Anonymity, an important feature of computer-mediated communication
(CMC), is embedded in this new technology. With the penetration of the Internet
in society, many daily activities involve online interactions. Anonymity
affects both the task and social aspects of online communication including
information exchange, decision making, and relationship development. This
review examines the effects of anonymity on human behavior. It outlines how
the prior literature has attempted to address this issue and how the Social
Identity Deindividuation (SIDE) model has developed as an attempt to tackle
this question. More importantly, it discusses a framework describing the multidimensions
of anonymity in CMC [1], and subsequently raised five propositions
inspired by this framework. Furthermore, using McLeod’s framework,
this review evaluates SIDE studies with regard to their anonymity manipulations.
This critique reveals possible future research directions for refining the
SIDE model and better studying the effect of anonymity in virtual environment.
References
[1]
McLeod, P.L. (1997) A Comprehensive Model of Anonymity in Computer-Sup- ported group Decision Making. The 18th International Conference on Information Systems, Atlanta.
[2]
Reicher, S.D., Spears, R. and Postmes, T. (1995) A Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161-198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779443000049
[3]
Le Bon, G. (1895) The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Transaction, London.
[4]
Reicher, S.D. (2000) Social Identity Definition and Enactment: A Broad SIDE against Irrationalism and Relativism. In: Postmes, T., Lea, M., Spears, R. and Reicher, S., Eds., SIDE Issues Centre Stage: Recent Developments in Studies of De-Indivi- duation in Groups, KNAW, Amsterdam, 175-190.
[5]
Festinger, L., Pepitone, A. and Newcomb, T. (1952) Some Consequences of De-Individuation in a Group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382- 389. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057906
[6]
Zimbardo, P.G. (1969) The Human Choice: Individuation Reason and Order versus Deindividuation Impulse and Chaos. In: Arnold, W.J. and Devine, D., Eds., Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 17, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 237-307.
[7]
Diener, E. (1980) Deindividuation: The Absence of Self-Awareness and Self-Regu- lation in Group Members. In: Paulus, P.B., Ed., Psychology of Group Influence, L. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 209-242.
[8]
Prentice-Dunn, S. and Rogers, R.W. (1982) Deindividuation and the Self-Regulation of Behavior. In: Paulus, P.B., Ed., The Psychology of Group Influence, 2nd Edition, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 86-109.
[9]
Reicher, S.D. (1984) Social Influence in the Crowd: Attitudinal and Behavioural Effects of Deindivudation in Conditions of High and Low Group Salience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 341-350.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1984.tb00650.x
[10]
Lea, M., O’Shea, T., Fung, P. and Spears, R. (1992) Flaming in Computer-Mediated Communication: Observations, Explanations, Implications. In: Lea, M., Ed., Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication, Harvester-Wheatsheaf, London, 89- 112.
[11]
Tajfel, H. (1978) Differentiation between Social Groups. Wiley, New York.
[12]
Turner, J.C. (1982) Towards a Cognitive Redefinition of the Social Group. In: Tajfel, H., Ed., Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[13]
Diener, E., Dineen, J. and Westford, K. (1974) Correlates of Deindividuation in College Campus Crowds. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Washington.
[14]
Johnson, R.D. and Downing, L.L. (1979) Deindividuation and the Valence of Cues: Effects on Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1532-1538. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.9.1532
[15]
Lea, M. and Spears, R. (1991) Computer-Mediated Communication, Deindividuation and Group Decision-Making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(91)90045-9
[16]
Spears, R. and Lea, M. (1994) Panacea or Panopticon? The Hidden Power of Computer-Mediated Communication. Communication Research, 21, 327-459.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365094021004001
[17]
Waldzus, S. and Schubert, T. (2000) Group Norm and Category Norm in Anonymous Situations: Two Sources of Social Influence. In: Postmes, T., Lea, M., Spears, R. and Reicher, S., Eds., SIDE Issues Centre Stage: Recent Developments in Studies of De-Individuation in Groups, KNAW, Amsterdam, 31-45.
[18]
Spears, R., Lea, M. and Lee, S. (1990) De-Individuation and Group Polarization in Computer-Mediated Communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00893.x
[19]
Lea, M., Spears, R., Watt, S.E. and Rogers, P. (2000) The InSIDE Story: Social Psychological Processes Affecting On-Line Groups. In: Postmes, T., Lea, M., Spears, R. and Reicher, S., Eds., SIDE Issues Centre Stage: Recent Developments in Studies of De-Individuation in Groups, KNAW, Amsterdam, 47-62.
[20]
Postmes, T., Lea, M., Spears, R., Croft, R., van Dijk, L. and van der Pligt, J. (1995) Bi-Polarization in Intergroup Negotiations: The Influence of Social Norms on Attitudes. In: de Veries, N.K., de Dreu, C.K.W., Ellemers, N. and Vonk, R., Eds., Fundamental Social Psychology, Tilburg University Press, Tilburg, Vol. 9, 1-24.
