Experimental Tests of Normative Group Influence and Representation Effects in Computer-Mediated Communication when Interacting via Computers Differs from Interacting with Computers

Human Communication Research

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 349-381

  Lee, Eun Ju ^a   Nass, Clifford ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036335057     PISSN: 03603989     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/hcr/28.3.349     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97-119.
2. Ahern, T. C. (1993). The effect of a graphic interface on participation, interaction, and student achievement in a computer-mediated small-group discussion. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9, 535-548.
3. Allen, V. L. (1965). Situational factors in conformity. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 133-175.
4. Barnard, W. A. (1991). Group influence and the likelihood of a unanimous majority. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 607-614.
5. Brehm, J. W., & Sensenig, J. (1966). Social influence as a function of attempted and implied usurpation of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 703-707.
6. Burke, K., & Chidambaram, L. (1995). Developmental differences between distributed and face-to-face groups in electronically supported meeting environments. Group Decision and Negotiation, 4, 213-233.
7. Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1977). Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 315-332.
8. Caporael, L. R. (1986). Anthropomorphism and mechanomorphism: Two faces of the human machine. Computers in Human Behavior, 2, 215-234.
9. Coleman, L. H., Paternite, C. E., & Sherman, R. C. (1999). A rexamination of deindividuaion in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 51-65.
10. Cottrell, N. B., Wack, D. L., Sekerak, G. J., & Rittle, R. H. (1968). Social facilitation of dominant reseponses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 245-250
11. Dennis, A. R., Kinney, S. T., & Hung, Y-T. (1999). Gender differences in the effects of media richness, Small Group Research, 30, 405-437.
12. Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Towards the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497-509.
13. Diener, E., Fraser, S., Beaman, A. L., & Kelem, R. T. (1976). Effects of deindividuating variables on stealing by Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 178-183.
14. Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119-146.
15. Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971-981.
16. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
17. Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. Americal Journal of Psychology, 57, 243-259.
18. Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making: Communication processes and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225-252.
19. Huang, W., Raman, K. S., & Wei, M. K. (1997). Effects of group support system and task type on social influences in small groups. IEEE Transactions on Systems: Man and Cybernetics Part A - Systems and Humans, 27, 578-587.
20. Insko, C. A., Smith, R. H., Alicke, M. D., Wade, J., & Taylor, S. (1985). Conformity and group size: The concern with being right and the concern with being liked. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 41-50.
21. Jennings, L. B., & George, S. G. (1984). Group-induced distortion of visually perceived extent: The Asch effect revisited. Psychological Record, 34, 133-148.
22. Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., & Galegher, J. (1990). The effects of anonymity on group process in automated group problem solving. MIS Quarterly, 14, 312-321.
23. Kaplan, M. F. (1989). Task, situational, and personal determinants of influence process in group decision making. Advances in Group Processes, 6, 87-105.
24. Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, C. E. (1987). Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 306-313.
25. Katagiri, Y., Nass, C., & Takeuchi, Y. (2001). Cross-cultural studies of the computers are social actors paradigm: The case of reciprocity. In M. J. Smith, G. Salvendy, D. Harris, & R. Koubek (Eds.), Usability evaluation and interface design: Cognitive engineering, intelligent agents, and virtual reality (pp. 1558-1562). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60.
27. Kiesler, C. A., & Kiesler, S. B. (1969). Conformity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
28. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
29. Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96-123.
30. King, W. C., Dent, M. M., & Miles, E. W. (1991). The persuasive effect of graphics in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 269-279.
31. Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. A. (1967). Risky-shift phenomenon in small decision-making groups: A test of the information-exchange hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 75-84.
32. 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. 89-112). Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
33. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation, and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283-301.
34. Lee, E. J., Nass, C., & Brave, S. (2000). Can computer-generated speech have gender? An experimental test of gender stereotypes. In CHI 2000 Extended Abstracts (pp. 289-290). New York: ACM Press.
35. Lewis, S. A., Langan, C. J., & Hollander, E. P. (1972). Expectation of future interaction and the choice of less desirable alternatives in conformity. Sociometry, 35, 440-447
36. Maslow, A. H. (1948). "Higher" and "lower" needs. Journal of Psychology, 2, 433-436.
37. Matheson, K., & Zanna, M. P. (1988). The impact of computer-mediated communication on self-awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 221-233.
