Computer-Mediated Communication and Majority Influence

“Majority influence is the attempt by a majority of people in a group to impose its common position on a minority of dissenters during decision making (Levine and Russo 1987)”

Majority influence can have both positive and negative effects on decision making. Majority influence is also affected by Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC). The culture of the audience or group also has an impact on majority influence.

‘”At the extreme, strong majority influence can lead to groupthink, when the striving for unanimity overrides the motivation to appraise realistically alternative courses of action (Janis 1989).” The paper sites extreme examples of this. President Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Johnson escalation of the Vietnam War, as well as the Challenger disaster of NASA in 1986 are all monumental mistakes caused by groupthink. Majority influence can also be a useful tool. “In an increasingly turbulent business environment groups often need to make complex decisions very rapidly to respond effectively to environmental changes (Huber 1984). In emergency situations majority influence needs prevail where is hasn’t in some circumstances. The way the U.S. government dealt with Hurricane Katrina was an instance where majority influence did come into play soon enough.

I was surprised that studies in the paper suggest that majority influence is more of a factor without CMC then with it. Majority influence always came into play with a tipping point of a majority being at 3. In face to face meetings majority influence had the greatest impact. Followed by face to face in a CMC setting which was then followed by CMC in a dispersed setting. It was interesting that in the studies sited that majority influence always won out but it took longer in a CMC environment. What was also interesting was that two different cultures were used. One being the United States and the other being Singapore.

The culture of the audience or group being either individualistic or collective made a difference in majority influence but the results were the same. Individualistic cultures have stronger more disperse opinions but the majority has a louder voice and is more opinionated as well. In a collective society Majority influence prevails because dissenters don’t want to “rock the boat” so to speak.

To conclude majority influence is prevalent in CMC and face to face communication. Hopefully CMC will allow more voices to be heard and better judgments made as we move forward together as a people in the information age.

References:

Bernard C.Y. Tan Kwok-Kee Wei Richard T. Watson Danial L. Clapper Ephriam R. McLean Computer-Mediated Communication and Majority influence: Assessing the Impact in an Individualistic and Collective culture.

Huber, G.P. 1984 The nature and design of post industrial organizations.

Janis, I. L. Crucial Decisions: Leadership in Policymaking and Crisis management. The Free Press NY NY.

Levine J. M. E. M. Russo 1987 Majority and Minority influence in group processes.

The Privacy of Internal E-mails

“Privacy is not something that I’m merely entitled to, it’s an absolute prerequisite.” Marlon Brando (Brando)

Privacy for an individual as well as within an organization is an absolute prerequisite. With modern technology advancing and electronic communication becoming the most used forms of communication in the business world, it is unfortunate that we have not centered in on privacy as it relates to an organization. (Streza, 2003) After reading Ralph Streza article “Discovery Unplugged: Should Internal E-mails Be Privileged Confidential Communications?” I agree with his argument for the creation of new communications privilege based on privacy and business policy as well as some valid points he makes about needing to rethink whether intra-company e-mail should be included in the litigation process.

One of the main problems pointed out by Ralph Streza is that individuals managing the discovery issues related to litigation involving corporations have not questioned the propriety of allowing discovery of a company’s e-mail database. As Ralph Streza states, “The decisions sustaining the discoverability of e-mail, however, occurred before the practical effects of allowing that discovery were foreseen, or possibly even appreciated. The time may be ripe to rethink the propriety of invading these communications.” (Streza, 2003)There are many problems when it comes to litigation and the discoverability of e-mail. While collecting and analyzing e-mail in an effort not to miss anything important they usually end up wasting time as well as money.

In addition to wasted time and money, the accuracy of the information being analyzed is questionable. Streza quotes that “Ideas are often modified or discarded during the conversation. By contrast, in an exchange of e-mail thoughts, when an idea is changed, there is not always a written acknowledgment of that change.” (Streza, 2003) He also makes some very valid points about deleted e-mail and the fact that we should give consideration to the reason that the e-mail was deleted. It is possible that the e-mail may have been deleted because someone changed their minds about the content of the e-mail. From my own experience, I know that deleted e-mails could be very inaccurate for many reasons. Ralph Streza makes another valid point about e-mail discovery. He states, “Although e-mail discovery has been allowed in civil cases, it is ironic that the same invasion into the content of private conversations –with or without telephone-generally has not been allowed.”

