“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

Overview: No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostile

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

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

Overview: No ethnopolitical data: Groups not hostile initially

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

Virtual Teams & “Configural Dispersion”

Polzer et al., Faultlines in Geographically Dispersed Teams

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

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?

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?

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

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

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 #745. This will take you to a private room where you and your group partners can work on the decision task

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 #1248. This will take you to a private room where you and your group partners can work on the decision task.

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

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

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!

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

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?

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?