Effects of Visual Representation on Social Influence in Computer‐Mediated Communication

Two experiments investigated if and how visual representation of interactants affects depersonalization and conformity to group norms in anonymous computer‐mediated communication (CMC). In Experiment 1, a 2 (intergroup versus interpersonal) × 2 (same character versus different character) between‐subjects design experiment (N= 60), each participant made a decision about social dilemmas after seeing two other (ostensible) participants’ unanimous opinions and then exchanged supporting arguments. Consistent with the Social Identity model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE), when the group level of self‐identity was rendered salient in an intergroup encounter, uniform virtual appearance of CMC partners triggered depersonalization and subsequent conformity behavior. By contrast, when the personal dimension of the self was salient, standardized representation tended to reduce conformity. To elucidate the mediation process, Experiment 2 investigated the causal links between depersonalization, group identification, and conformity. The results show that depersonalization accentuated adherence to group norms, both directly and indirectly via group identification.     

The Multiple Source Effect and Synthesized Speech

Two experiments examine the effect of multiple synthetic voices in an e‐commerce context. In Study 1, participants (N= 40) heard five positive reviews about a book from five different synthetic voices or from a single synthetic voice. Consistent with the multiple source effect, results showed that participants hearing multiple synthetic voices evaluated the reviewed books more positively, predicted more favorable public reaction to the books, and felt greater social presence of virtual speakers. The effects were mediated by participants’ feelings of social presence. The second experiment (N= 40) showed that the observed effects persisted even when participants were shown the purely artificial nature of synthesized speech. These results support the idea that characteristics of synthetic voices in doubly disembodied language settings influence participants’ imagination of virtual speakers, and that technological literacy does not hinder social responses to anthropomorphic technologies such as text‐to‐speech (TTS).     

Does spreading activation summate?

Summary Network models of semantic memory assume implicitly or explicitly that the degree of activation of a node is a monotonic function of the total amount of excitation reaching that node from all sources. For example, the activation level of the node representing apple should be greater if it is receiving excitation due to the activation of the nodes for fruit and pear than if only one of these neighboring nodes is activated. This notion was tested by presenting semantic primes 80 ms or 320 ms before a letter string (e.g., apple or ipple) requiring a lexical decision. The prime stimuli consisted of a pair of simultaneous items that were identical in the single prime condition (e.g., fruit/fruit or pear/pear) or different in the double prime condition (e.g., fruit/pear or pear/fruit), and were either related (target = apple) or unrelated (target = copper) to the target, or neutral. As predicted by the summation of semantic activation assumption of network models there was a larger priming effect (in the 320 ms SOA condition) following the simultaneous activation of two related nodes than following the activation of only one node.This research was supported by grants to the first author from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.     

Darwinians at war Bateson's place in histories of Darwinism

The controversy between Biometricians and Mendelians has been called an “inexplicable embarrassment” since it revolved around the mistaken identification of Mendelian genetics with non-Darwinian saltationism, a mistake traced back to the non-Darwinian William Bateson, who introduced Mendelian analysis to British science. The following paper beings to unravel this standard account of the controversy by raising a simple question: Given that Bateson embraced evolution by natural selection and that he studied the causes of variation within a broadly Darwinian framework of problems and questions, how are we to understand the claim that he was a non-Darwinian? A brief survey of possible responses to this question is followed by an alternative proposal: the controversy will be considered as a struggle among Darwinians about the future course of Darwinism. On this account, Darwin's own work led to the juncture at which Mendelians and Biometricians parted company, indeed, the Origin itself prepared the divergent methodological stances subsequently adopted by Bateson and his antagonists. The inexplicable embarrassment is dissolved through the parsimonious reconstruction of the profound substantive conflict between Biometricians and Mendelians as a chapter in the articulation and differentiation of the Darwinian research programme.