Friday, November 2, 2012
Chapter 15- Post 2
Group size, proximity, and anonymity are all influential factors on a CMC group’s decision-making process. In terms of size, large groups appear to benefit most from using computer-mediated communication as they are able to generate more ideas per member as opposed to smaller groups. The physical proximity in which the members interact also affects the group process. The text states that even if group members are using CMC, but doing so from the same room, they are still more conscious of their personal-social identities, experience greater social pressure, and have a greater tendency to conform to the group’s expectations and norms, than do members of more widely distributed groups. Anonymity is also a factor that influences a CMC group’s decision-making process since unlike f2f groups, the members are not required to know one-another on a personal level in order to interact. This means they still communicate and make decisions anonymously and still produce a successful end result.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Daisy,
ReplyDeleteI liked your post and you did a great job of explaining your answers. I also stated how bigger groups can benefit more from CMC then smaller groups. The more people that you have in a group then the more ideas and input will be added to conversations. The more diverse a group is it also can improve the communication as well. The thing I did not quite understand was the point that being in close proximity to others in your group and having any changes to the way people act. The book states that a person will be conscious of their “personal-social identities, experience greater social pressure, and have a greater tendency to conform to the group’s expectations and norms.” I am not sure how being in a close proximity of other people can change any of these. I know that in groups most people will try to adapt a “group attitude” in order to function and work cohesively.
An important difference between CMC and f2f communication that you mentioned was that participants do not need to know each other on a personal level in order to interact. While this is true, I feel like participants may connect to each other on a personal level as the group process goes on. For example, when I read everyone’s blogs I try to imagine myself in their shoes and think about what they wrote. It’s like how we have stereotypes to organize all the stimuli in the world and prepare us against the unknown. I think that platforms like Second Life give participants a personal level in which to interact.
ReplyDelete