Advertisement

Social Norm Spreading in Real and Virtual Environments: Pro-social Versus Pro-self Norm

  • Andrea GuazziniEmail author
  • Sara Panerati
  • Viola Filindassi
  • Stefania Collodi
  • Zoran Levnajic
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11938)

Abstract

It is a fact that technologies do not have fixed effects on people. Some researches show how phenomena such as social influence and conformity appear increasingly multiform and complex, in particular, because people engage more and more in web interactions. The study of conformity in the online environment has highlighted how, to model these dynamics, it is necessary to consider the peculiarities of such environment, since it presents characteristics that differentiate its interactions from the face-to-face ones. Therefore, this research aims at investigating whether and how the type of environment influences the level of conformity to different types of local norms shown to the experimental subjects during a bargaining web-based game. The evidence of the research, conducted on 484 participants, have suggested that there are different psychological processes involved in the conformity phenomenon depending on these factors. The results are discussed in the light of Self-categorization theory, as well as the SIDE model, and illustrate the relevance of considering these processes and their characteristics to promote the implementation of more efficient (and effective) online environments.

Keywords

Social dynamics online Conformity Local norms spreading Ultimatum Game SIDE model 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Dr. Silvia Grasso for her invaluable assistance in the management of the experiment.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Armstrong, M.B., Landers, R.N., Collmus, A.B.: Gamifying recruitment, selection, training, and performance management: game-thinking in human resource management. In: Emerging Research and Trends in Gamification, pp. 140–165. IGI Global (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bicchieri, C., Chavez, A.: Behaving as expected: public information and fairness norms. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 23(2), 161–178 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biernat, M., Vescio, T.K.: Categorization and stereotyping: effects of group context on memory and social judgment. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 29(2), 166–202 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bohnet, I., Frey, B.S.: Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: comment. Am. Econ. Rev. 89(1), 335–339 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Camerer, C.F.: Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2011)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charness, G., Gneezy, U.: What’s in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 68(1), 29–35 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cialdini, R.B., Kallgren, C.A., Reno, R.R.: A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 24, pp. 201–234. Elsevier (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cinnirella, M., Green, B.: Does ‘cyber-conformity’ vary cross-culturally? Exploring the effect of culture and communication medium on social conformity. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23(4), 2011–2025 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coggrave, S., Oldmeadow, J.A.: Social inhibition of message processing: effects of presence of others on processing persuasive messagesGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cross, E., Richardson, B., Douglas, T., et al.: Virtual Violence: Protecting Children from Cyberbullying. Beatbullying, London (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H.: Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manag. Sci. 32(5), 554–571 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diener, E.: Deindividuation: the absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. The psychology of group influence 209242 (1980)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elsbach, K.D., Glynn, M.A.: Believing your own“PR”: embedding identification in strategic reputation. Adv. Strat. Manag. 13, 65–90 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fershtman, C., Gneezy, U., List, J.A.: Equity aversion: social norms and the desire to be ahead. Am. Econ. J. Microecon. 4(4), 131–144 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., Newcomb, T.: Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 47(2S), 382 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fisman, R., Miguel, E.: Corruption, norms, and legal enforcement: evidence from diplomatic parking tickets. J. Polit. Econ. 115(6), 1020–1048 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Forgas, J.P., Jones, R.: Interpersonal Behaviour: The Psychology of Social Interaction. Pergamon Press, Sydney (1985)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gabay, A.S., Radua, J., Kempton, M.J., Mehta, M.A.: The ultimatum game and the brain: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 47, 549–558 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garcia-Palacios, A., Hoffman, H., Carlin, A., Furness Iii, T., Botella, C.: Virtual reality in the treatment of spider phobia: a controlled study. Behav. Res. Ther. 40(9), 983–993 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., Schwarze, B.: An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 3(4), 367–388 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Henrich, J., et al.: In search of homo economicus: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Am. Econ. Rev. 91(2), 73–78 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson, R.D., Downing, L.L.: Deindividuation and valence of cues: effects on prosocial and antisocial behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37(9), 1532 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Koudenburg, N., Postmes, T., Gordijn, E.H.: Resounding silences: subtle norm regulation in everyday interactions. Soc. Psychol. Q. 76(3), 224–241 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kulyk, O., Wang, J., Terken, J.: Real-time feedback on nonverbal behaviour to enhance social dynamics in small group meetings. In: Renals, S., Bengio, S. (eds.) MLMI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3869, pp. 150–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11677482_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Laporte, L., van Nimwegen, C., Uyttendaele, A.J.: Do people say what they think: social conformity behavior in varying degrees of online social presence. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, pp. 305–314. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Le Hénaff, B., Michinov, N., Le Bohec, O.: Applying the side model to brainwriting: the impact of intergroup comparison and anonymity on creative performance. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 48(7), 351–359 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Le Hénaff, B., Michinov, N., Le Bohec, O., Delaval, M.: Social gaming is inside: impact of anonymity and group identity on performance in a team game-based learning environment. Comput. Educ. 82, 84–95 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McCulloch, C., Searle, S., Neuhaus, J.: Generalized, Linear, and Mixed Models. Wiley, New York (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McKenna, K.Y., Bargh, J.A.: Plan 9 from cyberspace: the implications of the internet for personality and social psychology. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 4(1), 57–75 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pagliari, C., et al.: Psychosocial implications of avatar use in supporting therapy for depression. Annu. Rev. Cybertherapy Telemed. 181, 329–333 (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Perfumi, S.C., Bagnoli, F., Caudek, C., Guazzini, A.: Deindividuation effects on normative and informational social influence within computer-mediated-communication. Comput. Hum. Behav. 92, 230–237 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Coppolino Perfumi, S., Cardelli, C., Bagnoli, F., Guazzini, A.: Conformity in virtual environments: a hybrid neurophysiological and psychosocial approach. In: Bagnoli, F., et al. (eds.) INSCI 2016. LNCS, vol. 9934, pp. 148–157. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45982-0_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Postmes, T., Lea, M.: Social processes and group decision making: anonymity in group decision support systems. Ergonomics 43(8), 1252–1274 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lea, M.: Breaching or building social boundaries? Side-effects of computer-mediated communication. Commun. Res. 25(6), 689–715 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lea, M.: Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: effects of depersonalization. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 6(1), 3 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Prentice-Dunn, S., Rogers, R.W.: Effects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43(3), 503 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rabin, M.: Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 83, 1281–1302 (1993)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reicher, S.D.: Social influence in the crowd: attitudinal and behavioural effects of de-individuation in conditions of high and low group salience. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 23(4), 341–350 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Reicher, S.D., Spears, R., Postmes, T.: A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 6(1), 161–198 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reicher, S., Levine, R.M., Gordijn, E.: More on deindividuation, power relations between groups and the expression of social identity: three studies on the effects of visibility to the in-group. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 37(1), 15–40 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C., Austin, W.G., Worchel, S.: An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational identity: a reader, pp. 56–65 (1979)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tisserand, J.C.: Ultimatum game: a meta-analysis of the past three decades of experimental research. In: Proceedings of International Academic Conferences International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences (2014). No. 0802032 in Antibes ISBN 978-80-87927-05-2Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., Wetherell, M.S.: Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vilanova, F., Beria, F.M., Costa, Â.B., Koller, S.H.: Deindividuation: from Le Bon to the social identity model of deindividuation effects. Cogent Psychol. 4(1), 1308104 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Waldzus, S., Schubert, T.: Group norm and category norm in anonymous situations: two sources of social influence. na (2000)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wolke, D., Sapouna, M.: Fear Not: An Innovative Interdisciplinary Virtual Intervention to Reduce Bullying and Victimisation. The Impact of Technology on Relationships in Educational Settings. Routledge, Abington (2012)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhou, X., Liu, Y., Ho, B.: The cultural transmission of cooperative norms. Front. Psychol. 6, 1554 (2015)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zimbardo, P.G.: The human choice: individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. University of Nebraska Press (1969)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Complex Dynamics, CSDC, and Department of Education, Literatures, Interculture, Languages, and PsychologyUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.Department of Education, Literatures, Interculture, Languages, and PsychologyUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  3. 3.University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Complex Systems and Data Science LabFaculty of Information Studies in Novo MestoNovo MestoSlovenia

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options