In conclusion, with the advances in technological communication we need to rethink using intra-company e-mail as a source when it comes to litigation. Furthermore, especially with the economy, we need to take into account the costs and burdens being endured by companies while searching for a truth that is more than likely not going to be found in a company’s internal e-mail. In addition, I find it troubling that they would allow the invasion of any private conversation whether it is by phone or e-mail. There is a reason people send an e-mail to one person and do not include others. This is because it is a private conversation, not a matter for public discussion.

References
Brando, M. (n.d.). Privacy Quotes. Retrieved 01 17, 2011, from Thinkexist.com: http://thinkexist.com/quotations/privacy/
Streza, R. (2003). The Privacy Project Discovery Unplugged: Should Internal E-mails Be Privileged Confidential Communications? Defense Councel Journal , 36-39.

Work the Plan

“…it is interaction not place that is the essence of urban life” (Webber, 1964)

When I realized that this narrative was written in 1964, it impressed me because of the relevance this issue still holds today. In 1964 the main modes of communication were the telephone and written correspondence. Today, cyberspace provides the ability to interact easily and instantly, without the constraint of geographical proximity. With the advancement in technology, many believe that our physical communities are being threatened and replaced with cybercommunities. Does this mean then that technology should be forfeited for the sake of our physical communities ? I believe that the benefits gained through technology far outweigh the negatives, and that the challenge we face is in our ability to identify and manage the undesirable results of technology.

New urbanism is a term used to describe “a movement in planning designed to enhance localism in urban life” (Walmsley, D., 2000, p. 13). This movement emphasizes local geographical areas as bases for community. Examples include mixed land uses rather than homogeneous zoning, encouragement of street life by emphasizing “walkability” and the fostering of personal interaction.

"New Urbanism puts the emphasis in urban life squarely on “geographic, place-based community, where people have what matters to them most: personal contact made possible through friendlier streets and walkability and variety and personalism” (Matathia & Salzman, 1998, p. 154).

When I was a child, neighborhoods were tight communities. We knew all of our neighbors on a personal basis. My friends were the kids on my block. We went to school together and played at home together. My parents knew their parents. If you misbehaved, your parents were informed and your behavior was corrected. My children had a much different experience in that they knew the other children on the block, but as a parent, I did not know many of the other parents. Today, I know only two of my neighbors but only in passing. Advancement in technology is not the only reason for the changes in how our local communities interact; however, it has resulted in the potential for individuals to become more isolated. Recognizing and taking steps to counteract some negative trends our communities are encountering should be pursued.

Personal interaction is important not only in our communities, but also in business. If technology interferes with this need, then we must plan and make allowances to correct this problem. For example, social networking is a great way for people to stay in touch with a large base of people and to communicate across that base, however, it should not be used in place of meeting a friend over a cup of coffee and having that personal interaction. In business, technology should lend support to enable face-to-face negotiations when required and technology should not be used in place of the face-to-face interaction.

In conclusion, negative ramifications due to advancement in technology need to be identified and remedial steps taken. Negative influences that technology brings to homes, communities and societies does not mean that technology is wrong or evil, it means that we need to plan for the impacts and to place boundaries on the affect we allow it to have. I believe that both interaction and place are ingredients which lead to a more complete urban life experience and I welcome the new urbanism approach.

Reference:

Walmsley, D.J. (2000), Community, Place and Cyberspace, Australian Geographer, 31(1), pp. 5-19.

Hey He-Man, Pass the Weed

When I was a kid, He-Man was the Master of the Universe and doctors knew how to cure what ailed us. However, in our society today technology has made our doctors seem almost irrelevant, and He-Man has been replaced by the self-sufficiency of the Internet. We live in a world where the information is endless and “having easy and more private access to an online connection seems to lead to greater reliance on the Internet for health information.” (Rideout, 2001, p. 11)This information, although sometimes helpful, also has the potential to be dangerous if used incorrectly.

Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) has become a normal way of life, and we are no longer bound by the constraints of location, transportation, or social interactions. There is always an answer on the internet.If we have a problem we just Google it. In a sense we have become masters of our own solitary universes, only peeking out when it is absolutely necessary.

The side effects of a generation raised in a CMC environment are yet to be unveiled. Although there are benefits to limitless amounts of information, I believe that many of the new ways people are being reached through technology are potentially dangerous. A recent study suggests that regular text messages from informational sources could potentially help to reduce the use of cannabis in teens (Laursen, 2010).

However, is it possible to fight addiction through text message? Can we solve all of the emotional issues of a generation through technology rather than personal contact and face-to-face communication? Are doctors and psychologists becoming extraneous in our society?

Laursen (2010) suggests that it may be possible to influence the actions of young people through informative text messages. Although, there are still many variables which could potentially influence the research.

“Text messaging could prove to be an innovative way of reaching young people, but little is known about the actual effects of the text messages or the ways in which they are received.”( Laursen, 2010)

I do not believe that the consequences of this research have been adequately examined. Researchers need to isolate the variables involved in order to quantify their investigation. Variables such as age, gender and socioeconomic background are all factors that could potentially influence the interpretation of the messages. Misinformation or misinterpretation of information is not uncommon in young people, especially teens who have not fully developed emotionally. If a text message is not fully understood it is unlikely that a young teen would ask questions from a responsible adult. They would most likely seek information from an online source.

“If the quality of online information is not high or the source unknown, increased reliance on the Internet could lead to greater misinformation and skepticism.” (Rideout, 2001, p. 7)

Although I do believe in the benefits of technology, I also believe that there should be boundaries placed on the information that is available on the internet. I also strongly support efforts to increase communication with younger generations. However, I do not believe that adapting to their CMC lifestyle is always the best way to conquer critical issues. We no longer live in a world where He-Man is the Master of the Universe, but neither are we. It is important for all of us to identify the importance of our doctors and psychologists and the information they can provide.

References

Laursen, D. (2010), Counseling Young Cannabis Users by Text Message. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15: 646–665. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01510.x

Rideout, V. (2001, December). Generation Rx.com: How young people use the Internet for health information. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Accessed October 6, 2009 from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Toplines.pdf

Facebook is my "Honesty Machine"

"...people tend to play act at being someone else in anonymous settings and be more realistic and honest in nonymous environments" (Grasmuck, et al., 2009, p. 158)

Initially this bold statement took me by surprise. I would assume that given the opportunity for total safety the person(s) would be inclined to brutal truth or letting it all hang out. Then I started to look into my own past. As someone in their mid-20’s I remember being in my very early teens and getting on chat rooms and being a raucous Amazonian goddess…. With all of the other - all too perfect chat room users.

Then Facebook came along. I joined just as I moved cross country as a way to appease my friends and family (mostly Mom) that I was alive and well. Then, as it is want to do, I was sucked in. I was adding pictures, finding long lost friends, sharing life experiences, documenting (read: complaining about) the daily struggle of living on my own 1,300 miles from home, and of course the obligatory updates on the all too important activities of my 7-toed cat Darkrawr. The validity of my statements was backed by my new acquaintances. They proved or disproved, without me asking, what I updated for my friends and family.

I am no longer pretending to be an exotic creature. I am a down home girl from the mid-west, someone I am proud of. My few exotic nights at the bar are broadcast for all to see with one simple click from a “tag” happy friend. Why hide what we are all doing? These daily experiences are what create our rich lives and ability to interact and connect (virtually and in real life) with those around us. Facebook became my honesty machine, allowing me to be who I really am today.

Work Cited

Grasmuck, S., Martin, J. and Zhoa, S. (2009), Ethno-Racial Identity and Displays on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 158-188. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01498.x