Categorical person perception in computer-mediated communication: Effects of character representation and knowledge bias on sex inference and informational social influence

Media Psychology

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 309-329

  Lee, Eun Ju ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547249897     PISSN: 15213269     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15213260701286007     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2. Bargh, J. A. (1999). The cognitive monster: The case against the controllability of automatic stereotype effects. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 361-382). New York: Guilford.
3. Berger, J., Fisek, H., Norman, R., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction. New York: Elsevier.
4. 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 Associates, Inc.
5. Carli, L. L. (2001). Sex and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725-741.
6. Chiu, C.-Y., Hong, T.-T., Lam, C.-M., Fu, H.-Y., Tong, Y.-Y., & Lee, S.-L. (1998). Stereotyping and self-presentation: Effects of sex stereotype activation. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1, 81-96.
7. 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.
8. Eagly, A. H. (1983). Sex and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971-981.
9. Falbo, T., Hazen, M. D., & Linimon, D. (1982). The costs of selecting power bases or messages associated with the opposite sex. Sex Roles, 8, 147-157.
10. Feldman-Summers, S., Montano, D. E., Kasprzyk, D., & Wagner, B. (1980). Influence attempts when competing views are gender-related: Sex as credibility. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 311-320.
11. Flanagin, A. J., Tiyaamornwong, V., O'Connor, J., & Seibold, D. R. (2002). Computer-mediated group work: The interaction of member sex and anonymity. Communication Research, 29, 66-93.
12. Gleser, G. C., Gottschalk, L. A., & John, W. (1959). The relationship of sex and intelligence to choice words: A normative study of verbal behavior. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15, 182-191.
13. Herring, S. C. (1993). Sex and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication, 3(2). Retrieved October 3,2002, from http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v3n293.htm.
14. Herring, S. C., & Martinson, A. (2004). Assessing gender authenticity in computer-mediated language use: Evidence from an identity game. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 424-446.
15. Herschel, R. T., Cooper, T. R., Smith, L. F., & Arlington, L. (1994). Exploring numerical proportions in a unique context: The group support systems meeting environment. Sex Roles, 31, 99-123.
16. Hollingshead, A. B. (1996). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making: The effects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23, 193-219.
17. Huang, W. W., & Wei, K. K. (2000). An empirical investigation of the effects of group support systems (GSS) and task type on group interactions from an influence perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17, 181-206.
18. Kamins, M. A. (1990). An investigation into the "match-up" hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19, 4-13.
19. Kwok, R. C., Ma, J., & Vogel, D. R. (2002). Effects of group support systems and content facilitation on knowledge acquisition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 185-229.
20. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and women's place. New York: Harper & Row.
21. Lee, E.-J. (2003). Effects of "gender" of the computer on informational social influence: The moderating role of task type. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 347-362.
22. Linville, P. W., & Jones, E. E. (1980). Polarized appraisals of out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 689-703.
23. Lockheed, M. E. (1985). Sex and social influence: A meta-analysis guided by theory. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence: How expectations organize behavior (pp. 406-429). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25. Macrae, N. (2001). Social cognition: Categorical person perception. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 239-250.
26. Macrae, C. N., Mitchell, J. P., & Pendry, L. F. (2002). What's in a forename? Cue familiarity and stereotypical thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 186-193.
27. McGarty, C., Spears, R., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2002). Conclusion: Stereotypes are selective, variable and contested explanations. In C. McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & R. Spears (Eds.), Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups (pp. 186-199). New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. McGarty, C., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Spears, R. (2002). Social, cultural and cognitive factors in stereotype formation. In C. McGarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & R. Spears (Eds.), Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups (pp. 1-15). New York: Cambridge University Press.
29. McCauley, C., & Stitt, C. L. (1978). An individual and quantitative measure of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 929-940.
30. McGivern, R. F., Huston, J. P., Byrd, D., King, T., Siegel, G. J., & Reilly, J. (1997). Sex differences in visual recognition memory: Support for a sex -related difference in attention in adults and children. Brain and Cognition, 34, 323-336.
31. 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.
32. Meeker, B. F., & Weitzel-O'Neill, P. A. (1977). Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. American Sociological Review, 42, 91-105.
33. Mulac, A. (1998). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really make a difference? In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and sex in interaction (pp. 127-153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
34. Mulac, A., & Gibbons, P. (1993, May). Empirical support for the "Sex as culture" hypothesis: An intercultural analysis of male/female language differences. Paper presented at the meetings of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC.
35. Mulac, A., Incontro, C. R., & James, M. R. (1985). Comparison of the gender-linked language effect and sex role stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1098-1109.
36. Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Green, N. (1997). Are computers gender-neutral? Sex Stereotypic responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 864-876.
37. Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 972-987.
38. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2002). Behavior online: Does anonymous computer communication reduce sex inequality? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1073-1083.
39. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689-715.
40. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2002). Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics, 6, 3-16.
41. 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.
42. Rains, S. A. (2005). Leveling the organizational playing field - virtually. Communication Research, 32, 193-234.
43. 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.
44. Shaw, D. L., Cole, L. P., Moore, R. L., & Cole, R. R. (1981), Men versus women in bylines. Journalism Quarterly, 58, 103-106.
45. Silverman, R., & Eals, M. (1992). Sex differences in spatial abilities: Evolutionary theory and data. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp.533-549). New York: Oxford University Press.
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. (2001). A SIDE view of social influence. In J. P. Forgar & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes (pp. 331-350). Philadelphia: Cambridge University Press.
48. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. Tajfel, H. (1978). Intel-individual behavior and intergroup behavior. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 27-60). London: Academic Press.
50. Thompson, R., & Murachver, T. (2001). Predicting sex from electronic discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 193-208.
51. Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., Jr., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Group size and anonymity effects on computer-mediated idea generation. Small Group Research, 23, 49-73.
52. Wagner, D. G., & Berger, J. (1997). Sex and interpersonal task behaviors: Status expectation accounts. Sociological Perspectives, 40, 1-32.
53. Witmer, D. F., & Katzman, S. L. (1997). On-line smiles: Does sex make a difference in the use of graphic accents? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2. Retrieved Oct 3, 2002, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/ vol2/issue4/witmer1.html.
54. Wolbert, A. (2000). Sex in CMC: Anonymity, power and dissimulation. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Amsterdam.