This article reports a study undertaken to investigate some of the social psychological processes underlying computer-supported group discussion in natural computer-mediated contexts. Based on the concept of deindividuation, it was hypothesized that personal identifiability and group identity would be important factors that affect the perceptions and behavior of members of computer-mediated groups. The degree of personal identifiability and the strength of group identity were manipulated across groups of geographically dispersed computer users who took part in e-mail discussions during a 2-week period. The results do not support the association between deindividuation and uninhibited behavior cited in much previous research. Instead, the data provide some support for a social identity perspective of computer-mediated communication, which explains the higher levels uninhibited in identifiable computer-mediated groups. However, predictions based on social identity theory regarding group polarization and group cohesion were not supported. Possible explanations for this are discussed and further research is suggested to resolve these discrepancies.
Birnbaum, M. H. (2001). Introduction to behavioural research on the Internet. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
Cathcart, R. S., & Samovar, L. A. (1992). Small group communication (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: WCB.
3.
Douglas, K. M., & McGarty, C. (2001). Identifiability and self-presentation: CMC and intergroup interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 399-416.
4.
Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalisation phenomenon. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119-146.
5.
Elias, F. G., Johnson, M. E., & Fortman, J. B. (1989). Task-focused self-disclosure: Effects on group cohesiveness, commitment to task and productivity. Small Group Behaviour, 20, 87-96.
6.
Friedman, E. J., Kahn, P. H., & Howe, D. C. (2000). Trust online. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 34-40.
7.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1992). Social identifications. London: Routledge.
8.
Holmes, M. E. (1995). Don’t blink or you’ll miss it: Issues in e-mail research. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 454-463). London: Sage.
9.
Huber, G. P. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced information technology on organizational design, intelligence, and decision-making. Academy of Management Review, 15, 47-71.
10.
Huff, C. W., & King, R. (1988). An experiment in electronic collaboration. In J. D. Goodchilds (Chair), Interacting by computer: Effects on small group style and structure. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.
11.
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 402-413.
12.
Lea, M. (1992). Contexts of computer-mediated communication. London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
13.
Lea, M., O’Shea, T., Fung, P., & Spears, R. (1992). “Flaming” in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 89-112). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
14.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283-301.
15.
Lyytinen, K., Maaranen, P., & Knuuttila, J. (1994). Groups are not always the same: An analysis of group behaviours in electronic meeting systems. CSCW, 2, 261-284.
16.
Matheson, K. (1992). Women and computer technology. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 66-87). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
17.
McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1993). Putting the “group” back in group support systems: Some theoretical issues about dynamic processes in groups with technological enhancements. In L. M. Jessup & J. S. Valacich (Eds.), Group support systems (pp. 78-96). New York: Macmillan.
18.
McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S., & Siegal, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917-930.
19.
McLeod, P. (1997). The eyes have it: Minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 706-718.
20.
Miranda, S. M. (1994). Avoidance of groupthink. Small Group Research, 25, 105-136.
21.
Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Defining group cohesiveness. Small Group Behaviour, 20, 37-49.
22.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602-627.
23.
Olivero, N., & Lunt, P. (2001, November 7-9). Self-disclosure in e-commerce exchanges: Relationships among trust, reward and awareness. Paper presented at the Psychology and the Internet Conference, Farnborough, UK.
24.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lea, M., & Reicher, S. (Eds.). (2000). SIDE issues centre stage. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
25.
Reicher, S. D. (1984). Social influence in the crowd: Attitudinal and behavioural effects of de-individuation in conditions of high and low group salience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 341-350.
26.
Smolensky, M. W., Carmody, M. A., & Halcomb, C. (1990). The influence of task type, group structure and extraversion on uninhibited speech in CMC. Computers in Human Behaviour, 6, 261-272.
27.
Sosik, J. J., Avollo, B. J., Kahai, S. S., & Jung, D. I. (1998). Computer-supported work group potency and effectiveness: The role of transformational leadership, anonymity and task interdependence. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 491-511.
28.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon?Communication Research, 21, 427-459.
29.
Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarisation in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121-134.
30.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. London: MIT Press.
31.
Steele, G. L. (1983). The hacker’s dictionary. New York: Harper & Row.
32.
Straus, S. G. (1997). Technology, group process and group outcomes: Testing the connections in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 227-266.
33.
Sudweeks, F., McLaughlin, M., & Rafaeli, S. (Eds.). (2000). Network and netplay: Virtual groups on the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Taylor, J., & MacDonald, J. (1994). The effects of electronic interactions on group and individual communication processes. Journal of Intelligent Systems, 4, 113-132.
36.
Taylor, J., & MacDonald, J. (2002). A discussion of the changes that occur in computer-mediated groups over time. Manuscript in preparation.
37.
Thomson, R., & Murachver, T. (2001). Predicting gender from electronic discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 193-208.
38.
Turner, J. C. (1983). Some comments on...“the measurement of social orientations in the minimal group paradigm.”European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 351-367.
39.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherall, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorisation theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
40.
Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23, 342-369.
