A Social Influence Model of Flaming in Computer-Mediated Communication.

This paper explores the phenomenon of "flaming," which has been typically cited as an antisocial effect of computer-mediated communication. The paper discusses the diverse range of conceptual and operational definitions of flaming found in the literature. The paper offers a four-point critique of previous theoretical explanations of flaming, and suggests an alternative definition of flaming, which asserts both a behavioral and interpretive dimension to flaming. Drawing from the work of J. Fulk, J. Schmitz, and C. W. Steinfield, the paper then develops a social influence model of flaming that provides.a more flexible and powerful approach than previous theories, while yielding potentially useful insights to guide future research. A figure representing the model is included. (Contains 56 references.) (RS) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ***********************************************************************

[1]  Russell Spears,et al.  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION, DEINDIVIDUATION AND GROUP DECISION-MAKING , 1991 .

[2]  Albert Gore,et al.  Infrastructure for the Global Village. , 1991 .

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

[4]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

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

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

[7]  Anne W. Branscomb.  Common Law for the Electronic Frontier , 1991 .

[8]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication , 1986 .

[9]  R. Bales.  A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction. , 1950 .

[10]  Timothy P. Meyer,et al.  Mediated Communication: A Social Action Perspective , 1988 .

[11]  R. Rice,et al.  Electronic Emotion , 1987 .

[12]  Joel Cooper,et al.  Mere presence, gender, and reactions to computers: Studying human-computer interaction in the social context , 1990 .

[13]  Maggie Johnson,et al.  Putting out the flames: the etiquette and law of e-mail , 1991 .

[14]  A. R. Ilersic,et al.  Research methods in social relations , 1961 .

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

[16]  D. Compton,et al.  Techno-Sense: Making Sense of Computer-Mediated Communication Systems , 1991 .

[17]  C. Steinfield,et al.  A Social Information Processing Model of Media Use in Organizations , 1987 .

[18]  C. Steinfield,et al.  A Social Influence Model of Technology use , 1990 .

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

[20]  S. Weisband,et al.  Discussion, advocacy and computer-mediated communication effects in group decision-making , 1989 .

[21]  Robert M. Fano.  Computer-Mediated Communication , 1985, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.

[22]  S. R. Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. , 1986 .

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

[24]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication System Network Data: Theoretical Concerns and Empirical Examples , 1990, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

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

[26]  Tim O'Shea,et al.  'Flaming' in computer-mediated communication: Observations, explanations, implications. , 1992 .

[27]  Philip A. Thompsen,et al.  To Be or Not to Be: An Exploration of E-Prime, Copula Deletion and Flaming in Electronic Mail. , 1992 .

[28]  Janet Fulk,et al.  The Theory Imperative , 1990 .

[29]  M. Spitzer,et al.  Writing style in computer conferences , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[30]  August E. Grant,et al.  Individual and network influences on the adoption and perceived outcomes of electronic messaging , 1990 .

[31]  Philip A. Thompsen.  An Episode of Flaming: A Creative Narrative. , 1994 .

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

[33]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. , 1978, Administrative science quarterly.