1 s2.0 S0747563208001015 Main PDF

Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 2972–2991
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh
Social impact in technologically-mediated

communication: An examination of online influence
Michael D. Miller a,*, C. Cryss Brunner b,1
a
University of Wisconsin-River Falls, 247 Wyman Education Building, 410 S. Third Street, River Falls, WI 54022, United States
b
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, 330 Wulling Hall, 86 Pleasant Street S. E., Minneapolis, MN 55455, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This study used Social Impact Theory to explore sources and func-
Available online 30 June 2008 tions of interpersonal influence in Computer-Mediated Communi-
cation. Participants were 43 female and 17 male graduate students
Keywords: ranging from 25 to 60 years of age. In each of five distinct graduate
Computer-Mediated Communication classes (n1 = 15, n2 = 11, n3 = 10, n4 = 12, n5 = 12) delivered online at
Technologically-mediated communication a research university, participants engaged in anonymous and
Influence
computer-mediated discourse and then nominated peers who
Personality
Social impact
were directive and/or influential (positive and negative) during
the online interaction. High numbers of peer nominations were
expected to characterize participants perceived as emanating
social impact. Four interpersonal factors were chosen as strength
operants in accordance with Social Impact Theory and were, there-
fore, expected to predict social impact. Of the four, assertiveness
and exaggeration were significant, while emotional intensity and
sensitivity were not. Two factors, contribution total and word total,
were chosen as immediacy operants in accordance with Social
Impact Theory. Both factors were found to be significant predictors
of social impact. Implications of these findings relative to online
learning and interpersonal influence as it occurs in an online con-
text are discussed.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Over the past twenty years there has been an explosion in technology access, use and utility. For
example, when considering access, one finds that, over time, entire markets in Asia, Africa, South
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 715 425 3233; fax: +1 715 425 3242.
E-mail addresses: michael.miller-2@uwrf.edu (M.D. Miller), brunner@umn.edu (C. Cryss Brunner).
1
Tel.: +1 612 624 8527; fax: +1 612 624 3377.
0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.05.004
M.D. Miller, C. Cryss Brunner / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 2972–2991 2973
America, and the Middle East systematically scrapped any efforts to regionally ‘‘wire” with fiber optic
cable, favoring instead cellular technology to facilitate broader and quicker technological communica-
tion. Given this substantial increase in access and the corresponding decrease in costs associated with
technological communication, billions of people around the world’s communicates via technology.
Further, when considering how technology’s utility and usability have expanded (think Apple’s
Macintosh Computer circa 1984 retailing for $2495 vs. the iPhone of today at $499), it is plain to
see how the evolving synergies between access, use and utility have fundamentally shifted how
humans communicate, for what purposes and to what ends. By the end of 2007, close to 1.4 billion
internet users (20% of the world population) were estimated worldwide (http://www.internetworld-
stats.com/stats.htm). Schools, colleges, universities, businesses, NGO’s, and governmental agencies
alike employ technology to communicate internally and externally and to provide education and
training materials to employees and constituents. User-generated/social networking websites (eBay,
Craigslist, MySpace, Facebook) provide communication forums for hundreds of millions of users con-
stantly, day and night. To be sure, the proliferation of technologically-mediated communication in
various aspects of life (educationally, vocationally, socially) necessitates the study of the source and
function of influence therein.
Given these mechanically created shifts in communication, Computer-Mediated Communication
(CMC) research has surged. Along with research relating CMC to such tangibles as civic participation
and work productivity, an area of CMC research that has continued to evolve focuses on interpersonal
characteristics and online influence. To extend research in the area of interpersonal characteristics and
online influence, this paper highlights a study that employed Latane’s (1981) well-regarded Social Im-
pact Theory (SIT) to understand how participants’ interpersonal characteristics and online presence
affected their ability to influence peers during collaborative and technologically-mediated
communication.
Social psychology is the science of understanding the ways in which people’s thoughts, feelings,
and behaviors are influenced by the real or imagined presence of others (Allport, 1935). For a century,
social psychology research has relied largely on visual and aural cues to explain how and why the
presence of others in all its shapes and forms affects individual and group behaviors. In contrast,
CMC affords researchers the opportunity to study other less obvious, but influential, variables by
intentionally filtering participants’ exposure to the visual and aural characteristics of others during
communication. The study described in the paper relies on such filtering for the examination of rela-
tively new and unique sources of communicator influence during anonymous and collaborative online
interaction.
Additionally, because notable aspects known to create influence in face-to-face interactions such as
gender, race, social attractiveness, and voice quality are often suppressed in anonymous CMC, the
importance of studying new dimensions of communicator influence2 as it occurs online is underscored.
The feature of having dominant aspects of one’s self minimized through anonymous, collaborative, and
synchronous CMC provides the context for a discussion of interpersonal factors that are believed to cor-
respond significantly with social influence as it occurs online.
2. Review of relevant literature: theoretical ground for a study of social impact in Computer-
Mediated Communication
Two bodies of literature support this study. First, a review of current CMC literature reveals tre-
mendous strides in the examination of the medium and highlights the need to specifically address
the effects of natural communicator influence in computer-mediated environments. Second, a review
of Social Impact Theory literature illustrates the theory’s usefulness for studying communicator influ-
2
An implicit assumption and potential study limitation is the expectation that interpersonal factors will manifest between
collaborates through online transmissions. While other strength operants could have been explored (i.e. through textual analysis
for strength-like language markers), the salient quality of interpersonal factors and robust nature of the instrument
(Comprehensive Personality Profile)—through which the interpersonal factors were identified—support the assignment of
‘‘strength” to the chosen interpersonal factors in this study.
2974 M.D. Miller, C. Cryss Brunner / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 2972–2991
ence in computer-mediated interaction, especially in regards to strength2 and immediacy—indepen-

dent variables central to this study.
3. Computer-Mediated Communication
A large body of research has accumulated on ‘‘Computer-Mediated Communication,”—defined as

‘‘any communication patterns mediated by a computer” (Metz, 1994, p. 32). To date, this large set of re-
search has yielded many useful findings relative to influence. Of particular interest for this study, some
studies report that filters inherent in CMC facilitate feelings of intimacy, power, isolation, and deindi-
viduation among users (Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986). Other studies found that group
collaboration through computer-mediated media has resulted in-group processing outcomes that were
considered both innovative and democratic (e.g., Scott, 1999; Sosik, Avolio, & Kahai, 1997). Regarding
organizational effectiveness, research has concluded that there are both benefits and liabilities that re-
sult from computer-mediated systems of communicating (e.g., Baym, 1995; Jones, 1995, 1997).
The multi-modal attributes of CMC, also known as electronic communication, electronic discourse,
or multiple user dimensions (MUD), provide users with aspects of oral and print communication sep-
arately and simultaneously (McMurdo, 1995). The importance of studying direct or peripheral effects
of Computer-Mediated Communication within group collaboration is widely accepted (DeSanctis &
Gallupe, 1987; Scott, 1999; Sosik et al., 1997; Valacich, Dennis, & Nunamaker, 1992).
Because Computer-Mediated Communication commonly keeps visual and auditory cues from oper-
ating as sources of influence, social impact in CMC is likely to have different causes than in commu-
nication that involves visual or aural cues. The complex convergence of text, time, and anonymity in
CMC is central to the medium’s growth and its increasing importance across organizations and edu-
cational institutions. Not surprisingly, a wide variety of approaches to studying CMC have been intro-
duced and evolved almost as rapidly as the medium itself.
Internet research has focused on Internet content (McLaughlin, 1996), policy implications (Kahin,
1997; McChesney, 1996), and commercial development (Ho, 1997; Hoffman, Novak, & Chatterjee,
1995; Spar & Bussgang, 1996). Other online research has been attentive to community and culture
(Baym, 1995; Jones, 1995, 1997; McLaughlin, Osborne, & Ellison, 1997; Rheingold, 1993), communica-
tion structure (Jackson, 1997), and the interaction patterns and norms of Internet users (Garton, Hay-
thornthwaite, & Wellman, 1997; McLaughlin, Osborne, & Smith, 1995). Yet another important area of
research is the study of how CMC affects group collaboration (DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987; Scott, 1999;
Sosik et al., 1997; Valacich et al., 1992).
Continued examination of CMC requires attention to numerous complexities so that social influ-
ence between sources and targets during computer-mediated interactions can be best understood.
While theoretical frameworks have been used in the past to help explain online behavior [Dynamic
Social Impact Theory (DSIT), Social Information Processing (SIP), Social Identity Model of Deindividu-
ation Effects (SIDE)], CMC research that extends theoretical foundations and focuses specifically on the
social influence generated and perceived between online communicators is lacking. For details on gen-
eral and theoretical approaches employed in research studies of CMC, refer to the breakdown of ref-
erences included in Table 1.
4. Social Impact Theory
Social Impact Theory (SIT) is defined broadly as:

any of the great variety of changes in physiological states and subjective feelings, motives and emo-
tions, cognitions and beliefs, values and behavior, that occur in an individual, human or animal, as a
result of the real, implied, or imagined presence or actions of other individuals (Latane, 1981, p.
343).
From this definition, real or implied actions of others refer to source, whereas stated changes occur
in targets, relative to the source. In Social Impact Theory, sources vary along three explicit dimensions:
(1) strength, (2) immediacy, and (3) number. Strength refers to a source’s influence denoted by age,
Table 1
Various approaches employed in the study of computer-mediated communication and a breakdown of corresponding references
Theoretical perspective Research operating from that perspective

