Knowing Me, Knowing You: Anonymity Effects on Social ... - CiteSeerX

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Lea et al. / ANONYMITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES

Knowing Me, Knowing You: Anonymity Effects on Social Identity Processes Within Groups Martin Lea University of Manchester Russell Spears Daphne de Groot University of Amsterdam associated with group immersion (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1982, 1989). Nevertheless, a rather unsatisfactory feature of virtually all research on this topic is that the underlying processes remain unclear (Diener, 1979, 1980; Postmes & Spears, 1998). Mediation analyses that could provide the necessary evidence that changes in self-awareness mediate deindividuation effects has been largely absent or only partially successful in confirming hypothesized effects (Matheson & Zanna, 1988; Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1982). The explanatory role of anonymity has recently returned to the foreground in research proposing an alternative mechanism for explaining deindividuation effects in terms of social identity processes (Lea & Spears, 1991; Postmes & Spears, 1998; Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995; Spears & Lea, 1992, 1994). Here too, however, evidence that social identity processes mediate the effects of anonymity on groups has so far been lacking. The main purpose of the present research is to address this shortcoming and to arbitrate between the different theoretical approaches to deindividuation in the process. Specifically, we evaluate the social identity explanation of deindividuation effects, which argues that anonymity within a salient group promotes categorization of self and others in terms of the group, thereby

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.

A

nonymity has been implicated in research on deindividuation, social facilitation, brainstorming, decision making, group size, and crowd behavior. Yet, its conceptual status and the processes by which anonymity achieves its effects are still far from clear. This is nowhere more true than with regard to the deindividuation literature. Deindividuation has traditionally been defined as a state of reduced self-awareness, or even loss of self, often associated with immersion in the group or crowd (Diener, 1980; Festinger, Pepitone, & Newcomb, 1952; Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1989; Zimbardo, 1969). Early formulations saw anonymity as a central antecedent or input to this state (e.g., Festinger et al., 1952; Zimbardo, 1969). Contemporary accounts see anonymity as somewhat less central to deindividuation in theoretical terms, focusing on the arousal and external focus of attention

Authors’ Note: Financial support was provided by the European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS), The British Council/Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research Joint Scientific Research Programme, and the UK Economic and Social Research Council Virtual Society Research Programme. Address correspondence to Martin Lea, Department of Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, England; e-mail: martin. [email protected]. PSPB, Vol. 27 No. 5, May 2001 526-537 © 2001 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

526

Lea et al. / ANONYMITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES enhancing group behavior (Reicher et al., 1995; Spears & Lea, 1992, 1994). The second, related purpose is to test competing predictions about the negative or positive effects of anonymity on group attraction, derived from traditional group cohesiveness and social identity approaches, respectively (see Hogg, 1993, for a comparative review). In both cases, we assess the alternative processes proposed to mediate the effects of anonymity in the group. Anonymity, Deindividuation Theory, and the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects Visual anonymity within groups has generally been considered to have negative consequences, resulting, for example, in disinhibited and aggressive behavior (e.g., Singer, Brush, & Lublin, 1965; Zimbardo, 1969). Processes held to be responsible for these effects include reduced objective self-awareness (Diener, 1979), reduced private self-awareness (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1982, 1989), and reduced public self-awareness or evaluation concern (Festinger et al., 1952; PrenticeDunn & Rogers, 1982, 1989). Anonymity and deindividuation have received additional attention in recent years from research into the effects of new communication technologies such as computer-mediated communication (CMC), in which interactants can be physically isolated and hence visually anonymous. Here, anonymity has been argued to increase disinhibited, hostile behavior and extreme decision making and to reduce attraction within computermediated groups. These effects are held to result from the relative lack of interpersonal cues, resulting in a state of deindividuation, reduced evaluation concern, and a more impersonal and task-oriented attentional focus (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991; Walther, 1992, 1997). Whether anonymity produces generic effects within groups is open to question, however. The outcomes predicted by deindividuation theory have not always been observed; decreased aggression and even increased affection have sometimes been expressed under anonymous conditions (e.g., Gergen, Gergen, & Barton, 1973; Johnson & Downing, 1979). Likewise, in some CMC studies, greater self-awareness, more cautious decision making, increased attraction, and lack of disinhibition all have been observed under conditions of anonymity (Hiltz, Turoff, & Johnson, 1989; Lea & Spears, 1991, 1992, Study 2; Matheson & Zanna, 1988). In a recent study, Coleman, Paternite, and Sherman (1999) found that anonymous CMC groups reported more submergence in the group and reduced perceptions of individuality in accordance with a state of deindividuation. How-

