This study investigates the measurement of social identification, interpersonal attraction, and cohesiveness in virtual groups. Different theoretical claims about relationships in computer-mediated groups rely on measurement strategies that are shown to reflect dramatically inconsistent semantic and administration features. A review of conceptual approaches and definitions for these constructs is presented. Data were collected from groups working asynchronously via the Internet under different geographic distributions, whose members completed a variety of measures related to these constructs. Analyses generated three likely dimensions of attraction. The research highlights the need for greater specificity in reports of the actual measures used in group research, and additional conceptual concerns regarding the contested relationships among these constructs.
References
[1]
Hinds, P. and Kiesler, S. (2002) Distributed Work. MIT Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2464.001.0001
[2]
Ma, H. (2016) Research on Network Group Event Recognition Based on Neural Network. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4, 86-92. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2016.412008
[3]
Walther, J.B., Bunz, U. and Bazarova, N. (2005) The Rules of Virtual Groups. Proceedings of the 2005 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, 6 January 2005, 51b. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2005.617
[4]
Phillips, K.W., Mannix, E.A., Neale, M.A. and Gruenfeld, D.H. (2004) Diverse Groups and Information Sharing: The Effects of Congruent Ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 497-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.10.003
[5]
Burke, K., Aytes, K., Chidambaram, L. and Johnson, J.J. (1999) A Study of Partially Distributed Work Groups: The Impact of Media, Location, and Time Perceptions and Performance. Small Group Research, 30, 453-490. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649649903000404
[6]
Fiol, C.M. and O’Connor, E.J. (2005) Identification in Face-to-Face, Hybrid, and Pure Virtual Teams: Untangling the Contradictions. Organization Science, 16, 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0101
[7]
Postmes, T. and Baym, N. (2005) Intergroup Dimensions of the Internet. In: Harwood, J. and Giles, H., Eds., Intergroup Communication: Multiple Perspectives, Peter Lang, New York, 213-238.
[8]
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986) The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behaviour. In: Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G., Eds., The Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 7-24.
[9]
Spears, R. and Lea, M. (1992) Social Influence and the Influence of the “Social” in Computer-Mediated Communication. In: Lea, M., Ed., Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire, 30-65.
[10]
Spears, R. and Lea, M. (1994) Panacea or Panopticon? The Hidden Power in Computer-Mediated Communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365094021004001
[11]
Postmes, T., Spears, R. and Lea, M. (1998) Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? Side-Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication. Communication Research, 25, 689-715. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365098025006006
[12]
Reicher, S., Spears, R. and Postmes, T. (1995) A Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Phenomenon. In: Hewstone, W.S.M., Ed., European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 6, Wiley, Chichester, 161-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779443000049
[13]
Cramton, C.D. (2001) The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346-371. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.3.346.10098
[14]
Pratt, M.G. (2001) Social Identity Dynamics in Modern Organizations: An Organizational Psychology/Organizational Behavior Perspective. In: Hogg, M. and Terry, D.J., Eds., Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts, Psychology Press, Philadelphia, 13-30.
[15]
Thatcher, S.M., Jehn, K.A. and Zanutto, E. (2003) Cracks in Diversity Research: The Effects of Diversity Faultlines on Conflict and Performance. Group Decision Negotiation, 12, 217-241. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023325406946
[16]
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.27
[17]
Walther, J.B. (1992) Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction—A Relational Perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003
[18]
Walther, J.B. and Parks, M.R. (2002) Cues Filtered Out, Cues Filtered In: Computer-Mediated Communication and Relationships. In: Knapp, M.L. and Daly, J.A., Eds., Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 3rd Edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks, 529-563.
[19]
Rogers, P. and Lea, M. (2004) Cohesion in Online Groups. In: Morgan, K., Sanchez, C.A., Brebbia, C.A. and Vioskounsky, A., Eds., Human Perspectives on the Internet Society: Culture, Psychology and Gender, WIT Press, Southampton, 115-124.
[20]
Walther, J.B. (1996) Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
[21]
Hogg, M.A. (1992) The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity. New York University Press, New York.
[22]
Prentice, D.A., Miller, D.T. and Lightdale, J.R. (1994) Asymmetries in Attachments to Groups and to Their Members: Distinguishing between Common-Identity and Common-Bond Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484-493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205005
[23]
Hogg, M.A. and Hardie, E.A. (1992) Prototypicality, Conformity and Depersonalized Attraction: A Self-Categorization Analysis of Group Cohesiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00954.x
[24]
Lott, A.J. and Lott, B.E. (1965) Group Cohesiveness as Interpersonal Attraction: A Review of Relationships with Antecedent and Consequent Variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022386
[25]
McCroskey, J. and McCain, T. (1974) The Measurement of Interpersonal Attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757409375845
[26]
Mortensen, M. and Hinds, P.J. (2001) Conflict and Shared Identity in Geographically Distributed Teams. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 212-228. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022856
[27]
McCroskey, J., Richmond, V. and Daly, J. (1975) The Development of a Measure of Perceived Homophily in Interpersonal Communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 325-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00281.x
[28]
Evans, C.R. and Jarvis, P.A. (1986) The Group Attitude Scale: A Measure of Attraction to Group. Small Group Behavior, 17, 203-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649648601700205
[29]
Tyler, T.R. (1999) Why People Cooperate with Organizations: An Identity Based Perspective. In: Sutton, R.I. and Staw, B.M., Eds., Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, JAI Press, Stamford, 201-246.
[30]
Seashore, S.E. (1954) Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group. Survey Research Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor.
[31]
Stasser, G. and Titus, W. (1985) Pooling Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling during Discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467
[32]
Tomas, J.M. and Oliver, A. (1999) Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale: Two Factors or Method Effects. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 84-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540120
[33]
Postmes, T. and Spears, R. (2000) Refining the Cognitive Redefinition of the Group: Deindividuation Effects in Common Bond vs. Common Identity Groups. In: Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lea, M. and Reicher, S.D., Eds., SIDE Issues Centre Stage: Recent Developments in Studies of Deindividuation in Groups, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam, 63-78.
[34]
Walther, J.B. and Burgoon, J.K. (1992) Relational Communication in Computer-Mediated Interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00295.x