Dynamic social impact theory Harkins and Latane (1998), Latane (1997), Latane and L’Herrou (1996), Nowak et al.
(1990), Symposium (1996)
Filtered cues Boneva et al. (2001), Dubrovsky et al. (1991), Fiske and Taylor (1984), Flanagin et al.
(2002), Fulk and Ryu (1990), Kiesler (1986), Kiesler et al. (1984), Kraut et al. (2002),
Sproull and Kiesler (1986), Tidwell and Walther (2002), Walther et al. (1994)
Media richness Daft and Lengel (1984), Flannigan and Metzger (2001), Fulk and Boyd (1991), Markus
(1994), Parks and Floyd (1996), Rice (1993), Trevino et al. (1990), Trevino et al. (1987)
Paralanguage Fiske and Taylor (1984), Jacobson (1999), Lea and Spears (1992), Selfe and Meyer
(1991)
Social identity and deindividuation Lee (2007), Lee (2004), Lee (2003), Postmes and Spears (2000a), Postmes and Spears
(2002), Postmes et al. (2002), Spears and Lea (1992, 1994), Spears et al. (1990)
Social information processing and Fernback and Thompson (1995), Garton et al. (1997), Jessup et al. (1990), Kiesler et al.
standards of conduct (1984), Lea and Spears (1992), Markus (1994), McLaughlin et al. (1995), Postmes and
Spears (2000), Robinson et al. (2000), Sassenberg (2002), Sproull and Kiesler (1986),
Van Alstyne and Brynjolfsson (1996), Walther et al. (1994)
Social presence model Dobos (1992), Elliot and Quattlebaum (1979), Rice (1993), Short et al. (1976)
socio-economic status, title, and power over target. Immediacy refers to the influence of time and
space proximity as well as the absence of interfering filters between source and target. Number simply
expresses the quantity of influential sources. The mathematical formula and primary principle ex-
pressed by SIT is ‘‘Social Forces, I = f{SIN}” (Latane, 1981, p. 344). The equation indicates that influence
(I) from source to target is equal to the function of that source’s strength (S) immediacy (I) num-
ber (N). A secondary principle, ‘‘the Psychosocial Law, I = sNt, t < 1” (Latane, 1981, p. 344), indicates
that when in a multiplicative force field such as the one illustrated in SIT, an increase in one variable
creates an exponential increase in the others.
Social Impact Theory literature clearly demonstrates the salience of the independent variables cen-
tral to the theory—strength, immediacy, and number—in understanding social influence. Jackson and
Latane (1981a), for example, used audience size (number) and proximity (immediacy) to predict the
anxiety level of singers on stage. Jackson and Latane (1981b) employed the number and perceived sta-
tus (strength) of donation seekers to predict their success as measured by dollars collected. An exam-
ple demonstrating the effect of number alone, found that as the number of diners eating together at a
restaurant increased, each diner’s sense of responsibility for leaving an appropriate gratuity decreased,
as did the amount of the gratuity itself (Freeman, Walker, Borden, & Latane, 1975).
The following subsections discuss the independent variables central to SIT in order to demonstrate
how they operate in this CMC study.
4.1. Strength
Strength, as perceived by a relational target, is a salient predictor of influence in human interaction.

In addition to characteristics included in the conventional definition of strength (age, socio-economic
status, title, and power over target), factors such as gender (Berryman & Wilcox, 2001; Eagly, Karau, &
Makhijani, 1995; Edelsky, 1976; Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Lakoff, 1973; Siegler & Siegler,
1976), race (Jackson, Sullivan, & Hodge, 1993; Leonard & Locke, 1993; Pettigrew & Martin, 1987), so-
cial attractiveness (Feldstein, Dohm, & Crown, 2001; Lord, 1985), body language (Dittman, 1972; Pal-
mer & Lack, 1993), and voice quality (Cappella & Planalp, 1981; Jaffe & Feldstein, 1970; Miller,
Maruyama, Beaber, & Valone, 1976; O’Connel, Kowall, Bartels, Mundt, & Van de Water, 1989; Schin-
gler, Alwitt, McCarthy, & Green, 1983) have also been shown to produce strength-like influence in vi-
sual and aural communication.
In anonymous computer-mediated interaction where gender, race, social attractiveness, and voice
quality are expressly filtered (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991), new dimensions of strength are expected to
emerge as functions of influence. In the early years of CMC research, researchers paid limited attention
to how communicator characteristics, such as those relating to strength from SIT, affect impressions
formed during computer-mediated interactions (Jacobson, 1999). More recent studies of CMC influ-
ence have focused on, the effects of filtered cues within CMC on characteristics of relationship devel-
opment (Cronin, 2008) the mediating affects of CMC on one’s willingness to express opinions (Ho &
McLeod, 2008) and the effects on participant–observer differences in CMC (Ramirez, Shuangyue,
McGrew, & Shu-Fang, 2007). While research has been devoted to exploring aspects of interpersonal
influence in CMC, this study utilizes select interpersonal factors made explicit by the Comprehensive
Personality Profile (CPP) as alternate indicators of strength-like influence. Specifically, the strength
operants in this study are (1) emotional intensity, (2) sensitivity, (3) assertiveness, and (4)
exaggeration.
The interpersonal factors appraised by the CPP allow researchers to examine specific interpersonal
characteristics that are likely to produce social influence in online communication. As indicated by the
manufacturer of the instrument (Wonderlic, 1999), the four primary uses of the CPP are employee
selection, employee development, management effectiveness, and team building. While the CPP is
used almost exclusively in the business world, ‘‘every effort was made by the development team to
meet the rigid requirements of the American Psychological Association Standards for Educational
and Psychological Testing” (Cohn, 2001, quoted in Impara, 2001, p. 4). Katz argued that the CPP is more
practical than other personality instruments, such as the 16PF and Myers–Briggs, especially noting its
usefulness in promoting organizational communication and teamwork (Impara, 2001).
In short, the case for using CPP factors as strength-indicators and independent variables in this
study is well supported. Of the seven primary interpersonal factors measured by the CPP, emotional
intensity, sensitivity, assertiveness, and exaggeration, are used to represent strength in this study.
Each of these four interpersonal factors is discussed below.
4.1.1. Emotional intensity