527

ever, there was no evidence of a corresponding increase in the negativity of group discussions. One attempt to reconcile these conflicting observations has departed from the attempt to define generic anonymity effects and instead considers the effects of anonymity in relation to the specific social group context that is salient. The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) aims to explain cognitive and strategic effects of visibility and anonymity in both intragroup and intergroup contexts within a single theoretical framework (for overviews, see Reicher et al., 1995; Spears & Lea, 1994; Spears, Postmes, & Lea, in press). The SIDE model developed out of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1985) and self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) and further specifies the effects of situational factors on the operation of processes proposed by these theories. Underlying this approach is a conceptualization of self-construal as flexible and situation-specific. It comprises a range of self-categories that define people in certain contexts as unique individuals (i.e., their personal identity) but in other contexts in terms of membership in specific social groups (such as an activity group) and wider social categories (such as nationality or gender) (i.e., their social identities). A person’s behavior in any situation can be placed along a continuum ranging from entirely personal (conforming to personal standards) to entirely group-based (conforming to salient group norms and standards). According to SIDE, visual anonymity reduces the communication of interpersonal cues within the group, allowing certain social group and category information that is less dependent on visual cues for its communication to become more salient. This has the effect of shifting perceptions of self and others from the personal to the group level, thus encouraging behavior that is normative for the salient group. In contrast to deindividuation theories, SIDE proposes that anonymity promotes a shift in the kind of self-awareness from the personal to the group self rather than a loss of self-awareness. Similarly, perceptions of others shift from being primarily interpersonal to being groupbased perceptions (stereotyping) under anonymity, rather than there being a loss of attention to others. A number of studies have been carried out that support this general prediction. More normative behavior has been observed in face-to-face groups, in which the visual anonymity of group members was achieved by means of masks and overalls, as in classic deindividuation studies (Reicher, 1984), and also in computer-mediated groups in which interactants were physically isolated and hence visually anonymous (Lea & Spears, 1991; Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 1998; Spears, Lea, & Postmes, in press). Moreover, where it was measured in these studies, little

528

PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

evidence was found of variations in amount of (private) self-awareness. Anonymity and Group Attraction: Competing Perspectives on Group Cohesiveness We turn now to consider how anonymity affects group attraction according to the different theoretical perspectives on group cohesiveness. Most traditional and contemporary formulations of group cohesiveness argue that attraction to the group is based on interdependent interaction toward the satisfaction of mutual goals and/or the perception of interpersonal similarities among individuals, both of which produce interpersonal attraction. According to this interdependence approach, group attraction can be viewed as the aggregate of interpersonal bonds of attraction or interdependence (e.g., Cartwright, 1968; Lott & Lott, 1965; Mudrack, 1989). In contrast, the social identity approach regards group attraction as a conceptually distinct process involving depersonalized perceptions of self and others in terms of a common group categorization (Hogg, 1993; Turner, 1982; Turner et al., 1987). Depersonalization does not necessarily mean that interactions with others become impersonal or taskfocused, however. Rather, it simply means that perception and behavior become stereotyped in terms of the salient group. We argue that anonymity encourages depersonalized perceptions of self to occur because it reduces the (inter)personal basis for social comparison, self-awareness, and self-presentation. As a result, the self tends to be perceived and presented less as a unique individual and more in terms of its similarity to the perceived prototypical attributes of the salient social group (i.e., self-stereotyping). The anonymity of others means that they also tend to be perceived as interchangeable representatives of the group rather than as unique individuals (Turner et al., 1987). Under anonymity, perceptions of individual differences among interactants are reduced, leading to less individuated impressions and a less interpersonal basis for interaction (Coleman et al., 1999; Reicher et al., 1995; Spears & Lea, 1992). In short, SIDE proposes that depersonalized perceptions of self and others increase attraction toward group members and that this process is stimulated by the dearth of individuating cues in visually anonymous interactions (Lea & Spears, 1995). In contrast to this social identity route to attraction, a number of other perspectives propose the opposite; namely, that anonymity decreases attraction to group members. Once again, recent research into computer-mediated groups has focused attention on this issue. These accounts implicitly invoke a traditional interdependence explanation of group attraction that focuses on the development and maintenance of inter-

personal bonds as the basis of group cohesion and attraction. They imply that conditions that prevent or retard the formation of such bonds, such as visual anonymity, will reduce attraction to the group. Because anonymity removes interpersonal cues, it decreases attention to others, reduces concerns about being positively evaluated by others, and creates an impersonal, task-oriented focus for group interaction. This impersonal focus reduces politeness and tolerance, promotes conflict and hostile behavior, and impedes the development of attraction and interpersonal relations (Jessup, Connolly, & Tansik, 1990; Kiesler et al., 1984; Walther, 1992). A related suggestion is that impersonal task focus may be a general norm affecting temporary or short-term groups (i.e., as in most experimental settings) that is amplified by anonymity (Walther, 1997). However, whereas reduced attraction has been observed in anonymous computer groups (Kiesler, Zubrow, Moses, & Geller, 1985), other studies have found no effect (Coleman et al., 1999; Walther & Burgoon, 1992) or even increased attraction (Lea & Spears, 1992, Study 2; Walther, 1995). Furthermore, the evidence for the role of evaluation concern or impersonal task focus is weak. Kiesler et al. (1985) found less responsiveness to others and greater adherence to the task accompanied by significantly less positive interpersonal evaluations in anonymous CMC compared with face-to-face interaction. However, the crucial mediation analysis that would establish task focus and reduced attention to others as causal processes was not reported. Walther (1997) observed lowered attraction within short-term groups interacting in anonymous CMC under high group salience conditions than within groups interacting for longer or under individual salience conditions; however, there was no corresponding effect on task orientation. Moreover, the high group salience conditions were significantly less task oriented than the low group salience conditions, contrary to the prediction that reduced attraction responses were guided by a generic impersonal/task-focus norm. Other studies also have found significantly less impersonal task focus in anonymous CMC interactions (Walther, 1995; Walther & Burgoon, 1992). Overview and Hypotheses To summarize, the SIDE model makes specific predictions regarding the effects of anonymity and the underlying processes that contrast with traditional group theories. These different perspectives were tested in a study in which physically isolated participants discussed a number of issues in small groups using text-based computer conferencing under visually anonymous or video-mediated (i.e., identifiable) conditions. On the basis of the SIDE model, we predicted that visual ano-

