<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<ixml xmlns="http://www.icaap.org/schema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.icaap.org/schema
http://www.icaap.org/schema/ixml1.xsd">
<head type="article" peer="yes" icaap="member" lang="en">
 <resourcegroup>
 <description> 
	<stylesheet>/article.css</stylesheet>
	<graphic>/logo.gif</graphic>
	<web>http://www.sociology.org/content/vol004.001/bellamy.html</web>
	<title>Social Psychological Dimensions of Electronic Communication</title> 
	<abstract><p>This study assessed the degree to which emotion management factors
constrain hostile types of communication withinelectronic chat room
settings.  It further examined whether gender and social psychological
variables such as sociability and locus of control moderate the
sending of such messages.  Since understanding how users define this
virtual social landscape is pertinent to analyzing online
communication, the study also investigated whether users believe that
normative standards of behavior extend to online interactions.</p>

<p>A questionnaire survey was given to 114 undergraduate and graduate
students at a large university in Southeastern Michigan.  Overall, the
results indicate that flaming behavior is reduced when people define
the chat room situation as having normative standards of conduct.
However, the correlation is stronger for males more so than females
and for low sociable users more so than high sociable users.
Significant differences are revealed among the relationships between
the emotion management factors and flaming.  For both high and low
Locus of Control groups, shame and guilt are shown as factors that
control flaming interactions in predicted ways, but it is more
pronounced for externals on the guilt factor as is the inverse
relationship between pride and flaming.</p>
	</abstract>
	<availability status="free">Copyright 1999 Electronic Journal of Sociology</availability>
</description>
 <author>
	<name>
	 <first>Al</first>
	 <last>Bellamy</last></name>
	<address>
	 <organisation>College of Technology</organisation>
	 <division>Eastern Michigan University</division>
	</address>
</author>
<author>
	<name>
	 <first>Cheryl</first>
	 <last>Hanewicz</last></name>
	<address>
	 <organisation>College of Technology</organisation>
	 <division>Eastern Michigan University</division>
	</address>
</author>

</resourcegroup>
 
 <publicationgroup> 
 <description>
	<web>http://www.sociology.org/</web>
 <title>Electronic Journal of Sociology</title>
	<idno type="issn">1198 3655</idno>
	<respstmt><resp type="editor">EDITOR</resp><name><full>Mike Sosteric,</full></name>
         <address><email>mikes@athabascau.ca</email></address>
</respstmt>
</description>
 <publisher>
	<name><full>Athabasca University</full></name>
	<address><street>1 University Drive</street><city>Athabasca</city>
	 <province>Alberta</province><postalcode>SOG OWO</postalcode>
	 <email>mikes@athabascau.ca</email>
	</address>
</publisher>
 <distributor> 
	<name><full>International Consortium for Alternative Academic Publication</full></name>
 <address><web>www.icaap.org</web></address>
</distributor>
</publicationgroup>
  <seriesgroup> 
 <description>
	<web>http://www.sociology.org/content/vol004.001/</web>
	<date><year>1999</year></date> 
	<idno type="VOL">4.1</idno> 
</description>
</seriesgroup>
 <indexinggroup> 
 <keywords scheme="lcsh"> 
	<item>Sociology</item>
	<item>Social Sciences</item>
	<item>Social Problems</item>
	<item>Periodicals</item>
</keywords>
 <idno type="IUICODE">100.4.1.2</idno> 
 <startdate><year>1994-</year></startdate>
</indexinggroup>
</head>

<body>

<h2>Introduction</h2>

<p>The emergence of the information society has created some exciting theoretical and empirical challenges for social 
scientists. There is a need to understand the nature and form of the interaction patterns that are peculiar to its definition and to 
determine their consequences for the development of self conceptualization and social structure. It is also important to 
determine the ways in which informational modes of production emulate and contrast with industrial forms of social 
organization. A common feature of the information society landscape is the massive utilization of personal computers as a 
means for transacting personal and interpersonal communications (Computer Mediated Communications/CMC). The 
computer is quickly establishing itself as a primary conduit for human beings to carry out communications with others as well 
as with self. This digitized form of interaction is radically different than face-to-face encounters associated with previous 
historical epochs and may have deep ramifications for social and individual epistemology.</p>