The interpersonal factor emotional intensity assesses physical, mental and social intensity levels
(Wonderlic, 1999). While some research examined consequences of emotional reactivity (Diener, Lar-
sen, Levine, & Emmons, 1984), notably intense individuals have been found to react more strongly
than less intense individuals do, even when simulations are identical (Larsen, Diener, & Emmons,
1986). Emotional intensity is stable and consistent over time (Larsen & Diener, 1987) and highly reac-
tive individuals also tend to be motivated by action and results (Wonderlic, 1999). During CMC inter-
actions where online collaborates are anonymous to one another in terms of more salient strength
characteristics, emotional intensity will emerge as an agent of CMC influence. Therefore, the first
hypothesis states that high levels of emotional intensity will predict CMC influence in anonymous, col-
laborative, and synchronous CMC.
4.1.2. Sensitivity
The interpersonal factor sensitivity measures warmth, caring, and commitment to group success
(Wonderlic, 1999). It has been suggested that warmth as a human adaptation can be studied indepen-
dently of co-occurring variables such as independence or attachment (MacDonald, 1992). The warmth
construct has also been identified as a biological adaptation capable of eliciting and operating as a re-
ward, thus serving as a component of a person’s hierarchy of needs (MacDonald, 1985). Wilmore and
Thomas (2001) stated that influential leaders must ‘‘care internally for the well-being and happiness
of others,” (p. 117). Care and concern are clear and consistent human factors that online communica-
tors will acknowledge.
This study offers a second factor in the first hypothesis: that is, high levels of sensitivity will cor-
respond with CMC influence in anonymous, collaborative, and synchronous CMC.
4.1.3. Assertiveness
Personal assertiveness, defined as one’s clear expression of wants and needs (Wonderlic, 1999;
Wolpe, 1958), is a theoretically valid indicator of influence in social exchanges (Elliott & Gramling,
1990). In contrast, non-assertive individuals must be encouraged to share their opinions (Wonderlic,
1999) and lack confidence in their feelings and beliefs (Jakubowski-Spector, 1973). Extroversion as a
personality trait often implicated in social influence (Lord, Foti, & DeVader, 1984). In online commu-
nication, individuals who clearly express thoughts and ideas effectively, especially in the absence of
more pronounced social cues that occur in face-to-face exchanges, are predicted to be influential. High
levels of the third factor (assertiveness) listed in the first hypothesis is believed to correspond with
social influence in anonymous, collaborative, and synchronous CMC.
4.1.4. Exaggeration
Finally, exaggeration, as defined by the CPP, measures one’s tendency to overstate accomplishments
and understate weaknesses in ways that are perceived as self-critical (Wonderlic, 1999). Similarly,
‘‘spotlight effect” illustrates that an individual’s mistakes or triumphs are less obvious to others than
they are to themselves (Gilovich, Medvec, & Savitsky, 2000). In such instances individuals not only feel
their errors have been noticed, but that they will also be judged more harshly than they actually are
(Savitsky, Epley, & Gilovich, 2001). Exaggeration can occur when individuals define their personalities
against favorable others whom they would like to emulate (Festinger, 1954). In these and other stud-
ies of social comparison (Wheeler & Miyake, 1992; Wood, 1989), exaggeration has been used as a tool
to examine how individuals’ self-identities are constructed in comparison to other persons.
While honesty and integrity relative to reporting current states of affairs as they are and not as
individuals would like them to be, is a valued trait in regards to effective communication, the filtering
effects of online communication will tend to reward exaggerators as ‘‘influential” regardless of hon-
esty’s and integrity’s value in this context. In other words, individuals who generally overstate or
understate in online communication will be able to do so relatively free from the scrutiny that occurs
in face-to-face exchanges. This study presumes that exaggerators, regardless of directionality, will
produce more influence than individuals who exaggerate little or not at all. Thus, the fourth factor
of the first hypothesis states that higher or lower levels of exaggeration relative to the norm will cor-
respond with social influence in anonymous, collaborative, and synchronous CMC.
4.2. Immediacy
In addition to exploring new dimensions of strength-like influence, this study also examines the
effect of immediacy (text presence) on influence in CMC. The well-researched effects of social pres-
ence on individual behavior (Darley & Latane, 1968; Latane & Darley, 1970; Latane & Nida, 1981; Mil-
gram & Hollander, 1964; Porter, 1939; Ringelman, 1913, cited in Kravitz & Martin, 1986; Triplett,
1897) support this study’s use of immediacy to explore CMC influence. While immediacy in CMC is
not definable in a physical sense, this study’s use of presenceas a psychological construct has been sim-
ilarly preceded (Asch, 1956; Basset & Latane, 1976; Berger & Burgoon, 1995; Miller et al., 1976; O’Con-
nel et al., 1989).
In this study and in the context of synchronous CMC, immediacy is represented by a participant’s
proximity to the chat room dialogue as evidenced by a participant’s number of contributions and their
total number of contributed words. More specifically, a participant’s total number of contributions
illustrates a consistent presence throughout the synchronous interaction. A participant’s number of
words (illustrated by larger or smaller blocks of text during the synchronous interaction) demon-
strates a more immediate physical presence. Accordingly, the second hypothesis states that higher
numbers of contribution and word totals will correspond with social influence in anonymous, collab-
orative, and synchronous CMC.
4.3. Number
Number as an independent variable in SIT, simply defined as the number of sources of impact rel-
ative to targets of impact (Latane, 1981), has clear connections to group presence research (Asch,
1956; Porter, 1939; Triplett, 1897). As shown through supplementary studies highlighting social loaf-
ing, social facilitation, and diffusion of responsibility, an increase in the number of sources of influence
is generally accepted as indicative of increases in, or diffusion of, total influence. However, in interac-
tive venues where number is fixed, such as student work groups, organizational committees, or sport’s
teams, number is not a factor of social influence and only characteristics of strength and immediacy
remain salient. For example, the CMC interaction that takes place in online courses, as in this study,
has a fixed number of students. Thus, given the setting of the research highlighted in this article,
the social influence generated between communicators as sources and targets of influence can be de-
scribed by strength and immediacy exclusively, and number in this study was set aside.
5. The study
This section of the paper describes the research study in the subsections: (1) ‘‘Purpose, hypotheses
and variables”, (2) ‘‘Methods and design”, and (3) ‘‘Results, findings and limitations” and (4) ‘‘Conclu-
sions: summary and implications”.
5.1. Purpose, hypotheses and variables
5.1.1. Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to highlight a study that employed Latane’s (1981) well-regarded So-
cial Impact Theory (SIT) to understand how participants’ interpersonal characteristics and online pres-
ence during collaborative and technologically-mediated communications translated as influence as
reported by online peers. To address the aims of the study, interpersonal qualities (measured by
the CPP) were used as independent variables corresponding with strength(emotional intensity, sensi-
tivity, assertiveness, and exaggeration) and the quantity of one’s contributions (total text contribu-
tions and total word count) were used as independent variables corresponding with immediacy.
While both strength and immediacy were utilized in this study, the third SIT factor, number, as an indi-
cator of social influence was set aside.
5.1.2. Hypotheses
‘‘Hypotheses for the study were structured as follows: Hypothesis 1 focuses on the independent
variables representative of strength (four factors) as identified by SIT, while Hypothesis 2 focuses
on the independent variables representative of immediacy (two factors) as identified by SIT. The
Hypotheses follow:
1. High levels of the interpersonal factors (a) emotional intensity, (b) sensitivity, (c) assertiveness, and
(d) extreme levels (higher or lower than the median range) of the interpersonal factor exaggeration,
representative of strength and determined by the Comprehensive Personality Profile (CPP), will be
effective predictors (p < 0.05) of CMC influence during anonymous, collaborative, and synchronous
CMC.
2. Higher numbers of chat room (a) contributions and (b) words, representative of immediacy, will be
an effective predictor (p < 0.05) of CMC influence during anonymous, collaborative, and synchro-
nous CMC.
5.1.3. Variables
5.1.3.1. Independent variables. The first four independent variables for this study are operationally de-
fined as strength from the Social Impact Theory and as measured by the Comprehensive Personality
Profile are emotional intensity, sensitivity, assertiveness and exaggeration. The final two independent
variables for this study are operationally defined as immediacy from the Social Impact Theory and are
measured by numbers of total contributions and numbers of total words contributed by participants
during an anonymous, collaborative and synchronous CMC.
5.1.3.2. Dependent variable. The dependent variable for this study is operationally defined as influence
from the Social Impact Theory. In this study, influence (e.g. CMC Influence) is expected to increase as a
result of strength (interpersonal variables as measured by the CPP: sensitivity, emotional intensity,
assertiveness and exaggeration) and immediacy (text presence as measured by total number of
contributions and total number of words contributed while participants interacted online). The
dependent variable, CMC Influence, was measured by the number of total peer nominations each
participant received from their peers following CMC that is anonymous, collaborative and synchro-
nous and in answer to the following questions – 1. Who was directive during the session? 2. Who
was influential to the positive during the session? 3. Who was influential to the negative during the
session?
5.2. Methods and design
The non-experimental quantitative research discussed in this article reflects only a portion of data
gathered in an ongoing larger group of related studies focused on leadership, power, identity, and
communication in virtual environments that are being conducted by Cryss Brunner (see Brunner,
Hammel, & Miller, 2003; Brunner, Opsal, & Oliva, 2006) In this article, SIT is used to examine
strength-like and immediacy-like influence in virtual communication/decision-making. Data for the
study was collected through the use of Brunner’s Experiential Simulations3, a copyright protected pro-
cess designed to capture interpersonal interactions during virtual decision-making. In this section, first,
the study participants are described, second, the study’s design, instruments, and data collection are dis-
cussed. Finally, data analysis is highlighted.
5.3. Study participants
The study’s 60 participants represent a convenience sample of graduate students enrolled in five
graduate courses that were delivered partially online at a large Midwestern research university. See
Table 2 for participant demographics. While a possibility existed for effects to occur between indepen-
dent and dependent measures relative to gender, course section, course title or participant age, one-
way ANOVA revealed no significant effects therefore supporting certain homogeneity within the
sample.
5.4. Design, instruments, and data collection
This section focuses on the design of the study and the instruments that were used for data collec-
tion. First, the personality profile instrument is described. Second, the plan of the study and the tech-
nology used to deliver the design and to collect data are highlighted.
5.4.1. The Comprehensive Personality Profile (CPP) instrument

