Computer-mediated communication and virtual groups: Applications to interethnic conflict

Journal of Applied Communication Research

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 225-238

  Walther, Joseph B ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC); Hyperpersonal; Interethnic; Intergroup

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349855227     PISSN: 00909882     EISSN: 14795752     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00909880903025937     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abdulla, R. A. (2007). The Internet in the Arab world: Egypt and beyond. New York: Peter Lang.
2. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2006). The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(3), Art. 7. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue3/amichai-hamburger.html
4. Austin, R. (2007). Reconnecting young people in Northern Ireland. In B. D. Loader (Ed.), Young citizens in the digital age: Political engagement, young people and new media (pp. 143-157). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
5. Ellis, D. G., & Moaz, I. (2007). Online argument between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Human Communication Research, 33, 291-309.
6. Gergle, D., Kraut, R. E., & Fussell, S. R. (2004). Language efficiency and visual technology: Minimizing collaborative effort with visual information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 491-517.
7. Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. J. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the "contact hypothesis". In M. Hewstone & R. J. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1-44). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
8. Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., Irmer, B., & Chang, A. (2002). The expression of conflict in computermediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 33, 439-465.
9. Hoter, E., Shonfeld, M., & Ganayem, A. (2009). ICT in the service of multiculturalism. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(2). Retrieved April 30, 2009, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/601/1207
10. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4). Retrieved March 16, 2004, from http:// www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html
11. Kadushin, C., & Livert, D. (2002). Friendship, contact, and peace education. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concepts, principles, and practices around the world (pp. 117-126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
12. Kalman, Y. M., & Rafaeli, S. (2008, May). Chronemic nonverbal expectancy violations in written computer mediated communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal.
13. Krebs, S. A., Hobman, E. V., & Bordia, P. (2006). Virtual teams and group member dissimilarity: Consequences for the development of trust. Small Group Research, 37, 721-741.
14. Lea, M., Spears, R., & de Groot, D. (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: Anonymity effects on group polarization in CMC within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 526-537.
15. Lee, B. H., Sim, L. C., Trevor, T. M. K., & Detenber, B. H. (2004). Getting to know you: Exploring the development of relational intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(3). Retrieved January 1, 2008, from http://jcmc. indiana.edu/vol9/issue3/detenber.html
16. Moaz, I., & Ellis, D. G. (2001). Going to ground: Argument in Israeli-Jewish and Palestinian encounter groups. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34, 399-419.
17. Mollov, B. (2006, June). Results of Israeli and Palestinian student interactions in CMC: An analysis of attitude changes toward conflicting parties. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany.
18. June Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. J. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 212-238.
19. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent metaanalytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 93-114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
20. Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. (2006). Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: How collocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 679-692.
21. Postmes, T., & Baym, N. (2005). Intergroup dimensions of Internet. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 213-238). New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
22. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2002). Inter-group differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics, 6, 3-16.
23. Ramirez, A., Jr., & Wang, Z. (2008). When on-line meets off-line: An expectancy violation theory perspective on modality switching. Journal of Communication, 58, 20-39.
24. Reicher, S., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161-198.
25. Rogers, P., & Lea, M. (2004). Cohesion in online groups. In K. Morgan, C. A. Brebbia, J. Sanchez, & A. Voiskounsky (Eds.), Human perspectives in the Internet society: Culture, psychology and gender (pp. 115-124). Southampton, UK: WIT Press.
26. Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.
27. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An intergrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
28. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup relations. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),Psychology of intergroup relations (pp.7-24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Tanis, M. (2003). Cues to identity in CMC: The impact on person perception and subsequent interaction outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
29. Tidwell, L. C. (1997). A comparison of anticipated interaction, channel, and communication goal on impression formation, self-disclosure, and relational orientation: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
30. Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6, 186-203.
31. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
32. Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23, 342-369.
33. Walther, J. B. (2004). Language and communication technology: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 384-396.
34. Walther, J. B. (2006). Nonverbal dynamics in computer-mediated communication, or:(and the-net:('s with you,:) and you:) alone. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), Handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 461-479). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2538-2557.
36. Walther, J. B., & Bazarova, N. (2007). Misattribution in virtual groups: The effects of member distribution on self-serving bias and partner blame. Human Communication Research, 33, 1-26.
37. Walther, J. B., & Bazarova, N. (2008). Validation and application of electronic propinquity theory to computer-mediated communication in groups. Communication Research, 35, 622-645.
38. Walther, J. B., Boos, M., & Jonas, K. (2002). Misattribution and attributional redirection in distributed virtual groups. In Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii international conference on System Sciences. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://www.hicss.hawaii.edu/HICSS-35/ HICSSpapers/PDFdocuments/OSVWE02.pdf
39. Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55, 828-846.
40. Walther, J. B., Slovacek, C., & Tidwell, L. C. (2001). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Photographic images in long term and short term virtual teams. Communication Research, 28, 105-134.
41. Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Hamel, L., & Shulman, H. (2009). Self-generated versus othergenerated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication: A test of warranting theory using Facebook. Communication Research, 36, 229-253.
42. Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. T. (2008). The role of friends' behavior on evaluations of individuals' Facebook profiles: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34, 28-49.
43. Wang, Z., Walther, J. B., & Hancock, J. T. (2009). Social identification and interpersonal communication in computer-mediated communication: What you do versus who you are in virtual groups. Human Communication Research, 35, 59-85.
44. Weisband, S., & Atwater, L. (1999). Evaluating self and others in electronic and face-to-face groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 632-639.
45. Wilson, J. M., Straus, S. G., & McEvily, B. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 16-33.
46. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., & Tropp, L. R. (2002). Including others (and their groups) in the self: Selfexpansion theory and intergroup relations. In J. P. Forgas & K. Williams (Eds.), The social self: Cognitive, interpersonal and intergroup perspectives (pp. 343-363). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.