Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication

As more and more people use computers for communicating, the behavioral and societal effects of computer-mediated communication are becoming critical research topics. This article describes some of the issues raised by electronic communication, illustrates one empirical approach for investigating its social psychological effects, and discusses why social psychological research might contribute to a deeper understanding of computer-mediated communication specifically and of computers and technological change in society more generally. One objective of our research is to explore how people participate in computer-mediated communication and how computerization affects group efforts to reach consensus. In experiments, we have shown differences in participation, decisions, and interaction among groups meeting face to face and in simultaneous computer-linked discourse and communication by electronic mail. We discuss these results and the design of subsequent research to highlight the many researchable social psychological issues raised by computing and technological change. Computer technologies are improving so swiftly these days that few of us comprehend even a small part of the change. Computers are transforming work and, in some cases, lives. Whether eager for this or resistant, many people believe the organizational, social, and personal effects of computers will be deeply felt (De Sola Poole, 1977; Hiltz & Turoff, 1978; Kling, 1980). Today, no one can predict in any detail the nature of the transformations that computers will bring, but one aspect of life that will certainly be affected is communication. The use of electronic mail and messages, long-distance blackboards, computer bulletin boards, instantaneously transferable data banks, and simultaneous computer conferences is reportedly advancing "like an avalanche" (Stockton, 1981; also see Kraemer, 1981). The U.S. federal judiciary, for example, is using electronic mail to speed the circulation of appellate opinion drafts among panels of judges (Weis, 1983). Computer conferences are being used for such legal proceedings as admission of evidence, trial scheduling, giving parties access to documents, and expert interrogation (Bentz & Potrykus, 1976; "Party-Line Plea," 1981). Other government agencies, such as the Department of Defense, as well as private firms, such as Westinghouse Corporation and Xerox Corporation, and some universities, use computer-mediated communication extensively for both routine transfer of data and nonroutine interpersonal communication and project work (e.g., Licklider & Vezza, 1978; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977; Wang Corporation, 1982). Computer-mediated communication was once confined to technical users and was considered somewhat arcane. This no longer holds true. Computer-mediated communication is a key component of the emerging technology of computer networks. In networks, people can exchange, store, edit, broadcast, and copy any written document. They can send data and messages instantaneously, easily, at low cost, and over long distances. Two or more people can look at a document and revise it together, consult with each other on critical matters without meeting together or setting up a telephone conference, or ask for and give assistance interactively (Hiltz & Turoff, 1978; Williams, 1977). Networks, and hence computer-mediated communications, are proliferating at a tremendous rate. In addition to the older long-distance networks that connect thousands of scientists, professionals, and managers (e.g., the Department of Defense's ARPANET, GTE's TELENET), there are more and more local-area networks that link up computers within a region, city, or organization (e.g., Nestar System's CLUSTERBUS, Xerox's ETHERNET, Ford Aerospace's FLASHNET, and Wang Laboratories' WANGNET). Stimulating this growth are the decreasing costs and the advantages of networks over stand-alone systems, such as sharing high-speed printers and access to a common interface for otherwise incompatible equipment. The future of this technology cannot be foretold, but it is far from arcane. The functions and impact of computer-mediated communication are still poorly understood. Critical information (such as who uses it for what purposes) October 1984 • American Psychologist Copyright 1984 by the American Psychological Aisociation, Inc. Vol. 39, No. 10, 1123-1134 1123 is lacking, and the social psychological significance is controversial (see, e.g., Turoff, 1982). Computers could make communication easier, just as the canning of perishables and the development of can openers made food preparation easier, or they could have much more complex implications. For instance, access to electronic communication may change the flow of information within organizations, altering status relations and organizational hierarchy. When a manager can receive electronic mail from 10,000 employees, what happens to existing controls over participation and information? When people can publish and distribute their own electronic newspaper at no cost, does the distribution of power change too? When communication is rapid and purely textual, do working groups find it easier or harder to resolve conflict? These unanswered questions illustrate that, although the technology may be impressive, little systematic research exists on its psychological, social, and cultural significance. Given such conditions it seems sensible to try to understand the fundamental behavioral, social, and organizational processes that surround computer-mediated communication. We believe that ideas and approaches from social psychology and other areas of behavioral science can be applied to these questions. This article is meant to describe some of the issues raised by electronic communication; to illustrate, from our own work, one empirical approach for investigating them; and to show why social psychological research might contribute to a deeper understanding of electronic communication specifically and of computers and technological change in society more generally. We begin by citing some existing research on computer-mediated communication. Most of this research addresses the technical capabilities of the electronic technologies. Next, we consider the possible social psychological impact, and we discuss some hypotheses and some possible implications for the outcomes of communication. Finally, we describe some of our own experiments on social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication, using these to indicate potential lines of future research.

