Knowing Me, Knowing You: Anonymity Effects on Social Identity Processes within Groups

The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) proposes that depersonalization of self and others is responsible for the effects of visual anonymity on group behavior. The authors investigated these mediating processes by assessing the effects of group-based self-categorization and stereotyping of others on group attraction within visually anonymous or video-identifiable groups communicating via computer. Structural equation modeling showed that visual anonymity increased group-based self-categorization, which directly increased attraction to the group and indirectly increased group attraction by enhancing group-based stereotyping of others. Visual anonymity had no effect on self-categorization in terms of a wider social category (nationality). Predictions derived from alternative perspectives that visual anonymity decreases group attraction by increasing impersonal task focus or by attenuating evaluation concerns were not supported.

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

[2]  J. Singer,et al.  Some aspects of deindividuation: Identification and conformity , 1965 .

[3]  A. Lott,et al.  Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: a review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[4]  P. Zimbardo.  The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. , 1969 .

[5]  Rainer Martens,et al.  Evaluation potential as a determinant of coaction effects , 1972 .

[6]  Kenneth J. Gergen,et al.  Deviance In Dark , 1973 .

[7]  E. Diener.  Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. , 1979 .

[8]  L. Downing,et al.  Deindividuation and valence of cues: effects on prosocial and antisocial behavior. , 1979, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  R. W. Rogers,et al.  Effects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. , 1982 .

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

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

[12]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  Affect in Computer-Meditated Communication: An Experiment in Synchronous Terminal-to-Terminal Discussion , 1985, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[13]  Rupert Brown,et al.  Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization , 1986 .

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

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

[16]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making, 3: disinhibition, deindividuation, and group process in pen name and real name computer conferences , 1989, Decis. Support Syst..

[17]  C. Kelly.  Political identity and perceived intragroup homogeneity , 1989 .

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

[19]  R. W. Rogers,et al.  Deindividuation and the self-regulation of behavior. , 1989 .

[20]  J. Walther,et al.  Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction , 1990 .

[21]  T. Connolly,et al.  Toward Atheory of Automated Group Work , 1990 .

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

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

[24]  R. Spears,et al.  Paralanguage and social perception in computer‐mediated communication , 1992 .

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

[26]  M. Hogg.  Group Cohesiveness: A Critical Review and Some New Directions , 1993 .

[27]  Maureen S. Battistella,et al.  Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization , 1991 .

[28]  David W. Park,et al.  Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1994 .

[29]  M. Hogg,et al.  Prototypical similarity, self-categorization, and depersonalized attraction: a perspective on group cohesiveness , 1995 .

[30]  J. Walther.  Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations over Time , 1995 .

[31]  Russell Spears,et al.  Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. , 1995 .

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

[33]  Michael A. Hogg,et al.  Intergroup relations and group solidarity : Effects of group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction , 1996 .

[34]  J. Walther.  Group and Interpersonal Effects in International Computer-Mediated Collaboration , 1997 .

[35]  S. Reicher,et al.  More on deindividuation, power relations between groups and the expression of social identity: Three studies on the effects of visibility to the in‐group , 1998 .

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

[37]  N. Ellemers,et al.  Self‐categorisation, commitment to the group and group self‐esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity , 1999 .

[38]  R. C. Sherman,et al.  A reexamination of deindividuation in synchronous computer-mediated communication , 1999 .

[39]  T. Postmes,et al.  Social psychological theories of computer-mediated communication: Social gain or social pain? , 2001 .

[40]  T. T. Postmes,et al.  A SIDE View of Social Influence , 2001 .

[41]  T. Postmes,et al.  Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? Side-Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication. , 2002 .