CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 557Digital Communication and LanguageTeam Dynamics and PerformanceOnline and Blended Learning

The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication

Postmes, T, Spears, R, Lea, M·2000·Human Communication Research
DOI 10.1093/hcr/26.3.341
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication (CMC) was examined among students who used e-mail as part of a course. A network analysis of group structures revealed that (a) content and form of communication is normative, group norms defining communication patterns within groups, (b) conformity to group norms increases over time, communication outside the group is governed by different social norms. Results show that norms prescribing a particular use of technology are socially constructed over time at the level of locally defined groups and also show that the influence of these norms is limited to the boundaries of the group. It is concluded that the process of social construction is restrained by social identities that become salient over the course of interaction via CMC. These findings complement experimental evidence that stresses the importance of normative influence in CMC.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00761.x

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Inter-annotator agreement was calculated throughout the annotation process.

    “We calculated inter-annotator agreement throughout the process since linguistic features can be differently interpreted due to underlying human bias, such as a certain class perspective or 'normative expectations' (Baider, 2020; Postmes et al., 2000; Maronilakis et al., 2022).”

    From “Real men in the battlefield”: a hybrid AI–discourse analysis of online homophobia and transphobia (2026) · cites this paper as Postmes et al., 2000

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M.
Affiliations
  • Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (NL)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Human Communication Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2000-07
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
341-371
ISSN
  • 0360-3989 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2958
DOI
10.1093/hcr/26.3.341
OpenAlex
W2143318268
Cited by
557
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 26
FWCI
17.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 5540 d)
Locations
  • Human Communication Research (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Digital Communication and Language
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
Keywords
group norms, computer-mediated communication, email, social construction of norms, conformity, social identity, group structure, normative influence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review