“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
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:
initially
• No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostile
Overview:
initially
• No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostile
• Theory and research: Online relations
– Intergroup & Interpersonal
– Psychology, Management, Communication
Overview:
initially
• No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostile
• Theory and research: Online relations
– Intergroup & Interpersonal
– Psychology, Management, Communication
• Synthesis/Agenda
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 Model
Spears, 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 Model
Spears, 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 Model
Spears, 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
Virtual Teams & “Configural Dispersion”
Polzer et al., Faultlines in Geographically Dispersed Teams
Polzer et al., Faultlines in Geographically Dispersed Teams
Polzer et al., Faultlines in Geographically Dispersed Teams
Polzer et al., Faultlines in Geographically Dispersed Teams
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
Development of Interpersonal Impressions Over Time:
Time vs Photos
Semester-Long
Teams,
final project
New Teams;
no past, no future,
one project
Photo
4-person international
teams with partners in the
U.S. and the U.K.
No Photo
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.
Results on interpersonal affection & attraction:
Long-term
Short-term
No photo
With photo
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!
Rules Outcomes
r (86), p < .005
Started
early
Wrote
frequently
Acknowledged
others
Multitasked
Stuck to
Explicit
deadlines messages
.43
.65
.57
.45
.65
.67
Perfor- .21
mance
.37
.38
.41
.41
.29
Actual .21
grade
.41
.28
NS
.32
.49
Trust
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?