Computers in Human Behavior

Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056 www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

The positive and negative implications of anonymity in Internet social interactions: On the Internet, Nobody Knows Youre a Dog q
Kimberly M. Christopherson
*
Department of Psychology, University of North Dakota Grand Forks, Grand Forks, ND 58202-8380, United States Available online 7 November 2006

Abstract The growth of the Internet at a means of communication has sparked the interest of researchers in several elds (e.g. communication, social psychology, industrial-organizational psychology) to investigate the issues surrounding the expression of dierent social behaviors in this unique social context. Of special interest to researchers is the increased importance that anonymity seems to play in computer-mediated communication (CMC). This paper reviews the literature related to the issues of anonymity within the social context, particularly in CMC, demonstrating the usefulness of established social psychological theory to explain behavior in CMC and discussing the evolution of the current theoretical explanations in explaining the eects of anonymity in social behavior in CMC environments. Several suggestions for future research are proposed in an attempt to provide researchers with new avenues to investigate how anonymity can play both positive and negative roles in CMC. 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Anonymity; Deindividuation theory; SIDE theory; Privacy; Computer mediated communication; Equalization hypothesis; Adaptive structuration theory

The use of the Internet has increased dramatically over the past decade. In 2000, it was estimated that 400 million people had access to the Internet (Markey, Wells, & Markey, 2002). In 2002, that number grew to more than 600 million individuals with Internet access
q *

Steiner, P. (July 5, 1993). New Yorker cartoon, p. 61. Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 701 777 3451; fax: +1 701 777 3454. E-mail address: kimberly.christopherson@und.nodak.edu.

0747-5632/$ - see front matter 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.09.001

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

3039

(Manasian, 2003) and in 2006 this number has reached to over 1 billion (retrieved from www.Internetworldstats.com August 24, 2006). In the United States, many families now have at least one personal computer in the home and most of these families are also connected to the Internet. The main use for the Internet within the home is interpersonal communication with friends and family primarily through the use of e-mail and instant messaging programs (Kraut, Mukhopadhyay, Szczypula, Keisler, & Scherlis, 2000). This use of the Internet as a means of communication has been labeled computer-mediated communication (CMC) in the literature, and refers to any interpersonal communication that occurs within the context of the Internet or intranet networks. Workplace managers have also begun to embrace the use of the Internet for business communication. The rapidly decreasing costs of Internet technology and the value of being able to rapidly transmit and receive information have contributed to the increase of the use of networks and the Internet in the workplace (Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986). CMC has been used by businesses as an attempt to become more ecient in making decisions between remote groups by eliminating the need to travel and the logistics involved in making arrangements for individuals from separate geographical areas to meet at a certain time and place. The most common way the Internet has been utilized by workplaces is through the use of group decision support system (GDSS) software. GDSS works much like a secured and controlled Internet chat room for employees to meet online, discuss, and come to decisions on work-related topics by combining computer, communication, and decision-making technologies (DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987). Though CMC has received much attention recently, it is not a new means of communicating. Individuals have been using CMC since the 1960s and has been an area of interest to researchers since the early 1980s (Keisler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984). In fact, early researchers predicted that the biggest impact of computer technology in society would be in communicating with one another (Keisler et al., 1984). Indeed, the current statistics appear to support this prediction and with interpersonal communication and interaction more commonly occurring over the Internet in virtual environments, researchers have begun to investigate the social issues involved with this new type of communication as compared to more traditional face-to-face (FtF) real world environments. Researchers from many elds have taken an interest in CMC including communication research, organizational psychological research, and social psychology. Keisler et al. (1984) stated several aspects of social psychology that would be important to CMC, two of which are the reduced numbers of status and social cues in CMC and the social anonymity provided by CMC. The purpose of the following paper is to review the literature related to the issues of anonymity within the social context, particularly in CMC, demonstrating the usefulness of social psychological theoretical principles to explain behavior in CMC and discussing the evolution of the current theoretical explanations in explaining the eects of anonymity in social behavior in CMC environments. Several suggestions for future research will be proposed to provide researchers with new avenues to investigate how anonymity can play both positive and negative roles in CMC environments by focusing research on privacy preferences and strategic uses of anonymity in CMC. 1. Denitions of anonymity The construct of anonymity has long been of interest to social psychologists and other social scientists. Anonymity has traditionally been conceived as the inability of others to

3040

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

identify an individual or for others to identify ones self. This may be within a large social context, such as a crowd, or in smaller context, such as two-person communications over the Internet. However, it has been suggested that there are really two broad categories of anonymity: technical anonymity and social anonymity (Hayne & Rice, 1997). Technical anonymity refers to the removal of all meaningful identifying information about others in the exchange of material. This can include the removal of ones name or other identifying information from Internet communications. Social anonymity refers to the perception of others and/or ones self as unidentiable because of a lack of cues to use to attribute an identity to that individual. In other words, it may not be the case that one is truly anonymous in a social context, but the individual perceives him or herself to be anonymous to others. Both categories of anonymity have traditionally been investigated by social science researchers and both categories have been investigated in CMC environments. 2. Positive and negative eects of anonymity Todays current events concerning the uses of CMC by individuals, including e-mail, blogs, and social networking sites such as My Space and Facebook, have brought attention to the importance of the eect of anonymity in CMC. To understand the eects of anonymity in interpersonal interactions we must look at how anonymity can inuence communications at both the individual level and the group level. Several past social psychological concepts can explain how anonymity can result in either positive or negative behaviors depending on the context. 2.1. Eects of anonymity on personal privacy Though many studies have focused on the negative eects of anonymity, such as increases in aggressive behavior (Zimbardo, 1969), encouraging suicidal individuals to follow through with their threats (Mann, 1981), and other anti-normative and potentially anti-social behaviors, there has also been research examining the positive eects of anonymity. The most notable means by which anonymity can be positive is the importance for privacy on psychological well being. Privacy refers to the ability to control the amount of contact one has with others. However, it does not imply that one must remove ones self from others presence; it merely involves ones ability to exert boundary control upon others access to ones self (Pedersen, 1997). Privacy has been shown to be positive for human well-being (Altman & Chemers, 1980; Altman, 1975; Vinsel, Brown, Altman, & Foss, 1980; Werner, Altman, & Brown, 1992). On the other hand, failure to meet privacy needs has been related to aggression and anti-social behavior (Glaser, 1964; Heron, 1972). Pedersen (1979) suggested that there are six dierent types of privacy that an individual can achieve reserve, isolation, intimacy with family, intimacy with friends, solitude, and anonymity. Reserve refers to the unwillingness to disclose personal information about ones self. Isolation is the desire to be alone and away from other individuals. Intimacy with family and intimacy with friends involves wanting to be alone with a select group of individuals (family and friends, respectively). Solitude involves being free of observation from other individuals, and anonymity involves being around others but not under surveillance by them.

