Fon Sundaravej
Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social
Presence, and Anonymity
By Choon-Ling Sia, Bernard C.Y. Tan, and Kwok-Kee Wei
The objective of this article is to examine how the communication with information technology affects group
polarization. Social Comparison Theory (SCT) and Persuasive Arguments Theory (PAT) are brought into the
context to explain group polarization. Two main characteristics of SCT, which are one-upmanship and
pluralistic balance, are believed to produce group polarization. In addition, two major characteristics of PAT,
validity and novelty of arguments, are assumed to cause group polarization. Two laboratory experiments are
conducted by using computer-mediated communication (CMC) as a tool to prove hypotheses of the impacts of
communication cues and anonymity, which are key features of CMC, on social presence and ultimately to user
behavior. The results of the experiments indicate that the reduction in social presence might increase group
polarization by causing people to generate more novel arguments and one-upmanship behavior. Moreover,
levels of social presence (identification and anonymity) affect different degrees of group polarization.
This article reflects that MIS scholars in 2000s pay attention on the impacts of IT on organizational
communication. Similar to the articles “Information Overload and the Message Dynamics of Online Interaction
Spaces: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Exploration” by Jones (2004), which studies the impacts of online
interaction spaces on their user interactions, and “Toward Contextualized Theories of Trust: The Role of Trust
in Global Virtual Teams” by Jarvenpaa (2004), which examines how trust affects attitudes and behaviors of
people engaged in IT-enabled relationships, this article presents an idea on how communication with
information technology affects group polarization. However, to discover the relationship between IT and
organizational communication, some other researchers do not only study the inputs and impacts, but also focus
on the process to explain the choices of strategies, messages, and media as stated in the article “Review: A
Cognitive-Affective Model of Organizational Communication for Organizational Communication for Designing
IT” by Te’eni (2001).
A significant lesson learned from this article is how IT affects users and their behavior and the organization as a
whole. According to the article, in organizational communication, IT adoption leads to lower social presence
because it limits communication cues while raises anonymity, resulting in higher group polarization. Group
polarization could cause either satisfied or unsatisfied results. As such, we might be able to make an assumption
that, when applied, communication technology could generate a good or bad outcome. Thus, it is vital to study
the impacts of IT on organizational communication.
However, one of my concerns on this study is the research methodology. The experiment is conducted on set-up
settings with a small group size and dummy task topic. With these, some bias may happen. Sia, Tan, and Wei
also concern on these issues like mentioned as their research limitations at the end of the article. The concern on
this issue is usually raised on many articles that conduct an experiment on the CMC or GSS tools. One example
is the article “Conflict Management in a Computer-Supported Meeting Environment” by Poole, Holmes, and
Desanctis (1991). On this paper, Poole, Holmes, and Desanctis conduct a laboratory experiment to examine
how GDSS influences conflict management in small groups making budget allocation decision. Participants do
not receive any incentive by taking a part of the discussion. Even though, for the current study, the incentive is a
grade for the class that participants are enrolling, they may join the activity without paying much attention on
the discussion. Consequently, the results of the study may not be robust until an experiment is conducted in real
organizational settings or meticulous control settings. Another example is the article “Toward Contextualized
Theories of Trust: The Role of Trust in Global Virtual Teams” by Jarvenpaa (2004). Even though the
experiment in Jarvenpaa (2004)’s article is conducted on control settings, the topic for discussion through the
CMC tool is a business plan which comprises some percentages of the participants’ course grades. Moreover, a
monetary prize is offered for the best plan. These incentives could motivate participants to actively join the
discussion, resulting in stronger validity of the results.
IS 7890: IS Research Seminar
Spring 2006