Skip to main content

Der Einfluss von Gruppenmitgliedschaften auf den Informationsaustausch mit digitalen Kommunikationsmedien

Published Online: Doi: https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042/a000303

Zusammenfassung. Digitale Medien sind zum zentralen Mittel des Informationsaustausches in Lern- und Arbeitskontexten geworden. Durch die Reduktion sozialer Hinweisreize während computervermittelter Kommunikation (cvK) kommt der Wahrnehmung sozialer Beziehungen davor eine besondere Bedeutung zu. Dieser Beitrag fasst Forschung zum computervermittelten Informationsaustausch zusammen und legt dabei zwei Schwerpunkte. Zum einen liefert er einen Überblick über Forschung zu sozialem Einfluss (d. h. Informationsrezeption) in cvK. Diese zeigt, dass cvK zu einer stärkeren Orientierung an vor der Kommunikation salienten Selbstaspekten (z. B. gemeinsame Gruppenmitgliedschaften) führt: Ist eine gemeinsame soziale Identität salient, kommt es zu mehr sozialem Einfluss, werden keine (positiven) sozialen Beziehungen wahrgenommen, kommt es zu weniger sozialem Einfluss sowie anderen egozentrischen Tendenzen. Zum anderen wird Forschung zusammengefasst, die belegt, dass die Salienz einer sozialen Identität in cvK die aus negativen Erwartungen, defensiven Selbstregulationsstrategien und sozialer Macht resultierenden egozentrischen Tendenzen kompensieren kann. Die gleichzeitige Berücksichtigung individueller und sozialer Aspekte des Selbst ist somit wesentlich, um Vorhersagen zum medienvermittelten Informationsaustausch treffen zu können.


The Influence of Group Memberships on the Information Exchange in Digital Media

Abstract. Digital media have become a central means for information exchange in learning and work environments. The decrease of social cues during computer-mediated communication (CMC) highlights the importance of social relationships perceived ahead of the communication. This article summarizes research on computer-mediated information exchange with a focus on two aspects. First, it provides an overview of research on social influence (i. e., reception of information) in CMC. This work showed that CMC leads to stronger alignment with aspects of the self (e. g., common group memberships) that are salient prior to the communication: If a joint social identity is salient, social influence is stronger; if individuals perceive no (positive) social relationships, they are less influenced by others and behave more egocentrically. Second, the article summarizes research showing that the salience of a social identity in CMC can compensate for egocentric tendencies resulting from individuals’ negative expectations, defensive self-regulative strategies, and social power. Therefore, the simultaneous consideration of individual and social aspects of the self is crucial for making predictions about computer-mediated information exchange.

Literatur

  • Behringer, N., Sassenberg, K. & Scholl, A. (2015). Sustaining active participation in knowledge exchange 2.0. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript, Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien. Google Scholar

  • Behringer, N. & Sassenberg, K. (2015). Introducing social media for knowledge management: Determinants of employees’ intentions to adopt new tools. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 290 – 296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Butera, F. & Mugny, G. (2001). Conflicts and social influences in hypothesis testing. In De Dreu, C.De Vries, N.Eds., Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 160 – 182). Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar

  • Cress, U., Barquero, B., Schwan, S. & Hesse, F. W. (2007). Improving quality and quantity of contributions: Two models for promoting knowledge exchange with shared databases. Computers & Education, 49, 423 – 440. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, W. J., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R. & Wiechmann, D. (2004). Multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1035 – 1056. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ditrich, L., Landkammer, F., Sassenberg, K. & Jacoby, J. (2014). The impact of regulatory focus and initial opinions on decision making. Poster präsentiert auf dem 17th General Meeting der European Association of Social Psychology (EASP), Amsterdam, Niederlande. Google Scholar

  • Engelmann, T., Dehler, J., Bodemer, D. & Buder, J. (2009). Knowledge awareness in CSCL: a psychological perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 949 – 960. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fiske, S. T. & Berdahl, J. (2007). Social power. In A. W. KruglanskiE. T. HigginsEds., Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed.). (pp. 678 – 692). New York, NY US: Guilford Press. Google Scholar

  • Friedman, R. S. & Förster, J. (2005). Effects of motivational cues on perceptual asymmetry: Implications for creativity and analytical problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 263 – 275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Greitemeyer, T. & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2003). Preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile paradigm: Beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 322 – 339. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Guinote, A. (2007). Behaviour variability and the situated focus theory of power. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 256 – 295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280 – 1300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Inesi, M. E., Lee, S. Y. & Rios, K. (2014). Objects of desire: Subordinate ingratiation triggers self-objectification among powerful. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 19 – 30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123 – 1134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Landkammer, F. & Scholl, A. (2016). When the ego becomes less central: Group goals compensate for the corrupting effect of power on strategic information sharing. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript, Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien. Google Scholar

  • McGowan, B. S., Wasko, M., Vartabedian, B., Miller, R. S., Freiherr, D. D. & Abdolrasulnia, M. (2012). Understanding the factors that influence the adoption and meaningful use of social media by physicians to share medical information. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14, 210 – 220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Molden, D. C. & Hui, C. M. (2011). Promoting De-Escalation of Commitment A Regulatory-Focus Perspective on Sunk Costs. Psychological Science, 22, 8 – 12. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Postmes, T., Spears, R. & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689 – 715. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sassenberg, K. & Boos, M. (2003). Attitude change in computer-mediated communication: Effects of anonymity and category norms. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 405 – 422. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sassenberg, K., Boos, M. & Klapproth, F. (2001). Wissen und Glaubwürdigkeit als zentrale Merkmale von Experten: Der Einfluss von Expertise auf den Informationsaustausch in computervermittelter Kommunikation. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 32, 45 – 56. LinkGoogle Scholar

  • Sassenberg, K., Boos, M. & Rabung, S. (2005). Attitude change in face to face and computer-mediated communication: Private self-awareness as mediator and moderator. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 361 – 374. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sassenberg, K. & Jonas, K.J. (2007). Attitude change and social influence on the net. In A. JoinsonK. A. McKennaPostmes, T.U.-D. ReipsEds., Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology (pp. 273 – 288). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

  • Sassenberg, K., Landkammer, F. & Jacoby, J. (2014). The influence of regulatory focus and group vs. individual goals on the evaluation bias in the context of group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 153 – 164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Scholl, A. & Sassenberg, K. (2014a). “While you still think, I already type“: Experienced social power reduces deliberation during e-mail communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 692 – 696. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Scholl, A. & Sassenberg, K. (2014b). Where could we stand if I had …? How social power impacts counterfactual thinking after failure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 51 – 61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Scholl, A. & Sassenberg, K. (2015). Better know when (not) to think twice: How social power impacts prefactual thought. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 159 – 170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sparrow, B. & Chatman, L. (2013). We’re not burning down the house: Synthesizing pre-Internet, current findings, and future research on social cognition and being online. Psychological Inquiry, 24, 349 – 355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D. & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244 – 265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stasser, G. & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467 – 1478. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. AustinS. WorchelEds., The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33 – 47). Monterey, CA: Books/Cole. Google Scholar

  • Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186 – 204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B. & Botero, I. C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71, 286 – 310. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Access content

To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.