Generating Agreement in Computer-Mediated Groups

Abstract

Agreement is an important social outcome often poorly handled by computer-mediated groups, presumably because the computer cannot transmit the necessary rich information. A recently proposed cognitive model suggests richness is not the key to social agreement and that group agreement can be generated by the exchange of anonymous, lean text information across a computer network. This experiment investigates this theory. Self-chosen groups of 5 completed three answer rounds on limited choice problems while exchanging a few characters of position information. These asynchronous, anonymous computer-mediated groups generated agreement without any rich information exchange. The key software design criteria for enacting agreement is proposed to be not richness but dynamic many-to-many linkage. The resulting “electronic voting” may be as different from traditional voting as e-mail is from traditional mail. It may also imply a new generation of groupware that recognizes social influence.

Expanding the Criteria for Evaluating Socio-Technical Software

“…Such "conformity" has a long history in social research [29]- [33]. Facilitating technology suggests that organizations select software that fits their existing infrastructure, again a well-known effect.…”

“…Finally, when individuals form communities mediated by technology, the result is a fourlevel sociotechnical system (STS) [44]. IS users, indeed, seem to exchange factual, personal, and group information using different cognitive processes, corresponding to levels 2, 3, and 4 earlier [33], [45].…”

Legitimate by design: Towards trusted socio-technical systems

“…If there were errors, as in the recent U.S. presidential election, it could simply be done again. To allow groups and communities to act, decide, and own objects seems to be the challenge of the next generation of groupware (Whitworth, Gallupe, & McQueen, 2001). …”

The challenge of modern academic knowledge exchange

“…However this last stage requires group-togroup transmissions e.g. reputation systems let group members rate each other [39]. Such many-to-many communication is distinct from the one-to-many linkage of blogs, and the one-to-one or one-to-few linkage of email or chat.…”