Kai Sassenberg

Common bond and common identity groups on the Internet: Attachment and normative behavior in on-topic and off-topic chats.

Friedrich-Schiller-University JenaThe present research is based on D. A. Prentice, D. T. Miller, and J. R. Lightdale’s(1994) distinction between common bond groups (formed by attachment betweengroup members) and common identity groups (formed by attachment to the group as awhole). Study 1 showed the existence of both types of groups on the Internet: On-topicchats can be classified as common identity groups, and off-topic chats as common bondgroups. In Study 2 the adherence to group norms as a behavioral consequence of themembership in both types of groups was analyzed. Members of common identitygroups adhered more to the group norms of paralinguistic symbols than did membersof common bond groups. The implications for the development and persistence ofgroups on the Internet are discussed.

Cognitive and strategic processes in small groups: Effects of anonymity of the self and anonymity of the group on social influence

Two studies examined cognitive and strategic processes of social influence in small groups. A first study showed that anonymity of in-group members to the self cognitively enhanced the perceived unity or entitativity of the group, while the interpersonal attraction to group members decreased. A second study showed that anonymity of the self to the group strategically enhanced differentiation from the group on non-normative dimensions. Overall, it was found that strategic and cognitive processes interact to produce social influence within the group. Implications for theories of social influence in groups are discussed.

Group-based self-regulation: The effects of regulatory focus

Self-regulation has recently been introduced as a means to investigate motivational processes in (inter)group research, thus granting new insights into similar mechanisms underlying diverse intergroup phenomena. This article focuses on empirical studies applying the predominant self-regulation approach to intergroup research: regulatory focus theory and its sister theory self-discrepancy theory. Studies conducted along these research lines are summarised, integrated, and evaluated as to whether the collective level has actually been addressed in terms of four criteria (adopted from Smith, Seger, & Mackie, 2007): effects stemming from ingroup rather than individual variables, stronger effects among more highly identified individuals, functionality for and social sharedness of the behaviour within the ingroup. The current evaluation leads to the conclusion that group-based self-regulation does indeed exist, meaning that group members self-regulate based on their social identity. Finally, the relation between current group-based self-regulation research and earlier research on motivation and (inter)group phenomena is clarified.

Attitude Change in Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Anonymity and Category Norms

The current research compared the effect of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and direct communication on attitude change. The social identity model of deindividuation effects (Spears & Lea, 1994) predicts that CMC results in behavior that is more in line with the salient level of self-categorization (compared to non-anonymous communication): in CMC salient social identity should lead to conformity to group norms whereas salient personal identity was expected to result in behavior that fits individual goals. Two experiments showed that when personal identity was salient and when social identity was salient and a category norm was explicitly given, CMC led to the predicted effects, whereas the lack of a social category norm led to lower attitude change in CMC compared to direct communication.

Less negative=more positive? Social discrimination as avoidance or approach

Abstract A motivational approach to ingroup favoritism based on regulatory focus theory (RFT; Higgins, 1997 ) is introduced. RFT suggests that individual self-regulation is either more concerned with approaching positive events (promotion focus) or with avoiding negative events (prevention focus). It is suggested that if an individual self-categorizes as a group member, resource allocations to one’s group will be based on these mechanisms of self-regulation. Thus, a promotion focus should engender ingroup favoritism during the distribution of positive resources but not during the distribution of negative resources, whereas a prevention focus should engender ingroup favoritism for negative but not for positive resources. The results of two studies support this prediction based on momentary and chronic regulatory focus. The self-regulation approach to ingroup favoritism provides an explanation for social discrimination in the distribution of positive and negative resources.

A Framework for Teachable Collaborative Problem Solving Skills

In his book “Cognition in the Wild”, Hutchins (1995) invites his readers to scan their immediate environment for objects that were not produced through collaborative efforts of several people, and remarks that the only object in his personal environment that passed this test was a small pebble on his desk. In fact, it is remarkable how our daily lives are shaped by collaboration. Whether it is in schools, at the workplace, or in our free time, we are constantly embedded in environments that require us to make use of social skills in order to coordinate with other people. Given the pervasiveness of collaboration in everyday life, it is somewhat surprising that the development of social and collaborative skills is largely regarded as something that will occur naturally and does not require any further facilitation. In fact, groups often fail to make use of their potential (Schulz-Hardt, Brodbeck, Group performance and leadership. In: Hewstone M, Stroebe W, Jonas K (eds) Introduction to social psychology: a European perspective, 4th edn, pp 264–289. Blackwell, Oxford, 2008) and people differ in the extent to which they are capable of collaborating efficiently with others. Therefore, there is a growing awareness that collaborative skills require dedicated teaching efforts (Schoenfeld, Looking toward the 21st century: challenges of educational theory and practice. Edu Res 28:4–14, 1999). Collaborative problem solving has been identified as a particularly promising task that draws upon various social and cognitive skills, and that can be analysed in classroom environments where skills are both measurable and teachable.

Knowing how to react: automatic response priming from social categories.

Four studies tested whether social category primes did not only prime descriptions, behaviors of this respective group, and general behavioral tendencies but also specific behavioral responses toward this group. The activation (Studies 1-3) and the accomplishment of such response behavior (Study 4) were found. Study 2 showed that the activation of response behavior was based on dynamic and, thus, directional representations: Social category primes activated response behavior, but response behavior primes did not activate social category targets. Furthermore, the effect was specified by the mind-set that was operating when the social category was activated: Response behavior was activated in a differentiation mind-set but not in a similarity mind-set (Study 3). The research extends behavioral priming by adding a specific response behavior perspective.

Distributive Justice in Common-Bond and Common-Identity Groups

Two experiments tested whether common-bond groups (attachment based on interpersonal bonds between the members) and common-identity groups (attachment based on attraction to the group as a whole; Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994) make different fairness judgments. Overall, the use of the equality heuristic (Messick, 1993) was expected. Moreover, based on social identity theory, we predicted that members of common-bond groups show an egocentric bias, whereas members of common-identity groups forgo their individual goals for the group goal. In both experiments, positive and negative outcomes were distributed. Experiment 1 manipulated the degree of involvement, Experiment 2 varied responsibility for the outcome. Results of both studies supported the hypothesis, thus emphasizing the importance of the distinction between common-bond and common-identity groups.

Internet Searching About Disease Elicits a Positive Perception of Own Health When Severity of Illness Is High: A Longitudinal Questionnaire Study

Background The Internet is one of the primary sources for health information. However, in research, the effects of Internet use on the perception of one’s own health have not received much attention so far. Objective This study tested how Internet use for acquiring health information and severity of illness influence patients with a chronic disease with regard to the perception of their own health. Negative psychological states are known to lead to preferential processing of positive information. In particular, the self-directed nature of Internet use provides room for such biases. Therefore, we predicted that patients experiencing negative health states more frequently, due to more frequent episodes of a chronic illness, will gain a more positive perception of their health if they use the Internet frequently to gain health information, but not if they use the Internet rarely. This effect was not expected for other sources of information. Methods A longitudinal questionnaire study with two measurement points—with a 7-month time lag—tested the hypothesis in a sample of patients with chronic inflammatory bowel disease (n=208). This study assessed patients’ frequency of Internet use, their participation in online social support groups, their use of other sources of health information, and several indicators of the participants’ perceptions of their own health. A structure equation model (SEM) was used to test the predictions separately for Internet searches and other sources of information. Results Data analysis supported the prediction; the interaction between frequency of health-related information searches and frequency of episodes at the first measurement point (T1) was related to participants’ positive perceptions of their own health at the second measurement point (T2) (B=.10, SE=.04, P=.02) above and beyond the perceptions of their own health at T1. When participants used the Internet relatively rarely (-1 SD), there was no relationship between frequency of episodes and positive perceptions of their own health (B=-.11, SE=.14, t 203=-0.82, P=.41). In contrast, when participants used the Internet relatively often (+1 SD), the more frequently they had those episodes the more positive were the perceptions of their own health (B=.36, SE=.15, t 203=2.43, P=.02). Additional SEM analyses revealed that this effect occurs exclusively when information is searched for on the Internet, but not when other sources of information are consulted, nor when online social support groups are joined. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that patients might process information from the Internet selectively, in an unbalanced, biased fashion, with the formation of a self-serving (ie, positive) perception of own health. At the same time, this bias contributes to the ability of patients to cope psychologically with their disease.

Threat ≠ prevention, challenge ≠ promotion: The impact of threat, challenge and regulatory focus on attention to negative stimuli

The purpose of the current experiment was to distinguish between the impact of strategic and affective forms of gain- and loss-related motivational states on the attention to negative stimuli. On the basis of the counter-regulation principle and regulatory focus theory, we predicted that individuals would attend more to negative than to neutral stimuli in a prevention focus and when experiencing challenge, but not in a promotion focus and under threat. In one experiment (N = 88) promotion, prevention, threat, or challenge states were activated through a memory task, and a subsequent dot probe task was administered. As predicted, those in the prevention focus and challenge conditions had an attentional bias towards negative words, but those in promotion and threat conditions did not. These findings provide support for the idea that strategic mindsets (e.g., regulatory focus) and hot emotional states (e.g., threat vs. challenge) differently affect the processing of affective stimuli.