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.
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.
