Online disinhibition effect

The online disinhibition effect refers to the lack of restraint one feels when communicating online in comparison to communicating in-person.[1] People tend to feel safer saying things online that they would not say in real life because they have the ability to remain completely anonymous and invisible when on particular websites, and as a result, free from potential consequences such as physical harm and other punishments.[2] Apart from anonymity, other factors such as asynchronous communication, empathy deficit, or individual personality and cultural factors also contribute to online disinhibition.[3][4] The manifestations of such an effect could be in both positive and negative directions; thus, online disinhibition could be classified as either benign disinhibition or toxic disinhibition.[1]

The term was originally introduced by Dr. John Suler, a professor of psychology at Rider University in his 2004 paper, "The Online Disinhibition Effect," published in the journal CyberPsychology & Behavior. People had been noticing flaming and aggressive behavior on message boards for a while already, but Suler was the one who mapped out exactly why people behave so differently in cyberspace than in real life.

Classifications

Benign online disinhibition describes a situation in which people get some benefit from the absence of restraint in cyberspace.[1] One example of benign online disinhibition can be seen as self-disclosure.[5] With the help of Internet anonymity, people could share personal feelings or disclose themselves in the way they are reluctant to exhibit in real life.[2] For instance, young people feel relieved when revealing untold secrets or personally embarrassing details in online chats.[6] Such self-disclosures enable people to establish an intimate interpersonal relationship sooner[7] and stronger when compared with real life face-to-face communication.[5] The online disinhibition effect also provides chances to express themselves for people who are unwilling to communicate in the real world, like people who are introverted, shy, socially phobic and individuals with a stutter or impaired hearing.[5]

Another type of online disinhibition is called toxic disinhibition, which represents an increased tendency towards online flaming and inappropriate behaviors. These often contain hostile language, swearing, and even threats.[1] This norm describes the negative side effect of the loss of inhibition on the cyberspace. The antisocial behaviors caused by toxic disinhibition not only occur in multiple online platforms like social media, blogs, forums, and comment sections, but also exist in diverse forms which include cyberbullying, social loafing and more.[2]

However, the distinction between benign and toxic online disinhibition is not always clear. For example, a hostile word in the online chat may damage other's self-image, but on the other hand, if the word is genuine, perhaps it may help the person on the receiving end have a better understanding of themselves. Considering the different subcultures of online communities, people may have various tolerance towards a particular social behavior.[1] Another example would be acting as a bystander of online hate. A German study looked at the association between seeing online hate and creating online hate on teenagers, and found a positive correlation between the two.[8]

Influencing factors

Anonymity, asynchronous communication, and empathy deficit contribute to online disinhibition.[3] Furthermore, the psychological state of deindividuation—a decreased self-awareness and self-evaluation in digital platforms—strongly amplifies these factors.[9]

Anonymity can make a person feel safe online, like a different person; one might even take on a new persona. It has been highlighted as a strong antecedent for the negative aspects of deindividuation, as it results in a reduction of normal inner restraints.[10] When an individual's identity is hidden behind anonymous profiles or avatars, they feel much less accountable for their behavior. For example, platforms like Reddit allow users to interact under pseudonyms, increasing the likelihood of expressing extreme opinions. Research has shown anonymous users have a greater tendency to send hostile messages in chat rooms.[11] However, anonymity does not solely lead to negative aspects; it can also reduce the fear of judgment, encouraging prosocial behavior, cooperation, and the sharing of sensitive personal experiences for emotional support.[12]

Asynchronous communication and a lack of immediate consequences also drive disinhibition. Asynchronous communication is not happening live, meaning one can send a message and log out without getting an immediate reply.[3] This delay between behavior and consequence facilitates impulsive actions. For example, on gaming consoles like Xbox, reports of abuse or cheating cannot be dealt with without delay, meaning individuals do not face immediate repercussions like direct face-to-face confrontation.

Empathy deficit and reduced social cues occur because mediated communication lacks non-verbal feedback like tone, facial expressions, or body language.[13] Studies show that social cues help reduce the ambiguity of person impressions.[14] Without them, individuals are less certain of how their actions affect others, making it harder to empathize and increasing the likelihood of dehumanizing targets.

Group dynamics and size further intensify the disinhibition effect. Deindividuation theory suggests that larger online groups (like forums or gaming communities) increase anonymity and provide a sense of belonging.[15] This can lead individuals to lose their unique identity and adopt the group's social norms, even if they promote aggressive behavior.[16] Large interactions can also result in group polarization, where individuals escalate their behaviors to align with extreme group norms, which is particularly prevalent in online political forums.

Possible consequences

Online disinhibition and deindividuation play a significant role in the act of cyberbullying, which is illegal in many countries. Cyberbullying is the act of trying to make another person feel embarrassed, intimidated, or bad about themselves through the Internet.[17] Anonymity usually leads to meaner comments towards others, but research also highlights the role of bystanders, often referred to as 'the invisible engine' of cyberbullying.[18] The anonymous environment means bystanders have no knowledge of the victim, increasing the likelihood of them joining in the harassment.[19] However, if group norms encourage positive engagement, anonymity can promote prosocial behaviors such as bystander intervention.[20]

Racist, sexist, violent, rude and offensive online comments are not the direct result of anonymity.[21] Those comments arise only when other people are also saying things like that; online users tend to keep the same tone, civility/incivility as others in online posts.[21][22]

