Communication Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lee, E.-J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Communication Research, Vol. 33, No. 6, 423-447 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0093650206293248

When and How Does Depersonalization Increase Conformity to Group Norms in Computer-Mediated Communication?

Eun-Ju Lee

University of California at Davis

The experiment reported herein examined how depersonalization, operationalized as the lack of individuating information, affects conformity to a group norm in anonymous computer-mediated communication. Participants made a decision about choice dilemmas and exchanged their decisions and supporting arguments with three ostensible partners via computer, who unanimously endorsed the position opposite of the participant’s. As predicted, depersonalization led to a more extreme perception of the group norm, better recall of the interactants’ arguments, and more positive evaluations of the interactants’ arguments through group identification, albeit only for women. Moreover, depersonalization was more likely to facilitate conformity to group norms among those with higher need for public individuation and among women. A test of indirect effects showed that group identification and extremity of the perceived group norm mediated the effects of depersonalization on conformity.

Key Words: depersonalization • social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE) • conformity • need for public individuation • group identification

References

  • 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.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Billing, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 27-52.[ISI]
  • 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.
  • Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1977). Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 315-332.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • 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.[CrossRef]
  • 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.
  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • 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.[CrossRef]
  • Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1160-1171.[CrossRef]
  • 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.[CrossRef]
  • 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.
  • 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.[CrossRef]
  • 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.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • 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.[CrossRef]
  • 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.[CrossRef]
  • Hinsz, V. B., & Davis, J. H. (1984). Persuasive arguments theory, group polarization, and choice shifts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 260-268.[Abstract]
  • 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.[Abstract]
  • 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.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • 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.
  • Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, deindividuation, and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283-301.[CrossRef]
  • 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • 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.[ISI]
  • Mackie, D. M. (1986). Social identification effects in group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 720-728.[CrossRef]
  • Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41-52.[CrossRef]
  • Mackie, D. M., & Cooper, J. (1984). Attitude polarization: Effects of group membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 575-585.[CrossRef]
  • Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 812-822.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • 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.[CrossRef]
  • Maslach, C., Stapp, J., & Santee, R. T. (1985). Individuation: Conceptual analysis and assessment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 729-738.[CrossRef]
  • 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.
  • Meyers-Levy, J., & Sternthal, B. (1991). Gender differences in the use of message cues and judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 84-96.
  • 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.[CrossRef]
  • Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • 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.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689-715.[Abstract]
  • 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.
  • 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.[CrossRef]
  • 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • 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.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • 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.
  • 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.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.[CrossRef]
  • 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.
  • Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121-134.[ISI]
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Turner, J. C., Wetherell, M. S., & Hogg, M. A. (1989). Referent informational influence and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 135-147.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Communication ResearchHome page
E.-J. Lee
When Are Strong Arguments Stronger Than Weak Arguments?: Deindividuation Effects on Message Elaboration in Computer-Mediated Communication
Communication Research, October 1, 2008; 35(5): 646 - 665.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American Behavioral ScientistHome page
M. C. Yzer and B. G. Southwell
New Communication Technologies, Old Questions
American Behavioral Scientist, September 1, 2008; 52(1): 8 - 20.
[Abstract] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lee, E.-J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?