Identifiability and self-presentation: computer-mediated communication and intergroup interaction.

This research investigated the intergroup properties of hostile 'flaming' behaviour in computer-mediated communication and how flaming language is affected by Internet identifiability, or identifiability by name and e-mail address/geographical location as is common to Internet communication. According to the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE; e.g. Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995) there may be strategic reasons for identifiable groups members to act in a more group-normative manner in the presence of an audience, to gain acceptance from the in-group, to avoid punishment from the out-group, or to assert their identity to the out-group. For these reasons, it was predicted that communicators would produce more stereotype-consistent (group-normative) descriptions of out-group members' behaviours when their descriptions were identifiable to an audience. In one archival and three experimental studies, it was found that identifiability to an in-group audience was associated with higher levels of stereotype-consistent language when communicators described anonymous out-group targets. These results extend SIDE and suggest the importance of an in-group audience for the expression of stereotypical views.

[1]  John C. Turner,et al.  Stereotyping and Social Reality , 1994 .

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

[3]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Computers, Networks and Work. , 1991 .

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

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

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

[7]  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 .

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

[9]  KieslerSara,et al.  Reducing Social Context Cues , 1986 .

[10]  A. Maass,et al.  Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for in-group-protective motivation. , 1996 .

[11]  G. Semin,et al.  Language use in intergroup contexts: the linguistic intergroup bias. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

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

[14]  K. Fiedler,et al.  Relocating attributional phenomena within the language-cognition interface: The case of actor-observer perspectives , 1989 .

[15]  K. Douglas,et al.  Internet identifiability and beyond: a model of the effects of identifiability on communicative behavior , 2002 .

[16]  Steven L. Neuberg,et al.  A Continuum of Impression Formation, from Category-Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and Interpretation , 1990 .

[17]  R. A. Wicklund.  Objective Self-Awareness , 1975 .

[18]  F. Reid.  Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory , 1987 .

[19]  Malcolm R. Parks.  Making Friends in Cyberspace , 1996, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

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

[21]  Vincent Yzerbyt,et al.  Stereotypes and Social Cognition , 1994 .

[22]  Rosalind Dyer,et al.  What's the Flaming Problem? or Computer Mediated Communicatio - Deindividuating or Disinhibiting? , 1996, BCS HCI.

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

[24]  W. Hippel,et al.  The role of the linguistic intergroup bias in expectancy maintenance , 1996 .

[25]  G. Lebon.  The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind , 2003 .

[26]  Thomas A. Finholt,et al.  Electronic Groups at Work. , 1990 .

[27]  Mark Levine,et al.  On the consequences of deindividuation manipulations for the strategic communication of self: Identifiability and the presentation of social identity. , 1994 .

[28]  A. Maass,et al.  Linguistic intergroup bias: differential expectancies or in-group protection? , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  Mark Levine,et al.  Deindividuation, power relations between groups and the expression of social identity: The effects of visibility to the out‐group , 1994 .

[30]  Gün R. Semin,et al.  The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range , 1991 .

[31]  David A. Wilder,et al.  Reduction of Intergroup Discrimination through Individuation of the Out-Group. , 1978 .

[32]  Lindsy Van Gelder.  The Strange Case of the Electronic Lover , 1991, Computerization and Controversy, 2nd Ed..

[33]  D. Wigboldus,et al.  How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic bases and inferential consequences. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[34]  A. Maass,et al.  Implicit Versus Explicit Strategies of Out-Group Discrimination , 1996 .

[35]  K. Fiedler,et al.  The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. , 1988 .

[36]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[37]  Jurg Siegfried.  The Status of Common Sense in Psychology , 1994 .

[38]  P. Wallace,et al.  INTERGROUP CONFLICT AND COOPERATION , 1999 .

[39]  S. Duval,et al.  A theory of objective self awareness , 1972 .

[40]  G. Semin.  The linguistic category model and personality language , 1994 .

[41]  H. Tajfel.  Social stereotypes and social groups. , 2001 .

[42]  A. Maass,et al.  The role of language in the persistence of stereotypes. , 1992 .

[43]  Katelyn Y. A. McKenna,et al.  Coming Out in the Age of the Internet: Identity “Demarginalization” Through Virtual Group Participation , 1998 .

[44]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Motivated language use in intergroup contexts: need-for-closure effects on the linguistic intergroup bias. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[46]  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 .

[47]  Harriet Wilkins,et al.  Computer Talk , 1991 .

[48]  T. K. Srull,et al.  A Dual process model of impression formation , 1988 .

[49]  A. Maass,et al.  Linguistic intergroup bias and implicit attributions , 1993 .

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

[51]  A. Maass,et al.  Intentional control over prejudice: when the choice of the measure matters , 1999 .

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

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

[54]  Muzafer Sherif,et al.  The Robbers Cave experiment : intergroup conflict and cooperation , 1988 .

[55]  G. Semin,et al.  Language use in the context of congruent and incongruent in-group behaviours , 1994 .

[56]  J. Sherblom.  Direction, Function, and Signature in Electronic Mail , 1988 .

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