*This essay was submitted as part of my Social Psychology module in Year 1 during the academic year 2017/2018*
Social media are computer-mediated technologies that allow users to partake in social networking, as well as share and create content (“Social Media”, n.d.). It has been acclaimed to be a powerful tool for communication that helps to break down potential boundaries such as nationality and race, making a mark in reshaping how we communicate. As social media platforms provide a space for individuals to express themselves through the creation of an online profile (McFarland & Ployhart, 2015), the ease of connectivity would facilitate interactions amongst users who have common interests or similar ideas regardless of where the user comes from. This allows them to establish relationships and form cohesive groups. In this essay, I will be examining how social media affects group dynamics. The effects of group polarisation, which is the tendency for groups to become more extreme in their views than their initial inclinations (Myer & Lamm, 1976), have become increasingly evident on Twitter as interactions between like-minded individuals are facilitated by Twitter’s various features, which include allowing users to post messages in the form of ‘tweets’, enabling users to share and discuss their similar interests, as well as interact with one another. To further facilitate communication, users can group posts together through ‘hashtags’, where users can discuss a common topic with diverse viewpoints shared. Twitter’s feature of ‘retweeting’ supports the indirect interactions among users through content sharing, driving the formation of online communities which increases the susceptibility of group polarisation occurring (Taraborelli & Roth, 2011). Twitter builds the culture of polarisation as users tend to seek for information that would strengthen their preexisting tendencies and grow more confident to confirm them (Sunstein, 2008). For example, a study by Yardi & Boyd (2010) found that regarding a homicide of an abortion doctor perpetuated by a pro-life activist, users on Twitter hashtagged ‘#pro-life’ had were more likely to interact with users who agreed with their views and strengthened group identity, corroborating the finding by Kelly et al. (2005) that users only consume information that correlate with their values and interests. As Twitter mediates for online communities to be formed, the susceptibility of group polarisation occurring increases as members of the same category are expected to agree with other discussants, which would lead to a shift of opinions amongst individuals as they conform to group norms, even if the norm is a more extreme version of the member’s initial inclinations (Abrams et al., 1990). This can be attributed to anonymity through computer-mediated communication, since individuals would be more daring to share more extreme or risk-involving ideas in a dispersed setting, facilitated by platforms like Twitter (Sia et al., 2002). As such, the implications of group polarisation affects social media through group shift in attitudes, negative stereotypical traits towards an outgroup or skewed opinions where a group would validate their preexisting beliefs due to increase in group consensus (Smith & Postmes, 2011). It is believed that in-group favouritism has become more prevalent because of Facebook as its format allows users to join existing online groups or create groups, encouraging the formation of online communities as users join groups to discuss similar interests or subject matter they agree with. This leads to users favouring members whom they socially identify with in terms of behaviour or perception, possibly evoking the effects of discrimination against members that are perceived to be a part of the outgroup (Tajfel et al, 1971; Hogg & Reid, 2006). As proposed by Sherif (1966), when individuals belonging to a group interact collectively, group identification occurs which increases in-group favouritism. Thus, in-group favouritism becomes more apparent as social media increases the salience of an in-group through collaborative communication (Mullen et al., 1992). One of Facebook’s features allows users to ‘like’ a post or a page, causing users to associate themselves better with users who ‘like’ the same posts as it indicates commonality, even if ‘likes’ are arbitrary. To reinforce the effects of Minimal Group Paradigm on social media, Amichai-Hamburger (2005), director of the Research Center for Internet Psychology (CIP), conducted a study where 24 people were divided into two different Internet chat groups based on intuitive preference. He found inconsequential allotment of groups would cause in-group favouritism, and groups would perceive their own as superior compared to the other group. As a result, in-group bias and outgroup negativity could be accentuated due to the Minimal Group Paradigm, in which minor distinctions between groups could cause discrimination. The features of Facebook would then give prominence to greater familiarity within in-group members whom users socially categorise themselves with and strengthen in-group favouritism, in turn widening the gap between in-group and outgroup members which could lead to discriminatory behaviour (Linville, 1982). This can be attributed to the social identity theory, which states that an individual’s positive evaluation of one’s group motivates an individual to achieve positive self-esteem (Hogg, 2016). According to Crocker and Schwartz (1985), low self-esteem individuals who attempt to boost their self-esteem through group identification would tend to negatively evaluate an outgroup and are more prejudiced towards them, causing more disparity. Therefore, it is evident that Facebook increases in-group favouritism as the platform drives the formation of groups as well as prejudice, as higher in-group favouritism is positively correlated with prejudice (Crocker et al., 1987). As social media strengthens common identity amongst users through interactions, mob mentality would be more likely to occur as users would rationalize their actions due to peer