Lea et al. / ANONYMITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES nymity would lead to greater group attraction. In terms of the mediating process, we predicted that anonymity would increase the tendency for interactants to categorize the self in terms of the group, which in turn should increase group attraction. Second, self-categorization should enhance the tendency to see others in group terms (stereotyping), which should independently increase group attraction. In sum, the effect of anonymity on attraction may follow two routes, both of which crucially depend on anonymity enhancing self-categorization. The predicted shifts toward group-based perceptions of self and others as a consequence of anonymity are not predicted by deindividuation theory, which, in addition, would generally predict a negative relation between anonymity and group attraction. A number of alternative mediation paths were hypothesized from consideration of traditional deindividuation theory and the competing interdependence approach to group attraction described above. Both predict that visual anonymity should decrease group attraction by reducing evaluation concern and by increasing perceptions of an impersonal task focus, concomitant with a loss of attention to self and others (Festinger et al., 1952; Kiesler et al., 1984, 1985; Kiesler & Sproull, 1992; Kiwesler et al., 1985; Martens & Lander, 1972; Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1989; Walther, 1992). We also explored task focus and evaluation concern in relation to the SIDE model, specifically their effects in relation to the central self-categorization variable. There were several possibilities here. If visual anonymity increases task focus because it is perceived to be normative for short-term groups (Walther, 1997), then the effect should be mediated by the extent to which participants see themselves as members of a group. Self-categorization might increase participants’ evaluation concern by increasing their focus on the group-based aspects of self-identity. On the other hand, self-categorization might decrease evaluation concern because it reduces their focus on individual aspects of the self and encourages feelings of acceptance by the group. Finally, another purpose of the present study was to assess effects of anonymity on self-categorization in terms of a wider social category (such as nationality) that was made salient during interaction, independently from anonymity effects on local group self-categorization. The effects of local group identification and social category identification on normative behavior have been confounded in previous research on SIDE in which the salience of both have been simultaneously raised (Lea & Spears, 1991; Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 1998). Visual anonymity may enhance perceptions of self in terms of a wider social category. However, this effect may be small compared with the effect on local group self-categorization because participants have prior knowledge of a preexist-

529

ing social category and may therefore already hold a relatively clear and stable definition of the category and their relation to it. By contrast, the local group identity is constructed more immediately in the interaction situation. Supporting this, a recent meta-analysis of 60 independent studies of deindividuation found that group behavior was explained more adequately by reference to situation-specific rather than general social norms (Postmes & Spears, 1998). Assuming that self-categorization was the underlying process responsible for these effects, the meta-analysis also suggests that local group self-categorization should have a stronger influence on group attraction than self-categorization with a wider social category. It was therefore predicted that there would be no additional independent effect of visual anonymity on attraction that was mediated by self-categorization with a salient social category (nationality). Another possibility is that visual anonymity increases self-categorization with a social category only under conditions where social category salience is already high. For example, in the case of nationality, visual anonymity might become more influential when interacting with others who have a different nationality from oneself. Under these conditions, differences in nationality among interactants should increase self-perception and self-presentation in line with one’s own nationality, whereas visual anonymity should reduce the (inter)personal basis for social comparison, self-awareness, and self-presentation. METHOD

Overview Volunteers participated individually in group discussions of three topics, with two confederates using a computer-based conferencing system in a simulation of international Internet communications. In the visually anonymous condition, communication was text-based, and in the visually identifiable condition, it was supplemented by two-way real-time silent video. Participants were the same gender, age, and status as the confederates. Confederate attitudes were held constant across conditions. Dependent measures were collected from four self-report postdiscussion questionnaires from which measures of local group self-categorization and stereotyping of others and British self-categorization were obtained in addition to group attraction, task focus, and evaluation concern. Equipment Three Macintosh computers were connected over a local area network to a Sun Sparc-10 computer running a CU-SeeMe video-conferencing reflector. A Connectix Quickcam fixed-focus video camera connected to each