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

3041

Early research in privacy involved the investigation of how preferences for privacy differed between the genders (Pedersen, 1987; Pedersen & Frances, 1990; Walden, Nelson, & Smith, 1981). Walden et al. (1981) studied the eect of the number of people that participants lived with and the type of privacy that was preferred by men and women. Their results found no dierences in privacy preference for women as a function of the number of people lived with. However, the more people that the men lived with, the more likely that the men would prefer solitude over the other forms of privacy. Walden et al. (1981) concluded that women tend to use privacy regulation mechanisms within social situations whereas men tend to use privacy regulation mechanisms to escape from social situations. Pedersen (1987) extended the research on gender dierences and privacy by investigating how men and woman diered in preference for each type of privacy. He investigated gender dierences in privacy preferences by assessing participant self-reports of how often they engaged in each type of privacy activity. Results from this study found that men and women did not dier on the dimensions of reserve, solitude, or anonymity. However, men were more likely than women to use isolation as a form of privacy and women were more likely than men to use intimacy with family or friends. These results and the results from Walden et al. (1981) suggest that there are gender dierences in how men and women approach privacy. A more recent study by Pedersen (1997) used factor analysis to discover the dierent functions that each dimension of privacy allowed. A full summary of Pedersens (1997) privacy dimensions is beyond the scope of the present paper; however, results that pertain to that particular dimension of anonymity as a form of privacy will be discussed. Results from the factor analysis suggest that anonymity provides three functions as related to privacy: recovery, catharsis, and autonomy. Pedersen (1997) dened recovery as a sense of rejuvenation that involved active contemplation of ones situation and results in a sense of refuge and relaxation. Recovery appeared to be the most important factor associated with anonymity. However, anonymity was also associated with catharsis and autonomy. Catharsis was dened as the unhindered expression of thoughts and feelings to others. Traditionally, one usually assumes that one must be actively conding in another person when having a catharsis (i.e. not anonymous). However, if one wanted to openly express their emotions without anyone knowing who they were, it makes sense. This is probably best understood in terms of Internet communications. One can be completely anonymous within the Internet, but still express thoughts and emotions without fear of being identied and socially evaluated and examples can be found on individual blogs throughout the Internet. This form of emotional purging, however, can potentially be both positive and negative. The nal factor that was associated with anonymity is autonomy. Autonomy involves the chance to experiment with new behaviors without fear of social consequences. Individuals can use their anonymity to almost become a dierent person without fear of being identied and negatively evaluated by those they know. This factor may lead to an extreme sense of freedom for the individual and allow him or her to engage in behaviors typically disapproved of by others without fear of the consequences that may ensue as a result. These three factors (recovery, catharsis, and autonomy) can be benecial to individuals psychological well-being (Altman, 1975; Altman & Chemers, 1980; Vinsel et al., 1980; Werner et al., 1992). The ability to express emotions and/or behaviors that could be considered anti-normative can be healthy for an individual. It may allow for an individual to

3042

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

take a dierent perspective on life and change their behavior for the better. For example, there are numerous newsgroups and support groups on the Internet that individuals can use. The subjects of these newsgroups range from general topics such as people who engage in cooking or crafts, to more specic interests such as gay men and lesbians who are afraid to come out. Perhaps, these more specic groups allow individuals the anonymity to discuss with other like minded people the emotional distress they are experiencing and to engage in behaviors that are feared to result in negative social consequences (such as being disowned by ones own family). McKenna and Bargh (1998) investigated the eects of membership in gay/lesbian newsgroups on members self-acceptance and subsequent coming out. They found that being a member of these newsgroups increased participants self-acceptance and a large number of members later came out to their friends and family. Though these results are all correlational in nature, it may be feasible to speculate that it was possible for members to explore their hidden identity with others who would not negatively evaluate them through the relative anonymity of the newsgroup environment. Additionally, the opportunity to share ones experiences and emotions freely could be a great relief to these individuals. Finally, perhaps a sense of recovery (as described by Pedersen, 1997) may be felt and be a contributor to the increased amount of self-acceptance and subsequent empowerment to come out to friends and family. However, it must also be noted that being a member of this type of newsgroup is voluntary in nature, and it may be the case that the people who were members were already more likely to come-out than others who do not engage in these newsgroups. Another example of autonomy in anonymity in the literature is the use of the Internet by young people to explore their identity (Maczewski, 2002). Maczewskis (2002) interviewed nine young individuals between the ages of 13 and 19 via an online chat room designed by the researcher. Responses from the participants suggested that online communication was an important part of these participants social circles and their own personal development. One participant explained how the anonymity of the Internet allowed him to pick and chose who he wanted to talk to without negative social consequences. Additionally, he described how people on the Internet tended to be more expressive about thoughts and feelings that in FtF communications. Another participant attributed her new-found condence for being active in social situations to her Internet interactions (Maczewski, 2002). 2.2. Eects of anonymity on behavior in groups Anonymity can also inuence how individuals behave within groups. Past social psychological theories have described phenomena related with the eects of anonymity within group settings including group polarization (Isenberg, 1986), bystander apathy (Darley & Latane, 1968), and social loang (Hoeksema-van Orden, Gaillard, & Bruunk, 1998; Sheppard & Taylor, 1999). These concepts have also been used to describe the eects of anonymity in groups within CMC. One common social situation where social psychological theories have been applied to CMC in group settings are business meetings (e.g. Hayne & Rice, 1997; Kahai, Sosik, & Avolio, 2003; Sia, Tan, & Wei, 2002). Businesses often use groups to brainstorm ideas, solve problems, of make decisions. Virtual meetings made possible by networks and the Internet has resulted in more and more businesses using the Internet to hold meetings (Siegel et al., 1986).

