Social presence theory: the degree of awareness of the other person in the interaction Increased
social presence → more social influence
Limited social presence Abundant social presence
text audio f2f
few possibilities for social influence many possibilities for social influence
Media (information) richness theory: media differ in the possibility to: convey multiple cues (body
language, vocal, touch), facilitate feedback (co-temporality, simultaneity), exchange of socio-
emotional cues, use of ‘natural language’.
→ complexity of message is determined by
- Uncertainty: the lack of (shared) information
- Equivocality: the complexity of the assignment – no clear ‘best’ outcome (ambiguity)
- Degree of routine: the (shared) experience with the task/ message
Reduced social cues approach:
→ what happens if the sender and receiver miss all kinds of social information about each other?
Consequences on two levels
- Level 1 Lack of knowledge about who someone is: cues to identity (age, gender, ethnicity
etc.), static cues (clothing, location, physical appearance), dynamic cues (body language,
facial expression, voice use)
- Level 2 Lack of awareness that someone is someone: de-individuation (reduced awareness
of others and self)
→ consequences of anonymity/ de-individuation
- More attention to the task (less attention to social issues)
- More equal participation (less attention to status)
- Less process loss during brainstorming (by being able to provide input at the same time)
- The online disinhibition effect: in (anonymous) online environment people appear to be less
restrained and express themselves more freely than f2f
Benign inhibition: more self-disclosure (share emotions, fears, wishes). Unusual acts of
kindness and generosity
Toxic inhibition: Online flaming, trolling, cyberbullying, rude language, harsh critic
Social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE): explains the consequences of de-
individuation in CMC using social psychological theories: social identity theory and self-
categorization theory
- Social identity: ‘that part of individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his
membership of a social group(s) together with the value and emotional significance
attached to that membership’ Tajfel
- De-individuation: to be submerged in the group → loss of individuality
→ causes reduced self-awareness, reduced feelings of accountability, but also increases
awareness of the social group
We can think about ourselves and others as unique individuals or in generic category terms
→ with these categories we form generic expectancies (stereotypes)
- We overestimate the similarities of member within the group, and of differences of
members between the group
, - Context (a.o. Media constraints!) determines which category becomes salient, and whether
we focus on someone as unique individual or reduce them to category member with
stereotypical characteristics (de-individuation)
- Anonymous/ de-individuated people behave more according to activated norms
→ i.e norms that are salient in the situation, that are related to the activated social
category/ identity.
- Goes against idea that de-individuation automatically leads to anti-normative/ asocial
behavior
What are the effects of anonymity (within CMC) and what is the role of social identity?
- Types of cues: cues to Personal Identity CtPI (individual information, idiosyncratic
information), cues to Social Identity CtSI (social group membership, social categorization
SIDE: de-individuation in CMC
- Under conditions of relative anonymity (medium in which social cues are absent) there will
be a shift from personal to social identity
→ less attention to you and the other as individuals (unique characteristics)
→ more attention to social identity: membership of an (activated) higher order social
category)
- Resulting in: more category-stereotype consistent behavior, → favoritism and more positive
evaluation of ‘ingroupers’ vs. ‘outgroupers, →more flaming in polarized online discussion
Critique on these early technologically deterministic approach to CMC effects:
- CMC is a container term that does not fit current media landscape
- Technological determinism:
→ characteristics of the medium → fixed effects on: success of interaction, interpersonal/
social relationships and behavior
→ CMC (vs f2f) is mostly defined as less suitable for social interactions: what about online
forums (Facebook, Insta)
→ no attention to ‘human determinism’: interpersonal differences, adaptive capacity of the
human being, power of the users, social context of the interactions.
What is CMC today?
- CMC is container term → currently a huge variety in CMC media
- Comparison with FTF does not always make sense → some media are close to f2f
(facetime), some media have more affordances than f2f (social media landscape, virtual
environments)
Media affordances (possibilities):
- Copresence: A and B are present in the room
- Visibility: A and B are visible to each other
- Audibility: A and B can hear each other
- Contemporality/ synchronicity: A and B are part of the interaction at the same time
- Simultaneity: A and B can both send and receive at the same time
- Sequentially: There is an uninterrupted sequence of tun of speakers between A and B (start
to end of conversation)
- Reviewability: A and B can ‘consume’ the messages again
- Revisability: A and B can review or adapt messages before they are ‘send’
social presence → more social influence
Limited social presence Abundant social presence
text audio f2f
few possibilities for social influence many possibilities for social influence
Media (information) richness theory: media differ in the possibility to: convey multiple cues (body
language, vocal, touch), facilitate feedback (co-temporality, simultaneity), exchange of socio-
emotional cues, use of ‘natural language’.
