side
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
side [2015/05/18 10:23] – hkimscil | side [2017/06/01 08:53] (current) – hkimscil | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
* Self-categorization Theory | * Self-categorization Theory | ||
- | ? 자아인식 (자아) | + | Three Perspectives on Relating Online |
- | ? 개인적 정체성 | + | ^ Perspective |
- | ? 사회적 정체성 | + | | Impersonal |
+ | | Interpersonal | ||
+ | | Hyperpersonal | ||
- | | + | |
- | + | * <wrap box> | |
- | ? 탈개인화 | + | * <wrap box> |
- | : 즉, 개인적 정체성 단서보다 사회적 정체성 단서를 이용하여 개인을 보고, 판단하게 됨. | + | * <wrap box>Over the last decade, Postumes et al. have conducted a series of experiments with group interaction to establish the power of the SIDE model to predict human behavior.These studies have suggested two important qualities to this processes. First, **visual anonymity** among participants in a group seems to __foster stronger SIDE__ effects toward conformity and group norms than in groups where participants saw one another face to face. Second, anonymity also seems to __encourage stronger self-categorization__ among users. In one experiment where the participants were made aware of one another' |
+ | * <wrap box>In summary, the SIDE model predicts that people will __set aside personal identity and adopt the appropriate social identity in order to find acceptance among others__. We can observe this same subversion of the personal self in favor of social self on a typical | ||
+ | playground. </ | ||
+ | * <wrap box> | ||
+ | * <wrap box> | ||
====== Readings ====== | ====== Readings ====== | ||
Line 16: | Line 22: | ||
* Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lee, A. T., & Novak, R. J. (2005). Individuality and Social Influence in Groups: Inductive and Deductive Routes to Group Identity. __Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89__(5), 747-763. doi: 10.1037/ | * Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lee, A. T., & Novak, R. J. (2005). Individuality and Social Influence in Groups: Inductive and Deductive Routes to Group Identity. __Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89__(5), 747-763. doi: 10.1037/ | ||
+ | ====== Walther' | ||
+ | <WRAP col3> | ||
+ | The social identity model of deindividuation effects, or SIDE model, has had an interesting evolution in the literature. Although its developers have argued that it is decidedly not about interpersonal communication, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The SIDE model is included here as a cuesfiltered-out theory because it, like others, considers the absence of nonverbal cues in CMC as an impersonalizing deterrent to the expression and detection of individuality and the development of interpersonal relations online. The SIDE model differs from other cues-filtered-out approaches, however, in that rather than leave users with no basis for impressions or relations at all, it predicts that CMC shifts users toward a different form of social relations based on social self-categorization. The SIDE model (Lea & Spears, 1992; Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995) specifies two factors that drive online behavior. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The first factor is the visual anonymity that occurs when CMC users send messages to one another through text (in real-time chat or in asynchronous conferencing and e-mail). When communicators cannot see each other, the model puts forth, communicators do not attune themselves to one another on the basis of their interindividual differences. Drawing on principles of social identification and self-categorization theories (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), the model originally argued that visual anonymity led to deindividuation, | ||
+ | |||
+ | When in such a state of deindividuation, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The model also specified, theoretically, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Attraction to a group to which one belongs, in contrast, should be systematically positive. This difference in the form of attraction marks a key distinction between a group-based and an interpersonally based approach to the social dynamics of CMC (Lea, Spears, & de Groot, 2001; for a review, see Walther & Carr, 2010). | ||
+ | |||
+ | The most basic research strategy that provided evidence for SIDE involved experiments manipulating the two factors, visual anonymity and type of identification. In a prototypical experiment, one half of the small groups of CMC users in an experiment would communicate with one another using a text-based chat system only, whereas the other half would use the chat system and be shown photos that were supposed to represent the members. The former condition provides visual anonymity, presumably instigating deindividuation, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The second factor, group identification, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The SIDE model’s advocates originally argued that the nature of group memberships with which CMC users identified comprised fairly general social categories (e.g., English vs. Dutch nationalities, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Although the SIDE model is distinctively not about an