| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| side [2017/06/01 08:39] – [Theory] hkimscil | side [2017/06/01 08:53] (current) – hkimscil |
|---|
| * Self-categorization Theory | * Self-categorization Theory |
| |
| ? 자아인식 (자아) | Three Perspectives on Relating Online |
| : | ^ Perspective ^ Claim ^ Relationships ^ |
| * 개인적 정체성 | | Impersonal | The lack of cues limits \\ the quality of interaction. | Relationships are unlikely to \\ emerge in CMC. | |
| * 사회적 정체성 | | Interpersonal | Learned behaviors can help \\ compensate for the lack of cues | Relationships can emerge \\ in CMC | |
| | | Hyperpersonal | The lack of nonverbal \\ discriminators actually helps \\ some find their voice | For some, the ability to relate \\ is more substantial in CMC | |
| ? 정체성 단서가 부족할 때 __탈개인화__ 현상 | |
| : 즉, 개인적 정체성 단서보다 사회적 정체성 단서를 이용하여 개인을 보고, 판단하게 됨. | |
| |
| * Wood, Andrew F. and Matthew J. Smith. Online Communication: Linking Technology, Identity, and Culture. Second Edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005. Chapter 4, “Relating Online” (78-100) {{:Online Communication Linking Technology Identity and Cult 2005.pdf|PDF}} | * Wood, Andrew F. and Matthew J. Smith. Online Communication: Linking Technology, Identity, and Culture. Second Edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005. Chapter 4, “Relating Online” (78-100) {{:Online Communication Linking Technology Identity and Cult 2005.pdf|PDF}} |
| * <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 | * <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> | playground. </wrap> |
| | * <wrap box>__The other side of the SIDE model__ is, of course, that of **the receivers**. Even as the individual must struggle to figure out the norms of a group, the group must struggle to figure out whether or not the individual has the qualities to be "one of the gang." This results in a reliance on stereotyping in order to define who this other is. One individual actively attributes a great deal of meaning to the evident behaviors of the other during their interactions. Quite often then, __one will turn to **stereotypes** to help decode this behavior.__ Stereotyping is one way in which we try to make sense of the world by focusing on what we might believe to be certain patterns of behavior exhibited by members of a group. Thus, if an individual introduces him- or herself as a hacker, your stereotype of hackers might lead you to conclude that the person is technically proficient with programming and prompt in you a favorable evaluation of the individual.</wrap> |
| | * <wrap box>**Perceived similarity** has long been held to be a strong predictor of individual attraction (Trenholm & Jensen, 2000), and it seems to be a key in explaining the SIDE model's effects in cyberspace. More recently, researchers have found support for the SIDE model in fostering resistance against certain outgroups. For instance, they found that students were more likely to find support among their peers and consequently express opinions deemed unacceptable by faculty when communicating through computer-mediated channels (Spears, Lea, Cornelliussen, Postumes, & Harr, 2002).</wrap> |
| |
| ====== Readings ====== | ====== Readings ====== |
| * 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: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.747 | * 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: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.747 |
| |
| ====== 발췌 ====== | ====== Walther's interpersonal communication in CMC ====== |
| <WRAP col3> | <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, at least in terms of the mechanisms that generate its predictions (e.g., Postmes & Baym, 2005), it has been applied to many settings that appear to be interpersonal in nature. At one point, SIDE was one of the most dominant theories of CMC. Changes to the theory in response to empirical challenges and changes in communication technology?attributes that bear on the theory’s central assumptions?appear to have accompanied a marginal decline in its popularity and scope. In certain contexts, however, it remains a most parsimonious and robust explanatory framework for CMC dynamics. | 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, at least in terms of the mechanisms that generate its predictions (e.g., Postmes & Baym, 2005), it has been applied to many settings that appear to be interpersonal in nature. At one point, SIDE was one of the most dominant theories of CMC. Changes to the theory in response to empirical challenges and changes in communication technology?attributes that bear on the theory’s central assumptions?appear to have accompanied a marginal decline in its popularity and scope. In certain contexts, however, it remains a most parsimonious and robust explanatory framework for CMC dynamics. |
