1 / 24

GSS Anonymity Effects Small Group Behavior

GSS Anonymity Effects Small Group Behavior. Dr. John Wilson , Nova Southeastern University, Dr. Thomas Griffin, Nova Southeastern University, Dr. Leonard Jessup , Washington State University. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference. April 14-16, 2010. Observations.

cynthia-nichols
Download Presentation

GSS Anonymity Effects Small Group Behavior

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GSS Anonymity Effects Small Group Behavior Dr. John Wilson, Nova Southeastern University, Dr. Thomas Griffin, Nova Southeastern University, Dr. Leonard Jessup, Washington State University Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference April 14-16, 2010

  2. Observations • Meetings - two national insurance companies. • Observed - how people behaved; • Lower in hierarchy: spoke less. • Only peers present: spoke more. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  3. Group Support Systems Interested in studies involving GSS. Empirical and field studies: anonymity. Analyzed how anonymity, in some situations, effected group process & outcomes. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  4. Research Question In groups using a GSS, is there an interaction between anonymity and status of members? Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  5. Anonymity (Valacich, Dennis, Jessup & Nunamaker, 1992) • Definition: extent to which group members' contributions are identifiable to other group members or to others outside the group. • Two types: • Process anonymity: able to determine who is participating. • Content anonymity: able to identify the source by recognizing the author of the contribution. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  6. Results from Anonymity Studies Field studies: stronger, more positive effects Empirical studies: mixed results (Jessup et. al., 1989 – 1992; Beauclair, 1989; Dennis, 1991; Valacich, Dennis and Nunamaker, 1992) (Nunamaker, Applegate & Konsynski, 1987 & 1988; Dennis, 1991) Encouraged more participation, particularly from lower status members. Neutralized the effects of an authority hierarchy in a group. Encouraged broad based participation. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference Positive: more total comments & unique ideas than identified groups. Negative: more critical comments than identified groups. Encouraged some members to not participate – social loafing. No effects for anonymity.

  7. Group Meetings (Berger, Cohen and Zelditch, Jr., 1972) Members bring with them external status characteristics: - Formal position, - Personal reputation, - Community, or - Social status (age, sex or race) Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  8. Status Generalization (Ridgeway, 1982) Process: external status characteristics order the internal status of a group. Creates an interaction disability for low-status members. Reducing interaction disability for low- status members requires a technique. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  9. Prediction GSS anonymity would overcome status generalization and interaction disability for low-status members. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  10. Research Design 2 X 2 factorial design: crossed anonymity and status. Operationalized anonymity: ideas and comments submitted either anonymously or identified. Operationalized status: group members either all equal in status, or some group members with a higher level of status. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  11. Dependent Variables • Group outcome related: (1) Total comments (2) Unique ideas (3) Ideas of higher rarity (4) Critical comments • Group member related: (5) Satisfaction Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  12. Hypotheses(Group outcome related variables) H1: Unequal and anonymous groups will generate more total comments, unique ideas, ideas of higher rarity, and critical comments than unequal and identified groups. H2: Equal groups … more … than unequal groups. H3: Anonymous groups … more … than identified groups. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  13. Hypotheses(Group member related variable) H4: Unequal and anonymous group members will be more satisfied than unequal and identified group members. H5: Equal group members … more … than unequal group members. H6: Anonymous group members … more … than identified group members. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  14. Experimental Setting Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  15. Methodology Participants: 75 people in 18 groups. 4 or 5 people per group. Task: insurance fraud; idea generating. Brainstorming session: 30 minutes. Post-experimental questionnaire. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  16. Results • Anonymous groups generated more total comments, more unique ideas, and more ideas of higher rarity than did identified groups. • Equal status group members were more satisfied than unequal status group members. • There was no evidence to support any interaction between anonymity and status. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  17. Analysis of Anonymity Results This study GSS empirical studies (Fjermestad and Hiltz, 2000) (Jessup et. al., 1989 – 1992) • Field experiment in business organization • Managers & professionals • Established groups: • History of working together • Continuing to work together • Mature individuals: average age of 38 years Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference • Empirical studies in academic environments • Students • Ad hoc groups: • Met one time • Probably not worked together • Younger people: average age of 15 years younger

  18. Analysis of Status Results Analyzed responses to post-experimental questionnaire. Found responses of equal status members were significantly higher than unequal members. Suggests status manipulation worked. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  19. Post-hoc Test: Status Manipulation • Operationalized status with more sensitive continuous variables vs. single binary value. • Used alternative status measures: type, number, age, experience, gender of managers, and combined status. • Repeated ANOVA tests. • Pattern of results matched initial approach. • Suggests status manipulation worked. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  20. Implications • Organizationally-based status – may not be important in effecting real group output. • Status differences – may not be important for group members who are: • Mature, • Professional business people with relationships that transcend the study. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  21. Recommendations • Strengthen status variable: • Include wide-range of high status members. • Chose managers based on management/leadership styles. • Choose more sensitive task: • Preferences between status levels, & • Direct implications for members, e.g., bonus allocations, promotion policies. • Increase sample size: 50 groups/250 participants. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  22. Comments on Study • Useful to draw from results: • Quantitative lab experiments, • Qualitative field studies on GSS, and • Build theory to be tested in a field experiment. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  23. References Beauclair, R. A. An experimental study of GDSS support application effectiveness. Journal of Information Science, 1989, 15, 321-332. Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M., Jr. Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 1972, 37(3), 241-255. Dennis, A. R. Parallelism, anonymity, structure, and group size in electronic meetings, 1991 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona). (University Microfilms No. AAD9I-27710). Fjermestad, J. & Hiltz, R. Group support systems: A descriptive evaluation of case and field studies. Journal of Management Information Systems, Winter 2000, 17(3), 113-157. Jessup, L. M. The deindividuating effects of anonymity on automated group idea generation, 1989 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona). (University Microfilms No. 9003487). Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., & Galegher, J. The effects of anonymity on GDSS group process with an idea-generating task. MIS Quarterly, 1990, 14(3), 312-321. Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., & Tansik, D. A. Toward a theory of automated group work. The deindividuating effects of anonymity. Small Group Research, 1990, 21(3), 333-348. Jessup, L. M., & Tansik, D. A. Decision making in an automated environment: The effects of anonymity and proximity with a group decision support system. Decision Sciences, 1991, 22, 266-279. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

  24. References Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Applegate, L. M., & Konsynski, B. R. Facilitating group creativity: Experience with a group decision support system. Journal of MIS, 1987, 3(4), 5-19. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Applegate, L. M., & Konsynski, B. R. Computer-aided deliberation: Model management and group decision support. Operations Research, 1988, 36(6), 826-848. Ridgeway, C. L. Status in groups: The important of motivation. American Sociological Review, 1982, 46, 76-88. Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., Jessup, L. M., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. A conceptual framework of anonymity in GSS. Group Decision and Negotiation, 1992, 1, 219-241. Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. Group size and anonymity effects on computer-mediated idea generation. Small Group Research, 1992, 23(1), 49-73. Allied Academies 2010 Spring International Conference

More Related