530


computer’s serial port captured the user’s head and shoulders in four-bit grayscale real-time video motion. In practice, a frame-rate of nine frames per second and transmission rate of 40 to 80 kbits/sec were achieved. CU-SeeMe client software displayed the video of the three users in 160 × 120 pixels video windows horizontally placed on the top half on each 15-in. 640 × 480 pixels computer screen. The screen also displayed a text-input window beneath a larger, scrollable, text-conferencing window. Users could type a message (up to 256 characters) in the input window and press the “return” key, whereupon the message would appear almost instantaneously in the conferencing window on every computer display, prefixed by a user identifier. In the visual anonymity conditions, the cameras were removed and the video windows were not displayed. A fourth Macintosh, running the conferencing system in receive-only mode, was used by the experimenter to monitor the sessions and send instructions to the group using a network broadcast utility. Local Group and Category Salience On arrival, participants were informed that they were part of a group that would be discussing three topics in a study of the Internet for international communication. Participants were told their local group name and group member identifier, which was to be used in all communications. Nationality salience was raised by presenting the study as part of a British-German research collaboration involving group members who were students residing in Germany. As an additional manipulation of nationality salience, participants were either told that the other group members were British nationals or German nationals. In reality, the other group members were two British female postgraduate students acting as confederates. They were fluent German speakers and had lived in Germany for 1 year. Confederates role-played either British or German students. In the German role-play condition, the confederates introduced a small number of typical grammatical errors into their English conversation. Otherwise, confederates expressed their attitudes toward the discussion topics in a consistent manner in every session. Satisfactory performance was achieved following practice group discussions and inspections of the transcripts of the interaction. Procedure The study included 56 British, female, 1st-year psychology students who were randomly assigned to condition. On arrival at the laboratory, the participant read a printed sheet that introduced the experiment and described the experimental procedure. The participant was then shown how to connect to the conferencing sys-

tem (to which the confederates were already connected from different rooms in the same building as the participant). After a short delay, she saw a system message welcoming her to “The Conferencing System of the Freie Deutsche Universität” to promote the idea of an Internet connection to Germany. She was then presented with the text conferencing windows, which were augmented in the visually identifiable condition by the three video windows. The participant was asked to introduce herself to the group by name and location, and the confederates also provided names and locations. This was the only point at which individual names were exchanged. During the discussions, the group identifiers that prefixed messages were always “A3:” for the participant and “A1:” and “A2:” for the confederates to reinforce local group membership. From this point on, the procedure was controlled by the experimenter sending alert messages to the participants’ screens from a computer in another room. The group discussed three topics (vegetarianism, immigration, and politeness) in sequence for 30 minutes. Confederates alternated the beginning of each discussion topic. At the end of the discussion period, participants completed four dependent-measure questionnaires. Dependent Measures Items on all questionnaires consisted of a statement tied to a 9-point rating scale anchored not at all and very much at the extremes. Items were adapted from previous studies of face-to-face groups conducted within the social identity framework (e.g., Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, & Williams, 1986; Hogg & Hains, 1996) and from previous CMC studies (e.g., Lea & Spears, 1991; Walther, 1997) supplemented by new items that were judged to have good face validity for the constructs. A group perceptions questionnaire (17 items) measured the participant’s self-categorization with the local group. Participants were instructed to take a few moments to think about your group’s identity. This is a cluster of things that describe what your group is like and how your group behaves. Think about your group’s performance during the discussions and keep this group in mind when you answer the following items.

A group relations questionnaire (15 items) measured the participant’s attraction to the group, her concern over the group’s evaluation of her, and the group’s focus on the task and on interpersonal relations. An individual perceptions questionnaire (4 items) measured the participant’s perceptions of the group prototypicality of each confederate. Participants were instructed to “think about the individual known to you as Person A1 and the characteristics of Person A1 that have been revealed to

Lea et al. / ANONYMITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES TABLE 1:

531

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for the Input Variables

Visual anonymity (ANON) Group stereotyping (GS) Group self-categorization (SC-G) Group attraction (GATT) British self-categorization (SC-B) Nationality (NAT) Task focus (TF) Evaluation concern (EVC) M SD

ANON

GS

1.00 0.06 0.36** –0.02 –0.26 –0.03 0.30* 0.33*

1.00 0.43** 0.39** –0.04 –0.02 0.02 –0.13

0.00 1.00

6.89 1.12

SC-G

GATT

SC-B

NAT

TF

EVC

1.00 0.51** –0.09 0.14 0.04 –0.08

1.00 –0.12 –0.07 –0.03 –0.09

1.00 –0.22 –0.09 –0.14

1.00 0.08 0.38**

1.00 0.26

1.00

–0.04 1.21

–0.05 1.16

–0.05 1.01

0.00 1.00

–0.02 1.10

0.04 1.03

NOTE: N = 50. *p < .05. **p < .01.

