1997
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.706
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The eyes have it: Minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion.

Abstract: Results of an experiment comparing face-to-face groups with anonymous and identified computer-supported groups challenged theoretical arguments (V. S. Rao & S. L. Jarvenpaa, 1991) that computer-based group decision support systems (GDSS) can increase group decision quality by facilitating expression of minority opinions. In groups working on a hidden-profile investment decision task, minority opinion holders expressed their arguments most frequently under anonymous GDSS communication, but the influence of the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
116
0
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 192 publications
(124 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
3
116
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Certainly, the digital medium might introduce a certain sense of "virtuosity" or "delete-ability" that could lead to disinhibition, including increased expressions of racial bias. However, disinhibition also may be produced by social-setting effects, such as the de-individuation (Spears & Lea, 1994), anonymity (McLeod et al, 1997), physical isolation (Richman et al, 1999), and absence of human cues (Tourangeau & Smith, 1996) that often come with the use of computers to communicate with others across physical distances. 5 In regard to the modality/setting distinction, the findings of Study 1 indirectly imply that digital modality alone may not be sufficient to produce disinhibition.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Certainly, the digital medium might introduce a certain sense of "virtuosity" or "delete-ability" that could lead to disinhibition, including increased expressions of racial bias. However, disinhibition also may be produced by social-setting effects, such as the de-individuation (Spears & Lea, 1994), anonymity (McLeod et al, 1997), physical isolation (Richman et al, 1999), and absence of human cues (Tourangeau & Smith, 1996) that often come with the use of computers to communicate with others across physical distances. 5 In regard to the modality/setting distinction, the findings of Study 1 indirectly imply that digital modality alone may not be sufficient to produce disinhibition.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Often a microsocial confl ict in an organization follows from the situation when "a minority in the team publicly opposes the beliefs, attitudes, ideas, procedures, or policies assumed by the majority of the team" (McLeod et al, 1997). According to Lane and Lup (2015), tensions and contradictions in managing of creativity lead to organizational success.…”
Section: Tab 3: Defi Nition Of Innovation In the Context Of Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, according to recent literature on impacts and influence of computer-mediated communication (CMC), reduction of identifiable information reduces self-awareness and stimulates antinormative behavior (McLeod et al, 1997). However, aforementioned SIDE model proposes that certain feature of CMC can intensify social influence and enhance normative behavior Spears et al, 1990).…”
Section: Cmc and Deindividuationmentioning
confidence: 99%