The amount of research on group support systems (GSS) is growing quickly. One component of GSS, anonymous interaction, has received a great deal of attention recently. The quantitative and qualitative research thus far on anonymous GSS interaction suggests that the effects of GSS anonymity on group processes and outcomes are positive and/or neutral. In this article, the authors explore the potentialfor negative and/or dysfunctional consequences of GSS anonymity and discuss the relevant implications and research questions to be asked and answered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
2.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123-167). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
3.
Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
Barron, F. (1965). The psychology of creativity. In T. Newcomb (Ed.) The creative organization. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
Connolly, T. , Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (1990). Idea generation using a GDSS: Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone. Management Science, 36(6), 689-703.
6.
Cottrell, N. B. (1972). Social facilitation. In C. G. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology (pp. 185-236). New York: Henry Holt.
7.
Dalkey, N. , & Halmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 458-467.
8.
Delbecq, A. L. , Vande Ven, A. H., &Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniquesforprogram planning. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
9.
DeSanctis, G. (1989). Small group research in information systems: Theory and method. In I. Benbasat (Ed.), The information system research challenge: Experimental research methods. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
10.
DeSanctis, G. , & Gallupe, B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33, 589-609.
11.
Diener, E. , Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L., & Kelem, R. T. (1976). Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 178-183.
12.
George, J. F. , Easton, G. K., Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., & Northcraft, G. B. (1990). A study of collaborative work with and without computer-based support. Information Systems Research, 1(4), 394-415.
13.
Hackman, J. R. , & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
14.
Hackman, J. R. , & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfiormance, 16, 250-279.
15.
Hennessey, B. A. , & Amabile, T. M. (1988). The conditions of creativity. In R. J. Stemnberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 11-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Huber, G. P. (1982). Group decision support systems as aids in the use of structured group management techniques. DSS-82 Conference Proceedings, 96-108.
17.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
18.
Jessup, L. M. (1989). The deindividuating effects of anonymity on automated group idea generation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
19.
Jessup, L. M. , & Connolly, T. (1990). The effects of identifiability and responsibility on automated group idea generation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Organizational Communication Division, San Francisco.
20.
Jessup, L. M. , Egbert, J. L., & Connolly, T. (1991). Understanding computer-supported group work: The effects of interaction frequency on group process and outcome. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(2), 190-208.
21.
Jessup, L. M. , Connolly, T., & Galegher, J. (1990). The effects of anonymity on GDSS group process with an idea-generating task. MIS Quarterly, 14(3), 312-321.
22.
Jessup, L. M. , & Tansik, D. A. (1991). Group decision making in an automated environment: The effects of anonymity and proximity with a group decision support system. Decision sciences, 22(2), 266-279.
23.
Jessup, L. M. , & Valadich, J. S. (Eds.). (1993). Group support systems: New perspectives. New York: Macmillan.
24.
Kerr, N. L. , & Bruun, S. E. (1981). Ringelman revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 224-231.
25.
Lott, A. J. , & Lott, B. E. (1961). Group cohesiveness, communication level, and conformity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 408-412.
26.
Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. , Applegate, L. M., & Konsynski, B. R. (1987). Facilitating group creativity: Experience with a group decision support system. Journal of Management Information Systems, 3(4), 5-18.
27.
Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination (Rev. ed.). New York: Scribner.
28.
Seashore, S. E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
29.
Shalley, C. E. (1989). The effects of goal setting procedures and personal discretion on individual's creativity. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
30.
Siegel, J. V. , Dubrovsky, S., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187.
31.
Steers, R. M. , & Porter, L. W. (1987). Motivation and work behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
32.
Steiner, G. A. (1965). Introduction. In G. A. Steiner (Ed.). The creative organization. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
Swieringa, R. , & Weick, K. (1982). An assessment of laboratory experiments in accounting. Journal of Accounting Research, 20, 56-101.
34.
Valacich, J. S. , Jessup, L. M., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (1992). A conceptual framework of anonymity in group support systems. Group Decision and Negotiation, 1, 219-241.
35.
Watson, R. T. , DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1988). Using a GDSS to facilitate group consensus: Some intended and unintended consequences. MIS Quarterly, 12(3), 463-478.
36.
Weldon, E. , & Mustari, E. L. (1988). Felt dispensability in groups of coactors: The effects of shared responsibility and explicit anonymity on cognitive effort. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 330-351.
37.
Weldon, E. , Mustari, E. L., & Brett, J. (1989). The effects of accountability, identifiability, and shared responsibility on cognitive effort. Working Paper, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
38.
Williams, K. , Harkins, S., & Latane, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303-311.
39.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). The requirements and design of a standard group task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 71-88.
40.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1970). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Amold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
