Effects of the influence agent's sex and self-confidence on informational social influence in computer-mediated communication: Quantitative versus verbal presentation

Communication Research

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 29-58

  Lee, Eun Ju ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Computer mediated communication; Expectation states theory; Informational social influence; Quantitative vs. Verbal data presentation; Sex; Social identity model of deindividuation effects

Indexed keywords

EID: 12944252234     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650204271398     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Berger, C. R. (2003). Effects of discounting cues and sex on apprehension: Quantitative versus verbal depictions of threatening trends. Communication Research, 30, 251-271.
2. Berger, J., Fisek, H., Norman, R., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction. New York: Elsevier.
3. Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K. Srull & R. S. Wyer (Eds.), A dual process model of impression formation: Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Carli, L. L. (1991). Sex, status, and influence. In E. J. Lawler, B. Markovski, C. L. Ridgeway, & H. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes (pp. 89-113). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
5. Carli, L. L. (1999). Sex, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 81-93.
6. Carli, L. L. (2001). Sex and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725-741.
7. DeBono, K. G., & Klein, C. (1993). Source expertise and persuasion: The moderating role of recipient dogmatism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 167-173.
8. Dennis, A. R., Kinney, S. T., & Hung, Y.-T. C. (1999). Sex differences in the effects of media richness. Small Group Research, 30, 405-437.
9. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.
10. Dovidio, J. F., Brown, C. E., Heltman, K., Ellyson, S. L., & Keating, C. F. (1988). Power displays between women and men in discussions of sex linked tasks: A multichannel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 580-587.
11. 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.
12. Eagly, A. H. (1983). Sex and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971-981.
13. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Fishbaugh, L. (1981). Sex differences in conformity: Surveillance by the group as a determinant of male nonconformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 384-394.
14. Feldman-Summers, S., Montano, D. E., Kasprzyk, D., & Wagner, B. (1980). Influence attempts when competing views are sex-related: Sex as credibility. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 311-320.
15. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
16. Foschi, M. (1996). Double standards in the evaluation of men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 237-254.
17. Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Herschel, R. T., Cooper, T. R., Smith, L. F., & Arrington, L. (1994). Exploring numerical proportions in a unique context: The group support systems meeting environment. Sex Roles, 31, 99-123.
19. Hewgill, M. A., & Miller, G. R. (1965). Source credibility and response to fear-arousing communications. Speech Monographs, 32, 95-101.
20. 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.
21. Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Sex differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53-69.
22. 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.
23. Kiesler, C. A., & Kiesler, S. (1969). Conformity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
24. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
25. Krugman, H. E. (1966). The measurement of advertising involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 30, 583-596.
26. Lee, E.-J. (2004). Effects of visual representation on social influence in computer-mediated communication: Experimental tests of the social identity model of deindividuation effects. Human Communication Research, 30, 234-259.
27. Lee, E.-J., & Nass, C. (2002). 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, 28, 349-381.
28. 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.
29. Meeker, B. F., & Weitzel-O'Neill, P. A. (1977). Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. American Sociological Review, 42, 91-105.
30. Meyers-Levy, J., & Sternthal, B. (1991). Sex differences in the use of message cues and judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 84-96.
31. O'Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dualprocess theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford.
33. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2002). Behavior online: Does anonymous computer communication reduce sex inequality? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1073-1083.
34. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689-715.
35. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2002). Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics, 6, 3-16.
36. Pugh, M., & Wahrman, R. (1983). Neutralizing sexism in mixed-sex groups: Do women have to be better than men? American Journal of Sociology, 88, 746-762.
37. Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Sex, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637-655.
38. Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The sex system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191-216.
39. Ross, L., Amabile, T. M., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social roles, social control, and biases in social-perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 485-494.
40. Santee, R. T., & Jackson, S. E. ( 1982). Identity implications of conformity: Sex differences in normative and attributional judgments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 121-125.
41. Shaw, D. L., Cole, L. P., Moore, R. L., & Cole, R. R. (1981). Men versus women in bylines. Journalism Quarterly, 58, 103-106.
42. Skaalvik, E. M., & Rankin, R. J. (1994). Sex differences in mathematics and verbal achievement, self-perception and motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 419-428.
43. Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121-134.
44. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
45. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
47. Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1989). Self-categorization theory and social influence. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 233-275). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48. Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. ( 1997). Sex and interpersonal task behaviors: Status expectation accounts. Sociological Perspectives, 40, 1-32.
49. Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
51. Wood, W., & Karten, S. J. ( 1986). Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 341-347.