you through the interactions.” The questionnaire was completed again for “Person A2.” Finally, a British perceptions questionnaire (20 items) measured the participant’s self-categorization in terms of British nationality. Participants were instructed to “think for a moment about British people, their attitudes and behavior in general and how they differ from other nationalities and their attitudes and behavior.” Items were piloted on a similar target population of female 3rd-year psychology students and selected to parallel the group perceptions questionnaire, with some modification to take into account the prior existence of this category. Computed Scales Factor analysis with oblique quartimax rotation was performed on the Group Perceptions, Group Relations, and British Perceptions scales in turn to extract factorbased scales. An acceptable factor solution was determined by the Scree test and by counting the number of items in the ±0.1 hyperplane for different rotations of the factor pattern matrix so as to obtain a solution that minimized cross-loading items (Cattell, 1978). Oblique factor score weights were applied to all of the items in each respective questionnaire to produce factor-based scales. The Group Self-Categorization scale accounted for 51% of the variance in the group perceptions questionnaire. Top-loading items were as follows: “I feel a connection with this group” (.96), “I see myself as a member of this group” (.93), and “At this moment I can identify with this kind of group” (.77). This scale corresponds to the cognitive component of social identification; that is, awareness of group membership (Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999; for a review of measures, see Haslam, in press). The British Self-Categorization scale accounted for 37% of the British perceptions questionnaire. Top-loading items were as follows: “I feel a connection with British

people” (.83), “I see myself as British” (.78), and “During the discussions I felt British” (.72). Three factor scales accounted for 52% of the group relations questionnaire. These were Group Attraction (30%) (e.g., “I enjoyed working with this group” [.95], “I like this group” [.83]), Evaluation Concern (14%) (e.g., “During the discussions I thought about whether the group liked me as a person” [.96], “During the discussions I thought about whether the group liked having me as a group member” [.92]), and Task/Impersonal Focus (8%) (e.g., “During the discussions we all focused on the task in hand” [.92], “During the discussions we were all interested to get to know each other” [–.50]). Stereotyping of others in terms of the local group was measured by calculating the mean of the four items of the individual perceptions questionnaire, averaged across A1 and A2 (α = .93). The items forming this scale were as follows: “Person A1 (A2) has the right spirit for this group,” “Person A1 (A2) makes a good group member,” “Person A1 (A2) is an ideal member of this group,” and “Person A1 (A2) has what it takes to be a member of this group.” RESULTS

Data from five groups were eliminated from the analysis because of equipment or network failures or because participants self-reported non-British nationality, leaving 25 groups in the visible condition and 26 groups in the nonvisible condition. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 25 years (Mdn = 20 years). The data were analyzed by linear structural equation modeling using LISREL 8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). Sample size constrained the number of model parameters that could be reliably estimated; therefore, analyses focused on estimation of structural models using the computed scales described above as indicators. The input correlation matrix is presented in Table 1.

532


Figure 1 The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) on group attraction mediated by depersonalization of self and others. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Model assessment was based on the χ2 measure of overall goodness of fit (GFI) (for which a probability of p = 1.0 indicates a perfect fit between hypothesized model and data and a probability smaller than α = .05 indicates a significant deviation of the model from the data). Models yielding a χ2 value that was not significantly greater than the value for the null model also were rejected. Selection between competing models yielding reasonable fit values and parameter estimates was conducted by comparing values of χ2 using α = .05. SIDE Group-Level Effects The SIDE hypotheses were tested by estimating the predicted paths among six variables: visual anonymity, confederates’ assumed nationality, British self-categorization, self-categorization in terms of the local group, stereotyping of others in terms of the local group, and attraction to the group. A direct effect of visual anonymity on group attraction was first estimated. Anonymity significantly increased attraction to the group, as predicted, and accounted for 28% of the variance in group attraction (γ = .53, p < .01); however, the model did not fit the data, χ2(4) = 12.43, p = .01. The SIDE model of group-level effects was then estimated. This model, which is shown in Figure 1, provided a satisfactory fit with the data, χ2(8) = 2.04, p = .98 (GFI = .99), which was significantly better than the null model, χ2diff(7) = 74.79, p < .001. Visual anonymity significantly increased self-categorization (γ = .27, p < .01), which in turn significantly increased group attraction (β = .35, p < .01). In addition, self-categorization significantly increased stereotyping of others (β = .46, p < .001), which also significantly increased group attraction (β = .25, p < .05). Additional tests of mediation were carried out as follows. The direct effect of visual anonymity on stereotyp-

ing of others was zero when included in the model (γ = –.03, ns), indicating that self-categorization mediated an effect of visual anonymity on stereotyping of other group members. The model therefore assumes that an increase in group attraction caused by stereotyping others in terms of the group is dependent on an antecedent perception that the self is included in the group. The results support both predicted routes by which visual anonymity increases attraction within groups; namely, by increasing self-categorization with the group and by increasing the stereotyping of others in a self-included group. Finally, the previously estimated direct effect of visual anonymity on group attraction (.53) was reduced to near zero when included in the model (γ = –.02, ns), indicating that the social identity routes to attraction adequately modeled the anonymity effect. SIDE Category-Level Effects The category-level effects of visual anonymity on group attraction were next estimated independently of the group-level effects. Preliminary analysis revealed a significant skew on the British Self-Categorization scale (z = –3.32, p < .01), reflecting that most participants perceived themselves as British to some degree. However, there was no evidence from the distribution of a ceiling effect. Visual anonymity had no significant effect on British self-categorization (γ = –.69, ns), which, in turn, had no significant effect on group attraction (β = –.46, ns). The simple direct effect of visual anonymity on group attraction was significant when included in the model (γ = .52, p < .01), indicating that its effect was not mediated through British self-categorization. In addition, this model provided a poor fit with the data, χ2(6) = 18.92, p = .004. The model provided no support for a categorylevel effect of visual anonymity on local group attraction mediated through British self-categorization.

