IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v44y1998i9p1263-1278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Computer-Mediated Communication and Majority Influence: Assessing the Impact in an Individualistic and a Collectivistic Culture

Author

Listed:
  • Bernard C. Y. Tan

    (Department of Information Systems, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260, Republic of Singapore)

  • Kwok-Kee Wei

    (Department of Information Systems, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260, Republic of Singapore)

  • Richard T. Watson

    (Department of Management, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-6256)

  • Danial L. Clapper

    (Department of Accounting and Computer Information Systems, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina 28723)

  • Ephraim R. McLean

    (Computer Information Systems Department, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia 30302-4015)

Abstract

Strong majority influence can potentially harm organizational decisions by causing decision makers to engage in groupthink. This study examines whether and how computer-mediated communication (CMC) can reduce majority influence and thereby enhance the quality of decisions in some situations. To measure the impact of CMC on majority influence, three settings (unsupported, face-to-face CMC, and dispersed CMC) were compared. Matching laboratory experiments were carried out in an individualistic (the US) and a collectivistic culture (Singapore) to determine how the impact of CMC might be moderated by national culture. An intellective and a preference task were used to see whether the impact of CMC might be moderated by task type. The results showed that the impact of CMC on majority influence was contingent upon national culture. In the individualistic culture, majority influence was stronger in the unsupported setting than the face-to-face CMC and dispersed CMC settings. In the collectivistic culture, there were no corresponding differences. The results also revealed that the impact of CMC on majority influence was not moderated by task type. Instead, task type had a direct impact on majority influence. Regardless of the setting involved, majority influence was stronger with the preference than the intellective task. Besides demonstrating how cultural factors may moderate the impact of CMC, this study raises the broader issue of cultural relativism in current knowledge on CMC.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernard C. Y. Tan & Kwok-Kee Wei & Richard T. Watson & Danial L. Clapper & Ephraim R. McLean, 1998. "Computer-Mediated Communication and Majority Influence: Assessing the Impact in an Individualistic and a Collectivistic Culture," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(9), pages 1263-1278, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:44:y:1998:i:9:p:1263-1278
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.44.9.1263
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.9.1263
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.44.9.1263?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee Sproull & Sara Kiesler, 1986. "Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(11), pages 1492-1512, November.
    2. George P. Huber, 1984. "The Nature and Design of Post-Industrial Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(8), pages 928-951, August.
    3. Gerardine DeSanctis & Marshall Scott Poole, 1994. "Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 121-147, May.
    4. Weisband, Suzanne P., 1992. "Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 352-380, December.
    5. Detmar W. Straub, 1994. "The Effect of Culture on IT Diffusion: E-Mail and FAX in Japan and the U.S," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 23-47, March.
    6. John R. Kimberly & Hamid Bouchikhi, 1995. "The Dynamics of Organizational Development and Change: How the Past Shapes the Present and Constrains the Future," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 9-18, February.
    7. Ronald E. Rice, 1992. "Task Analyzability, Use of New Media, and Effectiveness: A Multi-Site Exploration of Media Richness," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 475-500, November.
    8. Joseph B. Walther, 1995. "Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations over Time," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 186-203, April.
    9. Terry Connolly & Leonard M. Jessup & Joseph S. Valacich, 1990. "Effects of Anonymity and Evaluative Tone on Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 689-703, June.
    10. Gerardine DeSanctis & R. Brent Gallupe, 1987. "A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 589-609, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Watson, Richard T. & Boudreau, Marie-Claude & Greiner, Martina & Wynn, Donald & York, Paul & Gul, Rusen, 2005. "Governance and global communities," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 125-142, June.
    2. Aaron X. L. Shen & Christy M. K. Cheung & Matthew K. O. Lee & Huaping Chen, 2011. "How social influence affects we-intention to use instant messaging: The moderating effect of usage experience," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 157-169, April.
    3. Richard Thomas Watson & Kirk Plangger & Leyland Pitt & Amrit Tiwana, 2023. "A Theory of Information Compression: When Judgments Are Costly," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 1089-1108, September.
    4. Ofer Mintz & Imran S Currim & Jan-Benedict E M Steenkamp & Martijn Jong, 2021. "Managerial metric use in marketing decisions across 16 countries: A cultural perspective," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(8), pages 1474-1500, October.
    5. Chih-Hung Peng & Nicholas H. Lurie & Sandra A. Slaughter, 2019. "Using Technology to Persuade: Visual Representation Technologies and Consensus Seeking in Virtual Teams," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 948-962, September.
