1 / 16

Impacts of Electronic Self-Portrayal on Newly Formed Virtual Teams

Impacts of Electronic Self-Portrayal on Newly Formed Virtual Teams. Shoshana Altschuller, Iona College Raquel Benbunan-Fich, Baruch College October 12, 2007. Motivation for Study. Dispersed team members interacting remotely via electronic means are common.

brooke
Download Presentation

Impacts of Electronic Self-Portrayal on Newly Formed Virtual Teams

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. Impacts of Electronic Self-Portrayal on Newly Formed Virtual Teams Shoshana Altschuller, Iona College Raquel Benbunan-Fich, Baruch College October 12, 2007

  2. Motivation for Study • Dispersed team members interacting remotely via electronic means are common. • Trust has a positive effect on group performance. • The challenge of attaining trust is increased using computer-mediated communication systems (CMCS). • “True identity” exposure should have profound effects on the way team members interact. • The Electronic self-portrayal continuum

  3. Research Question • To what extent do changes in the self-portrayal characteristics of a synchronous CMCS affect the outcomes of ad-hoc virtual group meetings using the system? • Does electronic self-portrayal impact • trust ? • performance?

  4. Electronic Self-Portrayal • Electronic self-portrayal (ESP) • The extent to which a CMCS portrays true identity (“true-to-life”) • Expression of “true self” on the Internet leads to close relationships (Bargh et al., 2002; McKenna et al., 2002). • No research studies a CMCS in terms of its ability to reveal who really is on the other end. • The way that a person is portrayed online is based on two aspects of their online participation: • Personal Representation -- “who they are” • Photos • Avatars • Messaging-based Representation -- “how they formulate messages” • Rehearsability (Dennis & Valacich, 1999): • The extent to which a system allows users to reread and edit their own messages before submitting them to be processed by the system.

  5. Research Model Mechanisms Dependent Variables Independent Variable: Electronic Self-Portrayal VERBAL COMMUNICATION PERFORMANCE PERSONAL REPRESENTATION NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION TRUST MESSAGING-BASED REPRESENTATION

  6. Hypotheses: Dependent Variable Electronic self-portrayal impacts team trust based on Walther’s Hyperpersonal Model (1997): • Ha. Communication using a more true-to-life mode of personal representation will result in less trust than will communication using a less true-to-life mode of personal representation. • Hb. Communication using a more true-to-life mode of messaging-based representation will result in less trust than will communication using a less true-to-life mode of messaging-based representation. • Hc. Communication using a more true-to-life mode of only one form of representation (“Partial ESP”) will result in more trust than will communication using any other combination of representation modes.

  7. Methodology: Experimental Design • 2x2 Factorial Design Personal Representation

  8. Methodology: Procedure • Ad-hoc teams of three Baruch students • Perform a given task together using the system • Decision-making task • Case scenario • Current, relevant to the students, ethically charged • Each individual filled out pre- and post-task questionnaires • All items based on previously validated and used instruments • Each group randomly assigned to a condition • Identification manipulations: avatar, photo • Rehearsability manipulations: • High – no visible keystrokes: users type one entire message at a time before submitting them. • Low – visible keystrokes: users could see the letters appearing on the screen as their partners type them.

  9. Methodology: Manipulations • Avatar-identified • Photo-identified BACK

  10. Methodology: Manipulations • Chat software: ICQ 2003b Low Rehearsability High Rehearsability Split Layout IRC Style Layout (visible keystrokes) (no visible keystrokes) BACK

  11. Data Analysis • Sample • 251 usable observations • 60-66 individual observations in each condition • Trust survey instrument • Adapted from (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998) • Confirmatory Factor Analysis • Cronbach’s alpha = .90 • HANOVA • To test for differences in means • Hierarchical - adjusts for group effects

  12. Results Highlights • HANOVA describes significant differences in the trust means among treatments (p<.05). • Ha and Hb are not supported. • Trust is increased in the “Partial ESP” condition – Hc supported.

  13. Results Highlights • Partial electronic self-portrayal • at least one form of true representation and at least one of non-disclosure • associated with higher levels of trust • ideal balance between idealization and realism • Low rehearsability (can see the keystrokes) • conveys the “person behind the avatar” • exposes the “fool behind the photo”

  14. Results Highlights • Electronic self-portrayal continuum confirmed no ESP 1 dimension 2 dimensions

  15. Next Steps • Partial least squares analysis to test the structural properties of the mechanisms in the research model • Continued analysis in conjunction with HANOVA on group performance

  16. Contribution • Examines two dimensions of electronic self-portrayal and their interaction • First to empirically test effects of rehearsability • Practical implications for the use of synchronous communication systems • The element of “unrealism” that exists in CMC could be one of its most useful characteristics.

More Related