<p>Human beings are fundamentally symbol makers. Symbols are the means by which phenomena are known and the 
mechanism for generating social and psychological realities. The ability to interpret the symbolic gestures of others is what 
allows humans to interact. Body gestures, vocal intonations, language, grunts and groans are the fabric of symbolic 
communication. Conventional modes of learning and transmitting these symbols have been through face-to-face (FTF) 
interaction. CMC, however, represents a significantly different communication architecture whose structure may ardently 
modify patterns of interaction that is common to industrial methods of social intercourse. As Couch (1992) has suggested, 
information technology creates the potential for new forms of social relationships that are not merely ephemeral social forms 
but have genuine consequences for describing a new social history that departs from the hegemony of industrial methods of 
social action. However, such sweeping propositions must be examined empirically. An initial step would be to determine if 
social patterns within new information technologies such as CMC are indeed different than traditional FTF communications 
common in industrial society. If differences are revealed, such differences could be seen as an indicator of historical 
transformation that is influenced by a new technology such as CMC.</p>

<p>The purpose of this paper is to assess some of the contours of this emerging interaction landscape utilizing the framework 
of symbolic interaction. Our research project focuses specifically on Internet relay chat room communication (IRC). This is a 
group, mass communication system in which users send and receive text-based messages. The time delay of these computer-
mediated messages can be nearly instantaneous or "real time" (December, 1996). Because the process of 
symbol exchange in chat rooms differ substantially from the symbolically rich context of face-to-face communication from 
which the conceptual frameworks of symbolic interaction has been developed, we are concerned with the following broad 
questions:</p>
<ol>
<li>To what extent are symbolic interaction frameworks conducive for analysing communication 
processes within a computer mediated environment?</li>
<li>In what ways does symbolic interaction as an analytical framework increase our understanding of 
emergent social processes and structures within electronic chat rooms?</li></ol>
<h2>Social Psychological Research of the Internet</h2>

<p>The use of the Internet has increased exponentially over the past five years. By the end of 1997 more than 100 million 
people were using the Internet, and traffic on it is doubling every 100 days (The Emerging Digital Economy, 1998). Parallel 
to this expansion in utilization has been substantial changes in internet communication technology. Usenet newsgroup 
discussions and electronic mail were the predominant communication technologies during the earlier days. Today, the Internet 
offers a much wider scope of tools used for information transmission and retrieval, communication and interaction 
(December, 1995). These technologies have created the capacity to enhance both synchronicity, asynchronicity and 
interactivity in CMC (Newhagen and Rafaeli, 1996). In short, the extensive utilization of the Internet along with its 
hypertextual communication architecture has created a genuine need for conducting social science research and for assessing 
its relationship with human interaction patterns and psychological phenomena.</p>

<p>Indeed, recent research has shifted attention towards the social and psychological factors of CMC. Researchers have 
examined such things as how online use emerges into a community (Marcus, 1987, 1990) and media selectivity of 
organizational communication (Daft and Lengel, 1984, 1986; Rice and Shook, 1990; Daft, Lengel and Trevino, 1987, 1983). 
Research has also been conducted on the social context of CMC ( Feenberg, 1989, 1992; Fulk, Schmitz and Steinfield, 1990), 
social cues (DeSanctis and Gallupe, 1987; Kiesler, 1996; Culnan and Markus, 1987) and the formation of personal 
relationships (Parks and Floyd, 1996; Pool, 1983; Rheingold, 1993; Stoll, 1995).</p>

<p>The communication discipline has provided major players in the development of theories and research methodologies 
applicable to Internet social dynamics. Curiously absent are studies promoting the sociological imagination. We concur with 
Denzin's (1995) paraphrase of a statement made by Couch (1995) regarding sociological abstinence in this area &#8211; 
"The maturation of the electronic media is opening `new opportunities for humanity and social scientists are 
failing to note' this fact. They do so at great peril. This maturation of the media has `created a void in the academy 
that has been partially filled by the emergence of departments of communication.'" Our challenge is to speak 
to this void.</p>