→ complexity of message is determined by
- Uncertainty: the lack of (shared) information
- Equivocality: the complexity of the assignment – no clear ‘best’ outcome (ambiguity)
- Degree of routine: the (shared) experience with the task/ message
Reduced social cues approach:
→ what happens if the sender and receiver miss all kinds of social information about each other?
Consequences on two levels
- Level 1 Lack of knowledge about who someone is: cues to identity (age, gender, ethnicity
etc.), static cues (clothing, location, physical appearance), dynamic cues (body language,
facial expression, voice use)
- Level 2 Lack of awareness that someone is someone: de-individuation (reduced awareness
of others and self)
→ consequences of anonymity/ de-individuation
- More attention to the task (less attention to social issues)
- More equal participation (less attention to status)
- Less process loss during brainstorming (by being able to provide input at the same time)
- The online disinhibition effect: in (anonymous) online environment people appear to be less
restrained and express themselves more freely than f2f
Benign inhibition: more self-disclosure (share emotions, fears, wishes). Unusual acts of
kindness and generosity
Toxic inhibition: Online flaming, trolling, cyberbullying, rude language, harsh critic
Social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE): explains the consequences of de-
individuation in CMC using social psychological theories: social identity theory and self-
categorization theory
- Social identity: ‘that part of individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his
membership of a social group(s) together with the value and emotional significance
attached to that membership’ Tajfel
- De-individuation: to be submerged in the group → loss of individuality
→ causes reduced self-awareness, reduced feelings of accountability, but also increases
awareness of the social group
We can think about ourselves and others as unique individuals or in generic category terms
→ with these categories we form generic expectancies (stereotypes)
- We overestimate the similarities of member within the group, and of differences of
members between the group
, - Context (a.o. Media constraints!) determines which category becomes salient, and whether
we focus on someone as unique individual or reduce them to category member with
stereotypical characteristics (de-individuation)
- Anonymous/ de-individuated people behave more according to activated norms
→ i.e norms that are salient in the situation, that are related to the activated social
category/ identity.
- Goes against idea that de-individuation automatically leads to anti-normative/ asocial
behavior
What are the effects of anonymity (within CMC) and what is the role of social identity?
- Types of cues: cues to Personal Identity CtPI (individual information, idiosyncratic
information), cues to Social Identity CtSI (social group membership, social categorization
SIDE: de-individuation in CMC
- Under conditions of relative anonymity (medium in which social cues are absent) there will
be a shift from personal to social identity
→ less attention to you and the other as individuals (unique characteristics)
→ more attention to social identity: membership of an (activated) higher order social
category)
- Resulting in: more category-stereotype consistent behavior, → favoritism and more positive
evaluation of ‘ingroupers’ vs. ‘outgroupers, →more flaming in polarized online discussion
Critique on these early technologically deterministic approach to CMC effects:
- CMC is a container term that does not fit current media landscape
- Technological determinism:
→ characteristics of the medium → fixed effects on: success of interaction, interpersonal/
social relationships and behavior
→ CMC (vs f2f) is mostly defined as less suitable for social interactions: what about online
forums (Facebook, Insta)
→ no attention to ‘human determinism’: interpersonal differences, adaptive capacity of the
human being, power of the users, social context of the interactions.
What is CMC today?
- CMC is container term → currently a huge variety in CMC media
- Comparison with FTF does not always make sense → some media are close to f2f
(facetime), some media have more affordances than f2f (social media landscape, virtual
environments)
Media affordances (possibilities):
- Copresence: A and B are present in the room
- Visibility: A and B are visible to each other
- Audibility: A and B can hear each other
- Contemporality/ synchronicity: A and B are part of the interaction at the same time
- Simultaneity: A and B can both send and receive at the same time
- Sequentially: There is an uninterrupted sequence of tun of speakers between A and B (start
to end of conversation)
- Reviewability: A and B can ‘consume’ the messages again
- Revisability: A and B can review or adapt messages before they are ‘send’