Lea et al. / ANONYMITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES

Figure 2 *p < .05.

533

Alternative model of visual anonymity effects mediated by evaluation concern and impersonal task focus.

Group-level and category-level effects of visual anonymity were then simultaneously estimated in a combinedeffects model to evaluate the relative contribution of local group self-categorization and British self-categorization on group attraction. This model provided a good fit with the data, χ2(7) = 1.67, p = .98. It confirmed the significant effect of self-categorization with the local group on attraction (β = .36, p < .01) and the absence of a corresponding category-level effect (β = –.04, ns). The inclusion of category-level effects in the model increased by only 1% the proportion of variance in group attraction accounted for by the group-level effects model. The effects of an interaction between visual anonymity and the manipulation of nationality of others were next estimated. This model tested whether visual anonymity in a group comprising members of a different nationality might lead to greater enhancement of British self-categorization (or self-categorization in terms of the local group). The Anonymity × Nationality interaction had no significant effects on British self-categorization (γ = .20, ns) or on local group self-categorization (γ = .06, ns), and the overall fit of the model was very poor, χ2(8) = 21.68, p < .01. These results again suggest that the salient category (perceived nationality) of participants was not responsible for the group attraction effects. Evaluation Concern and Task Focus Alternative predictions that anonymity effects on group attraction are mediated by evaluation concern and task focus were next tested in a model in which the paths between the four essential variables were estimated: visual anonymity, task focus, evaluation concern, and group attraction. This model provided a satisfactory general fit with the data, χ2(2) = .61, p = .74 (GFI = 1.00), although not significantly better than the null model, χ2diff(4) = 9.0, p > .05. Examination of the path coeffi-

cients revealed no support for the prediction that task focus and evaluation concern mediate anonymity effects on group attraction (see Figure 2). Visual anonymity had the effect of increasing evaluation concern (γ = .48, p < .05), but evaluation concern had no effect on attraction to the group (β = –.08, ns). Visual anonymity significantly increased task/impersonal focus (γ = .38, p < .05); however, task/impersonal focus had no effect on attraction to the group (β = .02, ns). The proportion of variance in group attraction accounted for by this model was essentially zero (R 2 = .01). Together, these results indicate that although visual anonymity did have specific effects on evaluation concern and task focus, increasing both, neither of these variables mediated the effect of visual anonymity on group attraction, contrary to predictions derived from interdependence approaches. Next, the above model was tested against models exploring task focus and evaluation concern in relation to SIDE self-categorization effects. We first tested whether self-categorization mediated the effects of visual anonymity on task focus and evaluation concern. Self-categorization had no significant effects on task focus and evaluation concern (β = –.12, ns, and β = –.29, ns, respectively), χ2(2) = .96, p = .62, and the direct effects of visual anonymity on task focus and evaluation concern remained significant (γ = .46, p < .01, and γ = .55, p < .05, respectively). We then tested the converse: whether task focus and evaluation concern mediated the effect of visual anonymity on self-categorization. Task focus and evaluation concern did not mediate any of the effects of visual anonymity on self-categorization (β = –.10, ns, and β = –.26, ns, respectively), χ2(4) = 1.45, p = .84. We also tested whether task focus and evaluation concern mediated any of the effects of self-categorization on group attraction. However, the effects of self-categorization on group attraction mediated by task focus and evaluation

534


concern were essentially zero (β = –.01, ns, and β = .03, ns, respectively), χ2(4) = 9.48, p = .05. These various null results suggest that both task focus and evaluation concern were redundant additions to the SIDE model of visual anonymity effects on group attraction. DISCUSSION