Prior to the first online course meetings, all participants were individually administered the CPP
during one-on-one meetings with the course instructor. Participant scores on interpersonal constructs
from the CPP represent the strength variable in this study. While the full CPP had been administered to
participants as part of a larger, ongoing study, several of the factors it measures lend themselves to
studying interpersonal influence in CMC.
Designed originally to match adult personality with suitable occupations, Larry Craft developed the
CPP to identify and isolate elements of persuasiveness he felt were essential to sales professionals
(Wonderlic, 1999). This CMC study hypothesizes that participants collaborating anonymously online
would socially impact or influence their peers or not, based on factors that Craft identified as contrib-
utors to influence in interpersonal communication.
The CPP is a factor-analyzed instrument derived from a normative database representing 42,000
CPPs from persons in 500 positions across 500 organizations. While reliability coefficients for the
CPP factors used in this study (raw data regarding participant responses item-by-item) are unavail-
able, the CPP’s Accuracy Index scores for each participant ensured that responses remained consistent
across factors.
The seven primary traits and ten secondary traits measured by the CPP have been shown to be
valuable in the selection and development of employees. Given that the primary function of this
3
Note: For a full description of Experiential Simulations see: Brunner et al. (2003).
Table 2
Participant demographics
Class Number Gender Age Ethnicity Occupation

F:M Range Mean SD
X1 n = 15 9:6 33–55 42.2 7.2 2 African Am 14 Education
0 Asian 1 Non-profit
1 Latin American
12 White Euro
X2 n = 11 5:6 36–60 48 9.1 0 African Am 11 Education
1 Asian
0 Latin American
10 White Euro
X3 n = 10 5:5 39–52 48 6.5 1 African Am 10 Education
0 Asian
1 Latin American
8 White Euro
Y1 n = 12 12:0 12:51 15.4 10.3 1 African Am 9 Education
2 Asian 2 Fundraising
0 Latin American 1 Non-profit
9 White Euro
Y2 n = 12 12:0 26–52 39.3 8.2 0 African Am 10 Education
1 Latin American 1 Accounting
11 White Euro
Total N = 60 43:17 21–60 42.5 9.3 4 African Am 54 Education
3 Latin Americans 2 Fundraising
50 White Euro 1 Accounting
study’s task and procedure is for small groups to interact and collaborate online, the instrument is
especially useful for this study because CPP results are attentive to communication and team building.
While the CPP affords 17 interpersonal factors, seven primary traits, and ten secondary traits, four
factors—emotional intensity, sensitivity, assertiveness, and exaggeration—suitable for the sample size
and the specific concerns of this study were selected from among the seven primary traits. In this
study, strength-like influence was represented by these four interpersonal factors as measured by
the CPP. Table 3 provides descriptions of these interpersonal factors from the User’s Manual of the CPP.
5.4.2. Design and technology tools

In the first online class and prior to meeting face-to-face, participants logged into a designated
classroom ‘‘chat” space. Participants engaged in 4–5 h of online discourse that involved a shared deci-
sion-making task. Following the Experiential Simulations process, participants were identified alpha/
numerically with no references to aspects of their gender, race, social status, and other identifiers.
In addition, students were instructed to avoid posting text that might identify them in any way (for
example; profession, education, place of residence, past experiences, and other identifiers).4
From chat room transcripts, each participant’s number of contributions and total words were
counted and then used as independent variables representing immediacy. Threaded discussions were
used to collect information about CMC influence by having students nominate peers whom they
deemed directive and/or influential (negatively or positively) during the three live class discussions.
Live class discussion tools are designed to facilitate synchronous (real-time) discussion and operate
similar to an online chat room. Participants with access to this synchronous communication channel
can communicate with each other by inputting text from their personal computers (either Mac or PC)
4
Note: While the chat space was monitored by researchers to ensure compliance with the expectations that participants not
divulge identifying information, the actual anonymity achieved in this study is not absolute.
Table 3
Comprehensive personality profile
Primary trait Definition of scale How scale is applied to team building

scale
Emotional Assesses physical, mental, and social intensity High ‘‘E’s” want immediate action and results
intensity levels Low ‘‘E’s” want to preserve order and change very
(E) deliberately and slowly
Sensitivity Assesses the degree to which an individual High ‘‘S’s” typically want to be involved in helping the
(S) expresses warmth and affection for others group succeed and feel more at ease in a warm and friendly
environment
Low ‘‘S’s” are more private and distant and may even
appear to others as uninvolved in the group’s activities
Assertiveness Measures the ability to control the actions of High ‘‘A’s” will clearly express where they stand and what
(A) others they want
Low ‘‘A’s” must be encouraged to speak and share opinions
Exaggeration Measures one’s tendency to exaggerate High ‘‘X’s” try to make themselves and the group appear
(X) strengths and downplay weaknesses to appear favorable. Ask them to do a task and they will usually say
more favorable ‘‘yes” even though they may not be able to accomplish it
Low ‘‘X’s” are too self-critical and will look for the worst in
any situation, which can bring down the mood and focus of
the group
Note: Adapted from the Comprehensive Personality Profile User’s Manual (1999).
Ó 1999 Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc.
and pressing <enter> on their keyboard to make their text simultaneously appear on the screens of
other members of the section. To maintain the anonymity that was essential to this study, partici-
pants’ identifiers replaced their names with a nominal variable such as a single letter or numeral.
While synchronous online interaction was initially foreign to the majority of participants, within a rel-
atively short amount of time, interaction in these live class discussions became spirited and seamless,
as evidenced by the average of over 60 pages of single-spaced pages produced during each session.
The capability of course management tools to collect and retain raw data in the form of chat tran-
scripts was essential to this study, as the transcript generated by each class’s interaction was used to
calculate participant measures of immediacy. Specifically, the number of times a participant entered
text (into the dialogue) was coded as that participant’s contribution total, and the total number of
words entered by a participant served as a parallel immediacy measure. Because chat transcripts were
maintained, confirmation of the contribution total involved (1) importing the chat transcript into
Microsoft Excel, (2) sorting participants by their nominal markers, and (3) counting the number of
times a participant’s marker occurred. Similarly, to confirm each participant’s word total, a sorted
transcript was opened in Microsoft Word and the words associated with each marker were counted
to produce immediacy’s second measure, word total.
Following these anonymous, online collaborations, participants were asked to name participants
(according to their assigned alpha/numeric symbols) from their groups who were directive, and
who were influential (positively or negatively) throughout their online collaborations. The number
of times each participant was ‘‘nominated” as influential by his or her online peers represented
CMC influence, this study’s dependent variable, and as such pointed towards participants who dis-
played qualities of effective communication.
5.5. Data analysis
To analyze the data gathered, a correlation matrix was used within and across classes to explore
relationships between all variables in the study. Scatter plots ensured resulting relationships were lin-
ear. A Poisson regression, including all six predictors was used to evaluate the significance of indepen-
dent variables in predicting CMC influence. A Poisson regression was appropriate given that CMC
influence involves an event count (i.e., number of peer nominations) and the Poisson regression is use-
ful in examining count data.
To test the possibility of relationships between extreme vs. non-extreme exaggeration scores and
CMC influence, ttests were run comparing CMC influence means and standard deviations, between the
combination of higher and lower exaggeration scores and mid-range scores. To accomplish this, the
range of exaggeration scores was divided into quartiles and the CMC influence means and standard
deviations for quartiles one and four were compared with the CMC influence means and standard
deviations for quartiles two and three.
As there was a possibility for CMC influence to be more firmly related to either extreme scores or
non-extreme scores for exaggeration, it seemed possible that stronger relationships might exist be-
tween extreme and non-extreme scores for other variables, as well. Therefore, t-tests were also run
to compare means and standard deviations for emotional intensity, sensitivity, assertiveness, contri-
bution total, and word total. In order to ascertain whether extreme scores were more strongly related
with positive or negative nominations, additional t-tests were run to compare the means for positive
influence and negative influence as the response between extreme and non-extreme groups.
6. Results, findings and limitations
In this study, four interpersonal characteristics were indices of strength-like influence, chosen due
to their likenesses to strength and evidenced by their descriptions from the CPP manual and from lit-
erature connecting the CPP descriptions to theory. These CPP variables were—emotional intensity,
sensitivity, assertiveness, and exaggeration. While hypotheses suggested that each factor on its own
Table 4
Poisson regression results – a comparison between models one and two
Factor Est. SE Est./SE p