    6. Liu, Yang & Chen, Yuan & Fan, Zhi-Ping, 2021. "Do social network crowds help fundraising campaigns? Effects of social influence on crowdfunding performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 97-108.
    7. Watson, Richard T. & Saunders, Cliff, 2005. "Managing insight velocity: The design of problem solving meetings," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 285-295.
    8. Jill E. Perry-Smith & Christina E. Shalley, 2014. "A Social Composition View of Team Creativity: The Role of Member Nationality-Heterogeneous Ties Outside of the Team," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1434-1452, October.
    9. Deleersnyder, B. & Dekimpe, M.G. & Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. & Leeflang, P.S.H., 2007. "The Role of National Culture in Advertising’s Sensitivity to Business Cycles: An Investigation Across All Continents," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2007-095-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    10. Choon-Ling Sia & Bernard C. Y. Tan & Kwok-Kee Wei, 2002. "Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 70-90, March.
    11. Chuan-Hoo Tan & Juliana Sutanto & Chee Wei Phang & Anar Gasimov, 2014. "Using Personal Communication Technologies for Commercial Communications: A Cross-Country Investigation of Email and SMS," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 307-327, June.
    12. Sirine Zribi, 2022. "Effects of social influence on crowdfunding performance: implications of the covid-19 pandemic," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, December.
    13. Xiang Fang & Clyde W. Holsapple, 2011. "Impacts of navigation structure, task complexity, and users’ domain knowledge on Web site usability—an empirical study," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 453-469, September.
    14. Daily, Bonnie F. & Teich, Jeffrey E., 2001. "Perceptions of contribution in multi-cultural groups in non-GDSS and GDSS environments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 70-83, October.
    15. Dandi, Roberto, 2002. "E-mail and Direct Participation in Decision Making: A Literature Review," MPRA Paper 14397, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meissner, Jens O., 2005. "Relationship Quality in the Context of Computer-Mediated Communication - A social constructionist approach," Working papers 2005/15, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    2. Martha L. Maznevski & Katherine M. Chudoba, 2000. "Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(5), pages 473-492, October.
    3. Wilson, Jeanne M. & Straus, Susan G. & McEvily, Bill, 2006. "All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 16-33, January.
    4. Choon-Ling Sia & Bernard C. Y. Tan & Kwok-Kee Wei, 2002. "Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 70-90, March.
    5. Jill T. Walston & Robert W. Lissitz, 2000. "Computer-Mediated Focus Groups," Evaluation Review, , vol. 24(5), pages 457-483, October.
    6. Terri L. Griffith & Mark A. Fuller & Gregory B. Northcraft, 1998. "Facilitator Influence in Group Support Systems: Intended and Unintended Effects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(1), pages 20-36, March.
    7. Catherine Durnell Cramton, 2001. "The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 346-371, June.
    8. Sumita Raghuram & Philipp Tuertscher & Raghu Garud, 2010. "Research Note ---Mapping the Field of Virtual Work: A Cocitation Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 983-999, December.
    9. Daily, Bonnie F. & Teich, Jeffrey E., 2001. "Perceptions of contribution in multi-cultural groups in non-GDSS and GDSS environments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 70-83, October.
    10. Michele Griessmair & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2009. "Exploring the Cognitive-Emotional Fugue in Electronic Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 213-234, May.
    11. Dandi, Roberto, 2002. "E-mail and Direct Participation in Decision Making: A Literature Review," MPRA Paper 14397, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Bhappu, Anita D. & Griffith, Terri L. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 1997. "Media Effects and Communication Bias in Diverse Groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 199-205, June.
    13. Viju Raghupathi & Raquel Benbunan-Fich, 2020. "A Social Capital Perspective on Computer-Mediated Group Communication and Performance: An Empirical Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 747-801, August.
    14. Meng Ma & Ritu Agarwal, 2007. "Through a Glass Darkly: Information Technology Design, Identity Verification, and Knowledge Contribution in Online Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 42-67, March.
    15. Baltes, Boris B. & Dickson, Marcus W. & Sherman, Michael P. & Bauer, Cara C. & LaGanke, Jacqueline S., 2002. "Computer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 156-179, January.
    16. Brian Whitworth & Brent Gallupe & Robert McQueen, 2000. "A Cognitive Three-Process Model of Computer-Mediated Group Interaction," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 431-456, September.
    17. Neale, Margaret A. & Griffith, Terri, 1999. "Information Processing in Traditional, Hybrid, and Virtual Teams: From Nascent Knowledge to Transactive Memory," Research Papers 1613, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    18. Ofir Turel & Catherine E. Connelly, 2012. "Team Spirit: The Influence of Psychological Collectivism on the Usage of E-Collaboration Tools," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 703-725, September.
    19. Pamela J. Hinds & Diane E. Bailey, 2003. "Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 615-632, December.
    20. Jennifer D. Parlamis & Ingmar Geiger, 2015. "Mind the Medium: A Qualitative Analysis of Email Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 359-381, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:44:y:1998:i:9:p:1263-1278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.