Self Esteem and Self Reference in Computer Mediated Communication

By Koehler, T.; Trimpop, R.

Theoretical foundation


1. Social Cues Filtered Out Hypothese(SCFO; Kiesler & Sproull 1986) – CMC as impersonal situation
① lack of social information
② de-individuation
③ difficulties concerning coordination and feedback
④ depersonalization and different focus of attention
⑤ conformity concerning norms belonging to the computer-subculture

2. Group Polarization (GP; Lea & Spears 1992) – CMC as small group process
① Reduced Social Cues / Group Polarization
② Depersonalization – less group identity & less group norms

3. Hyperpersonal Situation (HPS; Walther 1995) – CMC as communicational situation
① more socially desirable than FTF
② more positive judgment of computer mediated groups than FTF
③ Social Identity Deindividuation Theory(SIDE, Spears & Lea 192); the increase of subtle social-contextual & personal information due to the lack of communication of FTF contacts

4. The basic conditions of the MGP(minimal-group-paradigm by Tajfel 1973) → realized in most setting’s of CMC


The expectations on self reference & self esteem in CMC
⑴ self reference – social behavior is more self-referential than in FTF groups
 * Identity Scale
 * Membersip Scale
⑵ self esteem – more positive individual & private public self esteem in CMC than FTF communication

 * Private Collective Self Esteem
 * Public Collective Self Esteem Scale

Methods

2x2 multi-factorial design examining FIF vs. CMC settings
Participants
200 undergraduates at German University
45% females & 54% males, average age 22, from 18 to 32 years
randomly assigned to both conditions, tested through electronic mail & by paper and pencil


Luthanen’s and Crocker’s scales for comparing CMC vs. FTF communication
Factor1-“private collective self esteem”
Factor2-“public collective self esteem”
Factor3-“Identity/Identification scale”
Factor4-“Membership scale”


Two groups; CMC - operationalized by receiving the questionnaires as electronic mail
FTF – identical paper & pencil test sent home


Differences between groups concerning means
F1 – significant group difference
F2 – no difference
F3 – no difference
F4 – significant group difference

→ CMC groups shows more positive and its importance for group member’s personal identity is weaker.

Discussion & Finding

Has the study helped to resolve the originally stated problem to decide whether
and how CMC influences the self-concept of the communicators?

① CMC - not be regarded as generally impersonal
② CMC - not a one-dimensional concept


The difference between CMC and paper & pencil as for the private collective self-esteem
→ more important related to the sociological matter

. Experimental and experiential approaches to teaching face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion

By Bolanle A. Olaniran, Grant T. Savage and Ritch L. Sorenson

Theoretical foundation

Goal; to see how FTF and CMC affect teachers and students in enhancing instruction of group decision making comparing both sides



⑴ Participation
CMC>FTF * greater & more equalized (Heltz, Johnson, & Turoff, 1986, …)
* in communicating concurrently (Valacich, Paranka, George, & Nunamaker, 1993)
CMC – * Advantage - an increase in the willingness to participate & offer

evaluative comments(Smilowitz, Compton, & Flint, 1988)

* Disadvantage – comments; too critical causing “flaming” (Heltz, Johnson, &

Toroff, 1988)

⑵ Criticism/Embarrassment
CMC>FTF

* less likely to take comments & criticism personally by participants (Connolly, Jessup, & Balacich, 1988, 1990,…)
* having problems expressing themselves due to speech impaired and non-fluent language, etc. (Hoare & Race, 1991; Kiesler, 1986)

⑶ Productivity loss
FTF>CMC

* due to production blocking, evaluation apprehension and free riding (Diehl and Strobe, 1987)
* due to the lack of social context cues in CMC → uninhibited behavior & equalized status and participation (Hiltz &Turoff, 1978; Kiesler et at., 1984,…)

⑷ Asynchroneity and Record storage/Retrieval

CMC has those advantages.
CMC – a repository for the group’s “memory” (Davie & Wells, 1991)

⑸ Training
CMC * training required (e.g. the way to log on, to respond messages, to put comments, deal with other with manner)
CMC>FTF * be more tedious (Rogers, 1983; McGrath, 1990)

⑹ Time-binding
CMC>FTF

* in reaching consensual agreements & making decisions(Kiesler, 1986; Kiesler et al., 1984,…)
* in saving cost for traveling & physically attending group meetings(Johansen, Vallee, & Spangler, 1979; Smilowitz, et al.,1988)



H1: FTF meeting > (higher) CMC meeting in overall effectiveness
H2: FTF meeting > (greater) CMC meeting in overall satisfaction
H3: FTF meeting > (greater) CMC meeting in the perceived ease of use
H4: The greater a medium’s perceived ease of use, the higher the satisfaction with that medium

: (Maier, 1970; Olaniran, 1994; Price, 1985)
⑴ Idea generation
Goal; to produce a large number of ideas
CMC>FTF due to the medium’s tendency to prevent productivity loss
creativity is enhanced
→ H5: CMC meeting > (higher) FTF meeting in effectiveness during Idea generation
H6: CMC meeting > (greater) FTF meeting in participant satisfaction during Idea generation

⑵ Evaluation
Goal; to analyze ideas and reaching a consensus for a decision or solution to the group task
FTF meeting > (outperformed) CMC meeting in feedback & relationship development; easy in agreement and consensus development and essential to decision making & problem solving (Hiltz, et at.,1986)
→ H7: FTF meeting > (higher) CMC meeting in effectiveness during the evaluation stage
H8: FTF meeting > (greater) CMC meeting in participant satisfaction during the evaluation stage

Methods

☞ Subjects; upper-level undergraduate students, majoring in communication at Texas Tech University, age from 20 to 24 years, 46 males & 68 females, randomly assigned to 38 three-member groups
☞ Two experimental session by each group - ① using CMC
② using FTF meeting
☞ CMC system – PROFS (professional office system)
☞ Task – two semi-structured tasks
i. to analyze the problem of using standardized test score (e.g. GMAT & GRE)
ii. to analyze the problem of installing computer software
(In idea generation stage)
FTF; * to generate ideas using the nominal group technique individually preventing criticism and resulting negative impact on group productivity
CMC; * to type ideas using CMC system and to distribute lists to the group
(In evaluation stage)

* to analyze the generated ideas, discuss merit and to develop group’s proposal
CMC meeting has disadvantage than FTF in time controlling due to transmission delays

Data; from a questionnaire on a five-point, Likert-type scale from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
Chronbach’s alpha; to access the reliability of each scale

Analyses and Results

ANOVA(analysis of variance) & Pearson product moment correlation; used to examine the hypotheses
① For overall effectiveness(H1)
② For overall satisfaction(H2); supported
③ For ease of use(H3); supported
④ For a correlation between ease of use & satisfaction(H4); supported
⑤ For effectiveness during idea generation(H5); partially supported
⑥ For communication media on satisfaction(H6); not supported
⑦ For effectiveness during evaluation(H7); marginal supported
⑧ For satisfaction during evaluation(H8); supported



i. FTF>(greater)CMD ; in overall satisfaction
ii. FTF>(more effective)CMD ; in both idea generation & evaluation
iii. CMC>(more)FTF ; in producing ideas when brainstorming
iv. Implication – satisfaction during idea-generation stage may increase with increase use of and familiarity with CMC
v. Students clearly preferred FTF meeting in decision-making process

Implication of using experiments to teach CMC vs. FTF for students

Shedletsky(1993)

1. understanding both CMC & FIF decision-making by students should be enhanced
2. better able to critique such research
3. learn some basics of experimental methodology
4. get objective frame for group analysis to compare assumptions with actual outcomes