The online disinhibition effect can have a devastating effect on one's job security and future employment opportunities. Sixteen-year-old Kimberley Swann was fired from her job due to negative comments she made about her occupation on her Facebook page,[23] while another infamous case involved a woman, Heather Armstrong, being terminated after "lampooning" her colleagues on the Internet.[24] These are consequences of certain Internet users believing themselves to be unchained from typical social standards. The author of "Six Causes of Online Disinhibition" states that "[c]ompared with face-to-face interactions, online we feel freer to do and say what we want and, as a result, often do and say things we shouldn't".[24]

Online disinhibition can also have positive outcomes. People who are shy and feel they cannot talk about certain things in their real lives can benefit from online disinhibition without causing harm to others.[5] Online disinhibition can provide a safe place for people of the LGBTQ+ community (and other marginalised groups) to share information and support one another.[25] Furthermore, deindividuation can lead to enhanced group cohesion and solidarity. As the focus on individual differences decreases, internet users often identify more strongly with their online group.[26] This shared identity encourages cooperation and increased social support,[27] which is particularly significant when groups focus on a common cause, such as participants in online activist movements.

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Suler, John (June 2004). "The Online Disinhibition Effect". CyberPsychology & Behavior. 7 (3): 321–326. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.514.4718. doi:10.1089/1094931041291295. PMID 15257832.
  2. ^ a b c Lapidot-Lefler, Noam; Barak, Azy (March 2012). "Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition". Computers in Human Behavior. 28 (2): 434–443. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.014.
  3. ^ a b c Terry, Christopher, Jeff Cain (May 2016). "The Emerging Issue of Digital Empathy". American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 80 (4): 58. doi:10.5688/ajpe80458. PMC 4891856. PMID 27293225.
  4. ^ Psychology and the internet : intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications. Gackenbach, Jayne, 1946- (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press. 2007. ISBN 9780080469058. OCLC 162573099.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  5. ^ a b c d Lapidot-Lefler, Noam; Barak, Azy (1 July 2015). "The benign online disinhibition effect: Could situational factors induce self-disclosure and prosocial behaviors?". Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace. 9 (2). doi:10.5817/cp2015-2-3. ISSN 1802-7962.
  6. ^ Magsamen-Conrad, Kate; Billotte-Verhoff, China; Greene, Kathryn (2014). "Technology addiction's contribution to mental wellbeing: The positive effect of online social capital". Computers in Human Behavior. 40: 23–30. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.014. PMC 4283587. PMID 25568591.
  7. ^ Davis, Katie (2012). "Friendship 2.0: Adolescents' experiences of belonging and self-disclosure online". Journal of Adolescence. 35 (6): 1527–1536. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.013. PMID 22475444.
  8. ^ Wachs, Sebastian; Wright, Michelle F. (September 2018). "Associations between Bystanders and Perpetrators of Online Hate: The Moderating Role of Toxic Online Disinhibition". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 15 (9): 2030. doi:10.3390/ijerph15092030. PMC 6163978. PMID 30227666.
  9. ^ Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of personality and social psychology, 37(7), 1160.
  10. ^ 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(3), 333-348.
  11. ^ Chang, J. (2008). The role of anonymity in deindividuated behavior: a comparison of deindividuation theory and the social identity model of deindividuation effect. The Pulse, 6(1), 1-8.
  12. ^ Diener, E. (1976). Effects of prior destructive behavior, anonymity, and group presence on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(5), 497.
  13. ^ McCornack, Steven, Joseph Ortiz (2016). Choices & Connections, 2e. Bedford/St. Martin. ISBN 978-1319043520
  14. ^ Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2003). Social cues and impression formation in CMC. Journal of Communication, 53(4), 676-693.
  15. ^ Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. In W. D. Arnold, & D. Levine (Eds.) Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237–307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  16. ^ Kugihara, N. (2001). Effects of aggressive behaviour and group size on collective escape in an emergency: A test between a social identity model and deindividuation theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 575-598.
  17. ^ Merriam-Webster Dictionary Cyberbullying
  18. ^ Chan, T. K., Cheung, C. M., Benbasat, I., Xiao, B., & Lee, Z. W. (2023). Bystanders join in cyberbullying on social networking sites: the deindividuation and moral disengagement perspectives. Information Systems Research, 34(3), 828-846.
  19. ^ Brody, N., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2016). Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Communication Monographs, 83(1), 94-119.
  20. ^ Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer‐mediated communication. Human communication research, 26(3), 341-371.
  21. ^ a b Rosner, Leonie, Nicole C. Kramer (August 2016). "Verbal Venting in the Social Web: Effects of Anonymity and Group Norms on Aggressive Language Use in Online Comments". Social Media + Society. 2 (3): 2–11. doi:10.1177/2056305116664220.
  22. ^ Konnikova, Maria (23 October 2013). "The Psychology of Online Comments". The New Yorker. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
  23. ^ "BBC NEWS | UK | England | Essex | Facebook remark teenager is fired". news.bbc.co.uk. 27 February 2009. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
  24. ^ a b "Six Causes of Online Disinhibition – PsyBlog". PsyBlog. 19 August 2010. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
  25. ^ Miller, Brandon (September 2016). "A Computer-Mediated Escape from the Closet: Exploring Identity, Community, and Disinhibited Discussion on an Internet Coming Out Advice Forum". Sexuality & Culture. 20 (3): 602–625. doi:10.1007/s12119-016-9343-4. S2CID 147080795.
  26. ^ Lee, E. J. (2006). When and how does depersonalization increase conformity to group norms in computer-mediated communication?. communication research, 33(6), 423-447.
  27. ^ Shaw, L. H., & Gant, L. M. (2002). In defense of the Internet: The relationship between Internet communication and depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social support. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 5(2), 157-171.

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.