Model one
Emotional intensity (E) 0.0012 0.3073 0.485 0.6277
Sensitivity (S) 0.0028 0.0025 1.388 0.1651
Assertiveness (A) 0.0071 0.0029 2.241 0.0155*
Exaggeration (X) 0.0134 0.0026 5.126 0.0000**
Contribution total (C) 0.0049 0.0015 3.293 0.0010**
Word total (W) 0.0004 0.0003 3.562 0.0004**
Scale factor: 1
Number of cases: 60
Degrees of freedom: 53
Pearson X2: 239.956
Deviance: 248.537
AIC: 262.53
Model two
Emotional intensity (E) n/a n/a n/a n/a
Sensitivity (S) n/a n/a n/a n/a
Assertiveness (A) 0.0069 0.0029 2.394 0.0167*
Exaggeration (X) 0.0139 0.0025 5.598 0.0000**
Contribution total (C) 0.0052 0.0014 3.605 0.0003**
Word total (W) 0.0004 0.0001 3.409 0.0007**
Scale factor: 1
Number of cases: 60
Degrees of freedom: 55
Pearson X2: 247.184
Deviance: 250.669
AIC: 260.669
Note: Model one displays the results of a Poisson regression, which used all six predictors in the model, based upon the
theoretical assumption that all predictors, E, S, A, X, C, and W, would be significant in predicting total score impact.
Note: Model two displays the results of a Poisson regression, which utilized a forward selection process. This stepwise selection
was used to determine the best mathematical fit between the six predictors and the total social impact score as the response.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
would be a predictor of CMC influence (in anonymous, collaborative, and synchronous CMC), asser-
tiveness and exaggeration were significant while emotional intensity and sensitivity were not.
In this study, two participant measures were indices of immediacy, chosen due to their likeness to
physical proximity and evidenced by literature on social presence as a psychological construct. The
number of participants’ chat room contributions and overall word total were collected by online
course management software (WebCT in this case) and counted through a combination of word pro-
cessing and Excel procedures. As suggested by the hypotheses, numbers of participant contributions
and their overall word totals represented presence in the virtual space and were significant predictors
of CMC influence in anonymous, collaborative, and synchronous CMC.
To analyze relative influence of the six independent variables for predicting CMC influence, two
distinct Poisson regressions were run. Model one included all six predictors: emotional intensity, sen-
sitivity, assertiveness, exaggeration, contribution total, and word total. Model two utilized a forward
selection process to determine the best mathematical fit given the six predictors and CMC influence as
the response. Table 4 compares the results of models one and two.
Tables 5 and 6 display t-test results, which illustrate relationships between extreme vs. non-ex-
treme independent variable scores and the total CMC influence score and scores for being directive
and/or influential (positive and/or negative). The means and standard deviations for the total CMC
influence score and scores for influential to the positive and influential to the negative are listed side
by side. The means and standard deviations of each response variable are listed under Q1,4 for ex-
treme scores and under Q2,3 for non-extreme scores. Corresponding independent variables are listed
in the far left column.
As the results show, there was mixed support for the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1
(a) High levels of the interpersonal factor emotional intensity, representative of strength and deter-
mined by the Comprehensive Personality Profile will be an effective predictor (p < 0.05) of social
influence during anonymous, collaborative, and synchronous CMC.
Hypothesis 1a was rejected. Emotional intensity, when compared along side sensitivity, assertive-
ness, exaggeration, contribution total, and word total was not a significant predictor (sig. = 0.6277)
of social influence. In the stepwise model, emotional intensity was mathematically eliminated. t-
Test results showed only a moderate relationship (p < 0.1) between extreme emotional intensity
scores (the combination of high and low relative to mid-range scores) and peer nominations for
negative influence.
This finding suggests that an individual’s intensity level, as described by their need for immediate
action and results or their want of slow deliberate change, was not a suitable measure of strength,
useful in predicting CMC influence in this study.
(b) High levels of the interpersonal factor sensitivity, representative of strength and determined by
the Comprehensive Personality Profile will be an effective predictor (p < 0.05) of social influence
during anonymous, collaborative, and synchronous CMC.
Hypothesis 1b was rejected. Sensitivity, when compared along side emotional intensity, assertive-
ness, exaggeration, contribution total, and word total was not a significant predictor (sig. = 0.1651)
of social influence. In the stepwise model, sensitivity was mathematically eliminated. t-test results
provided no indication of a relationship between either extreme or mid-range sensitivity scores
and any of the three responses, total CMC influence score, positive influence, or negative influence.
This finding suggests that an individual’s sensitivity level, as described by their warmth and friend-
liness or their need for privacy and distance from others, was not a suitable measure of strength,
useful in predicting CMC influence in this study.
(c) High levels of the interpersonal factor assertiveness, representative of strength and determined
by the Comprehensive Personality Profile will be an effective predictor (p < 0.05) of social influence
during anonymous, collaborative, and synchronous CMC.
Hypothesis 1c was accepted. When assertiveness was considered along side emotional intensity,
sensitivity, exaggeration, contribution total, and word total, increases in assertiveness scores
appeared to predict increases in total CMC influence scores. For example, given 0.0071 est. at
p < 0.01, a ten-unit increase in assertiveness accounted for a 7% increase in total CMC influence score.
When emotional intensity and sensitivity were dropped because of the forward selection process,
assertiveness remained significant, although now at the p < 0.05 level. For example, given 0.0069
est., a ten-unit increase in assertiveness still accounted for 7% increase in total social influence score.
Interestingly, t-test results (Tables 4, 5) showed strong relationships between mid-range assertive-
ness scores and total social influence score (p < 0.01) as well as between positive influence (p < 0.1). It
would appear from this finding that, although an increase in assertiveness corresponds with social
influence online, there is likely an assertiveness plateau at which time social influence either remains
constant or perhaps even decreases.
(d) Extreme levels (higher or lower than average) of the interpersonal factor exaggeration, repre-
sentative of strength and determined by the Comprehensive Personality Profile will be an effective
predictor (p < 0.05) of social influence during anonymous, collaborative, and synchronous CMC.
Hypothesis 1d was not accepted at the p < 0.05 level, however, as shown by t-tests results,
moderate relationships were illustrated between extreme exaggeration scores and total social
influence (p < 0.1) and positive influence (p < 0.1).
Table 5
t-Test results for extreme vs. non-extreme scores relative to total social impact score and influential to the positive
Factor Total social impact score Influential to the positive

Q1,4 Q2,3 p Q1,4 Q2,3 p
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Emotional intensity (E) 5.71 6.85 4.93 5.96 0.6437 1.85 2.97 2.00 2.62 0.8455
Sensitivity (S) 4.80 6.43 6.00 6.29 0.4740 1.46 2.54 2.6 2.98 0.1273
Assertiveness (A) 2.42 2.20 6.84 7.28 0.0009** 1.19 1.28 2.33 3.25 0.0588+
Exaggeration (X) 7.00 7.54 3.90 4.86 0.0729+ 2.62 3.52 1.36 1.83 0.0994+
Contribution total (C) 3.65 4.44 6.83 7.47 0.0488* 1.31 1.64 2.51 3.44 0.0876+
Word total (W) 2.54 3.33 6.89 7.13 0.0022** 1.09 1.54 2.42 3.20 0.0346*
Note: The six independent variables, E, S, A, X, C, and W, were divided into two groups. The means (M) for the response variables,
total social impact, influential to the positive, and influential to the negative, corresponding to extreme scores (combination of
first and fourth quartile, Q1,4) were compared with the means for the response variables corresponding to non-extreme scores
(combination of second and third quartile Q2,3). Significant differences in means between extreme and non-extreme groups are
noted at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.1.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
+
p < 0.1.
Table 6
t-Test results for extreme vs. non-extreme scores relative to influential to the negative and directive
Factor Influential to the negative Directive

