Intragroup status and social presence in online fan groups

Low and high status member posts from online fan message board posts were examined. Low status members, as compared to high status members, were found to use more intimacy and immediacy social presence cues, including: praise for the group, self-disclosure, friendly and positive affective language, first person singular pronouns, and present tense verbs. Low status members were less likely than high status members to use articles, larger words, and discrepancy words. Lastly, low status members were rated as more likeable than high status members. The results suggest that low status members may strategically use social presence cues as a means of ingratiating themselves to the group.

[1]  V B CLINE,et al.  INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION. , 1964, Progress in experimental personality research.

[2]  Lindsay H. Shaw,et al.  In Defense of the Internet: The Relationship between Internet Communication and Depression, Loneliness, Self-Esteem, and Perceived Social Support , 2002, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[3]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Applying Common Identity and Bond Theory to Design of Online Communities , 2007 .

[4]  Jolanda Jetten,et al.  Predicting the Paths of Peripherals: The Interaction of Identification and Future Possibilities , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[5]  Cindy K. Chung,et al.  The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007 , 2007 .

[6]  A. Mehrabian.  Attitudes inferred from non-immediacy of verbal communications , 1967 .

[7]  Susannah Fox,et al.  Generations online in 2009 , 2009 .

[8]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  You Can’t Always Do What You Want: Social Identity and Self-Presentational Determinants of the Choice to Work for a Low-Status Group , 2000 .

[9]  John M. Levine,et al.  Culture and socialization in work groups , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[10]  Hans van Buuren,et al.  Determining Sociability, Social Space, and Social Presence in (A)synchronous Collaborative Groups , 2004, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[11]  P. Rogers,et al.  Social presence in distributed group environments: The role of social identity , 2005, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[12]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Linguistic Markers of Psychological Change Surrounding September 11, 2001 , 2004, Psychological science.

[13]  John C. Turner,et al.  The Role of Prototypicality in Group Influence and Cohesion: Contextual Variation in the Graded Structure of Social Categories , 1998 .

[14]  Cindy K. Chung,et al.  The Psychological Functions of Function Words , 2007 .

[15]  Sara Kiesler.  Culture of the Internet , 1997 .

[16]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Experimental Tests of Normative Group Influence and Representation Effects in Computer-Mediated Communication: When Interacting Via Computers Differs from Interacting With Computers. , 2002 .

[17]  Tim Hoyt,et al.  Factors Affecting Women's Verbal Immediacy to Sexually Risky Situations , 2009 .

[18]  H. Giles,et al.  Language: Contexts and Consequences , 1991 .

[19]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Lying Words: Predicting Deception from Linguistic Styles , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[20]  Benjamin Kehrwald,et al.  Understanding social presence in text‐based online learning environments , 2008 .

[21]  Stephen Reysen,et al.  Online Interactions Between Group Members Who Differ in Status , 2009 .

[22]  Milena M. Head,et al.  The Impact of Infusing Social Presence in the Web Interface: An Investigation Across Product Types , 2005, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[23]  M. Argyle,et al.  EYE-CONTACT, DISTANCE AND AFFILIATION. , 1965, Sociometry.

[24]  John F. Canny,et al.  Effects of communication medium on interpersonal perceptions , 2001, GROUP.

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

[26]  Daniel Stewart.  Social Status in an Open-Source Community , 2005 .

[27]  Stephanie D. Teasley,et al.  Perspectives on socially shared cognition , 1991 .

[28]  C. Tu,et al.  The Relationship of Social Presence and Interaction in Online Classes , 2002 .

[29]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[30]  A. Mehrabian,et al.  Attitudes in relation to the forms of communicator-object relationship in spoken communications. , 1966, Journal of personality.

[31]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  F. Biocca,et al.  Criteria And Scope Conditions For A Theory And Measure Of Social Presence , 2001 .

[33]  C. Gunawardena,et al.  Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing environment , 1997 .

[34]  Edward G. Sargis,et al.  Social psychological research and the Internet : the promise and peril of a new methodological frontier , 2005 .

[35]  Darío Páez,et al.  Social Identity: International Perspectives , 1998 .

[36]  Jolanda Jetten,et al.  When Group Members Admit to Being Conformist: The Role of Relative Intragroup Status in Conformity Self-Reports , 2006, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[37]  Mark Zuckerberg.  An Open Letter from Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg , 2009 .

[38]  Katelyn Y. A. McKenna,et al.  Virtual group dynamics. , 2002 .

[39]  John Canny,et al.  Effects of Communication Medium on Interpersonal Perceptions: Don't Hang Up on the Telephone Yet , 2001 .