<h2>Research Issues within the Framework of Symbolic Interaction Theories</h2>

<p>Based on the work of George Herbert Mead (1934), the basic tenets of the symbolic interactionist perspective, as it relates 
to human communication and self-conception, are:</p>
<ol>
<li>Humans interact by perceiving and interpreting the symbolic gestures from others.</li>
<li>Through a process called "taking the role of the other," people are able to 
anticipate each other's responses based upon the richness of the symbolic information existing within a 
given social situation.</li>
<li>In defining the nature of a situation, individuals are capable of orienting themselves to a vast 
constellation of social and physical objects. They internally rehearse <i>appropriate</i> lines of action 
or interaction towards the other, while suppressing perceived inappropriate actions, a process Mead 
termed <i>imaginative rehearsal.</i></li></ol>
<p>Within this context, a very salient factor affecting communication efficacy is the richness of the information cues. The 
vast majority of the conceptual and methodological symbolic interaction schemes have emerged from face-to-face 
communications in which the informational landscape in comparison to computer mediated communication is much more 
concrete. CMC differs significantly from FTF in the following ways:</p>
<ol>
<li>Nonverbal gestures such as facial, body, and body posture are missing as informational cues for 
defining the situation.</li>
<li>Verbal cues including voice tone, voice quality, voice modulation, and intonation are frequently 
absent from CMC but present within FTF.</li>
<li>Information related to the social and personal characteristics of the individual such as gender, 
physical appearance, and status are substantially suppressed within CMC.</li></ol>
<p>Theories such as social presence theory (Rice, 1993; Rice and Love, 1987; Short, Williams, and Christie, 1976) and social 
context cues theory (Sproull and Kiesler, 1991) predict that the absence of informational cues within the CMC context would 
lead to more impersonal and nonconforming behaviours in comparison to FTF communications. They further predict that 
online communication would be less inhibited and that individuals would be more inclined to exhibit aggressive behaviours. 
These predictions have been somewhat supported empirically (Kiesler and Sproull, 1992; Dubrovsky, Kiesler, and Sethna, 
1991; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler and McGuire, 1986; Parks and Floyd, 1996). Hostile and aggressive behaviours expressed 
in CMC, often referred to as "flaming," have been reported in studies by Hiltz, Turoff, and Johnson, 1989; 
Lea, O'Shea, Fung and Spears, 1992; Stoll, 1995; Beninger, 1987; and Berry, 1993; each make claims that only illusions of a 
stable social structure is possible within online "communities."</p>

<p>These claims, however, are being challenged by other studies that indicate that although the reduction in informational 
cues may slow communication down, it does not necessarily undermine interaction outcomes such as the formation of 
friendships. They further suggest that positive interaction outcomes do occur, but simply take more time to emerge within 
CMC as compared to FTF channels (Walther, et al.). A recent study by Parks and Floyd (1996) on the development of 
personal relationships through Internet discussion groups indicates that such relations were common and that the breadth and 
depth of these interactions were moderately high.</p>

<p>Missing from all of these studies is an attempt to systematically explore the factors that explain the differences in CMC 
interaction patterns such as flaming. For example, what explains the variance among hostile or non-hostile behaviours and to 
what extent do social psychological characteristics of the individual explain such variance? These are important empirical 
questions that must be systematically analysed for an enhanced understanding of CMC social and behavioural processes. We 
believe that symbolic interaction frameworks would be a heuristic guideline for delineating possible factors to be examined. 
We have chosen the sociology of emotions as our theoretical platform (Hochshild, 1979; Shott, 1979; Heise, 1977; Ridgeway, 
1982; Stryker, 1987; Kemper, 1991; Turner, 1994). The basic tenet of the symbolic interaction approach to the study of 
emotions is that they shape the flow of interactions. Emotions are conceived as sociologically relevant phenomena because 
particular types of emotions, as expressed towards others, are moderated by situational and normative constraints. The 
absence of concrete symbols within a chat room represents a relatively unique situational context in which the impact of 
cultural or normative expectations on behaviour is relatively unknown. However, people do not enter chat rooms as a blank 
sheet of paper. Rather they take with them internalized social rules for interacting with others as well as experiences in 
defining face-to-face situations that are used to approximate the nature of chat room situations. Our task is to determine if 
emotions that are theorized to be socially relevant towards explicating behaviours in so-called normal face-to-face 
communication will help to explain behaviours within chat rooms. We will utilize the sociology of emotion theory by Shott 
(1979) as the conceptual platform for this study.</p>

<h2>Shott's Social Control Theory</h2>

<p>Susan Shott's role-taking theory is based upon the idea that emotive actions are influenced by situational definitions and 
social norms. The process of role-taking is the focus of her conceptual scheme. "Much role-taking is reflexive in that 
the individual has an internal conversation with self as an object, seen and evaluated from the perspective of specific and 
generalized others. In this evaluation process emotions are aroused and labeled; and if these emotions are negative, they 
mobilize the individual to adjust behaviour" (Turner, 1997).</p>

<p>Shott proposes two role-taking sentiments that serve as controllers of emotions during the role-taking process:</p>

<p>Reflexive role-taking emotions that are directed toward oneself. These consist of:</p>
<dl>
<dt>Guilt</dt><dd>Using Ausubel's (1955) definition, she states that guilt is "...the feeling that 
accompanies the negative self-evaluation which occurs when an individual acknowledges that his behaviour is 
at variance with a given moral value to which he feels obligated to conform."</dd>