[21]
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K. and De Groot, D. (2001) Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Groups: The Effects of Anonymity on Social Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1243-1254.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012710001
[22]
Reicher, S.D. (1982) The Determination of Collective Behaviour. In: Tajfel, H., Ed., Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 41-83.
[23]
Reicher, S.D. (1987) Crowd Behaviour as Social Action. In: Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S., Eds., Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, Blackwell, Oxford, 171-202.
[24]
Reicher, S.D. and Levine, M. (1994) De-Individuation, Power Relations between Groups and the Expression of Social Identity: The Effects of Visibility to the Out-Group. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 145-163.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01015.x
[25]
Reicher, S.D. and Levine, M. (1994) On the Consequences of Deindividuations for the Strategic Communication of Self: Identifiability and the Presentation of Social Identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 511-542.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420240408
[26]
Sassenberg, K. (2000) The Two Faces of Anonymity: Effects on Groups Decision Making. In: Postmes, T., Lea, M., Spears, R. and Reicher, S., Eds., SIDE Issues Centre Stage: Recent Developments in Studies of De-Individuation in Groups, KNAW, Amsterdam, 93-106.
[27]
Lea, M., Spears, R. and De Groot, D. (2001) Knowing Me, Knowing You: Effects of Visual Anonymity on Self-Categorization, Stereotyping and Attraction in Computer-Mediated Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 526-537.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201275002
[28]
Douglas, K. and McGarty, C. (2000) Another SIDE of CMC: Identitifiability and Strategic Behaviour. In: Postmes, T., Lea, M., Spears, R. and Reicher, S., Eds., SIDE Issues Centre Stage: Recent Developments in Studies of De-Individuation in Groups, KNAW, Amsterdam, 107-115.
[29]
Dennis, A.R. (1996) Information Exchange and Use in Small Group Decision Making. Small Group Research, 27, 532-550. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496496274003
[30]
Weisband, S.P. (1994) Overcoming Social Awareness in Computer-Supported Groups: Does Anonymity Really Help? Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2, 285-297. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00805695
[31]
Hollingshead, A.B. and McGrath, J.E. (1995) Computer-Assisted Groups: A Critical Review of the Empirical Research. In: Guzzon, R.A. and Salas, E., Eds., Team Decisions and Team Performance in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 46-78.
[32]
Valacich, J.S., Jessup, L.M., Dennis, A.R. and Nunamaker, J.F. (1992) A Conceptual Framework of Anonymity in Group Support Systems. Group Decision and Negotiation, 1, 219-241. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00126264
[33]
Haynes, S.C., Rice, R. and Licker, P.S. (1992) Social Cues and Anonymous Group Interaction Using Group Support Systems. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos.
[34]
Barreto, M. and Ellemers, N. (2000) You Can’t Always Get What You Want: Social Identity and Self-Presentational Determinants of the Choice to Work for a Low Status Group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 891-906.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002610001
[35]
Batson, C.D., Ahmad, N., Yin, J., Bedell, S.J., Johnson, J.W., Templin, C.M. and Whiteside, A. (1999) Two Threats to the Common Good: Self-Interested Egoism and Empathy-Induced Altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025001001
[36]
Noel, J.G., Wann, D.L. and Branscombe, N.R. (1995) Peripheral Ingroup Membership Status and Public Negativity toward Outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 127-137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.127
[37]
Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. and Turner, J.C. (1990) Knowing What to Think by Knowing Who You Are: Self-Categorization and the Nature of Norm Formation, Conformity and Group Polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 97-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00892.x
[38]
Lee, E.J. (2004) Effects of Visual Representation on Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication. Human Communication Research, 30, 234-259.
[39]
Lee, E.J. (2005) Effects of the Influence Agent’s Sex and Self-Confidence on Informational Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication: Quantitative versus Verbal Presentation. Communication Research, 32, 29-58.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650204271398
[40]
Walther, J.B. (1993) Impression Development in Computer-Mediated Interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 381-398.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319309374463
[41]
Walther, J.B. (1994) Anticipated Ongoing Interaction versus Channel Effects on Relational Communication in Computer-Mediated Interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 473-501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00332.x
[42]
Kielser, S., Siegel, J. and McGuire, T.W. (1984) Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123
[43]
Kiesler, S. and Sproull, L. (1992) Group Decision Making and Communication Technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96-123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(92)90047-B
[44]
Postmes, T. and Spears, R. (1998) Deindividuation and Anti-Normative Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238-259.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.3.238
[45]
Postmes, T. and Spears, R. (2000) Refining the Cognitive Redefinition of the Group: Deindividuation Effects in Common Bond vs. Common Identity Groups. In: Postmes, T., Lea, M., Spears, R. and Reicher, S., Eds., SIDE Issues Centre Stage: Recent Developments in Studies of De-Individuation in Groups, KNAW, Amsterdam, 63-77.
