The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication

Human Communication Research

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 341-371

  Postmes, T ^a   Spears, R ^a   Lea, M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034214456     PISSN: 03603989     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00761.x     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2. Baym, N. (1995). The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated community and communication (pp. 138-163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Berthold, M., Sudweeks, F., Newton, S., & Coyne, R. (1995). "It makes sense": Using an autoassociative neural network to explore typicality in computer mediated discussions. In S. Rafaeli, F. Sudweeks, & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Networks and netplay: Virtual groups on the internet. Cambridge, MA:AAAI/MIT Press.
4. Bouas, K. S., & Arrow, H. (1996). The development of group identity in computer and face-to-face groups with membership change. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 4, 127-152.
5. Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly, 20, 142-163.
6. Contractor, N. S., & Eisenberg, E. (1990). Communication networks and new media in organizations. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology. (pp. 143-172.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7. Contractor, N. S., & Seibold, D. R. (1993). Theoretical frameworks for the study of structuring processes in group decision support systems: Adaptive structuration theory and self-organizing systems theory. Human Communication Research, 19, 528-563.
8. Davis, D., & Brock, T. C. (1975). Use of first-person pronouns as a function of increased objective self-awareness and performance feedback. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 381-388.
9. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5, 121-147.
10. Feenberg, A. (1992). From information to communication: The French experience with videotext. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 168-187). Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
11. Finholt, T., & Sproull, L. S. (1990). Electronic groups at work. Organization Science, 1, 41-64.
12. Fischer, C. S. (1992). America calling: A social history of the telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University of California Press.
13. Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 921-950.
14. Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Steinfield, C. W. (1990). A social influence model of technology use. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 117-140). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15. Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (1988). Communication accommodation and the prototypical speaker: Predicting evaluations of status solidarity. Language and Communication, 8, 271-84.
16. Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In H. Giles & J. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 1-68). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Giles, H., & Powesland, P. F. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. London: Academic Press.
18. Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., & Sanders, J. R. (1972). Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed effects analysis of variance and covariance. Review of Educational Research, 42, 237-288.
19. Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
20. Hollingshead, A. B., McGrath, J. E., & O'Connor, K. M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Special issue: Time, task, and technology in work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 307-333.
21. Johnson, B., & Rice, R. E. (1987). Managing organizational innovation: The evolution from word processing to office information systems. New York: Columbia University Press.
22. Kiesler, S. K., Zubrow, D., Moses, A. M., & Geller, V. (1985). Affect in computer-mediated communication: An experiment in synchronous terminal-to-terminal discussion. Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 77-104.
23. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
24. Lea, M., O'Shea, T., Fung, P., & Spears, R. (1992). "Flaming" in computer-mediated communication: Observations, explanations, implications. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 30-65). Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
25. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International journal of Man-Machine, 39, 283-301.
26. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321-342.
27. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In J. T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Understudied relationships: Off the beaten track. (pp. 197-233). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
28. Lea, M., Spears, R., & de Groot, D. (1998). Knowing me, knowing you: Effects of visual anonymity on stereotyping and attraction in computer-mediated groups: Manuscript submitted for publication.
29. Lebie, L., Rhoades, J. A., & McGrath, J. E. (1996). Interaction process in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 4, 127-152.
30. Marvin, C. (1988). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University Press.
31. McCormick, N. B., & McCormick, J. W. (1992). Computer friends and foes: Content of undergraduates' electronic mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 379-405.
32. McLaughlin, M. L., Osborne, K. K., & Smith, C. B. (1995). Standards of conduct on usenet. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated community and communication (pp. 90-111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Norusis, M. J. (1988). SPSS/PC+ Advanced Statistics™ V2.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
34. Orwin, R. G. (1994). Evaluating coding decisions. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 139-162). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
35. Owen, W. F. (1985). Metaphor analysis of cohesiveness in small discussion groups. Small Group Behavior, 16, 415-24.
36. Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. (1990). Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 173-193). Newbury Park: Sage.
37. Postmes, T. (1997). Social influence in computer-mediated groups. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
38. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and anti-normative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238-259.
39. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1999). Contextual moderators of gender differences and stereotyping in computer-mediated group discussions. Manuscript submitted for publication.
40. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689-715.
41. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1999). Social identity, group norms, and "deindividuation": Lessons from computer-mediated communication for social influence in the group. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 164-183). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
42. Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & de Groot, D. (1998). Social influence in computer-mediated groups: The effects of anonymity on group behavior. Manuscript submitted for publication.
43. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160-164.
44. Reicher, S. D. (1987). Crowd behaviour 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). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
45. Reicher, S. D. (1994). Collective action and the (re)construction of the self. In A. Oosterwegel & R. Wicklund (Eds.), The self in European and North American culture: Development and processes. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
46. Reicher, S. D. (1996). "The Battle of Westminster": Developing the social identity model of crowd behaviour in order to explain the initiation and development of collective conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 115-134.
47. 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.
48. Rice, R. E. (1992). Using network concepts to clarify sources and mechanisms of social influence. In G. Barnett & W. Richards, Jr. (Eds.), Advances in communication network analysis. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
49. Rice, R. E. (1994). Network analysis and computer-mediated communication systems. In S. Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 167-203). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
50. Rice, R. E., & Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes towards new organizational technology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 219-244.
51. Rice, R. E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14, 85-108.
52. Sherblom, J. C. (1990). Organizational involvement expressed through pronoun use in computer mediated communication. Communication Research Reports, 7, 45-50.
53. Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 187, 1-60.
54. 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). Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
55. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459.
56. Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121-134.
57. Tajfel, H. (1978). Interindividual behaviour and intergroup behaviour. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 27-60). London: Academic Press.
58. The Jargon File, Version 3.2.0. [on-line dictionary]. (1995). Available: http:// www.cnam.fr/Jargon/.
59. Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
60. Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
61. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorisation theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
62. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
63. Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 473-501.
64. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 1-43.
65. Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in interpersonal computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 23, 342-369.
66. Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.
67. Walther, J., Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and anti-social communication. Communication Research, 21, 460-487.
68. Williams, F., Rice, R. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1988). Research methods and the new media. New York: Free Press.
69. Worchel, S., Coutant-Sassic, D., & Grossman, M. (1992). A developmental approach to group dynamics: A model and some illustrative research. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 181-202). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.