<dt>Shame</dt><dd>Shame occurs when after taking the role of the other, one discovers that the other's 
perception of the behaviour is not congruent to her/his idealized image of self.</dd>
<dt>Embarrassment</dt><dd>Is a feeling that exists "when an individual's presentation of a situational 
identity is seen by the person and others as inept" (Turner, 1998).</dd>
<dt>Pride</dt><dd>A person experiences pride when through taking the role of others they obtain self-approval. 
Prideful persons attempt to present themselves to others in such a manner to maintain this self-approval.</dd>
<dt>Vanity</dt><dd>Shott's description of vanity is "Vanity, unlike pride, is an unstable and transient 
emotion; it is the form social approval may take when one is not sure of one's self image or the approval of 
others. Vain persons are therefore more immediately dependent on others for their self-conceptions" 
(1979; p1326).</dd> 
<dt>Empathetic role-taking emotions</dt><dd>Shott conceives empathy as "The arousal in oneself of 
the emotion one would feel in another's situation."</dd></dl>

<p>Our objective in this paper will be to operationalize each of the concepts in Shott's theory summarized above and then 
apply them to assess the degree to which <i>emotion management</i> occurs when people are expressing their feelings and 
exhibiting various behaviours within a CMC chat room environment. We will also analyse the extent to which such emotion 
management is influenced by gender, locus of control, sociability, and perceptions of the normative context of chat room 
environments.</p>

<h2>Research Questions</h2>

<p>This paper will explore the following research questions:</p>
<ol>
<li>To what extent does the normative orientation of the individual influence the sending of hostile 
and aggressive messages in Internet chat rooms? Normative orientation is conceptualized within this 
study as the user's perception of whether or not chat rooms have an unwritten standard of conduct. We 
expect to find an inverse relationship between our normative variable and hostile communications such 
as flaming.</li>
<li>To what extent does the locus of control (LOC) of the individual influence the sending of hostile 
communication messages in chat rooms? Locus of control (Rotter, 1966) is a personality orientation 
variable which delineates how individuals attribute outcomes related to their actions. People who see 
themselves as being able to "control" events of their actions are referred to as 
<i>internals.</i> Those who are more oriented towards believing that events are outside of their 
control are characterized as being <i>externals.</i> We expect to find a negative correlation between 
LOC and the hostility interaction variables.</li>
<li>To what extent does the sociability of the individual influence hostile type communication in chat 
rooms? We anticipate a negative correlation between sociability and the hostile communication 
variables.</li>
<li>To what extent does gender moderate the relationship between chat room users emotional 
orientation and their tendency towards sending hostile messages in chat rooms? To what extent does 
the emotional orientation of the individual influence his/her tendency towards exhibiting hostile and 
aggressive behaviours in Internet chat rooms.</li></ol>
<p>The degree and manner in which emotive factors influence individual behaviour within a social situation is contingent 
upon how that situation is defined. In order to investigate the relationship between emotion magnet and chat room 
communication more systematically, we will also examine the moderator influence of cybernorm, sociability, and locus of 
control on this relationship. Similar to gender and ethnicity, each of these variables may influence how the individual defines 
social situations which would in turn influence the relationship between emotion work and communication. As such, we 
expect the relationship to vary in terms of direction and strength across categories of each of the moderator variables.</p>

<h2>Methodology</h2>

<h2>Participants</h2>

<p>Subjects (N=114) were selected from a large, Midwest university that has more than 25,000 students in approximately 
180 fields of study. The diversified student body represents both full-time and part-time students, with women comprising 
almost 60 per cent of the student population.</p>

<p>The study was conducted during April and May 1998. Most respondents were undergraduates enrolled in the basic studies 
course, Understanding Technology, which is one of several courses that fulfill the university's science requirement. Although 
this is a freshman-level course, students of all levels take it. All respondents in this course who indicated that they participate 
in online chat rooms were selected for this sample. Students in this course are entering a wide variety of disciplines 
throughout all the colleges of the university. Others were graduate students in the Master of Liberal Studies in Technology 
program. <inline><graphic>bellamy_chart1.gif</graphic><text> Chart 1</text></inline>presents the 
demographic structure of the study.</p>

<p>All subjects were given their questionnaires during class time. Questionnaires were completed by the students on a 
voluntary basis. All students who stipulated that they used relay chat rooms agreed to complete the questionnaire. Thus, our 
study consists of a 100 per cent sample of the chat room users from a selected subpopulation of the university.</p>

<p>To assess whether a subject's online behaviour is influenced by emotive factors, Schott's six emotion management factors 
were measured by the following six Likert-type questionnaire items consisting of five scale points with anchors ranging from 
Agree to Disagree:</p>
<dl>
<dt>Guilt</dt><dd> "I feel guilty if I say something to offend someone in a chat room."</dd>
<dt>Shame</dt><dd>"I feel a sense of shame when someone in a chat room points out to me that my 
messages are inappropriate."</dd>
<dt>Embarrassment</dt><dd> "There have been times that I have felt embarrassed in a chat room 
because of how I presented myself."</dd>
<dt>Pride</dt><dd>"It is important for me that people see the best side of myself."</dd>
<dt>Vanity</dt><dd> "I am the type of person that does not need to get approval from others in chat 
rooms."</dd>
<dt>Empathy</dt><dd> "When people discuss their problems with me in chat rooms, I am able to feel 
what that person is feeling."</dd></dl>