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

3043

Group polarization is one of the social psychological principles that has been applied to both FtF and CMC group discussions. Group polarization is the tendency for like-minded individuals to become more extreme in their thinking following a group discussion (Isenberg, 1986). Sia et al. (2002) investigated the possibility of group polarization occurring in FtF and dispersed (non-FtF) group discussions. Using an experimental design and a groupware conferencing apparatus that utilized text communication, Sia et al. (2002) manipulated social presence in both FtF and CMC group discussions. Social presence is dened as the degree to which individuals establish close personal connections with each other in a shared communication setting (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). Social presence was manipulated by controlling the amount of verbal, visual, and textual cues in the group discussion sessions. Their results indicated that group polarization does indeed occur within CMC settings. They found that group polarization actually occurred more strongly within anonymous CMC settings than in identied FtF settings with more novel arguments presented and more one-upsmanship (i.e. suggesting a more unique and creative idea than the previous individual in an attempt to be competitive with ideas) occurring in the anonymous CMC condition. Thus, it appears that not only is group polarization evident in virtual groups, but it may also be more salient than in FtF communications. Other social psychological concepts researched in CMC are the phenomena of bystan der apathy (Darley & Latane, 1968) and social loang (Hoeksema-van Orden et al., 1998). It has been demonstrated that individuals tend to work less hard within groups when they are in a group versus alone (Darley & Latane, 1968). This has been explained by the diffusion of responsibility and stating that individuals think that because there are more people around to engage in the task at hand, that less work is required of them personally (Everett, Smith, & Williams, 1992; Hoeksema-van Orden et al., 1998; Sheppard & Taylor, 1999). Perhaps the most famous example of social loang, diusion of responsibility, and bystander apathy in psychological literature is the Kitty Genovese incident in New York City in 1964. It was reported that several hundred people heard Kitty Genovese cry for help when she was being assaulted for nearly an hour and eventually murdered. However, nobody in the vicinity of the crime called the police. It was hypothesized that no one called the police because people assumed that because there were so many individuals around that someone else would do it (Hunt, 1993). This phenomenon has been demonstrated in several dierent settings, including controlled lab studies and on the Internet (e.g. DeCarlo, 1998; Sheppard & Taylor, 1999; Hoeksema-van Orden et al., 1998). In 1998, it was reported that Larry Froistad, a man from Bowman, North Dakota, had set the house of his divorced wife and ve-year old daughter on re killing them both while he listened to their screams outside. When police rst questioned him, he acted innocent and was not initially considered as a potential suspect of the crime. Froistad had been a member of Moderation Management, an online support newsgroup for people wanting to reduce their drinking. He confessed his crime to the online group and this confession was read by over 200 members; however, only three people reported the crime to police (DeCarlo, 1998). It was speculated that the lack of intervention by the newsgroup members could be explained by the anonymity aorded by the Internet to the members and it was implied that this anonymity and the remoteness of members from each other was a major contributor to members to be either apathetic or skeptical about the truthfulness of the confession (Markey et al., 2002).

3044

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

Sia et al.s (2002) demonstration of group polarization and DeCarlos (1998) report of the Larry Froistad case in North Dakota provide two excellent examples of using established social psychological theories to describe and predict interpersonal interactions online even though these theories were initially intended to explain an individuals behavior in a FtF group setting. What is also evident from these examples is that anonymity (in both cases the identication of the group members were hidden) appears to be a major contributor to the display of these dierent social behaviors. Several prominent theories have been proposed to explain how and why anonymity aects human behavior as it does. In the next section, the evolution of theories of anonymity will be presented rst discussing the theories that describe the eects of anonymity in FtF environments and then discussing the theories developed to explain the eects of anonymity in CMC. 3. Theories of anonymity in FtF environments One of the most inuential theories describing the eect of anonymity on behavior is Zimbardos (1969) deindividuation theory. The deindividuated state was described as a state in which individuals within a group are not seen or paid attention to as individuals (Festinger, Pepitone, & Newcomb, 1952, p. 382). Thus, under the anonymity provided by being a member of a crowd, it was predicted that when under conditions where the member is not individuated in the group, there is likely to occur for the member a reduction of inner restraints against doing various things (Festinger et al., 1952, p. 382). Zimbardo (1969) emphasized the importance of anonymity and environmental factors in creating a deindividuated state. Zimbardo (1969) dened anonymity as the inability of others to identify or single out an individual such that the individual cannot be evaluated, criticized, judged or punished. Thus, under this denition, anonymity does not necessarily mean that one person is not visible to others, it is only necessary that others are unable to identify that person as an individual. Deindividuation theory implies that the deindividuated state causes a decrease in self-observation, self-evaluation, and concern for social comparison and evaluation. Thus, this deindividuated state leads to weakened internalized controls such as guilt, shame, fear, and commitment and leads to a greater expression of otherwise inhibited behavior. Zimbardos (1969) theory of deindividuation soon came under re for stressing the environmental conditions necessary for inducing a deindividuated state. Other researchers began to investigate and theorize about the psychological dimensions that contributed to the creation of a deindividuated state. Diener (1980) stressed the importance of decreased self-awareness on deindividuation, but initial studies on the eect of self-awareness were equivocal (Diener, 1979; Diener, 1980; Diener, Fraser, Beaman, & Kelem, 1976). Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (1982, 1989) responded to these mixed results and further expanded on deindividuation theory by dierentiating self-awareness into two domains: public and private self-awareness. Within this distinction are the awareness of accountability cues and attentional cues in a particular social situation. Accountability cues include anonymity and diusion of responsibility which are assumed to decrease the likelihood of being held accountable for engaging in anti-normative behaviors. Thus, these cues can lead to a decrease in public self-awareness. In the case of decreased public self-awareness however, individuals are still aware of their actions, but do not expect to be held accountable for their actions. According to Zimbardos (1969) deindividuation theory, this is not a truly deindividuated state, as the person is still aware of their actions as an