Q1,4 Q2,3 p Q1,4 Q2,3 p
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Emotional intensity (E) 1.14 2.39 0.31 0.90 0.0929+ 2.86 3.31 2.78 3.23 0.9289
Sensitivity (S) 0.91 2.18 0.40 1.00 0.2269 2.69 3.21 3.00 3.34 0.7164
Assertiveness (A) 0.33 0.66 0.90 2.16 0.1387 1.24 1.55 3.67 3.59 0.0006
Exaggeration (X) 0.52 1.08 0.85 2.23 0.4570 3.93 3.79 1.91 2.40 0.0210*
Contribution total (C) 0.48 0.87 0.90 2.36 0.3593 1.83 2.55 3.74 3.57 0.0198*
Word total (W) 0.23 0.53 0.97 2.18 0.0511+ 1.32 1.81 3.68 3.57 0.0012**
Note: The six independent variables, E, S, A, X, C, and W, were divided into two groups. The means (M) for the response variables,
total social impact, influential to the positive, and influential to the negative, corresponding to extreme scores (combination of
first and fourth quartile, Q1,4) were compared with the means for the response variables corresponding to non-extreme scores
(combination of second and third quartile Q2,3). Significant differences in means between extreme and non-extreme groups are
noted at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.1.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
+
p < 0.1.
However, regression analyses illustrated a different perspective on the relationship between

