Exploring Group Behavior and Discussion Productivity in Anonymous Chatrooms for Ethical Decision-Making

Discussing ethical dilemmas is a common practice in teaching professional ethics. Technology-supported collaboration scripts facilitate case analysis activities by providing features like automatic grouping of participants based on specific criteria and anonymous chatrooms for discussing controversial or sensitive ethical issues without fear of judgment or criticism. However, the group behavior in this context, particularly that of participants with minority viewpoints, needs a thorough investigation to understand whether anonymity and chat communication alone lead to productive discussions. In this study, we analyzed the behavior of 258 students from various higher education programs at a Latin American University while discussing an ethical dilemma and striving for a consensus on its resolution. We aimed to identify recurring group behaviors regarding discussion productivity, characterize them, and determine the most frequent. We also examined the behavior patterns of students holding minority positions within these groups. Our findings suggest that anonymity does not inherently foster productive discussions, as the most common group behavior patterns tend towards quick consensus building around the first decision proposed by a peer. Additionally, while we observed various behaviors among minority peers, they often conformed to the majority stance. We discuss the potential causes of these phenomena, the implications for designing environments for such applications, and the prospect of developing AI-based agents and facilitators to enhance discussions.