All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Effects of Representational Similarity on Deindividuation and Conformity to Group Norms in Computer-Mediated Communication
Unformatted Document Text:  20 poorly” – “describes very well”) along three perceptual dimensions: social attractiveness (likable, attractive, pleasant, friendly; α = .81 for Partner 1 and α = .85 for Partner 2), competence (competent, intelligent, reasonable, informed; α = .88 for Partner 1and α = .90 for Partner 2), and trustworthiness (trustworthy, reliable, honest; α = .77 and for Partner 1 and α = .83 for Partner 2). The absolute differences between the ratings for Partner 1 and Partner 2 were calculated along each dimension and summed up to create the individuation index ( α = .72). For the direct measure of similarity between ostensible partners, each participant indicated how well each statement describes their partners on a ten-point Likert scale: Participant 1 shares beliefs with Participant 2, Participant 1 thinks like Participant 2, Participant 1 is similar to Participant 2 ( α = .92). Identification with the group was composed of two individual items: I felt I had a lot in common with the other participants, I found that my values and the values of the other participants are similar ( α = .91). In addition, participants were asked to estimate the level of overall agreement among themselves in percentage, ranging from 0 to 100. Three items used to measure perceived group consensus were: “How often do you think you and Participant 1 agreed”, “How often do you think you and Participant 2 agreed”, “How often do you think Participant 1 and 2 agreed with each other” ( α = .75). Perceived consensus among group members, beyond the actual level of agreement, was expected to positively correlate with self- categorization as a group member, as it reflects the belief that group members are of like minds. The lower the identification with the group, the more likely a person is to perceive the group as more heterogeneous and fragmented (Spears, Doosje, & Ellemers, 1999). Finally, interpersonal similarity items were asked for comparison purpose. Three items used in Experiment 1 (similar to me, shares my beliefs, thinks like me) again comprised the perceived similarity measure with Participant 1 ( α = .94) and with Participant 2 ( α = .93). Results

Authors: Lee, Eun-Ju.
first   previous   Page 20 of 36   next   last



background image
20
poorly” – “describes very well”) along three perceptual dimensions: social attractiveness (likable,
attractive, pleasant, friendly;
α
= .81 for Partner 1 and
α
= .85 for Partner 2), competence
(competent, intelligent, reasonable, informed;
α
= .88 for Partner 1and
α
= .90 for Partner 2), and
trustworthiness (trustworthy, reliable, honest;
α
= .77 and for Partner 1 and
α
= .83 for Partner 2).
The absolute differences between the ratings for Partner 1 and Partner 2 were calculated along
each dimension and summed up to create the individuation index (
α
= .72).
For the direct measure of similarity between ostensible partners, each participant
indicated how well each statement describes their partners on a ten-point Likert scale: Participant
1 shares beliefs with Participant 2, Participant 1 thinks like Participant 2, Participant 1 is similar
to Participant 2 (
α
= .92).
Identification with the group was composed of two individual items: I felt I had a lot in
common with the other participants, I found that my values and the values of the other
participants are similar (
α
= .91). In addition, participants were asked to estimate the level of
overall agreement among themselves in percentage, ranging from 0 to 100. Three items used to
measure perceived group consensus were: “How often do you think you and Participant 1
agreed”, “How often do you think you and Participant 2 agreed”, “How often do you think
Participant 1 and 2 agreed with each other” (
α
= .75). Perceived consensus among group
members, beyond the actual level of agreement, was expected to positively correlate with self-
categorization as a group member, as it reflects the belief that group members are of like minds.
The lower the identification with the group, the more likely a person is to perceive the group as
more heterogeneous and fragmented (Spears, Doosje, & Ellemers, 1999).
Finally, interpersonal similarity items were asked for comparison purpose. Three items
used in Experiment 1 (similar to me, shares my beliefs, thinks like me) again comprised the
perceived similarity measure with Participant 1 (
α
= .94) and with Participant 2 (
α
= .93).
Results


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 20 of 36   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.