Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

“Virtual Groups” 1995: Northwestern (IL/USA) / Manchester (UK) 1999: Rensselaer (NY) / Kansas 2000: Rensselaer / Göttingen 2003: Cornell (NY) / Rutgers.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "“Virtual Groups” 1995: Northwestern (IL/USA) / Manchester (UK) 1999: Rensselaer (NY) / Kansas 2000: Rensselaer / Göttingen 2003: Cornell (NY) / Rutgers."— Presentation transcript:

1 “Virtual Groups” 1995: Northwestern (IL/USA) / Manchester (UK) 1999: Rensselaer (NY) / Kansas 2000: Rensselaer / Göttingen 2003: Cornell (NY) / Rutgers (NJ) 2005: Cornell, Ohio State, Texas Tech, Rensselaer, Merrit (Calif) 2008: Michigan State/Nanyang Technological U

2 Overview: No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostile

3 Overview: No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostile “What’s wrong with those Brits?” “What’s wrong with those Americans?”

4 Overview: No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostile “What’s wrong with those Brits?” “What’s wrong with those Americans?” “Clueless farmers!” “Gearhead slackers!”

5 Overview: No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostile initially

6 Overview: No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostile Theory and research: Online relations –Intergroup & Interpersonal –Psychology, Management, Communication initially

7 Overview: No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostile Theory and research: Online relations –Intergroup & Interpersonal –Psychology, Management, Communication Synthesis/Agenda initially

8 Premise: Computer-Mediated Communication attributes facilitate affective bonds within small interacting groups (of heterogenous and potentially hostile members) better than face-to-face interactions –No visual cues, asynchronous, editable –Malleable identity –Manageable

9 Sample Studies Mollov 2006: Jewish and Palestinian students discuss religion and holidays online: positive Ellis & Moaz 2007: Jewish/Palestinian online discussion groups magnify opposing argument styles: negative

10 Theoretical Approaches 1. Contact hypothesis –Plus facilitators –Applied to Internet: Amachai-Hamburger & McKenna 2. Social identification/deindividuation 3. Configural dispersion 4. Interpersonal dynamics

11 Mollov 2006: Jewish and Palestinian students discuss religion and holidays online: positive Ellis & Moaz 2007: Jewish/Palestinian online discussion groups magnify opposing argument styles: negative Contact is not enough What happens online? What can happen?

12 Social Identification/Deindividuation Model Spears, Lea, & Postmes Visual anonymity in CMC  (In)Group identification –Depersonalization –Attraction to group Intergroup applications –Location as intergroup dimension –Inconsistent results Nature of Attraction: Group, not interpersonal

13 Social Identification/Deindividuation Model Spears, Lea, & Postmes Visual anonymity in CMC  (In)Group identification –Depersonalization –Attraction to group Intergroup applications –Location as intergroup dimension –Inconsistent results Nature of Attraction: Group, not interpersonal

14 Social Identification/Deindividuation Model Spears, Lea, & Postmes Visual anonymity in CMC  (In)Group identification –Depersonalization –Attraction to group Intergroup applications –Location as intergroup dimension –Inconsistent results Nature of Attraction: Group, not intergroup or interpersonal

15 Virtual Teams & “Configural Dispersion”

16 Polzer et al., Faultlines in Geographically Dispersed Teams

17

18

19

20 Interpersonal Approaches Social Information Processing Theory –Messages: verbal for nonverbal –Information: accumulates over time

21 Self Disclosure/Personal Questions Online (vs. Offline) –Greater proportion of messages –More personal Make decision (vs. Get acquainted) –Fewer disclosures –More personal –Same degree of partner familiarity A/S/L? RUMorF?

22 Self Disclosure/Personal Questions Online (vs. Offline) –Greater proportion of messages –More personal Make decision (vs. Get acquainted) –Fewer disclosures –More personal –Same degree of partner familiarity A/S/L? RUMorF?

23 Development of Interpersonal Impressions over Time Short-term vs Long-term Picture or No Picture

24 New Teams; no past, no future, one project New Teams; no past, no future, one project Semester-Long Teams, final project Semester-Long Teams, final project PhotoPhoto No Photo 4-person international teams with partners in the U.S. and the U.K. Development of Interpersonal Impressions Over Time: Time vs Photos

25 Instructions: You will be working with these people: Nicole Norris, Lucy Jeong, Francesco Musillo, and Duncan Dodds. Leave Netscape running in one window. In another, please log in to NecroMOO (sirill.svg.mbs.no:7777) and log in under your name. Then give the command, @go #745. This will take you to a private room where you and your group partners can work on the decision task

26 Instructions:You will be working with these people:. Leave Netscape running in one window. In another, please log in to NecroMOO (sirill.svg.mbs.no:7777) and log in under your name. Then give the command, @go #1248. This will take you to a private room where you and your group partners can work on the decision task.

27 Results on interpersonal affection & attraction: Long-term No photoWith photo Short-term

28 Incentivization: “The Rules of Virtual Groups” Cornell/Rutgers Short-Term (2 wk) Groups –Start immediately –Communicate frequently –Acknowledge messages –Explicit responses –Multitask content plus organizing –Make and keep deadlines

29 Confounded design: –1/3 of groups: Part of grade for frequency –1/3 of groups: Part of grade for multi-tasking –1/3 of groups: All of grade for group paper –Everyone encouraged to follow ALL rules!

30 Started early Wrote frequently Acknow- ledged others Multi- tasked Stuck to deadlines Explicit messages Trust.43.65.57.45.65.67 Perfor- mance.21.37.38.41.29 Actual grade.21.41.28NS.32.49 Rules Outcomes r (86), p <.005

31 Conclusions Extant but fragmented literature Synthesis to facilitate “dangerous” groups’ effective contact –Task-focused –Interpersonally-facilitative Agenda: More campuses join the Virtual Groups course –one language –no Facebook $60million question: Do interpersonal dynamics foster intergroup generalization?

32 Conclusions Extant but fragmented literature Synthesis to facilitate “dangerous” groups’ effective contact –Task-focused –Interpersonally-facilitative (time, rules, dispersion, etc.) Agenda: More campuses join the Virtual Groups course –one language –no Facebook $60million question: Do interpersonal dynamics foster intergroup generalization?

33

34


Download ppt "“Virtual Groups” 1995: Northwestern (IL/USA) / Manchester (UK) 1999: Rensselaer (NY) / Kansas 2000: Rensselaer / Göttingen 2003: Cornell (NY) / Rutgers."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google