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

3045

individual. However, attentional cues, including group cohesiveness and physiological arousal, can lead to a decrease in private self-awareness. The decrease in private selfawareness thus draws attention away from ones own behavior and causes a deindividuated state within an individual. Both processes (public and private self-regulation) can lead to anti-normative or anti-social behavior; however, only the decrease of private self-awareness qualies as a deindividuated state (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1989). In sum, deindividuation theory has had a long and controversial history. Results are largely mixed with some researchers concluding that anonymous crowd conditions work to produce a deindividuated state in people (i.e. Miller & Rowold, 1979; Zimbardo, 1969). Others have suggested that it is not necessarily the case that only environmental conditions induce a deindividuated state and anti-social behavior is more related to an individuals self-awareness and the kind of self-awareness (public versus private) that is most salient (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1982; Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1989). Nonetheless, deindividuation theory holds an appeal for some researchers and has continued as a basis for more recent theories of the eect of anonymity in social situations (Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995; Spears & Lea, 1992). 4. Theories of anonymity in CMC environments Since the early 1990s researchers have begun to explore the eects on anonymity on CMC in much further detail, taking into account some of the special features of the Internet that are not available in FtF communications (e.g. lack of visual and auditory cues, asynchronous communication, isolation from those that one is communicating with) and most researchers in this area have agreed that new theories of interpersonal behavior are required to more fully explain and understand how anonymity aects behavior in CMC. There have been two predominate theories that have been posited to better explain and predict behavior in CMC environments: the equalization hypothesis and the social identity model of deindividuation eects (SIDE) theory. 4.1. Equalization hypothesis One obvious quality of CMC is the ability to completely hide ones physical appearance from others. Unlike FtF interactions where ones physical appearance is obvious, it is assumed that one could potentially be completely free of these physical cues in CMC. It is a well-established nding that physical appearance is an important cue in social interactions. People treat others dierently based on gender, race, age, ethnicity, physical disability, and attractiveness (e.g. Allport, 1954/1979; Hateld and Sprecher, 1986; Lockheed and Hall, 1976) and social power hierarchies can also be based on these physical cues. It is assumed that CMC acts as a lter that reduces the number of social cues that are available to individuals thus, CMC should create a more equal playing eld for communicators (Haraway, 1990; Poster, 1990; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). Without these cues, individuals are unable to project stereotypes on others and thus, expectations for behavior based on these stereotypes should diminish. Additionally, the anonymity of CMC frees members of lower status from their traditional social roles to behave in ways traditionally not associated with their group membership (Postmes & Spears, 2002). Therefore, researchers have hypothesized that in the absence of these cues, individuals who traditionally possess less power in society (e.g. women, minority group members, individuals with

3046

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

disabilities) should have increased power in an Internet environment (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991; Keisler et al., 1984; Siegel et al., 1986). The proposal that Internet technology allows for a more equal playing ground has been termed the equalization hypothesis (Dubrovsky et al., 1991). This freedom from visual cues is assumed to occur in all forms of CMC, including environments where some cues are available (e.g. name) and that complete anonymity is not necessary for the equalization hypothesis to hold. For example, one participant revealed in an interview that people that he conversed with other the Internet were often surprised when he would disclose that he was Mexican. He noted that people online typically assumed that he was White from the language he used when conversing online and the inability of these people to see his physical appearance (Maczewski, 2002). Research investigating the strength of the equalization hypothesis has been largely based either gender or status dierences based on organizational hierarchies (e.g. graduate students versus rst year undergraduate students) and has mostly produced mixed results. Siegel et al. (1986) conducted a study to investigate whether or not there were more equal amounts of participation in a group decision making process in CMC than in FtF discussions. Anonymity was manipulated by either having the participants indicate their rst name (non-anonymous) or to not indicate their names (anonymous) in their communications. Equalization was measured by counting the number of remarks given by each group member. Results indicated that there was signicantly more equalization in the CMC condition than in the FtF condition. Dubrovsky et al. (1991) further explored these ndings by studying the eect of status as well as anonymity. Status was manipulated by having one member of the group be an MBA graduate student and the other three members of the group rst-year college students. To control for potential status dierences due to sex, all groups were either all women or all men. Results supported the hypothesis that CMC would reduce inequality and that each group member submitted about the same number of responses as the other members, regardless of status even when the status dierences of the group members were made known to the participants in the CMC condition. Though there has been support for the equalization hypothesis, these studies have limitations. One limitation is that these studies were all conducted within the connes of a laboratory and the fact that the group members in these studies typically do not know one another nor have these group members worked together extensively. This makes generalizing these results to areas such as work-place communications dicult. Additionally, the fact that Dubrovsky et al. (1991) eliminated the factor of gender by creating single-sex groups limits generalization even further. Status dierences based on gender are well known and neglecting to investigate this important factor greatly limits these early studies. More recent research focusing on factors such as the gender of participants in CMC has indicated no evidence that CMC increases equality in communication between individuals of diering status (Adrianson & Hjelmquist, 1991; Berdahl & Craig, 1996; Herring, 1993; Hollingshead, 1996; Matheson, 1991; Saunders, Robey, & Vaverek, 1994; Strauss, 1996). Herring (1993) argued that CMC did not have the democratizing eect that theorists had suggested. She indicated two essential components of communication that must be present for truly equal communication to occur: access to the means of communication and the right to communicate freely without status constraints (i.e. censorship). Herring (1993) conducted a study investigating the posted questions and responses from a university bulletin board that was devoted to the discussion of linguistics. Results indicated that

