Pengaruh Impulsivitas dan Media Komunikasi terhadap Perbedaan Partisipasi Diskusi Online

Irma Suhartini, Fathul Himam


This study aims to determine the effect of impulsivity and computer-mediated communication on differences in online participation. This research is an experimental research with Posttest only design. Participants involved in this study were students with an age range of 17-22 years, totaling 30 participants. Participants will be divided into two groups namely using the computer-mediated communication real name (CMR) and computer-mediated communication anonymously (CMA), each group consists of 15 participants. This study used Barrat Impulsive Scale (BIS) 11 to determine participants' impulsivity. Data analysis in this study used Two-way analysis of variance. Based on the result of the interaction model analysis between impulsivity and computer-mediated communication to online participation, it is known that the value of F = 1,587 with significance equal to 0,219 (p> 0,05). This research found that there is no significant difference in online participation based on computer-mediated communication of CMR and CMA, both at low, medium and high levels of impulsivity.



computer-mediated communication; impulsivity; online participation


Adrianson, L., Ancok, D., Ramdhani, N., & Acher, T. (2013). Cultural influences upon health, affect, self-esteem and impulsiveness: An Indonesian-Swedish comparison. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 2(3), 25–44. doi: 10.5861/ijrsp.2013.228.

Adrianson, L., & Hjelmquist, E. (1999). Group processes in solving two problems: Face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(3), 179–198. doi: 10.1080/014492 999119075

Ainsworth, S., Gelmini-hornsby, G., Threapleton, K., Crook, C., Malley, C. O., & Buda, M. (2011). Anonymity in classroom voting and debating. Learning and Instruction, 21, 365–378. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010. 05.001

Bagana, E., & Raciu, A. (2012). Anxiety, impulsiveness and time perception among secondary and high school students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33, 890–894.  doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.250

Bender, T. (2003). Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning: theory, practice, and assessment. Virginia: Stylus Publishing.

Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2010). Studying invisibly: media naturalness and learning. Proceedings of The Chais Conference on Instructional Technologies Research 2008: Learning in the Technological Era. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-6139-6

Christopherson, K. M. (2007). The positive and negative implications of anonymity in Internet social interactions: “On the Internet, Nobody Knows You’re a Dog.” Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 3038–3056. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2006. 09.001

Clinton, V., & Kelly, A. E. (2017). Student attitudes toward group discussions. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1–11. doi: 10.1177/1469787417740277

Daud, M. Y., Khalid, F., Ahmad, M., Rahman, M. J. A., & Karim, A. A. (2016). “To participate or not?”: Identifying the factors affecting university students’ participation in an e-forum. Creative Education, 7, 2791–2802. doi: 10.4236/ce.2016. 718259

Dickman, S. J. (1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: Personality and cognitive correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(1), 95–102. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.95

Ellouze, F., Ghaffari, O., Zouari, O., Zouari, B., & M’rad, M. F. (2013). Measurement: BIS 11 – Dialectical Arabic version. Retrieved from

Hillyard, C., Gillespie, D., & Littig, P. (2010). University students’ attitudes about learning in small groups after frequent participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(1), 9–20. doi: 10.1177/1469787409355867

Hrastinski, S. (2008). What is online learner participation? A literature review. Computers & Education, 51, 1755–1765. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.005

Kerr, N. L., & Park, E. S. (2001). Group performance in collaborative and social dilemma tasks: progress and prospects. Dalam Hogg, M. A & Tindale, S (Eds.)Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers

Mcleod, P. L. (2011). Effects of anonymity and social comparison of rewards on group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 42(4), 475–503. doi: 10.1177/1046496410397381

Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the barratt impulsiveness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(6), 768–774.

Santrock, J. W. (2014). Psikologi pendidikan (edisi kelima, buku 1). Penerjemah: Bimasena, H. Jakarta: Salemba Humanika.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized casual inference. Boston: Houghton Miffin.

Someya, T., Sakado, K., Seki, T., Kojima, M., Reist, C., Tang, S. W., & Takahashi, S. (2001). Measurement: BIS 11 – Japanese version. Retrieved from

Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2012). A theory of impulse and reflection. Dalam Handbook of theories of social psychology, volume 1. Editor: Van lange, Kruglanski, & Higgins. London: Sage.

Tzagarakis, C., Pellizzer, G., & Rogers, R. D. (2013). Impulsivity modulates performance under response uncertainty in a reaching task. Exp Brain Res, 225, 227–235. doi: 10.1007/s00221-012-3363-6

Valiente, C., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Haugen, R., Thompson, M. S., & Kupfer, A. (2013). Effortful control and impulsivity as concurrent and longitudinal predictors of academic achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33(7), 946–972. doi: 10.1177/0272431613477239.

Whitty, M. T, & Young, G. (2017). Cyberpsychology: the study of individuals, society and digital technologies. UK: Wiley.

Yao, S., Yang, H., Zhu, X., Auerbach, R. P., Abela, J. R., Pulleyblank, R. W., & Tong, X. (2007). Measurement: BIS 11 – Chinese version. Retrieved from

Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.22146/gamajpp.46324


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2019 Gadjah Mada Journal of Professional Psychology (GamaJPP)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.