exaggeration and total social influence. Specifically, increases in exaggeration proved to be predictive
of decreases in total social influence. For example, when included with emotional intensity, sensitivity,
assertiveness, contribution total, and word total, exaggeration was significant at p < 0.05. Specifically,
given -0.00134 est., a ten-unit increase in exaggeration would actually decrease total social influence
score, by 14%. After using the stepwise selection to remove emotional intensity and sensitivity,
exaggeration became more significant (p < 01) while still predicting a 14% decrease in total social
influence score with each ten-unit increase in exaggeration.
This finding is difficult to explain in light of the earlier t-test assessments. Clearly, exaggeration
plays a prominent role in social influence that occurs online. The extent to which exaggeration as
described by either calling attention to, or purposely understating, personal or group success, requires
further examination in order to better understand how exaggeration is expressed and received in CMC.
Hypothesis 2
(a) Higher numbers of chat room contributions representative of immediacy will be an effective
predictor (p < 0.05) of social influence during anonymous, collaborative, and synchronous CMC.
Hypothesis 2a was accepted. When contribution total was considered along side emotional inten-
sity, sensitivity, assertiveness, exaggeration, and word total, increases in contribution totals
appeared to predict increases in total CMC influence scores. For example, given 0.0049 est. at
p < 0.01, an increase of ten contributions results in a 5% increase in total social influence score.
When emotional intensity and sensitivity were dropped in the stepwise model selection process,
contribution total remained significant at p < 0.01 and continued to be predictive of 5% increase
in total social influence score given ten additional contributions.Interestingly, t-test results showed
a strong relationship between mid-range contributions and total social influence scores (p < 0.01)
and positive influence scores (p < 0.1). While regression results showed that an increase in the
number of times an individual contributes is predictive of social influence, it appeared from this
finding that there is likely a plateau at which time social influence relative to contributions either
remains constant or perhaps even decreases.
(b) Higher numbers of words entered during chat room interaction representative of immediacy
will be an effective predictor (p < 0.05) of social influence during anonymous, collaborative, and
synchronous CMC.
Hypothesis 2b was accepted. When word total was considered along side emotional intensity, sen-
sitivity, assertiveness, exaggeration, and contribution total, increases in the number of words a par-
ticipant entered appeared to predict increases in total social influence scores. For example, given
0.0004 est. at p < 0.01, an increase of one hundred words during the online discourse (approxi-
mately a ten percent increase word total score) corresponded with a 4% increase in total social
influence score.
When emotional intensity and sensitivity were dropped in the stepwise model, word total
remained significant at p < 0.01 and continued to be predictive of 4% increase in total social influ-
ence score given a increase of one hundred words during the online discourse.
Interestingly, t-test results showed a strong relationship between mid-range word totals and total
social influence scores (p < 0.01). While regression results showed that an increase in the number
of words entered by an individual predicts total CMC influence, it appeared from this finding that
there is likely a point at which CMC influence relative to numbers of words entered either remains
constant or perhaps even decreases. Further, given the likelihood that contribution total and word
total measure similar constructs, in terms of immediacy from SIT, future analyses would be well
served by limiting immediacy terms in the theoretical model.
6.1. Limitations
While there were numerous statistically significant findings in this study, there are also several
limitations to be mentioned here. First, and as noted above, the expectation that interpersonal factors
will manifest between collaborates through online transmissions is a potential limitation. While other
strength operants could have been explored (i.e. through textual analysis for strength-like language
marker if not other personality instruments such as the MBTI), the salient quality of interpersonal fac-
tors and robust nature of the instrument used here (the Comprehensive Personality Profile) supports
the assignment of ‘‘strength” to the chosen interpersonal factors in this study.
The actual anonymity achieved versus presumed anonymity in this study is not absolute. While the
chat space was monitored by researchers to ensure compliance with the expectations that participants
not divulge identifying information, procedures were not in place to ensure absolute anonymity be-
tween participants or between participants and observers. While the analyses used for this study
did not need to be guarded against participant–observer effects, per say, future studies of this nature
could benefit from more clear and intentional procedures for randomizing participants.
Also, a more clear understanding of how the dependent variable, peer nominations, functioned
within the study is needed. While it appeared that there was statistical certainty to ensure that inde-
pendent variables in question produced the observed effect, in terms of external validity, future stud-
ies are needed to ensure that findings are generalizable across task and population groups.
Regarding statistical procedures, the decision was made to run a larger than normal number of
independent variables in the model, even in light of a smaller sample size. While an n of 60 is indeed,
small, given six predictors, doing so increased the difficulty to reject the null-hypothesis of no effect.
Given the small regression weights and significant p-values reported here, the detected effects would
seem to indicate that the analytical techniques used here were appropriate.
A final limitation to be noted would be the potential confound created by endogenous variables
such as typing fluency or a participant’s overall interest and engagement in the specific task. Given
that these and other potential factors could mediate presence (independent variable immediacy) in
the chat room and therefore CMC influence, special attention towards limiting these effects in future
studies is advisable.
7. Conclusion: summary and implications
This study set out to remove potential factors of social influence based on gender, race, social
attractiveness, and voice quality so that innate interpersonal factors could be viewed as exclusive
influence operants in anonymous, collaborative and synchronous CMC. In so doing, the study contrib-
uted to social psychology literature. In addition, through the use of a new and unique virtual research
environment (Experiential Simulations), concepts of strength and immediacy within SIT were ex-
tended to accommodate a CMC context. Further, the growing number of perspectives found in CMC
literature has been expanded to include the effects of interpersonal characteristics on online influence.
On the one hand, this study contradicted current aspects of persuasion in communication that
draw attention to results and effectiveness (Hackman & Walton, 1986). Namely an individual’s inten-
sity level, as described by one’s need for immediate action and results or one’s want of slow deliberate
change, was neithera suitable measure of strength nor useful for predicting CMC influence within the
context of anonymous, collaborative, and synchronous CMC/decision-making. If transferred to re-
search of face-to-face settings, this finding brings into question whether timing and pace of action—
things that directly affect change—are as important as previously thought. In addition, as with inten-
sity level, the degree to which a participants expressed warmth and caring (sensitivity) (Brunner,
1998; Noddings, 1984, 1992), as opposed to alienating themselves, was neithera suitable measure of
strength nor useful for predicting online CMC influence. Again, in future research, meaning and impor-
tance of sensitivity in face-to-face settings may be questioned.
On the other hand, some of this study’s findings support previous research. For example, a person’s
tendency to assertively express what she/he wanted was a useful measure of strength in the produc-
tion of online CMC influence. Additionally, the study revealed that while an increase in assertiveness
corresponds with CMC influence, there is likely an assertiveness plateau at which time assertiveness
cannot be increased without CMC influence either remaining constant or even decreasing. It appears
that assertiveness in the context of CMC influence to the extent of domination over others diminishes
a participant’s ability to be influential. The point at which this happens in online work may be instruc-
tive for collaborative participants in face-to-face settings as well. Future research questions may
include: Can degrees of assertiveness be determined? And if so, at which degree does assertiveness
decrease influence? How can that degree or point be described in a way that translates into commu-
nication practices in both face-to-face and virtual settings?
Interestingly, exaggeration was also a useful measure of strength in the production of online CMC
influence. The filtering effects of online communication tended to reward exaggerators as ‘‘influential”
regardless of the value of honesty and integrity in this context. However, just as increases in assertive-
ness proved to diminish influence, increases in exaggeration were also predictive of decreases in total
CMC influence. The extent to which increases in exaggeration—described as either calling attention to
or intentionally under- or overstating personal or group success—decrease influence requires further
examination. In no small measure, an examination of how exaggeration is expressed and received, in
CMC as well as in face-to-face settings, would be an important topic for further research.
In measures of immediacy, not surprisingly, increases in an individual’s number of words and num-
bers of contributions were predictive of CMC influence during online communication. However, as
with the strength measures of assertiveness and exaggeration, findings indicated that both immediacy
measures likely have a plateau at which time CMC influence relative to contributions and/or word
totals either remains constant or perhaps even decreases. And while discussions and studies of
face-to-face communication can be found in the literature (Brunner, 2002; Barge, 1994), the decrease
of influence that seems to be created by a participant’s excessive or diminished use of air-time or vocal
space rarely appears in the literature. Finally, in the case of future studies, given the likelihood that
contribution totals and word totals measure similar constructs, in terms of immediacy as described
in SIT, future analyses would be well served by limiting immediacy terms in the theoretical model.
In conclusion, individuals in this study with extreme characteristics either interpersonally, or in re-
gards to their participation, seem to have less CMC influence than their more well-balanced counter
parts. Specifically, even though higher levels of assertiveness and participation were related to greater
CMC influence, participants in this study who fell within the central ranges of assertiveness and partic-
ipation produced more CMC influence than some participants with higher scores on those constructs.
Certainly, results from this study have potential to advance theory and discourse about (1) commu-
nication, broadly speaking, (2) Computer-Mediated Communication, specifically, and (3) influence in
virtual environments. Specific to virtual environments, participants engaged in online learning are
influenced by individuals who are assertive and exaggerated to some extent, but not to extremes.
In other words, to be influential, virtual communicators may need to be especially clear about where
they stand and what they want. As a cautionary note, however, the results also indicated that CMC
influence is produced by individuals who over or under exaggerate successes or failures. Thus, individ-
uals prone to exaggeration might be influential virtual communicators while at once acting somewhat
unethically. Further, in contrast to most face-to-face settings, the study found that virtual partici-
pants—who wanted immediate action and results (emotional intensity) or who focused on promoting
supportive and warm environments (sensitivity)—lacked CMC influence.
Finally, at a practical level, this study benefits all organizations that rely on CMC as a way to meet
goals that require group processes. CMC influence produced during online communication – and
understanding how personal characteristics affect online communicator abilities to be relational, con-
fident, and persuasive – is important and warrants future study.
References
Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of social psychology. Worchester, MA: Clark University Press.
Asch, S. (1956). Studies in independence and conformity: A minority of one against unanimous majority. Psychological
Monographs, 70(9), 1–70.
Brunner, C. C. (1998). Can power support an ethic of care? An examination of the professional practices of women
superintendents. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 4(2), 142–175.
Brunner, C. C. (2002). A proposition for reconceptualizing the superintendency: Reconsidering traditional and nontraditional
discourse. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(3), 402–431.
Brunner, C. C., Hammel, K., & Miller, M. D. (2003). Transforming leadership preparation for social justice: Dissatisfaction,
inspiration, and rebirth—An exemplar. In F. Lunenburg (Ed.), Professors and practitioners: Building bridges through leadership:
NCPEA yearbook—2003 (pp. 70-84). Toronto: Scarecrow Education. [Invited].
Brunner, C. C, Opsal, C., & Oliva, M. (2006). Disrupting identity: Fertile soil for raising social consciousness in educational
leaders. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leading for Social Justice: Making revolutions in education (pp. 214–232). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barge (1994). Leadership: Communication skills for organization and groups. New York: St. Martin Press.
Basset R.L., & Latane, B. (1976). Social influences and news stories. Article presented at the meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC.
Baym, N. K. (1995). The emergence of community in computer-mediated communication. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety:
Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 138–163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Berger, C. R., & Burgoon, M. (1995). Preface. In C. R. Berger & M. Burgoon (Eds.), Communication and social influence processes
(pp. ix–xii). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Berryman, C. L., & Wilcox, J. (2001). Attitudes toward male and female speech: Experiments on the effects of sex typical
language. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44, 50–59.
Boneva, B., Kraut, R., & Frohlich, D. (2001). Using e-mail for personal relationships: The difference gender makes. American
Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 530–549.
Cappella, J. N., & Planalp, S. (1981). Talk and silence sequences in informal conversations III: Interspeaker influence. Human
Communication Research, 7(2), 117–132.
Cronin, A. D. (2008). Computer-mediated communication and negotiation: Effects of media and power and relationship
development. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(8-A), 3216.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In B.
M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 191–233). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 8, 377–383.
DeSanctis, G. L., & Gallupe, B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33,
589–609.
Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., Levine, S., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). Intensity and frequency: Dimensions underlying positive and negative
effect. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 48(5), 1253–1256.
Dittman, A. T. (1972). Developmental factors in conversational behavior. Journal of Communication, 22, 404–423.
Dobos, D. F. (1992). Gratification models of satisfaction and choice of communication channels in organizations.
Communications Research, 19, 29–51.
Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethena, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomena: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-
to-face decision making groups. Human Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146.
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 117(1), 125–145.
Edelsky, C. (1976). Subjective reactions to sex-linked language. Journal of Social Psychology, 99, 97–104.
Elliot, W. R., & Quattlebaum, C. P. (1979). Similarities in patterns of media use: A cluster analysis of media gratifications. Western
Journal of Speech Communications, 43, 61–72.
