This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sassenberg, K. Articles by Boos, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Attitude Change in Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Anonymity and Category Norms

Friedrich-Schiller University of Jenakai.sassenberg{at}uni-jena.de

Margarete Boos

Georg-August University of G^ttingen

The current research compared the effect of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and direct communication on attitude change. The social identity model of deindividuation effects (Spears & Lea, 1994) predicts that CMC results in behavior that is more in line with the salient level of self-categorization (compared to non-anonymous communication): in CMC salient social identity should lead to conformity to group norms whereas salient personal identity was expected to result in behavior that fits individual goals. Two experiments showed that when personal identity was salient and when social identity was salient and a category norm was explicitly given, CMC led to the predicted effects, whereas the lack of a social category norm led to lower attitude change in CMC compared to direct communication.

Key Words: anonymity • computer-mediated communication • group norms • social influence

References

• Cadinu, M. R., & Rothbart, M. (1996). Selfanchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 661–677 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand-McNally .
• Diener, E. (1980). Deindividuation: The absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), The psychology of group influence(pp. 209–242). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
• Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of de-individuation in a group . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382–389 .
• Goethals, G. R. & Zanna, M. P. (1979). The role of social comparison in choice shifts . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1469–1476 .[CrossRef]
• Hinder, E. (1987). Grundlagenprobleme bei der Messung des sozial-moralischen Urteils[Basic problems in the measurement of moral judgement]. Frankfurt: Lang .
• Hogg, M. A., Turner, J. C., & Davidson, B. (1990). Polarized norms and social frames of reference: A test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization . Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 77–100 .[CrossRef]
• Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication . American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134 .[CrossRef]
• Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96–123 .[CrossRef][ISI]
• Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. A. (1964). Risk taking: A study in cognition and personality. New York: Holt .
• Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision making . International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 283–301 .
• Lea, M., Spears, R., & de Groot, D. (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: Anonymity effects on social identity processes within groups . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 526–537 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Matheson, K., & Zanna, M. P. (1988). The impact of computer-mediated communication on selfawareness . Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 221–233 .
• Matheson, K., & Zanna, M. P. (1989). Persuasion as a function of self-awareness in computer-mediated communication . Social Behaviour, 4, 99–111 .
• Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (1990). Designing experiments and analyzing data. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole .
• McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917–930 .[CrossRef][ISI]
• McKenna, K., & Bargh, J.A. (2000). Plan 9 from Cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology . Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 57–75 .
• Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtschiem, C.J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models(4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill .
• Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup membership status and public negativity toward outgroups . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 127–137 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Postmes, T., & Spears, R., (1997). Quality of decisions, group norms and social identity: Biased information sampling or sampled biases . Paper presented at the 5th Münster Workshop on the Social Identity Approach, Rothenberge, Germany.
• Postmes, T., & Spears, R., (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis . Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238–259 .[CrossRef]
• Postmes, T., & Spears, R., (2000). Refining the cognitive redefinition of the group: Deindividuation effects in common bond vs. common identity groups. In T. Postmes, R. Spears, M. Lea, & S. Reicher (Eds.), SIDE effects centre stage: Recent developments in studies of deindividuation in groups(pp. 63–78). Amsterdam: KNAW .
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication . Communication Research, 25, 689–715 .[Abstract]
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1999). Social identification, normative content, and ‘deindividuation’ in computer-mediated groups. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity(pp. 164–183). Oxford: Blackwell .
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2002). The effects of anonymity in intergroup discussions: Bipolarization in computer-mediated groups . Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 6, 3–16 .[CrossRef]
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lea, M., & Reicher, S. (Eds.) (2000). SIDE effects centre stage: Recent developments in studies of de-individuation in groups. Amsterdam: KNAW .
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & de Groot, D. (2001). Social influence in computer-mediated groups: The effects of anonymity on group behavior . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1243–1254 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Reicher, S. D. (1984). Social influence in the crowd: Attitudinal and behavioural effects of deindividuation in conditions of high and low group salience . British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 341–350 .
• Reicher, S. D. (1987). Crowd behavior as social action. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group. A self-categorization theory (pp. 171–202). New York: Basil Blackwell .
• Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology(Vol. 6,pp. 161–198). Chichester, UK: Wiley .
• Sassenberg, K. (2000). The two faces of anonymity: Effects on group decision making. In T. Postmes, R. Spears, M. Lea, & S. Reicher (Eds.), SIDE issues centre stage: Recent developments in studies of deindividuation in groups(pp. 93–106). Amsterdam: KNAW .
• Sassenberg, K. (2002). Common bond and common identity groups on the Internet: Attachment and normative behavior in on-topic and off-topic chats . Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 27–37 .
• Sassenberg, K., & Postmes, T. (2002). Cognitive and strategic processes in small groups: Effects of anonymity of the self and anonymity of the group on social influence . British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 463–480 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Sassenberg, K., Rabung, S., & Boos, M. (1999). Selbstaufmerksamkeit in der computervermittelten Kommunikation [Selfawareness in computer-mediated communication]. In U.-D. Reips, B. Batinic, W. Bandilla, M. Bosnjak, L. Grf, K. Moser et al. (Eds.), Aktuelle Online Forschung—Trends, Techniken, Ergebnisse. [Current internet science—trends, techniques, results]. Zurich: Online Press . [Retrieved September 15 2002 from the World Wide Web]. Available URL: http://dgof.de/tband99/.
• Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157–187 .
• Simon, B., Hastedt, C., & Aufderheide, B. (1997). When self-categorization makes sense: The role of meaningful social categorization in minority and majority members’ self-perception . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 310–320 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the ‘social’ in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication(pp. 30–65). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf .
• Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticum? The hidden power of computermediated communication . Communication Research, 21, 427–459 .[Abstract]
• Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). Deindividuation and group polarization in computermediated communication . British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121–134 .[ISI]
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations(pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole .
• Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press .
• Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (Eds.). (1987). Rediscovering the social group. A self-categorization theory. New York: Basil Blackwell .
• Vinokur, A., & Burnstein, E. (1974). Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on groupinduced shifts . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 305–315 .[CrossRef][ISI]
• Waldzus, S., & Schubert, T. (2000). Group norm and category norm in anonymous situations: Two sources of social influence. In T. Postmes, R. Spears, M. Lea, & S. Reicher (Eds.), SIDE effects centre stage: Recent developments in studies of deindividuation in groups(pp. 31–46). Amsterdam: KNAW .
• Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction . Communication Research, 19, 52–90 .[Abstract]
• Weisband, S. P. (1992). Group decision and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 53, 352–380 .[CrossRef]
• Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Social identity and group polarization. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group. A self-categorization theory(pp. 142–170). New York: Basil Blackwell .
• Wilder, D. A. (1990). Some determinants of the persuasive power of in-group and out-group: Organization of information and attribution of interdependence . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1202–1213 .[CrossRef]
• Witte, E. H. (1971). Das ‘risky-shift’-Phnomen: Eine kritische Untersuchung der bestehenden Hypothesen [The ‘risky shift’ phenomenon: A critical survey of the existing hypotheses] . Psychologie und Praxis, 15, 104–117 .

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sassenberg, K. Articles by Boos, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?