The DOI matches its Crossref record.
De‐individuation and group polarization in computer‐mediated communication
Abstract
A computer‐mediated communication system (CMCS) was used to explore the effects of de‐individuation on group polarization. Reicher (1984) argued that de‐individuating members of a group should increase the salience of group identity and hence normative behaviour, while de‐individuating subjects treated as individuals should have the reverse effect. We extended this idea to the group polarization paradigm and in addition independently manipulated group salience and de‐individuation, which were confounded factors in Reicher's study. It was reasoned that the visual anonymity created by isolating discussants in separate rooms would be de‐individuating compared to seating them together in the same room. At the same time either the subject's group or individual identity was made salient. A computer‐mediated communication system provided text‐based communication for discussants in all four conditions. Assuming that group polarization reflects conformity to a group norm (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987), we predicted an interaction between the de‐individuation and group salience factors, such that greatest polarization in the direction of a pre‐established group norm would be obtained in the de‐individuated—group condition and least in the de‐individuated—individual condition. This prediction was confirmed. Explanations of the findings in terms of Reicher's earlier study and in terms of self‐attention processes are considered within the general framework of social identity theory. Finally, the relevance of this research to the realm of human communication via computer networks is evaluated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfw006 · Cited by 1,992
Virtual Teams: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here?
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.05.002 · Cited by 1,314
Walther, J. B. (2007) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.002 · Cited by 915
Panacea or Panopticon?: The Hidden Power in Computer-Mediated Communication
SPEARS, R., & LEA, M. (1994) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365094021004001 · Cited by 705
Self-citationDeindividuation and antinormative behavior: a meta-analysis
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.3.238 · Cited by 667
Metadata
- Authors
- Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S.
- Venue
- British Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1990-06
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 121-134
- ISSN
- 0144-6665 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8309
- OpenAlex
- W1996537929
- Cited by
- 355
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: De‐individuation and group polarization in computer‐mediated communication. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00893.x
- The paper
- Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De‐individuation and group polarization in computer‐mediated communication. British Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00893.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.