38. 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.
39. McLeod, P. L., Baron, R. S., Marti, M. W., & Yoon, K. (1997). The eyes have it: Minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 706-718.
40. Morkes, J., Kernal, H., & Nass, C. (2000). Effects of humor in task-oriented human-computer interaction and computer-mediated communication: A direct test of SRCT theory. Human-Computer Interaction, 14, 395-435.
41. Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125-135.
42. Myers, G. D. (1982). Polarizing effects of social interaction. In H. Brandstatter, J. H. Davis, & G. Stocker-Kerichgauer (Eds.), Group decision-making (pp. 125-161). London: Academic Press.
43. Nass, C., Fogg, B. J., & Moon, Y. (1996). Can computers be teammates? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 669-678.
44. Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81-103.
45. Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Carney, P. (1999). Are people polite to computers? Responses to computer-based interviewing systems. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1093-1110.
46. Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
47. Perloff, R. M. (1993). The dynamics of persuasion. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Perrin, S., & Spencer, C. P. (1981). Independence or conformity in the Asch experiment as a reflection of cultural and situational factors. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 205-209.
49. Perse, E. M., & Courtright, J. A. (1993). Normative images of communication media: Mass and interpersonal channels in the new media environment. Human Communication Research, 19, 485-503.
50. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238-259.
51. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689-715.
52. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 341-371.
53. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, televisions, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: Cambridge University Press.
54. Reid, E. M. (1991). Electropolis: Communication and community on internet relay chat. Retrieved June 1, 2002, from http://www.aluluei.com
55. Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19, 451-484.
56. Rice, R. E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research, 14, 85-108.
57. Ross, L., Bierbrauer, G., & Hoffman, S. (1976). The role of attribution processes in conformity and dissent: Revisiting the Asch situation. American Psychologist, 35, 148-157.
58. Rutter, D. R. (1987). Communicating by telephone. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
59. Shamp, S. A. (1991). Mechanomorphism in perception of computer communication partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 147-161.
60. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.
61. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: Wiley.
62. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, S., Kiesler, T., & McGuire, T. N. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187.
63. Smilowitz, M., Compton, D. C., & Flint, L. (1988). The effects of computer mediated communication on an individual's judgment: A study based on the methods of Asch's social influence experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 311-321.
64. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the "social" in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Context of computer-mediated communication (pp. 31-65). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
65. Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121-134.
66. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
67. Straus, S. G. (1997). Technology, group process, and group outcomes: Testing the connections in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 227-266.
68. Trafimow, D., & Davis, J. H. (1993). The effects of anticipated informational and normative influence on perceptions of hypothetical opinion change. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 487-496.
69. Turkle, S. (1997). Life on the screen. New York: Simon & Schuster.
70. Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept. Advances in Group Processes, 2, 77-121.
71. Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth.
72. Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Group size and anonymity effects on computer-mediated idea generation. Small Group Research, 23, 49-73.
73. Valacich, J. S., George, J. F., Nunamaker, J. F., & Vogel, D. R. (1994). Physical proximity effects on computer-mediated group idea generation. Small Group Research, 25, 83-104.
74. Wallach, M. A., & Malbi, J. (1970). Information versus conformity in the effects of group discussion on risk taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 149-156.
75. Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 473-501.
76. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
77. Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23, 342-369.
78. Walther, J. B., Slovacek, C. L., & Tidwell, L. C. (2001). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Photographic images in long-term and short-term computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 28, 105-134.
79. Wilder, D. A. (1977). Perception of groups, size of opposition, and social influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 253-268.
80. Williams, P., & Rice, R. E. (1983). Communication research and the new media technologies. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 7 (pp. 200-204). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
81. Zimbardo, P. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In W. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 237-307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.