Strategic Uses of Social Technology: An interactional approach to social influence in computer-mediated communication

Social interaction leads – online as much as offline – to mutual, more or less equal social influence of the interacting parties on each other. internet users send out information, summaries of subjective experiences, and opinions using communication tools. Recipients acquire unconsciously new insights or strive to learn or form an opinion about a topic. Research studying the facilitating and hindering factors for such media-based social influence has a long-standing history (for a summary of the early work see Williams, 1977). Nonetheless, the interplay between personality characteristics and media attributes as preconditions of social influence has hardly received any attention yet. Therefore, the current chapter will apply interactionism (Endler and Magnusson, 1976) to online social influence. The combination of personal and situational variables is relevant in the context of new communication media as in any other context, because individuals may respond differently to the specific situational conditions provided by computer-mediated communication (CMC). (For initial evidence see Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2002; Cress, 2005; Guadagno and Cialdini, 2002; Hertel et al., 2008; Sassenberg et al., 2005.) Hence, considering individual differences for the prediction of media effects will allow more precise predictions about the impact of CMC on social influence. In this chapter, different types of social influence will be introduced and the features of CMC that are relevant for social influence will be discussed. Afterwards, the research on these types of social influence in CMC will be reviewed. This review serves two purposes. First, it will show that almost all existing research in this domain has focused on the impact of situational characteristics that either (a) are inherent in the technology (e.g., few social context cues) or (b) result from the social setting in which the CMC takes place (e.g., the impact of group norms on a person’s attitudes). Second, it will outline how the moderation of

[1]  K. Douglas,et al.  Identifiability and self-presentation: computer-mediated communication and intergroup interaction. , 2001, The British journal of social psychology.

[2]  Ulrike Cress,et al.  An interactional perspective on group awareness: Alleviating the information-exchange dilemma (for everybody?) , 2007, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[3]  Ulrike Cress,et al.  Ambivalent effect of member portraits in virtual groups , 2005, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[4]  M. Scheier,et al.  Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. , 1975 .

[5]  Justin Kruger,et al.  When what you type isn’t what they read: The perseverance of stereotypes and expectancies over e-mail , 2005 .

[6]  L. Cronbach.  The two disciplines of scientific psychology. , 1957 .

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

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

[9]  H. Tajfel,et al.  An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. , 1979 .

[10]  T. Postmes,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication as a Channel for Social Resistance , 2002 .

[11]  R. Spears,et al.  Knowing Me, Knowing You: Anonymity Effects on Social Identity Processes within Groups , 2001 .

[12]  Ben Green,et al.  Does 'cyber-conformity' vary cross-culturally? Exploring the effect of culture and communication medium on social conformity , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

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

[14]  Yair Amichai-Hamburger,et al.  "On the Internet No One Knows I'm an Introvert": Extroversion, Neuroticism, and Internet Interaction , 2002, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[15]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making , 1988, MIS Q..

[16]  Michael Smilowitz,et al.  The Effects of Computer Mediated Communication on an Individual's Judgment: A Study Based on the Methods of Asch's Social Influence Experiment , 1988 .

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

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

[19]  G. Hertel,et al.  Do Shy People Prefer to Send E-Mail? Personality Effects on Communication Media Preferences in Threatening and Nonthreatening Situations , 2008 .

[20]  Charles S. Carver,et al.  Divergent Influences of Private and Public Self-Consciousness in a Compliance Paradigm. , 1981 .

[21]  O. John,et al.  Effects of Visual Perspective and Narcissism on Self-Perception: Is Seeing Believing? , 1997 .

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

[23]  Margarete Boos,et al.  Attitude Change in Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Anonymity and Category Norms , 2003 .

[24]  M. Deutsch,et al.  A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[25]  W. Mischel,et al.  A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. , 1995, Psychological review.

[26]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Online persuasion: An examination of gender differences in computer-mediated interpersonal influence. , 2002 .

[27]  Michael F. Scheier,et al.  Effects of public and private self-consciousness on the public expression of personal beliefs , 1980 .

[28]  P. Huguet,et al.  Social presence effects in the Stroop task: further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  Tom Postmes,et al.  SIDE issues centre stage: Recent developments in studies of de-individuation in groups. , 2000 .

[30]  V. L. Allen.  Situational Factors In Conformity1 , 1965 .

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

[32]  Laura A. Peracchio,et al.  The Impact of Language and Congruity on Persuasion in Multicultural E‐Marketing , 2003 .

[33]  Tom Postmes,et al.  SIDE issues centre-stage: Recent developments in studies of deindividuation in groups (pp. 202). Amsterdam: KNAW. , 2000 .

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

[35]  A. Joinson.  Self‐disclosure in computer‐mediated communication: The role of self‐awareness and visual anonymity , 2001 .

[36]  Stephen A. Rains,et al.  Leveling the Organizational Playing Field—Virtually , 2005, Commun. Res..

[37]  Kerry L. Marsh,et al.  Interaction Between Self-Monitoring and Manipulated States of Self-Awareness , 1989 .

[38]  Boris Egloff,et al.  Interactive effects of state anxiety and trait anxiety on emotional Stroop interference , 2001 .

[39]  B. Buunk,et al.  Individual differences in social comparison: development of a scale of social comparison orientation. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[40]  Ulrike Cress,et al.  Group awareness and self-presentation in computer-supported information exchange , 2008, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[41]  J. Walther.  Computer-Mediated Communication , 1996 .

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

[43]  Deborah A. Prentice,et al.  Asymmetries in Attachments to Groups and to their Members: Distinguishing between Common-Identity and Common-Bond Groups , 1994 .

[44]  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 .

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

[46]  Nicolas Guéguen.  Foot-in-the-door technique and computer-mediated communication , 2002, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[47]  P. V. Lange,et al.  The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. , 1999 .

[48]  D. Magnusson,et al.  Toward an interactional psychology of personality. , 1976, Psychological bulletin.

[49]  Charles D. Spielberger,et al.  Anxiety: Current Trends in Theory and Research , 1972 .

[50]  Kai J. Jonas,et al.  Attitude change and social influence on the net , 2009 .

[51]  T. Postmes,et al.  Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Effects of Anonymity on Group Behavior , 2001 .

[52]  K. Sassenberg.  Common bond and common identity groups on the Internet: Attachment and normative behavior in on-topic and off-topic chats. , 2002 .

[53]  Margarete Boos,et al.  Attitude change in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication: Private self-awareness as mediator and moderator , 2005 .

[54]  Katelyn Y. A. McKenna,et al.  Plan 9 From Cyberspace: The Implications of the Internet for Personality and Social Psychology , 2000 .

[55]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[56]  F. Heider,et al.  Principles of topological psychology , 1936 .

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

[58]  B. Bushman,et al.  Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the effects of violent media on aggression. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[59]  Tom Postmes,et al.  Cognitive and strategic processes in small groups: effects of anonymity of the self and anonymity of the group on social influence. , 2002, The British journal of social psychology.