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

3047

the women included in this group contributed signicantly fewer responses than the men, and when there was an issue that was being dominated by women, there were often threats by the men to discontinue their membership in the bulletin board or posted messages that criticized the discussion and wished it to be discontinued. These results indicated that though there was equal access to this means of communication by the targeted population, there was often a form of censorship involved when the discussions were dominated by the women of the group or on the topic of womens issues. One major limitation of this study however, was the fact that these communications were not completely anonymous. Each participants e-mail address was visible of which, the participants name was a part of. Thus, readers could have easily ascertained the gender of the sender by their name most of the time. Similar results were found by Matheson (1991) under experimental conditions. In her study, Matheson (1991) used a negotiation task in CMC and manipulated the availability of the gender cues available to the participants and measured the participants perceptions of their opponent. Results from this study indicate that there were no signicant dierences in perceptions in the condition where the gender of the opponent was unknown. However, in the condition where the gender was known, perceptions of the opponent fell along traditional gender expectations with women being perceived as more cooperative and men perceived as more exploitive. These studies indicate that in conditions where the identity of the individual is not truly anonymous, perceptions and expectations based on gender appear in CMC as well as in FtF communications. Some research has even found that stereotypes and stereotypical behavior in interpersonal communication is accentuated in CMC (Postmes & Spears, 2002; Weisband, 1994; Weisband, Schneider, & Connely, 1995). For example, Weisband (1994) examined the eect of communication type (FtF versus CMC) and status on the amount of inuence and participation in group discussions. She found that within both FtF and CMC environments, high status members had more inuence on group discussions and within CMC this inuence appeared to be even greater. She speculated that social cues as to ones status are made aware by the other group members and these cues are used to create expectations and thus inuences group behavior and communication. Within CMC these eect actually appear to be magnied. These studies suggest that the equalization hypothesis does not hold and other researchers continued to search for other possible ways that anonymity can aect behavior in CMC environments. These researchers have used Zimbardos (1969) deindividuation theory as a template for describing how anonymity aects CMC. Most found limitations to applying Zimbardos theory to CMC (Jessup, Connolly, & Tansik, 1990; Keisler et al., 1984; Kiesler & Sproull, 1992 ). With the limitations of the traditional deindividuation theory, many researchers investigating the eects of anonymity on CMC have now been proponents of a revision of deindividuation theory: the Social Identity model of Deindividuation Eects (SIDE) (Reicher et al., 1995; Spears & Lea, 1992). 4.2. Social identity model of deindividuation eects (SIDE) theory SIDE theory is a reinterpretation of classic deindividuation theory that places much more importance on the situational specic variables in a social situation. SIDE theory encompasses two components of the eect and use of anonymity in CMC. The rst is a cognitive component of anonymity which focuses on how group dynamics and individual

3048

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

behavior within groups is mediated by anonymity and the strength on an individuals identication with the group (Joinson, 2000; Lea, Spears, & deGroot, 2001; Postmes, Spears, Sakhel, & deGroot, 2001). The second is a strategic component of SIDE theory which involves the intentional use of anonymity in CMC as an attempt to take advantage of the benets aorded by anonymity (e.g. equalization, improving status) (Spears & Lea, 1994). 4.2.1. The cognitive side of SIDE theory Spears and Lea (1992) argued that the anonymity provided by CMC serves to strengthen the impact of social norms and their inuence when social identity (i.e. identifying with the group) is strong and anonymity will weaken the impact of social norms when an individuals own personal identity is more salient (i.e. identify more strongly with ones self than with the group). Consequently, social norms are more likely to be followed when the individual has a high sense of social identity and personal identity is lower. Additionally, SIDE theory predicts that anonymity and lack of identiably lead to different processes in social interactions. SIDE theory predicts that when all members of the group are anonymous to each other, group salience will increase and members will identify more strongly with the group. However, if all of the group members are visually identied to one individual with that individual anonymous to the rest of the group, SIDE theory predicts that the one anonymous individual will identify more strongly with him or her self and may engage in ways which may not be conducive to the groups purpose. In sum, SIDE theory suggests that to have goal-directed groups where the members all work toward the groups goal and not their own personal goals, all members of the group should either be visually identiable to one another (not anonymous at all), or all participants should be anonymous to one another (no individual is identied) (Spears & Lea, 1992). Most research investigating the cognitive component of SIDE theory has supported the claims made by Spears and Lea (1992) (Joinson, 2000; Lea et al., 2001; Postmes et al., 2001). 4.2.2. The strategic side of SIDE theory Spears and Lea (1994) had initially theorized that once people understood how anonymity aects interpersonal communication in the Internet, they would begin to utilize this knowledge and use anonymity strategically to meet their own goals and needs of the communication. However, this component of SIDE theory has been neglected in the research until recently (Coey & Woolworth, 2004; Flanagin, Tiyaamornwong, OConnor, & Seidold, 2002; Spears, Lea, Corneliussen, Postmes, & Haar, 2002). Now that researchers have a basic understanding of the cognitive eects of anonymity on group identication and prosocial behaviors, researchers begun to see how individuals might use dierent strategies to utilize the anonymity of CMC. One way in which anonymity might be utilized in CMC is for members of a marginalized group to resist a more powerful majority group (Spears et al., 2002). This use of anonymity is accomplished when a minority group uses the benets of anonymity to express views that may be contrary or unpopular in the more powerful majority group. However, this can only be accomplished when members of the minority group perceive it to be the norm to express these views within these contexts. If it these unpopular or contradictory ideas are not perceived as the norm, it is less likely that the members of the minority group will express these views (Spears et al., 2002).