This study investigated how visual anonymity affects attraction to the group by testing the causal paths for several variables that are considered to be responsible for anonymity effects. The results have implications for theories of deindividuation, group cohesiveness, and social identity. The initial finding that visual anonymity increased attraction to the group is contrary to classic deindividuation theory, which, in general, predicts more negative relations (e.g., hostile and aggressive behavior) to be directed toward others as a result of visual anonymity (e.g., Festinger et al., 1952; Kiesler et al., 1984; Kiesler & Sproull, 1992; Singer et el., 1965; Zimbardo, 1969). It supports other studies that have shown that anonymity can promote positive, not just negative, social relations (Gergen et al., 1973; Johnson & Downing, 1979; Lea & Spears, 1992, Study 2; Walther, 1995). This finding also is contrary to the traditional interdependence formulation of group cohesiveness and the role of visibility therein. According to the interdependence argument, group attraction results from maximizing interpersonal bonds (Cartwright, 1968; Mudrack, 1989), and visual anonymity reduces the perception of personal cues on which the development of interpersonal bonds is dependent (Jessup et al., 1990; Kiesler et al., 1984; Kiesler & Sproull, 1992; Walther, 1992). The results are, however, consistent with the SIDE model of anonymity effects, which predicts that group attraction is the product of depersonalized perceptions of self and others that are enhanced by visual anonymity within the group (Hogg, 1993; Lea & Spears, 1995; Turner, 1982; Turner et al., 1987). Most formulations of deindividuation theory define the subjective state in terms of reduced self-awareness or loss of self (Diener, 1980; Festinger et al., 1952; PrenticeDunn & Rogers, 1989; Zimbardo, 1969). In this study, visual anonymity was found to increase self-categorization in line with the social identity formulation of deindividuation as involving a shift of self-focus from personal to group-based aspects of the self (rather than a reduction in self-awareness). Furthermore, self-categorization increased the tendency to perceive others in terms of their similarity to the prototypical group member. Thus, rather than a reduction of attention to others, self-categorization induced a shift in attention to others in terms of their similarity to the prototypical group member. It is these social identity–based depersonalization processes

that SIDE considers comprise deindividuation (Reicher et al., 1995; Spears & Lea, 1992, 1994). These results also support the conceptualization of group attraction as a depersonalized-attraction process involving perceptions of others in terms of their prototypicality as members of a self-included group (Hogg, 1993; Turner, 1982; Turner et al., 1987). Previous research into group attraction has found that high group salience increased group identification and reduced variability in person perception ratings of other group members, consistent with more depersonalized perceptions (Kelly, 1989). Research also has shown that group identification increased prototypical perceptions and attraction toward group members (e.g., Hogg & Hains, 1996; Hogg, Hardie, & Reynolds, 1995). Essentially the same social identity processes that affected the perceptions and behavior of members of face-to-face groups were found to be operating within the computermediated groups here. Moreover, visual anonymity increased these effects. However, the present study helps to clarify prior results. Group identification involves both cognitive (self-categorization) and affective components (e.g., attraction of group membership) (Ellemers, 1999). Many group identification scales include a direct measure of group attraction (e.g., Hogg & Hains, 1996; Reicher, Levine, & Gordijn, 1998). By focusing on selfcategorization, the present study isolates the cognitive component of identification and demonstrates its central role in producing a positive affective response to the group. Turning now to the mediation analyses of task focus and evaluation concern, visual anonymity was found to increase impersonal task focus within the group, supporting various studies of anonymous CMC (Kiesler et al., 1984; Kiesler & Sproull, 1992; Walther, 1992). However, task focus had no significant effect on group attraction. This is contrary to classic deindividuation theory, which predicts that because task focus directs attention away from the self it should increase hostility toward others (e.g., Diener, 1979). This result also is contrary to the interdependence formulation of group cohesiveness, which would predict that task focus should reduce the capacity to develop the interpersonal bonds on which group attraction is deemed to be dependent. Alternatively, task focus should increase attraction to the group because it reflects mutual interdependence toward a group goal (Cartwright, 1968; Jessup et al., 1990; Kiesler et al., 1984; Kiesler & Sproull, 1992; Lott & Lott, 1965; Mudrack, 1989; Walther, 1992). Impersonal task focus did not mediate the effect of visual anonymity on self-categorization. If increased task focus as a consequence of anonymity implies a reduction in focus on the self, consistent with traditional deindividuation theory (Diener, 1979; Prentice-Dunn & Rog-

Lea et al. / ANONYMITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES ers, 1982, 1989), the analyses revealed no significant relation between this effect and the process of self-categorization with the group. This suggests that reduced self-awareness induced by anonymity has few implications for whether the self is viewed in personal or group terms and corroborates the interpretation of self-categorization as a switch in the kind of self-awareness rather than a loss of self-awareness. Self-categorization did not mediate the effect of visual anonymity on task focus. This result suggests that task focus did not form a significant part of the group definition in this particular case. In addition, task focus did not mediate the effect of self-categorization on group attraction. If task focus was a group norm, then selfcategorization with the group should have increased its perception, and normative task focus should have been attractive. Both of these results are contrary to predictions that task focus may be a generic norm for short-term groups (Walther, 1997). Visual anonymity was found to increase evaluation concern, but evaluation concern had no effect on group attraction. This pattern of results is contrary to formulations of deindividuation theory and social facilitation theory. These predict that anonymity should reduce public self-awareness or concern over how one is being evaluated by others, leading to more negative behavior (Festinger et al., 1952; Kiesler et al., 1985; Kiesler & Sproull, 1992; Martens & Lander, 1972; Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1989). Instead, it seems that some aspect of anonymity—not being seen by others or not being able to see others’ nonverbal responses—increases evaluation concern. However, there was no relation between evaluation concern, self-categorization, and group attraction. Evaluation concern did not mediate the relationship between visual anonymity and self-categorization. That is, it does not appear that participants saw themselves more in terms of the group when anonymous because they were more concerned over how they were being evaluated by others. Similarly, self-categorization did not increase evaluation concern (because they were concerned, as group members, with how the group evaluated them), and it did not decrease evaluation concern (because of the reassurance provided by a sense of belonging to the group). Finally, evaluation concern did not mediate the effects of self-categorization on group attraction. In sum, visual anonymity had a significant effect on evaluation concern that deserves further research (e.g., by decomposing visual anonymity so as to distinguish between anonymity of self to others and anonymity of others to self). However, evaluation concern and public self-awareness do not appear to have any implications for anonymity effects on social identity processes and group attraction.