influence, even if they have negative consequences. The Justine Sacco bullying case is an example to illustrate mob mentality taking place. In 2013, the Caucasian woman had posted on Twitter that she ‘hoped she did not get AIDS’ when she travelled to Africa. The tweet had garnered negative reactions from the mass public and started the hashtag ‘#HasJustineLandedYet’, influencing users, predominantly African users, to post hateful messages towards Sacco including comments that suggested sexual assault (Waxman, 2014). This example illustrates the powerful impacts of priming on social media leading to mob mentality, which encourages individuals to adopt certain behaviours that conform with group norms to increase loyalty amongst the online community, in this case, the African community (Raafat et al., 2009). Deindividuation can be attributed to why users may adopt negative behaviour such as cyberbullying, as users would feel less accountable for their actions towards the victim as they immerse themselves in the online community where the majority may be spreading hate (Bandura et al., 1975). Mob mentality is reinforced by Twitter as because users can adopt pseudonyms, enhancing anonymity and encouraging cyberbullying as it would be difficult to trace the perpetrator since the content is disseminated widely on Twitter (Palme & Berglund, 2004). Therefore, Twitter plays a part in accentuating mob mentality, as people would experience a diffusion of responsibility in a dispersed setting. In conclusion, social media offers people the opportunity to come together and increases human connectivity. However, this may drive the formation of the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality, which may be more detrimental to social circles in the long run. That is why the importance of knowing the impacts of social media affecting group dynamics is crucial so that people can find the balance to ensure the benefits of social media triumph the drawbacks. Word count: 1198 References: Abrams, D., Thomas, J., & Hogg, M. (1990). Numerical distinctiveness, social identity and gender salience. British Journal Of Social Psychology, 29(1), 87-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00889.x Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2005). Internet Minimal Group Paradigm. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 8(2), 140-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2005.8.140 Bandura, A., Underwood, B., & Fromson, M. (1975). Disinhibition of aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization of victims. Journal Of Research In Personality, 9(4), 253-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(75)90001-x Crocker, J., Thompson, L. L., McGraw, K. M., & Ingerman, C. (1987). Downward comparison, prejudice, and evaluations of others: Effects of self-esteem and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 907-916. Crocker, J., & Schwartz, I. (1985). Prejudice and Ingroup Favoritism in a Minimal Intergroup Situation. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(4), 379-386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167285114004 Hogg, M. (2016). Social Identity Theory. Peace Psychology Book Series, 3-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29869-6_1 Hogg, M., & Reid, S. (2006). Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the Communication of Group Norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x Kelly, J., Fisher, D. & Smith, M. (2005). Debate, division, and diversity: Political discourse networks in USENET newsgroups. Online Deliberation. Linville, P. W. (1982). The complexity–extremity effect and age-based stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(2), 193-211. McFarland, L., & Ployhart, R. (2015). Social media: A contextual framework to guide research and practice. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1653-1677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039244 Mullen, B., Brown, R. & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology. 22. 103 - 122. 10.1002/ejsp.2420220202. Myers, D., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 602-627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602 Palme, J., & Berglund, M. (2004). Anonymity on the Internet. Dsv.su.se. Retrieved 7 January 2018, from http://dsv.su.se/jpalme/society/anonymity.pdf Raafat, R., Chater, N., & Frith, C. (2009). Herding in humans. Trends In Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 420-428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.08.002 Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Sia, C., Tan, B., & Wei, K. (2002). Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity. Information Systems Research, 13(1), 70-90. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23015824 Smith, L., & Postmes, T. (2011). The power of talk: Developing discriminatory group norms through discussion. British Journal Of Social Psychology, 50(2), 193-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466610x504805 Social Media. Oxford Dictionaries | English. Retrieved 7 January 2018, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/social_media Sunstein, C. (2008). The Law of Group Polarization. Debating Deliberative Democracy, 80-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470690734.ch4 Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal Of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202 Taraborelli, D. & Roth, C. (2011). Viable Web communities: Two case studies G. Deffuant and N. Gilbert (Eds.), Pattern Resilience: Simplifying individual-based models and computing viable or resilient action policies, Springer, 2011. Waxman, S. (2014). The Case of Justine Sacco and the Twitter Lynch Mob. TheWrap. Retrieved 7 January 2018, from https://www.thewrap.com/case-justine-sacco-twitter-lynch-mob/ Yardi, S., & Boyd, D. (2010). Dynamic Debates: An Analysis of Group Polarization Over Time on Twitter. Bulletin Of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316-327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380011
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author. ArchivesCategories |