<p><b>Sociability</b> of the respondents was measured by a seven-item Likert-type scale developed 
by Hanewicz and Bellamy (1998) consisting of five scale points ranging from Agree to Disagree. It revealed an 
alpha reliability of .81. (See Appendix A for the entire scale.) Scores ranged from 7 to 35 with a median of 27. 
For categorical analyses, scores of 27 and above were designated as high sociability (n=53); scores below 27 
were delineated as low sociability (n=57).</p>

<p><b>Locus of control</b> was measured by a ten-item scale developed by Burger (1986) which consisted 
of seven scale points ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Scores ranged from 32 to 64 with a 
median of 48.79. The alpha reliability coefficient on this scale for this population was .61. (See Appendix A 
for the entire scale) When used as a categorical variable, scores higher than 49 were designated as high locus 
of control (internals) and scores lower than 50 were deemed to be low locus of control (externals).</p>

<p><b>User perception of standards of conduct</b> within chat rooms was measured with the following 
item "I believe that there is an unwritten code of conduct that people must follow in chat 
rooms." We will refer to this variable as <i>cybernorm.</i> When used as a categorical variable, 
individuals who selected agree or slightly agree were delineated as being <i>high cybernorm</i>, while 
individuals who chose neither agree/nor disagree and below were delineated as <i>low cybernorm</i>.</p>

<p>The interaction variables and their measurement are as follows:</p>
<dl>
<dt>Flaming</dt><dd>"I send `flaming' (hostile) messages."</dd>
<dt>Hostility</dt><dd>"I am more likely to send hostile messages in chat rooms than in face-to-face 
communications."</dd>
<dt>Displaying anger</dt><dd> "It is more appropriate to display anger in chat rooms than in face-to-
face communication."</dd></dl>
<p>The cybernorm and interaction variables utilized a five-point Likert-type scale with response possibilities ranging from 
Agree to Disagree.</p>

<h2>Results</h2>

<p>Our first task is to determine the zero order relationships between the interaction variables, emotion management, 
cybernorm, locus of control, and sociability. The findings presented in <inline><graphic> bellamy_table1.gif 
</graphic><text>Table 1</text></inline> reveal that the independent variables are more closely associated (in 
terms of the expected inverse relationship) with the flaming communication variable than those of hostility and anger. The 
largest statistically significant relationship is found between cybernorm and flaming. This is a very salient finding when 
considering the large attention currently given towards the flaming phenomena. The negative relationship indicates that when 
people define the chat room situation as having normative standards of conduct, flaming behaviour is reduced. This supports 
our initial expectation that this type of defining of the situation would circumscribe flaming behaviour.</p>

<p>A relatively weak (although not statistically significant) inverse relationship is shown between flaming and locus of 
control which indicates that internal oriented individuals have a tendency to engage less in flaming communications than 
persons with an external orientation. A weak inverse relationship between sociability and hostile communications is revealed. 
The relationship does not have statistical significance.</p>

<p>(A  <inline><graphic>bellamy_matrix.gif</graphic><text>correlation matrix</text></inline> showing 
the relationships between all of the variables within this study is presented in Appendix B). Our next task will consist of 
determining if different statistical patterns are revealed within the categories of gender, ethnicity, cybernorm, locus of control, 
and sociability.</p>

<h2>The Moderator Influence of Gender</h2>

<p>As revealed in <inline><graphic> bellamy_table2.gif</graphic><text> Table 2</text></inline>, 
cybernorm once again has the strongest and most significant relationship with the flaming variable. However, the correlation 
is stronger for males than for females which implies that the male's normative orientation towards chat room communication 
is more circumventing of flaming messages as compared to females. Overall, even though most of the correlations revealed 
are not statistically significant, this pattern is repeated among most of the relationships.  Thus, gender does indeed moderate 
the relationship between the independent and criterion variables within this study. However, the nature of this influence is 
somewhat unexpected, particularly in regards to the emotion management factors. These factors appear to constrain flaming 
communication more among males than females which is counter to culturally held beliefs that women are more emotive 
oriented than males. These findings suggest that women are defining and utilizing electronic communication platforms in 
different ways than men.</p>

