The impact of anonymity and group identification on progroup behavior in computer-mediated groups

Small Group Research

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 590-610

  Barreto, Manuela ^a,b   Ellemers, Naomi ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b INSTITUTO UNIVERSITÁRIO DE LISBOA ISCTE IUL   (Portugal)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036376315     PISSN: 10464964     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/104649602237680     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarisation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97-119.
2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2000a). Motivating progroup behaviour: Degree of identification and type of anonymity as determinants of the choice to work on behalf of a low status group. Proceedings of the conference "SIDE Issues Centre Stage: Recent Development in Studies of Deindividuation in Groups," Amsterdam, the Netherlands, June 30-July 2, 1999.
4. Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2000b). You can't always do what you want: Social identity and self-presentational determinants of the choice to work for a low status group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 891-906.
5. Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (in press). The effects of being categorised: The interplay between internal and external social identities. European Review of Social Psychology.
6. Batson, C. D., et al. (1999). Two threats to the common good: Self-interested egoism and empathy-induced altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 3-16.
7. Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3-26.
8. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1999). Commitment and intergroup behaviour. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 84-106). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
9. Doosje, B., Spears, R., & Koomen, W. (1995). When bad isn't all bad: The strategic use of sample information in generalization and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 642-655.
10. Douglas, K., & McGarty, C. (2001). Identifiability and self-presentation: Computer mediated communication and intergroup interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 399-416.
11. Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2001). The impact of relative group status: Affective, perceptual and behavioural consequences. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of social psychology, Volume 4: Intergroup processes (pp. 324-343). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
12. Ellemers, N., Barreto, M., & Spears, R. (1999). Commitment and strategic responses to social context. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 127-146). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
13. Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective identity enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 766-778.
14. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
15. Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., & Tansik, D. A. (1990). Toward a theory of automated group work: The deindividuating effects of anonymity. Small Group Research, 21, 333-348.
16. Jetten, J., Spears, R., Manstead, A. S. R. (1997). Strength of identification and intergroup differentiation; The influence of group norms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 816.1-816.7.
17. Kelly, C. (1993). Group identification, intergroup perceptions and collective action. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 59-83.
18. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication: An experiment in synchronous terminal-to-terminal discussion. Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 77-104.
19. Lea, M., Spears, R., & De Groot, D. (in press). Knowing me, knowing you: Effects of visual anonymity on self-categorisation, stereotyping and attraction in computer mediated groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
20. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 34-47.
21. Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral in-group membership status and public negativity toward outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 127-137.
22. Ouwerkerk, J. W., De Gilder, D., & De Vries, N. K. (2000). When the going gets tough, the tough get going: Social identification and individual effort in intergroup competition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1550-1559.
23. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2000). Refining the cognitive definition: Deindividuation effects in common bond vs. common identity groups. Proceedings of the conference "SIDE Issues Centre Stage: Recent Development in Studies of Deindividuation in Groups," Amsterdam, the Netherlands, June 30-July 2, 1999.
24. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689-715.
25. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1999). Social identity, normative content and "deindividuation" in computer-mediated groups. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 174-183). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
26. Reicher, S. (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.
27. Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161-198.
28. Sassenberg, K. (2000). Anonymity and identifiability: Effects on group decision making. Proceedings of the conference "SIDE Issues Centre Stage: Recent Development in Studies of Deindividuation in Groups," Amsterdam, the Netherlands, June 30-July 2, 1999.
29. Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.
30. Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(5), 538-553.
31. Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1999). Commitment and the context of social perception. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 50-83). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
32. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459.
33. Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarisation in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121-134.
34. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. New York: Academic Press.
35. Turner, J. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
36. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorisation theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
37. Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1990). Die-hard and fair-weather fans: Effects of identification on BIRGing and CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 14, 103-117.