The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) proposes that depersonalization of self and others is responsible for the effects of visual anonymity on group behavior. The authors investigated these mediating processes by assessing the effects of group-based self-categorization and stereotyping of others on group attraction within visually anonymous or video-identifiable groups communicating via computer. Structural equation modeling showed that visual anonymity increased group-based self-categorization, which directly increased attraction to the group and indirectly increased group attraction by enhancing group-based stereotyping of others. Visual anonymity had no effect on self-categorization in terms of a wider social category (nationality). Predictions derived from alternative perspectives that visual anonymity decreases group attraction by increasing impersonal task focus or by attenuating evaluation concerns were not supported.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brown, R. J. , Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. (1986). Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 273-286.
2.
Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (pp. 91-109). London: Tavistock.
3.
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum.
4.
Coleman, L. H. , Paternite, C. E., & Sherman, R. C. (1999). A reexamination of deindividuation in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 51-65.
5.
Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1160-1171.
6.
Diener, E. (1980). Deindividuation: The absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), The psychology of group influence (pp. 209-242). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Ellemers, N. , Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. (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.
8.
Festinger, L. , Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382-389.
9.
Gergen, K. J. , Gergen, M. M., & Barton, W. H. (1973). Deviance in the dark. Psychology Today, 7, 129-130.
10.
Haslam, S. A. (in press). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage.
11.
Hiltz, S. R. , Turoff, M., & Johnson, K. (1989). Experiments in group decision making, 3: Disinhibition, deindividuation, and group processes in pen name and real name computer conferences, Decision Support Systems, 5, 217-232.
12.
Hogg, M. A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some new directions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 85-111.
13.
Hogg, M. A. , & Hains, S. C. (1996). Intergroup relations and group solidarity: Effects of group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 295-309.
14.
Hogg, M. A. , Hardie, E. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (1995). Prototypical similarity, self-categorization, and depersonalized attraction: A perspective on group cohesiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 159-177.
15.
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.
16.
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.
17.
Jöreskog, K. G. , & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8. Chicago: Scientific Software Inc.
18.
Kelly, C. (1989). Political identity and perceived intragroup homogeneity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 61, 319-332.
19.
Kiesler, S. , Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
20.
Kiesler, S. , & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96-123.
21.
Kiesler, S. , Zubrow, D., Moses, A. M., & Geller, V. (1985). Affect in computer-mediated communication: An experiment is synchronous terminal- to-terminal discussion. Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 77-104.
22.
Lea, M. , & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 283-301.
23.
Lea, M. , & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321-342.
24.
Lea, M. , & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In J. T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Understudied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 197-233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Lott, A. J. , & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309.
26.
Martens, R. , & Lander, D. M. (1972). Evaluation potential as a determinant of coaction effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 347-359.
27.
Matheson, K. , & Zanna, M. P. (1988). The impact of computer-mediated communication on self-awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 4(3), 221-233.
28.
Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Defining group cohesiveness: A legacy of confusion. Small Group Behavior, 20, 37-49.
29.
Postmes, T. , & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and anti-normative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238-259.
30.
Postmes, T. , Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689-715.
31.
Prentice-Dunn, S. , & Rogers, R. W. (1982). Effects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 503-513.
32.
Prentice-Dunn, S. , & Rogers, R. W. (1989). Deindividuation and the self-regulation of behavior. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), The psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 86-109). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
Reicher, S. D. (1984). Social influence in the crowd: Attitudinal and behavioral effects of deindividuation in conditions of high and low group salience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 341-350.
34.
Reicher, S. , Levine, M., & Gordijn, E. (1998). More on deindividuation, power relations between people and the expression of social identity: Three studies on the effects of visibility to the in-group. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 15-40.
35.
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.
36.
Siegel, J. , Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187.
37.
Singer, J. E. , Brush, C. E., & Lublin, S. C. (1965). Some aspects of deindividuation: Identification and conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 356-378.
38.
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). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
39.
Spears, R. , & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459.
40.
Spears, R. , Lea, M., & Postmes, T. (in press). Social psychological theories of computer-mediated communication: Social pain or social gain? In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The handbook of language and social psychology (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
41.
Spears, R. , Postmes, T., & Lea, M. (in press). A SIDE view of social influence. In J. P. Forgas & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
42.
Sproull, L. , & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43.
Tajfel, H. , & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
44.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Turner, J. C. , Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
46.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
47.
Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time. Organizational Science, 6, 186-203.
48.
Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 24, 186-203.
49.
Walther, J. B. , & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.
50.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order vs. deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237-307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