<h2>The Moderator Influence of Cybernorms</h2>

<p>Does the manner in which individuals define the chat room situation in terms of its containing normative standards of 
conduct influence the correlation of the communication variables with locus of control, sociability, and emotion management? 
The correlations presented in <inline><graphic> bellamy_table3.gif</graphic><text> Table 
3</text></inline>illustrate that although there are few statistically significant relationships found among these variables, 
overall, cybernorm does affect these relationships. We anticipated that stronger inverse relationships between the 
communication variables and the emotion management factors would be found among individuals with high normative 
perceptions of chat rooms in comparison to those with low normative perceptions. For the flaming variable, this expectation is 
supported only for the shame and guilt factors and for the guilt factor in relation to the sending of hostile messages.</p>

<p>For individuals with a high normative orientation in comparison to those with a low normative orientation, there is a 
slight tendency to send fewer flaming messages and to express anger less frequently as the locus of control moves towards 
that of internal orientation.</p>

<h2>Locus of Control</h2>

<p>In analysing the results in  <inline><graphic> bellamy_table4.gif</graphic><text> Table 
4</text></inline> we see definite differences among the relationships between LOC categories. For both high and low 
LOC groups, shame and guilt are shown as factors that control flaming interactions in predicted ways. This is more 
pronounced for externals on the guilt factor. A very weak relationship between pride and flaming is shown among externals in 
comparison to a relatively strong correlation among externals. This seems to be indicating that pride is more operative as an 
emotion control strategy within chat room environments for individuals that may have less self-esteem than others. Although 
LOC does not directly measure self-esteem, it has been shown to be highly correlated with this construct esteem. In short, 
there appears to be a stronger need among externals who may have less confidence and self-esteem to project a positive image 
in chat rooms, and this need may explain why pride is more of an influencing factor for constraining flaming behaviour 
among externals as compared to internals. This statistical pattern, however, is not revealed for the hostility and anger 
variables. Among these variables, empathy is a much stronger constraint for hostile behaviour for internally oriented 
individuals than externals.</p>

<h2>Sociability</h2>

<p>The results presented in <inline><graphic> bellamy_table5.gif</graphic><text> Table 
5</text></inline> once again illustrate a strong negative correlation between flaming and cybernorm. This is the case for 
both high sociable and low sociable individuals. Interesting enough, the highest correlation between these two variables is 
revealed among the low sociable people. Weak correlations are shown between cybernorm and the other communication 
variables. The same is true for locus of control and the communication variables. Among the emotion management factors, 
the highest negative correlation is found between the guilt factor and flaming among high sociables. A moderate negative 
relationship exists between pride and flaming among low sociables.</p>

<h2>Discussion</h2>

<p>Both Hochshild (1975) and Shott (1979) suggest that the patterning of affective experience is profoundly influenced by 
the individual's cultural experience. "Members of some segments of a society tend to feel certain emotions more often 
or more intensely than members of other segments because their position in the social structure subjects them more frequently 
to certain types of experiences" (Shott, 1979, p1318).</p>

<p>The differences found in the correlations between the interaction and emotion variables according to categories of gender 
strongly allude to the possibility that males and females are defining the CMC situation in different ways. This subsequently 
suggests differences in role-taking and cognitive rehearsal processes which further insinuates the possibility of different 
epistemological outcomes for each of these groups as they engage in virtually real social processes. Issues concerning the 
epistemological ramifications of cyberspace social interactions and its impact on such things as role identity and identity 
change, have been seriously considered within the framework of symbolic interaction theories (Kiecolt, 1994; Marcus and 
Wurf, 1987; Fein, 1990). Further research should be conducted to determine the different ways in which gender groups are 
utilizing cyberspace as platforms for creating and enacting new role identities (Rheingold, 1993). This study has illustrated 
that although behaviours such as flaming do indeed occur in CMC, its occurrence is modified by social psychological factors. 
This is a very meaningful finding because it provides additional information to the claims made by previous studies implying 
that the anonymous nature of CMC lifts normative constraints commonly associated with face-to-face communication gives 
impetus for sending hostile messages such as flaming. Our study implies that there is not a direct linear association between 
technology and behaviour in the manner in which it has been described by previous studies. This paper has shown that a very 
significant factor influencing the type of behaviour expressed in CMC consists of the extent in which chat rooms are defined 
as situations that have normative standards of conduct. Indeed, the negative and relatively strong correlation between 
cybernorm and flaming was consistent throughout all of the variable categories examined within this study. Although chat 
rooms can be correctly described as environments that contain very few concrete symbolic cues, human characteristics such 
as emotion, do indeed influence (similar to FTF situations) behaviour contingent upon the way in which individuals define the 
chat room situation.</p>

<p>It further implies that CMC technologies such as chat rooms should not be conceptualized or studied as causal factors but 
rather as a contextual variable that operates as a dynamic scaffold from which a complexity of social patterns may emerge. A 
crucial factor affecting such patterns consists of how individuals define the situation.</p>

