Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T17:20:32.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Influences on the Nature and Functioning of Online Groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Katelyn Y. A. McKenna
Edited by
Azy Barak
Katelyn Y. A. McKenna
Affiliation:
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev; Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya
Azy Barak
Affiliation:
University of Haifa, Israel
Get access

Summary

Groups within the electronic realm share many characteristics in common with groups that meet and function in shared physical spaces. Groups in both domains can be quite diverse in terms of the composition and personality characteristics of members, the purpose and goals of the group, and the contextual setting in which the group functions. A variety of factors likely affect and influence the structure and functioning of any given group. Many, if not most, of these factors can potentially influence the group, regardless of the domain (electronic or face-to-face) and produce similar outcomes. There are qualities of electronic communication settings and qualities of physical settings that can uniquely influence the dynamics of a group in those respective settings (see McKenna & Green, 2002; McKenna & Seidman, 2005 for reviews).

This chapter delves into the workings of online groups and examines potentially influential factors for group functioning. The chapter is divided into three sections, which examine (1) the role of the motivations and personality characteristics of individual members within the group, (2) the way in which different categories or kinds of online groups distinctly function (including support groups), and (3) aspects of the internal dynamics of online groups, such as cohesiveness, status and stereotypes, and performance.

Individuals and Groups

Individual motivations of members

Classical motivation theory indicates that all behavior is motivated in some way and that an individual will engage in particular behaviors to further a desired end (e.g., Atkinson & Birch, 1970; Lewin, 1951).

Type
Chapter
Information
Psychological Aspects of Cyberspace
Theory, Research, Applications
 , pp. 228 - 242
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abreu, S. (2000). How to manage telecommuters. Retrieved April 27, 2006, from http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/06/19/telecommuting.idg.
Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1970). The dynamics of action. New York: Wiley.Google ScholarPubMed
Barak, A., & Dolev-Cohen, M. (2006). Does activity level in online support groups for distressed adolescents determine emotional relief? Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 6, 186–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargh, J. A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in social perception and cognition. In Uleman, J. S. & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 3–51). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Barrera, M. Jr., Glasgow, R. E., McKay, H. G., Boles, S. M., & Feil, E. G. (2002). Do Internet-based support interventions change perceptions of social support? An experimental trial of approaches for supporting diabetes self-management. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 637–654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2000). You can't always do 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, T. O., & Adams-Blodnieks, M. (2007). The who and the what of usage of two cancer online communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1249–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, D. P., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2007). Categorizing on-line groups. In Joinson, A., McKenna, K. Y. A., Reips, U., & Postmes, T. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 105–120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In Srull, T. K. & Wyer, R. S. Jr. (Eds.), A dual process model of impression formation. Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cascio, W. E. (2000). Managing virtual workplace. Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 81–90.Google Scholar
Cervin, V. (1956). Individual behavior in social situations: Its relation to anxiety, neuroticism, and group solidarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 161–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cummings, J., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (2002). Beyond hearing: Where real world and Online support meet. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 78–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, K. P., Pennebaker, J. W., & Dickerson, S. S. (2000). Who talks? The social psychology of illness support groups. American Psychologist, 55, 205–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deaux, K. (1996). Social identification. In Higgins, E. T. & Kruglanski, A. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 777–798). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Dennis, A. R. (1996). Information exchange and use in group decision making: You can lead a group to information but you can't make it think. MIS Quarterly, 20, 433–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, A. R., & Kinney, S. T. (1998). Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research, 9, 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, K. M., & McGarty, C. (2001). Identifiability and self-presentation: Computer-mediated communication and intergroup interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 399–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frable, D. E. S. (1993). Being and feeling unique: statistical deviance and psychological marginality. Journal of Personality, 61, 85–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galegher, J., & Kraut, R. E. (1994). Computer-mediated communication for intellectual teamwork: An experiment in group writing. Information Systems Research, 5, 110–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galegher, J., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, K. (1998). Legitimacy, authority, and community in electronic support groups. Written Communication, 15, 493–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1986). Striving for specific identities: The social reality of self-symbolizing. In Baumeister, R. (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 143–159). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness. London: Harvester, Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A., & Reid, R. A. (2001). Social identity, leadership, and power. In Lee-Chai, A. Y. & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.), The use and abuse of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corruption (pp. 159–180). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Joinson, A. N., & Paine, C. B. (2007). Self-disclosure, privacy, and the Internet. In Joinson, A. N., McKenna, K. Y. A., Reips, U., & Postmes, T. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 237–252). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D. T., & Scott, R. A. (1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. A. (1967). Group risk taking as a function of members' anxiety and defensiveness. Journal of Personality, 35, 50–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambert, A. J., Payne, B. K., Shaffer, L. M., Jacoby, L. L., Chasteen, A., & Khan, S. (2003). Stereotypes as dominant responses: On the “social facilitation” of prejudice in anticipated public contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 277–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leary, M. R. (1983). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 66–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McClendon, M. J. (1974). Interracial contact and the reduction of prejudice. Sociological Focus, 7(4), 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity demarginalization through virtual group participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 681–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Causes and consequences of social interaction on the Internet: A conceptual framework. Media Psychology, 1, 249–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implication of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Green, A. S. (2002). Virtual group dynamics. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 6, 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What's the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, K. Y., Green, A. S., & Smith, P. K. (2001). Demarginalizing the sexual self. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 302–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Seidman, G. (2005). You, me, and we: Interpersonal processes in online groups. In Hamburger, Y. A. (Ed.), The social net: The social psychology of the Internet (pp. 191–217). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McKenna, K. Y. A., Seidman, G., Buffardi, A. & Green, A. S. (2007). Ameliorating social anxiety through online interaction. Manuscript under review. Ben-Gurion University.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F. (1971). Racially separate or together?New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & DeGroot, D. (2001). Social influence in computer-mediated communication: The effect of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1243–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prentice, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Lightdale, J. R. (1994). Asymmetrics in attachments to groups and their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sassenberg, K. (2002). Common bond and common identity groups on the Internet: Attachment and normative behavior in on-topic and off-topic chats. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sassenberg, K., Boos, M., & Klapproth, F. (2001). Wissen und problemlösekompetenz: Der einfluss von expertise auf den informationsaustausch in computervermittelter kommunikation [Knowledge and problem solving competence: The influence of expertise on information exchange in computer-mediated communication]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 32, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spears, R., Postmes, T., Lea, M., & Wolbert, A. (2002). When are net effects gross products? The power of influence and the influence of power in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1985). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 11, 1492–1512.Google Scholar
Thompson, L., & Nadler, J. (2002). Negotiating via information technology: Theory and application. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, K. (2000). Computer-mediated social support, older adults, and coping. Journal of Communication, 50, 100–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zander, A., & Wulf, D. (1966). Members' test anxiety and competence: Determinants of a group's aspirations. Journal of Personality, 34, 55–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×