“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:

• No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostileinitially

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

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

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.

Results on interpersonal affection & attraction:

Long-term

No photo With photo

Short-term

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?