535

In the intragroup context studied here, visual anonymity effects are argued to be primarily due to the reduction of interpersonal information and the consequent relative salience of social group information, leading to depersonalized perceptions of self and others in terms of the group. An additional effect of depersonalization may be to increase perceptions of group homogeneity that could in turn increase the salience of the group. Such an effect is likely to be stronger in intergroup contexts, however, where the group is defined more directly in contrast to a specific outgroup. Intergroup situations place further qualifications on anonymity effects because strategic considerations may come into play (Reicher et al., 1995; Spears & Lea, 1994). For example, increasing the visibility of ingroup members may increase their ability to support one another when faced with sanctions from a powerful outgroup. Under these conditions, visibility may have a strategic effect on group attraction (and the expression of group norms) that is antagonistic to the cognitive effect described here (e.g., Reicher et al., 1998). Further research is required to delineate these two processes and their countereffects. The present study manipulated full visual anonymity within the group in accordance with much of the previous deindividuation literature to trace its processes and effects. However, rather than treating anonymity as a monolith, more complete understanding of its effects may emerge from the decomposition of anonymity into its different aspects. Anonymity of the self to others can be distinguished both conceptually and operationally from the anonymity of others to the self within the group. Although deindividuation studies focus primarily on visual anonymity, there is a danger in assuming that it is representative of all forms of anonymity. Other forms of anonymity, such as nominal anonymity (lacking a name or personal identifier), biographical anonymity (lacking details of self), or domiciliary anonymity (lacking a traceable address), may have different or additional consequences, such as reducing feelings of accountability. Future research needs to consider the effects of the full range of anonymity forms and their functions in different intragroup and intergroup contexts and to examine how different forms and aspects of anonymity function in combination with one another. To summarize, the results of the present study appear contrary to many aspects of deindividuation theory and also to the interdependence formulation of group cohesiveness but support the social identity formulation of both deindividuation and group attraction. The results indicate that anonymity effects on group attraction are mediated by self-categorization and stereotyping of others in terms of the local group. These shifts in the type of self- and other perceptions and their effects on attraction are independent of gains or losses in private or pub-

536


lic self-awareness. The results also help to clarify the relation between local group identifications and those arising from membership in social categories such as nationality. In previous studies of the SIDE model, it was unclear whether anonymity effects resulted from self-categorization at the local group or wider social category level (e.g., Lea & Spears, 1991; Postmes et al., 1998). The present study found that anonymity increased local group self-categorization but not self-categorization in terms of the preexisting social category that was made salient. These results suggest that the effect of visual anonymity on perceptions and behavior operates primarily at the level of the local group by facilitating construction of relatively transient identifications rather than by reinforcing preexisting identifications at the level of wider social categories. This pattern also accords with the conclusion drawn from meta-analyses of deindividuation studies where anonymity increases conformity to situationspecific group norms rather than general social norms (Postmes & Spears, 1998). REFERENCES 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. Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (pp. 91-109). London: Tavistock. Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum. 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. Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1160-1171. 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. 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. Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382-389. Gergen, K. J., Gergen, M. M., & Barton, W. H. (1973). Deviance in the dark. Psychology Today, 7, 129-130. Haslam, S. A. (in press). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage. 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. Hogg, M. A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some new directions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 85-111. 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. 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.

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. 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. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8. Chicago: Scientific Software Inc. Kelly, C. (1989). Political identity and perceived intragroup homogeneity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 61, 319-332. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134. Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96-123. 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. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 283-301. Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321-342. 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. Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309. Martens, R., & Lander, D. M. (1972). Evaluation potential as a determinant of coaction effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 347-359. Matheson, K., & Zanna, M. P. (1988). The impact of computer-mediated communication on self-awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 4(3), 221-233. Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Defining group cohesiveness: A legacy of confusion. Small Group Behavior, 20, 37-49. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and anti-normative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238-259. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689-715. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187. 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. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the “social” in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.),

Lea et al. / ANONYMITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 30-65). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459. 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. 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. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 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. 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. 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.

537

Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90. Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time. Organizational Science, 6, 186-203. Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 24, 186-203. Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88. 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. Received January 13, 1999 Revision accepted May 4, 2000