
32.
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 451-477). New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 233-265). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
34.
Kenny, D. A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 126-137.
35.
Kerr, N. L. (2002). When is a minority a minority? Active versus passive minority advocacy and social influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 471-484.
36.
Lim, L. H., Raman, K. S., & Wei, K. K. (1994). Interacting effects of GDSS and leadership. Decision Support Systems, 12, 199-211.
37.
Limon, M. S., & Boster, F. J. (2001). The impact of varying argument quality and minority size on influencing the majority and perceptions of the minority. Communication Quarterly, 49, 350-366.
38.
Massey, A. P., & Clapper, D. L. (1995). Element finding: The impact of a group support system on a crucial phase of sense making. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11, 149-176.
39.
McCroskey, J. C. (1966). Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs, 33, 65-72.
40.
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A re-examination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90-103.
41.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
42.
McLeod, P. L. (1997). A comprehensive model of anonymity in computer-mediated group decision making. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 223-234). Retrieved June 24, 2004, from http://aisel.isworld.org/subject-by-publication.asp?Subject-ID=128
43.
Mejias, R., Lazeno, L., Rico, A., Torres, A., Vogel, D., & Shepherd, M. (1996). A cross-cultural comparison of GSS and non-GSS consensus and satisfaction level within and between the U.S. and Mexico. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3, 408-417.
44.
Nunamaker, J. F., Briggs, R. O., Mittleman, D. D., Vogel, D. R., & Balthazard, P. A. (1996). 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.
45.
Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46.
Pinsonneault, A., & Heppel, N. (1997). Anonymity in group support systems research: A new conceptualization, measure, and contingency framework. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 89-108.
47.
Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 173-193). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
48.
Postmes, T., & Lea, M. (2000). Social processes and group decision making: Anonymity in group decision support systems. Ergonomics, 43, 1252-1274.
49.
Rains, S. A. (2005). Leveling the organizational playing field–virtually: A meta-analysis of experimental research assessing the impact of group support system use on member influence behaviors. Communication Research, 32, 193-234.
50.
Reinig, B. A. (2003). Toward an understanding of satisfaction with the process and outcomes of teamwork. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 65-84.
51.
Reinig, B. A., & Mejias, R. J., (2003). An investigation of the influence of national culture and group support systems on group processes and outcomes. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved June 24, 2004, from www.computer.org/proceedings/cps_dl.htm
52.
Romano, N. C., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2001). Meeting analysis: Findings from research and practice. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved March 1, 2005, from www.computer.org/proceedings/cps_dl.htm
53.
Sauer, P. J. (2004, May). Escape from meeting hell. Inc. Magazine, 26, 70-78, 112-112.
54.
Scott, C. R. (1999a). Communication technology and group communication. In L. R. Frey, D. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 432-472). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
Scott, C. R. (1999b). The impact of physical and discursive anonymity on group members' multiple identifications during computer-mediated decision making. Western Journal of Communication, 63, 456-487.
56.
Scott, C. R., Quinn, L., Timmerman, C. E., & Garrett, D. (1998). Ironic uses of group communication technology: Evidence from meeting transcripts and interviews with group decision support system users. Communication Quarterly, 46, 353-374.
57.
Scott, C. R., Sage, D. M., Timmerman, C. E., & Quinn, L. (1997, May). When the virtual honeymoon is virtually over: Declining benefits associated with repeated usage of a computerized group decision support system. Paper presented at the International Communication Association's annual conference, Montreal, Canada.
58.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187.
59.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
60.
Tan, B., Raman, K., & Wei, K. (1994). An empirical study of task dimension of group support systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 24, 1054-1060.
61.
Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Group size and anonymity effects on computermediated idea generation. Small Group Research, 23, 49-73.
62.
Valacich, J. S., Jessup, L. M., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). A conceptual framework of anonymity in group support systems. Group Decision and Negotiations, 1, 219-241.
63.
Valacich, J. S., & Schwenk, C. (1995). Devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry effects on face-to-face and computer-mediated group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 158-173.
64.
Yellen, R. E., Winniford, M. A., & Sanford, C. C. (1995). Extraversion and introversion in electronicallysupported meetings. Information and Management, 28, 63-74.