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

3049

Researchers have also investigated gender dierences in how individuals use anonymity in CMC. Flanagin et al. (2002) found that men were more likely to attempt to make CMC more like FtF communication by attempting to reduce the amount of anonymity present in the discussion, whereas women were more likely to try to maintain the reduced number of social cues available and keep anonymity present in the discussion. The researchers speculated that this dierence was due to the womens attempt to equalize the power differential that is often present in FtF communication between men and women (Lockheed & Hall, 1976), thus it was more strategic for the women to protect and use the anonymity aorded by CMC in order to be at the same power level as the men. Additionally, it was more strategic for the men to attempt to reduce the amount of anonymity in order to maintain a power dierential between the sexes and thereby increasing their power within the discussion. One last example of how individuals might use the anonymity aorded by CMC strategically is present in a study by Coey and Woolworth (2004). This study investigated the statements posted on an online discussion board about a local murder. The murder involved a group of youths in Tacoma, Washington, who had been assaulting local citizens at night. One assault resulted in murder and it was speculated that these attacks may have been hate crimes as many of the victims had been White and the youths accused of the assaults were often described as Latino or African American. The local newspaper established an online discussion board as an attempt to help the community come to grips with this tragedy by making an outlet for citizens to voice their concerns. What was intended to be a medium for promoting understanding and encouraging positive dialogue soon became an avenue for individuals to vent their anger, frustration, and hatred. This discussion board was designed to be fully anonymous such that the owners of the individual statements were not able to be identied. There were several posts that were racist in nature, some advocated being violent to the perpetrators and their families, still others had convicted the youths of the crime before due process had been carried out. In comparison, the city authorities also held a town meeting where citizens would be allowed to voice their concerns and opinions of the tragedy in an open forum. During this meeting there was a noticeable lack of vengeful statements and there were no threats of revenge or vigilante justice that had been so prevalent on the online discussion board (Coey & Woolworth, 2004). Once again, these ndings would have been predicted by SIDE theory. The norms of the group discussion board were for vengeful retaliation and hateful attitudes. The fact that these discussions were anonymous may have helped to escalate these comments. However, in non-anonymous conditions the social norms were more conservative. These ndings indicate that even anti-social behaviors can be encouraged in anonymous CMC, as long as these anti-social behaviors are the group norm. Additionally, the individuals who posted these remarks most likely strategically used the anonymity of this medium to voice their opinions. As evident from the dierences in the discussions between the online discussion board and the town meeting, it is clear that the strategy was to vent these non-normative statements in the safety of the anonymous environment and not the identiable town meeting. 5. The social use of technology The equalization theory and SIDE theory describe the eects of anonymity have helped to explain and predict how individuals will use anonymity in CMC. Other theories have

3050

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

also been developed to help describe how technology itself can inuence social behavior. These theories have primarily been applied to organizational studies of business communications but have relevance to other social uses of technology. One theory that could have dramatic importance in investigating the eects of anonymity in CMC is adaptive structuration theory (AST) (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). AST proposes two general processes that are involved in how people will use technology. First are the structures provided by the technology itself. DeSanctis and Poole (1994) refer to this aspect as the spirit, or intended purpose, of the technology. This is the purpose that is originally intended by the designers of a technology. The second process is a social aspect which includes the structures of the technology that emerge as people interact with the technology. This second process may or may not be in line with what the developers propose as the spirit of the technology. AST proposes that the use of technology evolves over time as people interact with it more and more. As more and more technology is available to individuals over time, the way that people use these technologies will evolve and may evolve beyond the intended spirit of the original product. In the previous discussion describing the research conducted on an online discussion board in Tacoma, WA, one can see how the sprit of a technology and later use of a technology can dier dramatically. The discussion board was intended by the designers to be a venue for people to express their emotions and thoughts without being identied. However, this venue evolved to be a place for individuals to express racist attitudes and hatred without fear of reprisal. Another more current example is the popular online community My Space. My Space was originally intended as a medium for people to meet others while online. However, over time, the use of this medium has evolved to include things such as marketing for movies and other products, or less positively as a medium for individuals to post lewd pictures or organize groups based on themes such as drug use or other inappropriate behavior. Within this theory, the use of ones anonymity can surely be a factor in how the use of a technology will change over time. On the Internet, Nobody Knows Youre a Dog1 This paper has outlined the contemporary theories of the eects of anonymity in CMC. Though there were several positive predictions that CMC and the anonymity provided by this form of communication would lead to a more equal playing eld for all users (e.g. Haraway, 1990; Poster, 1990; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991), this prediction has not materialized and status dierentials are still very relevant in CMC and inuence communication over the Internet. Several examples of how anonymity can be used in either positive or negative ways have been given in context of both FtF interactions and CMC. To summarize, anonymity has traditionally been thought to be more likely to create negative outcomes. Zimbardos (1969) classic deindividuation theory focused on these negative outcomes, suggesting that the anonymity aorded by large crowds leads to a deindividuated state where an individual loses his or her sense of self-awareness and makes it more likely for that individual to engage in anti-normative or anti-social behavior. Recent theories suggest that this account is not specic enough to accurately describe how anonymity aects behavior and there has not been any evidence that a deindividuated state actually exists (Postmes & Spears, 2002). As a response to the weaknesses of deindividuation theorys application to CMC environments, Spears and Lea (1992) proposed the social identity model of deindividuation eects (SIDE) theory. SIDE theory suggests that the specic
1

Steiner, P. (July 5, 1993). New Yorker cartoon, p. 61.

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

3051

conditions of the social situation are much more important in determining whether or not anonymity will result in anti-normative behavior. Components such as social identity and visual anonymity play important roles in the cognitive component of SIDE theory and group dynamics in CMC. Additionally, individuals can use dierent strategies when utilizing anonymity in CMC depending on their goal for the social interaction (Spears & Lea, 1992). SIDE theory proposes that anonymity in CMC can either result in both positive and negative eects in CMC. Research has demonstrated that anonymity can work to increase the eectiveness of work groups by allowing individuals to identify more with the group and work toward the goals of the group rather than their own personal goals (Joinson, 2000; Lea et al., 2001). However, this group eectiveness could be viewed as a negative consequence if a weaker, perhaps marginalized group, uses this eciency to attempt to overthrow a more powerful group (Spears et al., 2002). For example, Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists are typically viewed as undesirable and are not a part of the majority group in the United States. However, if these groups attempt to organize be means of the Internet (which they have) the eects of anonymity on group eectiveness could be a detriment to racial harmony. However, if a less powerful group such as gay men and lesbians were to organize by means of the Internet to attempt to change US societys views of homosexuality or lobby for the right to have secular marriage or civil unions, the eectiveness of anonymous groups could benet society and bring more tolerant attitudes toward gay and lesbian lifestyles (McKenna & Bargh, 1998). It appears that it is the strategic component of SIDE theory that dictates whether or not anonymity ultimately leads to pro-social or anti-social behavior. How one chooses to utilize the anonymity aorded to them will determine whether or not a positive or a negative outcome will result. Of course it will depend on ones personal view as to whether these outcomes actually are positive or negative. However, from todays social norms, one can begin to understand how positive outcomes such as protecting ones identity, making work groups more ecient and working to empower marginalized individuals can result from strategically using anonymity. Additionally, negative outcomes, such as predatory behavior toward minors by masking ones identity, intensifying racial, religious, or other hatred, and encouraging anti-normative behavior in unidentiable conditions are also very real possibilities. SIDE theory is arguably the most inuential and current theory of anonymity and interpersonal interaction in CMC to date. Most researchers that investigate issues of anonymity on the Internet use SIDE theory as a template for explaining their results. Recommendations for future research in this area made will focus on what steps need to be taken to further explore SIDE theory as an explanatory and predictive tool for researchers in this area. 5.1. Suggestions for future research Future research into the eects of anonymity in CMC should continue to investigate the strategic component of SIDE theory. Evidence from past literature suggests that this component of SIDE theory may be the most inuential when attempting to explain how anonymity aects CMC. (Coey & Woolworth, 2004; Flanagin et al., 2002; Joinson, 2000; Lea et al., 2001; Postmes et al., 2001; Reicher et al., 1995; Spears & Lea, 1992; Spears & Lea, 1994; Spears et al., 2002). Two avenues for research are proposed in this paper: (1) exploration of privacy preferences and the strategic use of anonymity and (2) application of