[1]  James N. Danziger,et al.  Computers and Politics: High Technology in American Local Governments , 1982 .

[2]  R. Zajonc SOCIAL FACILITATION. , 1965, Science.

[3]  A. Vinokur,et al.  Novel argumentation and attitude change: The case of polarization following group discussion , 1978 .

[4]  I. Pool,et al.  The Social Impact of the Telephone , 1978 .

[5]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Encountering an Alien Culture , 1984 .

[6]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  New Directions in Organizational Behavior , 1976 .

[7]  I. Pool,et al.  The Social Impact of the Telephone , 1978 .

[8]  T. Hau [Introduction to group dynamics]. , 1970, Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie.

[9]  J. H. Davis Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. , 1973 .

[10]  Michael A. Wallach,et al.  Effects of Physical Separation of Group Members upon Group Risk-taking , 1967 .

[11]  G. S. Sanders,et al.  Is social comparison irrelevant for producing choice shifts , 1977 .

[12]  KieslerSara,et al.  Affect in computer-mediated communication , 1985 .

[13]  Daniel Druckman,et al.  Negotiations, social-psychological perspectives , 1977 .

[14]  Rob Kling,et al.  Social Analyses of Computing: Theoretical Perspectives in Recent Empirical Research , 1980, CSUR.

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

[16]  R. Baron,et al.  Why do Groups Make Riskier Decisions Than Individuals?1 , 1970 .

[17]  G. D. Weeks,et al.  Studies in Interactive Communication: I. The Effects of Four Communication Modes on the Behavior of Teams During Cooperative Problem-Solving , 1972 .

[18]  Tora K. Bikson,et al.  Implementation of information technology in office settings: review of relevant literature: , 1981 .

[19]  Jennings Bryant,et al.  Irrelevance of Mitigating Circumstances in Retaliatory Behavior at High Levels of Excitation. , 1975 .

[20]  Murray Turoff Interface design in computerized conferencing systems: a personal view , 1984 .

[21]  L. Festinger,et al.  Some consequences of deindividuation in a group. , 1952, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[22]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Network Nation: Human Communication Via Computer , 1979 .

[23]  I. Janis Victims Of Groupthink , 1972 .

[24]  Paul D. Guild,et al.  Teleconferencing and Leadership Emergence , 1978 .

[25]  Barry O'Neill,et al.  The Group problem solving process : studies of a valence model , 1982 .

[26]  M. Lepper Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. , 1985 .

[27]  Ederyn Williams,et al.  Teleconferencing: is video valuable or is audio adequate? , 1977 .

[28]  R. W. Rogers,et al.  Effects of deindividuating situational cues and aggressive models on subjective deindividuation and aggression. , 1980, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  M. Scheier Self-awareness, self-consciousness, and angry aggression. , 1976, Journal of personality.

[30]  Steven D. Seilheimer,et al.  Looking and Competing: Accountability and Visual Access in Integrative Bargaining , 1981 .

[31]  P. Nystrom,et al.  Camping on Seesaws: Prescriptions for a Self-Designing Organization , 1976 .

[32]  Arthur P. Molella,et al.  The Social Impact of the Telephone , 1978 .

[33]  Hugh Folk The impact of computers on book and journal publications , 1976 .

[34]  J. A. Edinger,et al.  Nonverbal involvement and social control. , 1983 .

[35]  R. Krauss,et al.  Verbal, vocal, and visible factors in judgments of another's affect. , 1981 .

[36]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Response Effects in the Electronic Survey , 1986 .

[37]  広瀬 克哉,et al.  Computers and Politics--High Technology in American Local Governments/James N.Danziger,William H.Dutton,Rob Kling,Kenneth L.Kraemer(1982) , 1984 .

[38]  Helmut Lamm,et al.  Risk taking in the context of intergroup negotiation , 1970 .

