“Virtual Groups” 1995: Northwestern (IL/USA) / Manchester (UK) 1999: Rensselaer (NY) / Kansas...
-
Upload
samson-davis -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
5
Transcript of “Virtual Groups” 1995: Northwestern (IL/USA) / Manchester (UK) 1999: Rensselaer (NY) / Kansas...
“Virtual Groups”
• 1995: Northwestern (IL/USA) / Manchester (UK)• 1999: Rensselaer (NY) / Kansas • 2000: Rensselaer / Göttingen• 2003: Cornell (NY) / Rutgers (NJ)• 2005: Cornell, Ohio State, Texas Tech,
Rensselaer, Merrit (Calif)• 2008: Michigan State/Nanyang Technological U
Overview:
• No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostile
“What’s wrong with those Brits?” “What’s wrong with those Americans?”
Overview:
• No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostile
“What’s wrong with those Brits?” “What’s wrong with those Americans?”
“Clueless farmers!” “Gearhead slackers!”
Overview:
• No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostile
• Theory and research: Online relations – Intergroup & Interpersonal – Psychology, Management, Communication
initially
Overview:
• No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostile
• Theory and research: Online relations – Intergroup & Interpersonal – Psychology, Management, Communication
• Synthesis/Agenda
initially
Premise:
• Computer-Mediated Communication attributes facilitate affective bonds within small interacting groups (of heterogenous and potentially hostile members) better than face-to-face interactions
– No visual cues, asynchronous, editable– Malleable identity– Manageable
Sample Studies
• Mollov 2006: Jewish and Palestinian students discuss religion and holidays online: positive
• Ellis & Moaz 2007: Jewish/Palestinian online discussion groups magnify opposing argument styles: negative
Theoretical Approaches
1. Contact hypothesis– Plus facilitators– Applied to Internet: Amachai-Hamburger & McKenna
2. Social identification/deindividuation
3. Configural dispersion
4. Interpersonal dynamics
• Mollov 2006: Jewish and Palestinian students discuss religion and holidays online: positive
• Ellis & Moaz 2007: Jewish/Palestinian online discussion groups magnify opposing argument styles: negative
• Contact is not enough
• What happens online? What can happen?
Social Identification/Deindividuation ModelSpears, Lea, & Postmes
• Visual anonymity in CMC (In)Group identification– Depersonalization– Attraction to group
• Intergroup applications– Location as intergroup dimension– Inconsistent results
• Nature of Attraction: Group, not interpersonal
Social Identification/Deindividuation ModelSpears, Lea, & Postmes
• Visual anonymity in CMC (In)Group identification– Depersonalization– Attraction to group
• Intergroup applications– Location as intergroup dimension– Inconsistent results
• Nature of Attraction: Group, not interpersonal
Social Identification/Deindividuation ModelSpears, Lea, & Postmes
• Visual anonymity in CMC (In)Group identification– Depersonalization– Attraction to group
• Intergroup applications– Location as intergroup dimension– Inconsistent results
• Nature of Attraction: Group, not intergroup or interpersonal
Interpersonal Approaches
• Social Information Processing Theory– Messages: verbal for nonverbal– Information: accumulates over time
Self Disclosure/Personal Questions
• Online (vs. Offline)– Greater proportion of messages– More personal
• Make decision (vs. Get acquainted)– Fewer disclosures– More personal– Same degree of partner familiarity
• A/S/L?• RUMorF?
Self Disclosure/Personal Questions
• Online (vs. Offline)– Greater proportion of messages– More personal
• Make decision (vs. Get acquainted)– Fewer disclosures– More personal– Same degree of partner familiarity
• A/S/L?• RUMorF?
Development of Interpersonal Impressions over Time
• Short-term vs Long-term
• Picture or No Picture
New Teams; no past, no future,
one project
New Teams; no past, no future,
one project
Semester-Long Teams,
final project
Semester-Long Teams,
final project
PhotoPhotoPhotoPhoto
No PhotoNo PhotoNo PhotoNo Photo
4-person international teams with partners in the
U.S. and the U.K.
Development of Interpersonal Impressions Over Time: Time vs Photos
Instructions:
You will be working with these people: Nicole Norris, Lucy Jeong, Francesco Musillo, and Duncan Dodds.
Leave Netscape running in one window. In another, please log in to NecroMOO (sirill.svg.mbs.no:7777) and log in under your name. Then give the command, @go #745. This will take you to a private room where you and your group partners can work on the decision task
Instructions:You will be working with these people:
.
Leave Netscape running in one window. In another, please log in to NecroMOO (sirill.svg.mbs.no:7777) and log in under your name. Then give the command, @go #1248. This will take you to a private room where you and your group partners can work on the decision task.
Incentivization: “The Rules of Virtual Groups”
• Cornell/Rutgers Short-Term (2 wk) Groups– Start immediately– Communicate frequently– Acknowledge messages – Explicit responses– Multitask content plus organizing– Make and keep deadlines
• Confounded design:–1/3 of groups: Part of grade for frequency–1/3 of groups: Part of grade for multi-tasking–1/3 of groups: All of grade for group paper–Everyone encouraged to follow ALL rules!
Started early
Wrote frequently
Acknow-ledged others
Multi-tasked
Stuck to deadlines
Explicit messages
Trust .43 .65 .57 .45 .65 .67
Perfor-mance
.21 .37 .38 .41 .41 .29
Actual grade
.21 .41 .28 NS .32 .49
Rules Outcomesr (86), p < .005
Conclusions
• Extant but fragmented literature• Synthesis to facilitate “dangerous” groups’ effective
contact– Task-focused– Interpersonally-facilitative
• Agenda: More campuses join the Virtual Groups course – one language– no Facebook
• $60million question: Do interpersonal dynamics foster intergroup generalization?
Conclusions
• Extant but fragmented literature• Synthesis to facilitate “dangerous” groups’ effective
contact– Task-focused– Interpersonally-facilitative (time, rules, dispersion, etc.)
• Agenda: More campuses join the Virtual Groups course – one language– no Facebook
• $60million question: Do interpersonal dynamics foster intergroup generalization?