3052

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

AST to investigate the eects of anonymity in CMC. The motivation for using anonymity diers from individual to individual, but by investigating these components, communications researchers and social scientists may better understand why anonymity is used for both pro- and anti-social means in CMC. 5.2. Strategy and privacy One area to study is the relationship between privacy functions and preferences and the use of anonymity in CMC. It would appear that these two areas of privacy might shed light onto why some individuals prefer to be more or less anonymous in CMC environments. It could be argued that privacy preferences may lead to strategic uses of anonymity in CMC. Research has shown that there are individual dierences in privacy preferences including gender dierences (Pedersen, 1987) and regional dierences within the US (Pedersen & Frances, 1990). Anonymity is one method that individuals use to increase privacy in their lives. Research into the strategic component of SIDE theory should also work to investigate how ones perception their safety level on the Internet aects their use of anonymity. Recent cautions against releasing identifying information over the Internet have suggested that people need to be extremely careful about who they are conversing with and where it is appropriate to do so. Fears of identify theft are very real, and individuals are warned to take steps to keep their identity anonymous in certain Internet settings, such as chat rooms. Additionally, there have been several news reports over the past few years of sexual predators and pedophiles hiding or altering their online identity to lure unsuspecting victims into a face-to-face meeting to assault their victim. These fears may have made many individuals suspicious of the safety of the Internet and CMC and thus may be more likely to take attempts to protect their anonymity and value privacy more than those who perceive the Internet a safer. Related to the perception of the safety of the Internet, research has indicated that there may be a gender dierence in the perception of the safety of the Internet. Women tend to protect their anonymity in CMC environments more so than men (Flanagin et al., 2002). Researchers have speculated that this protective stance is due to an attempt to maintain a more equal social power dierential in CMC (Flanagin et al., 2002). However, it has also been speculated that women see Internet environments as more cold and threatening (Herring, 1993) and feel a greater need to protect their identity (such as their name, address, and phone number) for their own personal safety. With access to just a few pieces of identifying information (especially an individuals phone number), one can easily nd another persons home address and even a map to that location. The strategic use of anonymity on the Internet is not only a means to manipulate group social dynamics, but also a vital form of self-protection from potential perpetrators. 5.3. Application of AST to investigate SIDE theory AST focuses on how the use of a technology will change from its intended purpose after being used for dierent social interactions and this theory could provide a good structure for investigating how anonymity can be used strategically in CMC (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994). For some technologies, features that allow for anonymity may be in place for one purpose (e.g. personal safety) but used strategically for other purposes (e.g. to engage

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

3053

in inappropriate social behavior without fear of reprisal). SIDE theory proposes several ways in which anonymity can be used in CMC and AST proposes ways in which to investigate how use of a technology can change due to the social structure in which it is used. To better understand how anonymity is used strategically, researchers can use the proposed methods given by DeSanctis and Poole (1994) to study AST by investigating the areas where the norms for the use of technology are developed: in the spirit of the technology itself; in the task, environment, and contingencies of the social environment where the technology is used; and in the structure emerging from using technology in interpersonal interactions. Additionally, DeSanctis and Poole (1994) propose that the use of technology be investigated at several levels. Their proposal is couched in the work and business environment, but could potentially be translated into other types of social environments. DeSanctis and Poole (1994) state that assessment should be conducted at the micro, global, and institutional level in order to fully understand how the use of technology evolves over time. One possible way to apply this to an Internet form of CMC may be to investigate the actual structure of a site to determine all of the options available to users. From there researchers can investigate how groups interact within the site and nally to investigate how mainstream society inuences the dierent uses of the site. 6. Conclusion In sum, anonymity has been of interest to social researchers for many decades. The changing face of social communication has lead to the proliferation of the use of computer technology as an important form of interpersonal communication. Because CMC aords many more possibilities to keep oneself anonymous, it is important to understand how these technologies provide anonymity to users and how users of these technologies utilize anonymity. Some of these uses can be of a positive nature, such as keeping ones privacy, and others can be negative. New theories have been proposed and it appears that SIDE theory along with AST provide a framework in which to explain and study how anonymity can be used strategically in these social environments. References
Adrianson, L., & Hjelmquist, E. (1991). Group process in face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Behaviour and Information Technology, 10, 281296. Allport, G. W. (1954/1979). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Altman, I., & Chemers, M. (1980). Culture and environment. Montery, CA: Brook/Cole. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Montery, CA: Brooks/Cole. Berdahl, J. L., & Craig, K. M. (1996). Equality of participation and inuence in groups: the eects of communication medium and sex composition. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 4, 179201. Coey, B., & Woolworth, S. (2004). Destroy the scum, and then neuter their families: the web forum as a vehicle for community discourse? The Social Science Journal, 41, 114. Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention on emergencies: diusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377383. DeCarlo, E. (1998). Murder, she read. New York Magazine, 31, 3841. DeSanctis, G. L., & Gallupe, B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33, 589609. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121147. Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 11601171.

