When and how does depersonalization increase conformity to group norms in computer-mediated communication?

Communication Research

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 423-447

  Lee, Eun Ju ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Conformity; Depersonalization; Group identification; Need for public individuation; Social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE)

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750479398     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650206293248     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2. Billing, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 27-52.
3. Burgoon, M., & Klingle, R. S. (1998). Gender differences in being influential and/or influenced: A challenge to prior explanations. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 257-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1977). Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 315-332.
5. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
6. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Coleman, L. H., Paternite, C. E., & Sherman, R. C. (1999). A reexamination of deindividuation in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behvavior, 15, 51-65.
9. Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1160-1171.
10. Diener, E., Lusk, R., DeFour, D., & Flas, R. (1980). Deindividuation: Effects of group size, density, number of observers, and group member similarity on self-consciousness and disinhibited behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 449-459.
11. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 1-20.
12. 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.
13. Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorization, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371-389.
14. Gerard, H. B., & Hoyt, M. F. (1974). Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitude toward ingroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 836-842.
15. Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2002). Online persuasion: An examination of gender differences in computer-mediated interpersonal influence. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 38-51.
16. Hinsz, V. B., & Davis, J. H. (1984). Persuasive arguments theory, group polarization, and choice shifts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 260-268.
17. 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.
18. Johnson, R. D., & Downing, L. L. (1979). Deindividuation and valence of cues: Effects on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1532-1538.
19. 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.
20. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, deindividuation, and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283-301.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Mackie, D. M. (1986). Social identification effects in group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 720-728.
24. Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41-52.
25. Mackie, D. M., & Cooper, J. (1984). Attitude polarization: Effects of group membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 575-585.
26. Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 812-822.
27. Maslach, C., Santee, R. T., & Wade, C. (1987). Individuation, gender role, and dissent: Personality mediators of situational forces. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1088-1093.
28. Maslach, C., Stapp, J., & Santee, R. T. (1985). Individuation: Conceptual analysis and assessment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 729-738.
29. McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., David, B., & Wetherell, W. S. (1992). Group polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 1-20.
30. Meyers-Levy, J., & Sternthal, B. (1991). Gender differences in the use of message cues and judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 84-96.
31. Nadler, A., Goldberg, M., & Jaffe, Y. (1982). Effects of self-differentiation and anonymity in group on deindividuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1127-1136.
32. Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
33. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
34. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
35. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689-715.
36. 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. 164-183). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
37. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2002). Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 3-16.
38. Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & de Groot, D. (2001). Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1243-1254.
39. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717-731.
40. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2005). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in simple and multiple mediator models. Unpublished manuscript, University of North Carolina.
41. Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1980). Effects of deindividuating situational cues and aggressive models on subjective deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 104-113.
42. 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). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
43. 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.
44. Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 518-527.
45. 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.
46. Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121-134.
47. Spears, R., Postmes, T., Lea, M., & Watt, S. E. (2001). A SIDE view of social influence. In J. P. Forgar & K. D. Williams (Eds.) Social influence: Direct and indirect processes. The Sydney symposium on Social Psychology Series (Vol. 3, pp. 331-350). New York: Psychology Press.
48. Tajfel, H. (1978). Interindividual behavior and intergroup behavior. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61-76). London: Academic Press.
49. Turner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. 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. 42-67). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
50. Turner, J. C., Wetherell, M. S., & Hogg, M. A. (1989). Referent informational influence and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 135-147.
51. Wenzel, M., & Mummendey, A. (1996). Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimination: A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group on positive and negative attributes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 493-507.
52. Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In W. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237-307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.