Abstract
This study examined the hypothesis that computer mediated discussions lead to more extreme decisions than face-to-face (FTF) meeting. Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire (1984) claimed that computer mediated communication (CMC) tended to be relatively uninhibited, as seen in ‘flaming’, and that group decisions under CMC using Choice Dilemma Questionnaire tended to be more extreme and riskier than FTF meetings. However, for the same reason, CMC discussions on controversial social issues for which participants initially hold strongly opposing views, might be less likely to reach a consensus, and no polarization should occur. Fifteen 4-member groups discussed a controversial social issue under one of three conditions: FTF, CMC, and partition. After discussion, participants rated their position as a group on a 9-point bipolar scale ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement. A stronger polarization effect was observed for FTF groups than those where members were separated with partitions. However, no extreme shift from their original, individual positions was found for CMC participants. There results were discussed in terms of ‘expertise and status equalization’ and ‘absence of social context cues’ under CMC.