interpersonal basis for online relations, it has been argued to offer an explanatory framework for what others consider to be interpersonal phenomena. Lea and Spears (1995) argued that SIDE can explain the development of romantic relationships online. Rejecting notions that intimate attraction is necessarily and exclusively premised on physical appearance or the exchange of nonverbal cues (a rejection with which several other CMC theories in this chapter, described below, concur), they argued that intimacy may result from the perceptions of similarity that arise from a couple’s shared membership in a variety of social categories (see also Sanders, 1997). From this perceptive, although partners who communicate romantically online may believe that they love each other interpersonally, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Despite these pronouncements about its overarching superiority as an organizing model for the entire field, the SIDE model seems now to be taking a more appropriately limited place in CMC research. This change appears to be due to uncertainties about the components of the model itself, empirical “competitions” in which social and interpersonal components both appear, and new media forms that alternately extend or restrict the scope of SIDE’s domain. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The deindividuation aspect of the model itself has been redefined (see E.-J. Lee, 2004). Although visual anonymity is still a key predictor of SIDE’s effects, empirical studies have led to questions about the deindividuation that anonymity was said to produce, in terms of its actual potency and its theoretical necessity in the model. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Research has found that in some cases SIDE-like responses to an anonymous online crowd are greater when a CMC user is more, rather than less, self-aware (Douglas & McGarty, 2001). This and other studies have led SIDE theorists to argue that it is not deindividuation but rather depersonalization? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Responding in part to SIDE advocates’ claims that their model could explain seemingly interpersonal effects, researchers made efforts to demonstrate more carefully whether group or interpersonal factors were operating in their CMC studies. Greater attention has been paid to whether the operationalizations and measurements involved in research can discern group-based constructs from interpersonally based constructs (Wang, 2007). Moreover, experiments have directly compared SIDE-based versus interpersonallybased factors in the same study for their effects on the responses of CMC groups. Rogers and Lea (2004), for example, studied a number of virtual groups composed of students in England and the Netherlands who worked over an extended period of time via asynchronous conferencing and real-time chat. Steps were employed to maximize the salience of each virtual group’s unique identity (i.e., researchers addressed groups by their collective name only, rather than individually by member). Repeated measures indicated that group attraction did not maintain evenly or increase over time. To the contrary, interpersonal affiliation among members reflected marginal increases over the duration of the groups’ experience. More recently, Wang, Walther, and Hancock’s (2009) experiment with visually anonymous online groups involved a SIDE-based assignment of four members to two distinct subgroups. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The researchers further prompted one member of each four-person group to enact interpersonally friendly (or unfriendly) behaviors toward the rest of the members. In general, other members evaluated the deviants in each group on the basis of the individuals’ interpersonal behaviors and not on the basis of those individuals’ ingroup or out-group status with respect to other subgroup members. These results suggest that SIDE is less robust than previously suggested when CMC users confront bona fide behavioral differences among members while remaining visually anonymous. A recent essay offers a more tempered view of when SIDE and other intergroup dynamics are likely to arise in CMC and when they give way to interpersonal dynamics (Walther & Carr, 2010). | ||
+ | |||
+ | Recent revisions to the SIDE model have also retracted its previous assertions that visually anonymous CMC users cannot, theoretically, | ||
+ | |||
+ | These formulations represent a major departure from SIDE’s previous assumptions. They also leave unaddressed the mechanisms by which interacting individuals online become sufficiently attracted to one another to provide the interpersonal motivation, attraction, and reward that may be required to facilitate the durations of interaction required for individuals to develop an emergent group identity. | ||
+ | New media forms also raise interesting issues with regard to SIDE’s scope. Many new technologies seem quite amenable to SIDE analysis of their effects on users, while others seem distinctly out of its reach. Communication systems such as social network sites, which confront CMC users with photos of prospective interactants, | ||
+ | </ |
side.1431912233.txt.gz · Last modified: 2015/05/18 10:23 by hkimscil