<p>At this point in time, we are witnessing the emergence and contextual formation of chat rooms. As new technologies are 
added that will make the interaction more <i>virtually</i> real (Chayco, 1993) individuals will have frames of analysis 
(Goffman, 1974) that provide the ability to replicate traditional modes of interaction. Subsequently, it will be imperative to 
utilize more dynamic conceptual and methodological schemes for assessing the nature of the digital human condition.</p>

<p>As with any cross-sectional survey design, this study has definite internal validity weaknesses. Moreover, the 
generalizability of this study's findings is limited to a collegiate population of mostly undergraduate students. Nevertheless, 
we feel strongly that this investigation serves the highly useful exploratory purpose of mapping the landscape of human 
interaction within a digitized environment.</p>
</body>
<references>
<p>Ausbel, D.P. (1955). "Relationships between shame and guilt in the socializing process<i>." 
Psychological Review, 62,</i> September, 378-390.</p>

<p>Bhappu, A.D., Griffith, T.L, &amp; Northcraft G.B. (1997). Media effects and communication bias in diverse groups. 
<i>Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 70,3,</i> 199-205.</p>

<p>Blumer, H. (1969). <i>Symbolic interactionism.</i> Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.</p>

<p>Burger, J.M. (1986). <i>Personality: Theory and Research.</i> Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. pp. 400-401</p>

<p>Connolly, T. Lessup, L.M. &amp; Valicich, J.S. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in 
computer-mediated groups, <i>Management Science, 36,</i> 689-703.</p>

<p>Culnan, M.J. &amp; M. L. Markus. (1987). Information technologies. In F. Jablin et. al (Eds.), <i>Handbook of 
Organizational Communication: An interdisciplinary perspective</i> (pp. 420-443). Newberry Park, CA: Sage 
Publications.</p>

<p>Daft, R.L., &amp; Lengel, R.H., (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization 
design, <i>Research in Organization Behavior, 6</i>, 191-233.</p>

<p>December, J. (1996). Internet communication, <i>Journal of Communication, 46,</i> 14-33.</p>

<p>Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S &amp; Sethna, B.N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-
mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups, <i>Human-Computer Interaction, 6</i>, 119-146.</p>

<p>The Emerging Digital Economy, April 1998, Commerce Department, http://www.ecommerce.gov/viewhtml.htm.</p>

<p>Fein, M. (1990). <i>Role change: A resocializing perspective</i>. New York, NY: Praeger.</p>

<p>Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., &amp; Steinfield, C.W. (1990). A social influence model of technology use. In J. Fulk &amp; C. 
Steinfield (Eds.), <i>Organizations and communication technology.</i> (pp. 117-140) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.</p>

<p>Goffman, E. (1959). <i>The presentation of self in everyday life</i>. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday Anchor.</p>

<p>Goffman, E. (1974). <i>Frame analysis</i>. New York, NY: Harper Colophon.</p>

<p>Heise, D. (1977). Social action as the control of affect, <i>Behavioral Science, 22,</i> 163-177.</p>

<p>Hiltz,, S.R., Turoff, M., &amp; Johnson, K. (1989). Experiments in group decision making, 3: Disinhibition, 
deindividation, and group process in pen name and real name computer conferences. <i>Decision Support Systems, 
5,</i> 217-232.</p>

<p>Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure, <i>American Journal of Sociology, 85</i>, 
(3) , 551-575.</p>

<p>Hochshild, A. R. (1992). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feelings. in C. Clark, &amp; H. Robboy 
(Eds.) <i>Social interaction: Readings in sociology</i> 4th ed. (pp. 136-149). New York: St. Martins Press.</p>

<p>Kemper, T. (1991). Predicting emotions from social relations, <i>Social Psychology Quarterly, 54,</i> 330-342.</p>

<p>Kiecolt, J. K. (1994). Stress and the decision to change oneself: A theoretical model, <i>Social Psychology Quarterly, 
57,</i> 49-63.</p>

<p>Kiesler, S., Siegel J., &amp; McQuire, T.W., (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. 
<i>American Psychologist, 39,</i> 1123-1133.</p>

<p>Lea, M., O'shea, T., Fung, P., &amp; Spears, R. (1992). Flaming in computer-mediated communication: Observations, 
explanations, implications. In M. Lea (Ed.), <i>Contexts of computer-mediated communication</i> (pp.89-112). 
London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.</p>

<p>Markus, H., &amp; Nurius, P. (1987). Possible selves. <i>American Psychologist, 41</i>, 954-969.</p>

<p>Mead, G., H. (1934). <i>Mind, self, and society.</i> Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.</p>

<p>Myers, D., (1987). Anonymity is part of the magic: Individual manipulation of computer-mediated communication 
contexts, <i>Qualitative Sociology, 10,</i> (3) 251-265.</p>