Elliott, T. R., & Gramling, S. E. (1990). Personal assertiveness and the effects of social support among college students. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 4(37), 427–436.
Feldstein, S., Dohm, F., & Crown, C. L. (2001). Gender and speech rate in the perception of competence and social attractiveness.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(6), 785–806.
Fernback, J. & Thompson, B. (1995). Virtual communities: Abort, retry, failure? Retrieved April 15, 2004 from http://
www.well.com/user/hlr/texts/Vccivil.html.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparisons processes. Human Relations, 1, 117–140.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flanagin, A. J., Tiyaamornwong, V., O’Conner, J., & Seibold, D. R. (2002). Computer-mediated group work. The initiation of member
sex and anonymity. Communication Research, 29, 66–93.
Flannigan, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Communication Research,
27(1), 153–181.
Freeman, S., Walker, M. R., Borden, R., & Latane, B. (1975). Diffusion of responsibility and restaurant tipping: Cheaper by the
bunch. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 584–587.
Fulk, J., & Boyd, B. (1991). Emerging theories of communication in organizations. Journal of Management, 17, 407–466.
Fulk, J., & Ryu, D. (1990). Perceiving electronic mail systems: Partial test of the social information processing model. Article
presented to the International Communication Association, Dublin, Ireland.
Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1997). Studying online social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 3(1). Retrieved June 1, 2004 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue1/garton.html.
Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the
salience of one’s own actions and appearance. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 211–222.
Hackman, J. R., & Walton, R. E. (1986). Leading groups in organizations. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups
(pp. 72–199). San Fanciso: Jossey-Bass.
Harkins, S. G., & Latane, B. (1998). Population and political participation: A social impact analysis of voter responsibility. Group
Dynamics, Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(3), 192–207.
Ho, J. (1997). Evaluating the world wide web: A global study of commercial sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
3(1). Retrieved June 1, 2004 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue1/garton.html.
Ho, S., & McLeod, D. M. (2008). Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated
communication. Communication Research, 35(2).
Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Chatterjee, P. (1995). Commercial scenarios or the Web: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(3). Retrieved June 1, 2004 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol1/issue3/
hoffman.html.
Impara, J. C. (2001). Mental measurements yearbook (14th ed.). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Review of the
Comprehensive Personality Profile by Cohn, S. J., & Katz, I. S. Retrieved on-line through PsychOvid, June 23, 2004. Accession
Number: 14121437.
Internet World Stats. (2007). Usage and population statistics. Retrieved September 20, 2007 from http://www.
internetworldstats.com/.
Jackson, J. M., & Latane, B. (1981a). All alone in front of all those people: Stage fright as a function of number and type of co-
performers and audience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(1), 73–85.
Jackson, J. M., & Latane, B. (1981b). Strength and number of solicitors and the urge towards altruism. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 7(3), 414–422.
Jackson, L. A., Sullivan, L. A., & Hodge, C. (1993). Stereotype effects on attributions, predictions, and evaluations: No two social
judgments are quite alike. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 69–84.
Jackson, M. (1997). Assessing the structure of communication on the world wide web. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 3(1). Retrieved June 1, 2004 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue1/garton.html.
Jacobson, D. (1999). Impression formation in cyberspace: online expectations and offline experiences in test-based virtual
communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(1) [on-line].
Jaffe, J., & Feldstein, S. (1970). Rhythms of dialogue. New York: Academic Press.
Jakubowski-Spector, P. (1973). Facilitating the growth of women through assertion training. The Counseling Psychologist, 4,
75–86.
Jessup, L. M., Connolly, T., & Tansik, D. A. (1990). Toward a theory of automated group work: The deindividuating effects of
anonymity. Small Group Research, 21, 333–348.
Jones, S. G. (Ed.). (1995). Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones, S. G. (Ed.). (1997). Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cybersociety. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kahin, B. (1997). The internet business and policy landscape. In Institute for Information Studies (Ed.), The internet as paradigm.
Nashville, TN: Institute for Information Studies.
Kiesler, S. (1986). The hidden message in computer networks. Harvard Business Review, 64, 46–60. January–February.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communication. American
Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 65, 440–452.
Kraut, R., Keisler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social
Issues, 58(1), 49–74.
Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
50(5), 936–941.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2, 45–79.
Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1987). Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: A review. Journal of Research in
Personality, 21, 1–39.
Larsen, R. J., Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1986). Affect intensity and reactions to daily life events. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(4), 803–814.
Latane, B., & L’Herrou, T. (1996). Spatial clustering in the conformity game. Dynamic social impact in electronic groups. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 70(6), 1218–1230.
Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts
Century, Meredith Corporation.
Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343–356.
Latane, B. (1997). Simulating dynamic social impact. Article given at the Dagstuhl seminar on social science micro simulation,
Dagstuhl, Germany, May.
Latane, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89(2), 308–324.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational
Computing, 2(3& 4), 321–341.
Lee, E. (2007). Character-Based Team Identification and Referent Informational Influence in Computer-Mediated
Communication. Media Psychology, 9, 135–155.
Lee, E. (2004). Effects of Visual Representation on Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Tests
on the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 234–259.
Lee, E. (2003). Effects of gendered character representation on personal perception and informational social influence in
computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 779–799.
Leonard, R., & Locke, D. C. (1993). Communication stereotypes: Is interracial communication possible? Journal of Black Studies,
23(3), 332–343.
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & DeVader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information
processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343–378.
Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership, and behavioral measurement in
organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 87–128). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
MacDonald, K. (1985). Early experience, relative plasticity, and social development. Developmental Review, 5, 99–121.
MacDonald, K. (1992). Warmth as a developmental construct: An evolutionary analysis. Child Development, 63, 753–773.
Markus, M. L. (1994). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice. Organization Science, 5, 502–527.
McChesney, R. W. (1996). The internet and U.S. communication policy-making in historical and critical perspective. Journal of
Communication, 46, 98–124.
McLaughlin, M. L. (1996). The art site on the World Wide Web. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 51–79.
McLaughlin, M. L., Osborne, K. K., & Smith, C. B. (1995). Standards of conduct on usenet. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety:
Computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 90–111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McLaughlin, M. L., Osborne, K. K., & Ellison, N. B. (1997). Virtual Community in a telepresence environment. In S. G. Jones (Ed.),
Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cybersociety (pp. 146–168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McMurdo, G. (1995). Electric writing: Changing contexts of communication. Journal of Information Science, 21(2), 140–146.
Metz, J. M. (1994). Computer-mediated communication: Literature review of a new context. Interpersonal Computing and
Technology, 2, 31–49.
Milgram, S., & Hollander, P. (1964). The murder they heard. The Nation, 198(25), 602–604. June 15.
Miller, N., Maruyama, G., Beaber, R. J., & Valone, K. (1976). Speed of speech and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 615–624.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Noddings, N. (1992). The Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education. Advances in contemporary educational
thought series (Vol. 8). New York: Teachers College Press.
Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latane, B. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact.
Psychological Review, 97(3), 362–376.
O’Connel, D. C., Kowall, S., Bartels, U., Mundt, H., & Van de Water, D. A. (1989). Allocation of time in reading aloud: Being fluent is
not the same as being rhetorical. Bulletin of Psychonomic Society, 27, 223–226.
Palmer, M. T., & Lack, A. M. (1993). Topics, turns, and interpersonal control: Using serial judgment methods. Southern
Communication Journal, 58(2), 156–168.
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46, 80–97.
Pettigrew, T., & Martin, J. (1987). Shaping the organizational context for Black American inclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 43,
41–78.
Porter, H. (1939). Studies in the psychology of stuttering: Stuttering phenomena in relation to size and personnel of audience.
Journal of Speech Disorders, 4, 323–333.
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2000). Refining the cognitive redefinition of the group: Deindividuation effects in common bond vs.
common identity groups. In T. Postmes, R. Spears, M. Lea, & S. Reicher (Eds.), SIDE effects centre stage: Recent developments in
studies of de-individuation in groups (pp. 63–78). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: KNAW.
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2000a). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication
Research, 26, 341–371.
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2002). Behavior online: Does anonymous computer communication reduce gender inequality?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1073–1083.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2002). Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of
depersonalization. Group Dynamics, Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1), 3–16.
Ramirez, A., Shuangyue, Z., McGrew, C., & Shu-Fang, L. (2007). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction
revisited: A comparison of participant–observer perspectives. Communications Monographs, 74(4).
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Rice, D. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media.
Human Communication Research, 19, 451–484.
Robinson, J. P., Krestnbaum, M., Neustadtl, A., & Alvarez, A. (2000). Mass media use and social life among Internet users. Social
Science Computer Review, 18(4), 490–501.
Sassenberg, K. (2002). Common bond and common identity groups on the Internet: Attachment and normative behavior in on-
topic and off-topic charts. Group Dynamics, Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 27–37.
Savitsky, K., Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Do others judge us as harshly as we think? Overestimating the impact of our failures,
shortcomings, and mishaps. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 44–56.
Schingler, M. J., Alwitt, L. F., McCarthy, K. E., & Green, L. (1983). The effects of time compression on attitudes and information
processing. Journal Marketing, 47, 79–85.
Scott, C. (1999). Communication technology and group communication. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouryan, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The
handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 432–472). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Selfe, C. L., & Meyer, P. R. (1991). Testing claims for on-line conferences. Written Communication, 8, 163–192.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group Processes in computer-mediated communication.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157–187.
Siegler, D. M., & Siegler, R. S. (1976). Stereotypes of males’ and females’ speech. Psychological Reports, 39, 167–170.
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a
group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89–103.
Spar, D., & Bussgang, J. (1996). Ruling commerce in the networld. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1). Retrieved
June 1, 2004 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue1/garton.html.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the ‘‘social” in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea
(Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 30–65). New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication
Research, 21, 427–459.
Spears, R., Lea, M., & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 121–134.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. The Institute of
Management Sciences, 32(11), 1492–1512.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Symposium (1996). Dynamic social impact theory and communication. Journal of Communication, 46(4), 4–78.
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal
evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317–348.
Trevino, L. K., Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1990). Understanding managers’ media choices: A symbolic interactionist perspective.
In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 71–94). Newbury Park: Sage.
Trevino, L. K., Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. D. (1987). Media symbolism, media richness, and media choice in organizations: A
symbolic interactionist perspective. Communication Research, 14, 553–574.
Triplett, N. (1897). The dynamogenic factors in peacemaking and competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507–533.
Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., Jr., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). Group size and anonymity effects on computer-mediated idea
generation. Small Group Research, 23, 49–73.
Van Alstyne, M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1996). Wider access and narrower focus: Could the Internet balkanize science? Science, 274,
1479–1480.
Walther, J., Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. A meta-analysis of
social and anti-social communication. Communication Research, 21, 460–487.
Wheeler, L., & Miyake, K. (1992). Social comparison in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(5), 760–773.
Wilmore, E. & Thomas, C. (2001). The new century: Is it too late for transformational leadership? Educational Horizons, Spring.
Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Wonderlic, Personnel Test, Inc. (1999). The comprehensive personality profile user’s manual. IL: Libertyville.
Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106,
231–248.

1 s2.0 S0747563208001015 Main PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1 s2.0 S0747563208001015 Main PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 2972–2991

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

Social impact in technologically-mediated

ence in computer-mediated interaction, especially in regards to strength2 and immediacy—indepen-

A large body of research has accumulated on ‘‘Computer-Mediated Communication,”—deﬁned as

4. Social Impact Theory

Social Impact Theory (SIT) is deﬁned broadly as:

Theoretical perspective Research operating from that perspective

Strength, as perceived by a relational target, is a salient predictor of inﬂuence in human interaction.

4.1.1. Emotional intensity

5.1. Purpose, hypotheses and variables

5.2. Methods and design

5.3. Study participants

5.4. Design, instruments, and data collection

5.4.1. The Comprehensive Personality Proﬁle (CPP) instrument

Class Number Gender Age Ethnicity Occupation

5.4.2. Design and technology tools

Primary trait Deﬁnition of scale How scale is applied to team building

5.5. Data analysis

6. Results, ﬁndings and limitations

Factor Est. SE Est./SE p

Factor Total social impact score Inﬂuential to the positive

Factor Inﬂuential to the negative Directive

However, regression analyses illustrated a different perspective on the relationship between

7. Conclusion: summary and implications

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi