1. Social Psychology, Meet the Internet
I203 Social & Organizational Issues of Information

2. Political Participation, Distribution and Consumption of Cultural Consumption
Informed, engaged public?
‘Deliberative Democracy’
Cultural Consumption
Diversity, Hypersegmentation, Massification

3. The Social Psychological Perspective
How social conditions and factors affect humans– especially behavior.
Effect of attitudes, beliefs– whether real or imagined.

4. Plan 9 From Cyberspace
Horror movie analogy: alarmist; realization of our worst fears
Also about content of Plan 9: Being mindlessly controlled by an alien force (i.e. internet)

5. Effects of the Internet
(those symbols mean empty set)
What are the effects of the internet? None.
“The first important point is that there is no simple main effect of the Internet on the average person.”
Foundation of social psych: interaction of person and situation.
Also, uses and gratifications model: “How a person is affected… depends on that person’s reasons and goals.”
NONE!

6. Internet ‘Differences’
Anonymity (or pseudo-anonymity)
Transcends physical distance
Physical appearance, cues
Asynchronicity

7. Deindividuation v. Identity Exploration
Anonymity
Deindividuation v. Identity Exploration

8. Deindividuation
“When an individual’s self-awareness is blocked or seriously reduced by environmental conditions, deindividuation can occur.” (McKenna & Bargh, p. 60)
“Deindividuation describes a state of reduced self- awareness associated with immersion and anonymity within a group.”
(The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Psychology)
Deinidivuation: otherwise known as ‘mob mentality’. Increased influence of environment, susceptibility to impulsive action, lack of inhibitions.
People are more blunt in their communication on the internet. Misunderstandings, etc., more likely on the internet.
However, we must explain these things at least partly as a result of scarcity of cues in CMC.
If deindividuation can promote impulsive behavior/speech, provides a forum for negative influences, like hate speech, prejudice. “Clock of anonimity”

10. “Deindividuation, as through anonymity, does not by itself produce negative behavior. Rather, it decreases the influence of internal (i.e., self) standards of or guides to behavior, and increases the power of external, situational cues (Johnson and Downing, 1979).

11. Identity Exploration Anonymity + Repeated Interactions:
Prior to the internet, anonymous interactions tended to be one-shot, fleeting.
Deindividuation works (in part) by emphasizing situation factors, de-emphasizing internal ones. This makes us susceptible to both positive and negative influences.
We’ll explore this more with Turkle. Internet as vehicle for identity exploration.
Stable norms, categories, patterns of behavior make it difficult to change social groups in meatspace. Internet helps break those barriers.
Disagree with McKenna and Bargh on this point: at first (when they were writing), it was more plausible to argue that people get on the internet and join new, different social groups. Evidence suggests that it is both (new and existing) – people very often use the internet as another mechanism for interacting with people they already know, in groups they are already members of.
“Starting out with a blank slate” – no, not what Turkle is arguing.
What’s the outcome of all this? What do we know about whether people are more satisfied, happier, etc. because of their ID exploration on the internet.

12. ‘The Illusion of Large Numbers’
This is an interesting point – the long tail, user-generated content means we can find a group that does/says/supports almost anything. Give the illusion/paradox, how might this influence our perceptions, behaviors, ideas?
In other words, the internet may contribute to a situation in which people constantly overestimate the popularity of whatever they believe, generating a self-reinforcing loop. We can imagine that this has both positive and negative consequences.
(.004% of internet population)

13. Related Idea: Class Size Paradox
‘Class Size Paradox’ (Hemenway 1982)--
Different, but relevant phenomenon: ‘Group Size Paradox’ (small groups more successful at collective action than larger ones)

14. Liking & Attraction Liking, relation formation without physical cues
Idealized self-presentation (vs. actual self)
First Impressions & Consistency
In meatspace, physical characteristics play a large role in liking.
Discuss Goffman here?
People who met online first (and liked each other), liked each other more when they met F2F. (psychological process of overestimation to fill in gaps)
Research shows that people are consistent, even in the face of obviously contradicting evidence.
Lying enough to get a date, but not so much that you don’t get to sex.
Another possibility: we’ve already talked about how anonymity leads to self-disclosure, self-disclosure also leads to greater intimacy, liking.

15. Space & Distance Barriers?
“Mere Exposure Effect” (Zajonc 1968) + Homophily
Physical proximity is one determinant of liking, familiarity in the real world. Familiarity is a basic determinant of attraction.
How is this approximated on the internet?
We like things we are exposed to more often. (exposure effect)
We are attracted to those who are similar– even if this is unintentional. Internet gives us the opportunity to indulge in both.

16. Asynchronicity
What are the affordances of asynchronous interactions from a social psychological perspective?
What do McKenna and Bargh say?
- Normal turn-taking, speech cues, norms may not apply
- Unlimited time (theoretically at least)
So:
- Greater control, sense of control
- More risk-taking
- More self-disclosure
Pattern: As people get to know each other on the net (increased comfort), they tend to give up control.
This happens in real-life and on the internet.

17. Questionable Links…
More socially anxious people are attracted to the internet.
The internet increases loneliness, depression
Online relationships are ‘worse’ than offline.
Different, yes, worse, no.

18. Porous Boundaries
The boundaries between meatspace and cyberspace are porous.
Evidence supports the fact that people carry their relationships, habits, etc. over from real-life to online-life.
More true all the time – ubiquitous technologies.

19. Next Week…
Everything you ever needed to know about reading social science research methods in only two lectures.