3054

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

Diener, E. (1980). Deindividuation: the absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), The psychology of group inuences (pp. 209242). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Diener, E., Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L., & Kelem, R. T. (1976). Eects of deindividuation variables among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 178183. Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, B. N., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: status eect in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. HumanComputer Interaction, 2(2), 119146. Everett, J. J., Smith, R. E., & Williams, K. D. (1992). Eects of team cohesion and identiability on social loang in relay swimming performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 311324. Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 289382. Flanagin, A. J., Tiyaamornwong, V., OConnor, J., & Seidold, D. R. (2002). Computer-mediated group work: the interaction of member sex and anonymity. Communication Research, 29, 6693. Glaser, D. (1964). The eectiveness of a prison and parole system. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Haraway, D. (1990). A manifesto for cyborgs: science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1908s. In L. J. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (pp. 190233). London: Routledge. Hateld, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, mirror. . . The importance of looks in everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hayne, S. C., & Rice, R. E. (1997). Attribution accuracy when using anonymity in group support systems. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 47, 429452. Heron, M. H. (1972). The naval ship as an urban design problem. Naval Engineers Journal, 12, 4964. Herring, S. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication, 3(2), Retrieved, April 4, 2005:http://www.internetstudies.pe.kr/txt/Herring.txt. Hollingshead, A. B. (1996). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision-making: the eects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23, 193219. Hoeksema-van Orden, C. Y. D., Gaillard, A. W. K., & Bruunk, B. P. (1998). Social loang under fatigue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 11791190. Hunt, M. (1993). The story of psychology. New York: Doubleday Dell Publishing Group. Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: a critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 50(6), 11411151. Jessup, L., Connolly, T., & Tansik, D. (1990). Toward a theory of automated group work: the de-individuating eects of anonymity. Small Group Research, 21, 333348. Joinson, A. N. (2000). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177192. Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Eects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativityrelevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context. Leadership Quarterly, 14(45), 499524. Keisler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 11231134. Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96123. Kraut, R., Mukhopadhyay, T., Szczypula, J., Keisler, S., & Scherlis, W. (2000). Information and communication: alternate uses of the Internet in households. Information Systems Research, 10, 287303. Lea, M., Spears, R., & deGroot, D. (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: anonymity eects on social identity processes within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 526537. Lockheed, M. E., & Hall, K. P. (1976). Conceptualizing sex as a status characteristic: applications to leadership training strategies. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 111124. Maczewski, M. (2002). Exploring identities through the Internet: youth experiences online. Child & Youth Care Forum, 31(2), 111129. Manasian, D. (2003). Digital dilemmas: a survey of the Internet society. Economist, 25, 126. Mann, L. (1981). The baiting crowd in episodes of threatened suicide. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 703709. Markey, P. M., Wells, S. M., & Markey, C. N. (2002). Social and personality psychology in the culture of cyberspace. In S. P. Shohov (Ed.). Advances in psychology research (Vol. 9). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

3055

Matheson, K. (1991). Social cues in computer-mediated negotiations: gender makes a dierence. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 137145. 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, 681694. Miller, F. G., & Rowold, K. L. (1979). Halloween masks and deindividuation. Psychological Reports, 44, 422. Pedersen, D. M. (1979). Dimensions of privacy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 48, 12911297. Pedersen, D. M. (1987). Sex dierences in privacy preferences. Perceptual and Motor skills, 64, 12391242. Pedersen, D. M. (1997). Psychological functions of privacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 147156. Pedersen, D. M., & Frances, S. (1990). Regional dierences in privacy preferences. Psychological Reports, 66, 731736. Poster, M. (1990). The mode of Information: poststructuralism and social context. Chicago: Polity. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2002). Behavior online: does anonymous computer communication reduce gender inequality? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(8), 10731083. Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., & deGroot, D. (2001). Social inuence in computer-mediated communication: the eects of anonymity on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 12431254. Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). Eects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 503513. Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1989). Deindividuation and the self-regulation of behavior. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), The psychology of group inuence (2nd ed.) (pp. 86109). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawence Erlbaum. Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomenon. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161198. Saunders, C. S., Robey, D., & Vaverek, K. A. (1994). The persistence of status dierentials in computer conferencing. Human Communication Research, 20, 443472. Sheppard, J. A., & Taylor, K. M. (1999). Social loang and expectancy-value theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 11471158. Short, J., Williams, B., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunication. New York: John Wiley. Sia, C., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. (2002). Group polarization and computer-mediated communications: eects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity. Information Systems Research, 13(1), 7090. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational & Human Decision Processes, 37, 157187. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social inuence and the inuence of the social in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 3065). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or Panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427459. Spears, R., Lea, M., Corneliussen, R. A., Postmes, T., & Haar, W. T. (2002). Computer-mediated communication as a channel for social resistance: the strategic side of SIDE. Small Group Research, 33(5), 555574. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: new ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Strauss, S. G. (1996). Technology, group process, and group outcomes: testing the connections in computermediated and face-to-face groups. HumanComputer Interaction, 12, 227266. Vinsel, A., Brown, B., Altman, I., & Foss, C. (1980). Privacy regulation, territorial displays, and eectiveness of individual functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 11041115. Walden, T. A., Nelson, P. A., & Smith, D. E. (1981). Crowding, privacy, and coping. Environment and Behavior, 13, 205224. Weisband, S. (1994). Overcoming social awareness in computer-supported groups: does anonymity really help? Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 2, 285297.

3056

K.M. Christopherson / Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007) 30383056

Weisband, S. P., Schneider, S. K., & Connely, T. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and social information status salience and status dierences. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 11241151. Werner, C. M., Altman, I., & Brown, B. B. (1992). A transactional approach to interpersonal relations: physical environment, social context, and temporal. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9(2), 297323. Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order vs. deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.). Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.