Attitude Change in Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Anonymity and Category Norms

The current research compared the effect of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and direct communication on attitude change. The social identity model of deindividuation effects (Spears & Lea, 1994) predicts that CMC results in behavior that is more in line with the salient level of self-categorization (compared to non-anonymous communication): in CMC salient social identity should lead to conformity to group norms whereas salient personal identity was expected to result in behavior that fits individual goals. Two experiments showed that when personal identity was salient and when social identity was salient and a category norm was explicitly given, CMC led to the predicted effects, whereas the lack of a social category norm led to lower attitude change in CMC compared to direct communication.

[1]  Martin Lea,et al.  Contexts of computer-mediated communication , 1992 .

[2]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group decision making and communication technology , 1992 .

[3]  B. Simon,et al.  When self-categorization makes sense: the role of meaningful social categorization in minority and majority members' self-perception. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[4]  T. Postmes,et al.  Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Effects of Anonymity on Group Behavior , 2001 .

[5]  H. Tajfel,et al.  An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. , 1979 .

[6]  R. Spears,et al.  Knowing Me, Knowing You: Anonymity Effects on Social Identity Processes within Groups , 2001 .

[7]  T. Postmes,et al.  A Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Phenomena , 1995 .

[8]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. , 1987 .

[9]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[10]  Tom Postmes,et al.  SIDE issues centre-stage: Recent developments in studies of deindividuation in groups (pp. 202). Amsterdam: KNAW. , 2000 .

[11]  Friedrich-Schiller-Universitat Jena Common Bond and Common Identity Groups on the Internet: Attachment and Normative Behavior in On-Topic and Off-Topic Chats , 2002 .

[12]  T. T. Postmes,et al.  Refining the cognitive redefinition of the group: Deindividuation effects in common bond vs. common identity groups. , 2000 .

[13]  A. Vinokur,et al.  Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group-induced shifts: A group-problem-solving approach. , 1974 .

[14]  John C. Turner,et al.  Polarized Norms and Social Frames of Reference: A Test of the Self-Categorization Theory of Group Polarization , 1990 .

[15]  M. Wallach,et al.  Risk Taking: A Study in Cognition and Personality , 1965 .

[16]  Katelyn Y. A. McKenna,et al.  Plan 9 From Cyberspace: The Implications of the Internet for Personality and Social Psychology , 2000 .

[17]  H. Tajfel Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations , 1982 .

[18]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group processes in computer-mediated communication☆ , 1986 .

[19]  Tom Postmes,et al.  Social identity, group norms, and "deindividuation" Lessons from computer-mediated communication for social influence in the group , 1999 .

[20]  Tom Postmes,et al.  Cognitive and strategic processes in small groups: effects of anonymity of the self and anonymity of the group on social influence. , 2002, The British journal of social psychology.

[21]  S. Reicher Social influence in the crowd: Attitudinal and behavioural effects of de‐individuation in conditions of high and low group salience* , 1984 .

[22]  Scott E. Maxwell,et al.  Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data , 1992 .

[23]  M. Zanna,et al.  Persuasion as a function of self-awareness in computer-mediated communication , 1989 .

[24]  Tom Postmes,et al.  SIDE issues centre stage: Recent developments in studies of de-individuation in groups. , 2000 .

[25]  David A. Wilder,et al.  Some determinants of the persuasive power of in-groups and out-groups: Organization of information and attribution of independence. , 1990 .

[26]  R. Spears,et al.  Panacea or Panopticon? , 1994 .

[27]  Tom Postmes,et al.  Social influence in computer-mediated groups , 1997 .

[28]  R. Spears,et al.  De‐individuation and group polarization in computer‐mediated communication , 1990 .

[29]  Mark P. Zanna,et al.  The Role of Social Comparison in Choice Shifts. , 1979 .

[30]  Russell Spears,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication, De-Individuation and Group Decision-Making , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[31]  M. Hogg,et al.  Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. , 1989 .

[32]  Scott E. Maxwell,et al.  Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data , 1991 .

[33]  N. Branscombe,et al.  Peripheral ingroup membership status and public negativity toward outgroups. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[34]  J. Neter,et al.  Applied Linear Statistical Models (3rd ed.). , 1992 .

[35]  Paul B. Paulus,et al.  Psychology of Group Influence , 1981 .

[36]  T. Postmes,et al.  Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. , 1998 .

[37]  L. Festinger,et al.  Some consequences of de-individuation in a group , 1952 .

[38]  T. Postmes,et al.  Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? , 1998 .

[39]  M. Cadinu,et al.  Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[40]  Mark P. Zanna,et al.  The impact of computer-mediated communication on self-awareness☆ , 1988 .

[41]  R. Spears,et al.  Social influence and the influence of the 'social' in computer-mediated communication. , 1992 .

[42]  Michael H. Kutner Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1974 .

[43]  S. Weisband Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups , 1992 .

[44]  J. Walther Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1992 .