[39]  Charles S. Carver,et al.  Self-focused attention and reactions to fear. , 1981 .

[40]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Face-to-face vs. computerized conferences : a controlled experiment, Volume II: Methodological Appendices , 1980 .

[41]  M. Patterson A sequential functional model of nonverbal exchange. , 1982 .

[42]  A. Isen,et al.  Affect, accessibility of material in memory, and behavior: a cognitive loop? , 1978, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[43]  Raymond R. Panko,et al.  Teleconferencing systems: A state-of-the-art survey and preliminary analysis , 1977 .

[44]  K. Williams,et al.  Identifiability as a deterrant to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. , 1981 .

[45]  J. Hackman,et al.  Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration , 1975 .

[46]  Ederyn Williams,et al.  Medium or Message: Communications Medium as a Determinant of Interpersonal Evaluation* , 1975 .

[47]  Johan P. Olsen,et al.  Ambiguity and choice in organizations , 1976 .

[48]  R. W. Davis,et al.  Escalation of aggression: experimental studies. , 1975, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[49]  G. D. Weeks,et al.  Cooperative versus Conflictive Problem Solving in Three Telecommunication Modes , 1976 .

[50]  Ederyn Williams,et al.  Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review. , 1977 .

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

[52]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Electronic Messaging in the University Organization. , 1981 .

[53]  John W. Payne,et al.  Multiattribute Risky Choice Behavior: The Editing of Complex Prospects , 1984 .

[54]  C. Carver,et al.  Self-focused attention and the experience of emotion: attraction, repulsion, elation, and depression. , 1977, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[55]  L. Z. McArthur,et al.  Perceptions of an aggressive encounter as a function of the victim's salience and the perceiver's arousal. , 1978, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[56]  W. Richard Kite,et al.  TELECONFERENCING: EFFECTS OF COMMUNICATION MEDIUM, NETWORK, AND DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES. , 1966 .

[57]  G. Stephenson,et al.  FORMALITY IN EXPERIMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS: A VALIDATION STUDY , 1970 .

[58]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

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

[60]  Steven H. Lewis,et al.  Listener Responsiveness and the Coordination of Conversation , 1982 .

[61]  P. Ekman,et al.  Relative importance of face, body, and speech in judgments of personality and affect. , 1980 .

[62]  Robert A. Flax,et al.  Deindividuation: Effects of group size, density, number of observers, and group member similarity on self-consciousness and disinhibited behavior. , 1980 .

[63]  H. W. Sinaiko Teleconferencing: Preliminary Experiments , 1963 .

[64]  T. L. Whisler,et al.  The impact of computers on organizations , 1970 .

[65]  Steven J. Sherman,et al.  Group risk-taking in a two-choice situation: Replication, extension, and a model☆ , 1969 .

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

[67]  Joseph Paul Martino,et al.  Technological Forecasting for Decisionmaking , 1975 .

[68]  Lawrence A. Welsch Using electronic mail as a teaching tool , 1982, CACM.

[69]  J. Stoner A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk , 1961 .

[70]  Shawn E. Scherer Influence of Proximity and Eye Contact on Impression Formation , 1974, Perceptual and motor skills.

[71]  F. W. Lancaster Toward paperless information systems , 1978 .

[72]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Group Decision Making , 1984 .

[73]  R. Boguslaw The new Utopians : a study of system design and social change , 1966 .

[74]  Murray Turoff,et al.  The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications , 1976 .

[75]  Martha Mulford Gray Computers in the federal government :: a compilation of statistics 1978 , 1979 .

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

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

[78]  Garold Stasser,et al.  Group decision making and social influence: A social interaction sequence model. , 1981 .

[79]  Frederick X. Gibbons,et al.  Motivational Biases in Causal Attributions of Arousal , 1981 .

[80]  D. G. Pruitt,et al.  Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. , 1975 .

[81]  G. Stephenson,et al.  INTERPERSONAL AND INTER-PARTY EXCHANGE: A LABORATORY SIMULATION OF AN INDUSTRIAL NEGOTIATION AT THE PLANT LEVEL , 1969 .

[82]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  The effects of formal human leadership and computer-generated decision aids on problem solving via computer : a controlled experiment , 1982 .

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

[84]  A. Vezza,et al.  Applications of information networks , 1978, Proceedings of the IEEE.