Abstract
AbstractIn group discussions, people rely on everyday diplomatic skills to socially regulate the interaction, maintain harmony, and avoid escalation. This article compares social regulation in online and face-to-face (FtF) groups. It studies the micro-dynamics of online social interactions in response to disagreements. Thirty-two triads discussed, in a repeated measures design, controversial topics via text-based online chat and FtF. The fourth group member was a confederate who voiced a deviant (right-wing) opinion. Results show that online interactions were less responsive and less ambiguous compared with FtF discussions. This affected participants’ social attributions: they felt their interaction partners ignored them and displayed disinhibited behavior. This also had relational consequences: participants experienced polarization and less solidarity. These results offer a new perspective on the process of online polarization: this might not be due to changes in individual psychology (e.g., disinhibition), but to misattributions of online behavior.
Highlights
This affected participants’ social attributions: they felt their interaction partners ignored them and displayed disinhibited behavior. This had relational consequences: participants experienced polarization and less solidarity. These results offer a new perspective on the process of online polarization: this might not be due to changes in individual psychology, but to misattributions of online behavior
Instead of assuming that people are less socially concerned online, or that the medium psychologically transforms them in another way, we propose that the intrinsic characteristics of online interaction can contribute to a negative sender–receiver dynamic: the relative unresponsiveness and clarity of senders’ messages may lead receivers to feel ignored and rejected, which in turn affects perceived polarization and solidarity
In a world where concerns about the polarizing effects of online discussions are rising, there is a need for an accurate understanding of the diplomatic skills that are required to regulate and moderate social interactions to prevent excessive polarization
Summary
Results show that online interactions were less responsive and less ambiguous compared with FtF discussions This affected participants’ social attributions: they felt their interaction partners ignored them and displayed disinhibited behavior. Instead of assuming that people are less socially concerned online, or that the medium psychologically transforms them in another way, we propose that the intrinsic characteristics of online interaction can contribute to a negative sender–receiver dynamic: the relative unresponsiveness and clarity of senders’ messages may lead receivers to feel ignored and rejected, which in turn affects perceived polarization and solidarity
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