<p>Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D.L., &amp; Venkatesh, A. (1997, October). <i>Diversity on the internet: The relationhsip of 
race to access and usage.</i> Paper presented at the Aspen Institute's Forum on Diversity and Media, Queenstown, 
Maryland.</p>

<p>Ridgeway, C. L., (1982). Status in groups: The importance of emotion, <i>American Sociological Review, 47,</i> 76-
88.</p>

<p>Rice, R.E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational 
media. <i>Human Communication Research, 19,</i> 451-484.</p>

<p>Rice, R., E. &amp; Love, G., (1987).<i></i> Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer mediated 
communication network. <i>Communication Research, 14,</i> 85-108.</p>

<p>Rice. R., &amp; Shook, D. (1990). Relationships of job categories and organizational levels to use of communication 
channels, including electronic mail: A meta-analysis and extension. <i>Journal of Management Studies, 27,</i> 195-
229.</p>

<p>Savicki, V., Lingenfelter, D., &amp; Kelly, M. (1998). Gender language style and group composition in internet 
discussion groups, <i>Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2,</i> (3) 1-12.</p>

<p>Shott, S., (1979). Emotion and social life: A symbolic interactionist analysis, <i>American Journal of Sociology, 84,</i> 
(6) 1317-1334.</p>

<p>Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., &amp; McGuire, T.W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated 
communication. <i>Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37,</i> 157-187.</p>

<p>Spears R., &amp; Lea, M. (1994). Panacea of panopticon: The hidden power in computer-mediated communication, 
<i>Communication Research, 21, (</i> 4) 427-459.</p>

<p>Sproull, L., &amp; Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. 
<i>Management Science, 32</i>, 1492-1512.</p>

<p>Sproull, L., &amp; Kiesler, S. (1991 September). Computers, networks, and work. <i>Scientific American,</i> pp. 84-
91.</p>

<p>Stoll, C. (1995) <i>Silicon snake oil</i>. New York, NY: Doubleday.</p>

<p>Stryker, S. (1987, August). <i>The interplay of affect and identity: Exploring the relationship of social structure, social 
interaction, self and emotions.</i> Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Meetings, Chicago, 
IL.</p>

<p>Turner, J. H. (1994). A general theory of motivation and emotion in human interaction, <i>Osterreichische Zeitschrift fur 
Soziologie, 26</i>, 20-35.</p>

<p>Turner, J. H. (1998). <i>The Structure of Sociological Theory</i>. (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing 
Company.</p>

<p>Walther, J. B., Anderson, J.F., &amp; Park, D.W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-
analysis of social and antisocial communication, <i>Communication Research, 21,</i> (4) , 460-487.</p>

<p>Walther, J.B., &amp; Burgoon, J.K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction, <i>Human 
Communication Research, 19,</i> (1) , 50-88.</p>
</references>
<appendices>
<h2>Appendix A</h2>

<p><b>Sociability Items developed by Hanewicz and Bellamy (1998)</b></p>

<p><b>5 - Agree<br>
4 - Slightly agree<br>
3 - Neither agree/nor disagree<br>
2 - Slightly Disagree<br>
1 - Disagree</b></p>

<p>1 ___In my free time I like to interact with other people. <br>
2 ___I prefer classes where the students get to work in groups. <br>
3 ___I enjoy going to parties. <br>
4 ___I enjoy being by myself most of the time. <br>
5 ___I enjoy belonging to organizations (i.e., fraternity/sorority, church group, political group, etc.). <br>
6 ___I enjoy meeting new people. <br>
7 ___I am comfortable in new social situations.</p>

<p><b>Locus of Control Scale developed by Burger (1986)</b></p>

<p><b>1 - Strongly disagree <br>
2 - Disagree<br>
3 - Slightly disagree<br>
4 - Neither disagree or agree<br>
5 - Slightly agree<br>
6 - Agree<br>
7 - Strongly agree</b></p>

<p>1 ___When I get what I want it's usually because I worked hard for it.<br>
2 ___When I make plans I am almost certain to make them work.<br>
3 ___I prefer games involving some luck over games requiring pure skill.<br>
4 ___I can learn almost anything if I set my mind to it.<br>
5 ___My major accomplishments are entirely due to my hard work and ability. <br>
6 ___I usually don't set goals, because I have a hard time following them through. <br>
7 ___Competition discourages excellence. <br>
8 ___Often people get ahead just by being lucky. <br>
9 ___On any sort of exam or competition I like to know how well I do relative to everyone else. <br>
10 __It's pointless to keep working on something that's</p>

<h2>Appendix B</h2>
 <inline><graphic>bellamy_matrix.gif</graphic><text>Table Matrix</text></inline> 
</appendices>
</ixml>

