PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Lea et al. / ANONYMITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES
Knowing Me, Knowing You: Anonymity Effects
on Social Identity Processes Within Groups
Martin Lea
University of Manchester
Russell Spears
Daphne de Groot
University of Amsterdam
The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE)
proposes that depersonalization of self and others is responsible
for the effects of visual anonymity on group behavior. The
authors investigated these mediating processes by assessing the
effects of group-based self-categorization and stereotyping of oth-
ers on group attraction within visually anonymous or
video-identifiable groups communicating via computer. Struc-
tural equation modeling showed that visual anonymity
increased group-based self-categorization, which directly
increased attraction to the group and indirectly increased group
attraction by enhancing group-based stereotyping of others.
Visual anonymity had no effect on self-categorization in terms of
a wider social category (nationality). Predictions derived from
alternative perspectives that visual anonymity decreases group
attraction by increasing impersonal task focus or by attenuating
evaluation concerns were not supported.
A nonymity has been implicated in research on
deindividuation, social facilitation, brainstorming, deci-
sion making, group size, and crowd behavior. Yet, its con-
ceptual status and the processes by which anonymity
achieves its effects are still far from clear. This is nowhere
more true than with regard to the deindividuation litera-
ture. Deindividuation has traditionally been defined as a
state of reduced self-awareness, or even loss of self, often
associated with immersion in the group or crowd
(Diener, 1980; Festinger, Pepitone, & Newcomb, 1952;
Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1989; Zimbardo, 1969). Early
formulations saw anonymity as a central antecedent or
input to this state (e.g., Festinger et al., 1952; Zimbardo,
1969).
Contemporary accounts see anonymity as somewhat
less central to deindividuation in theoretical terms,
focusing on the arousal and external focus of attention
526
associated with group immersion (Prentice-Dunn &
Rogers, 1982, 1989). Nevertheless, a rather unsatisfac-
tory feature of virtually all research on this topic is that
the underlying processes remain unclear (Diener, 1979,
1980; Postmes & Spears, 1998). Mediation analyses that
could provide the necessary evidence that changes in
self-awareness mediate deindividuation effects has been
largely absent or only partially successful in confirming
hypothesized effects (Matheson & Zanna, 1988;
Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1982).
The explanatory role of anonymity has recently
returned to the foreground in research proposing an
alternative mechanism for explaining deindividuation
effects in terms of social identity processes (Lea &
Spears, 1991; Postmes & Spears, 1998; Reicher, Spears, &
Postmes, 1995; Spears & Lea, 1992, 1994). Here too,
however, evidence that social identity processes mediate
the effects of anonymity on groups has so far been lack-
ing. The main purpose of the present research is to
address this shortcoming and to arbitrate between the
different theoretical approaches to deindividuation in
the process. Specifically, we evaluate the social identity
explanation of deindividuation effects, which argues
that anonymity within a salient group promotes categori-
zation of self and others in terms of the group, thereby
Authors’ Note: Financial support was provided by the European Com-
munity Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERAS-
MUS), The British Council/Netherlands Organization for Scientific
Research Joint Scientific Research Programme, and the UK Economic
and Social Research Council Virtual Society Research Programme. Ad-
dress correspondence to Martin Lea, Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, England; e-mail: martin.
lea@man.ac.uk.
PSPB, Vol. 27 No. 5, May 2001 526-537
© 2001 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
 Lea et al. / ANONYMITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES
enhancing group behavior (Reicher et al., 1995; Spears &
Lea, 1992, 1994). The second, related purpose is to test
competing predictions about the negative or positive
effects of anonymity on group attraction, derived from
traditional group cohesiveness and social identity
approaches, respectively (see Hogg, 1993, for a compar-
ative review). In both cases, we assess the alternative pro-
cesses proposed to mediate the effects of anonymity in
the group.
Anonymity, Deindividuation Theory, and the
Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects
Visual anonymity within groups has generally been
considered to have negative consequences, resulting, for
example, in disinhibited and aggressive behavior (e.g.,
Singer, Brush, & Lublin, 1965; Zimbardo, 1969). Pro-
cesses held to be responsible for these effects include
reduced objective self-awareness (Diener, 1979),
reduced private self-awareness (Prentice-Dunn & Rog-
ers, 1982, 1989), and reduced public self-awareness or
evaluation concern (Festinger et al., 1952; Prentice-
Dunn & Rogers, 1982, 1989).
Anonymity and deindividuation have received addi-
tional attention in recent years from research into the
effects of new communication technologies such as
computer-mediated communication (CMC), in which
interactants can be physically isolated and hence visually
anonymous. Here, anonymity has been argued to
increase disinhibited, hostile behavior and extreme de-
cision making and to reduce attraction within computer-
mediated groups. These effects are held to result from
the relative lack of interpersonal cues, resulting in a state
of deindividuation, reduced evaluation concern, and a
more impersonal and task-oriented attentional focus
(Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; Siegel, Dubrovsky,
Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991;
Walther, 1992, 1997).
Whether anonymity produces generic effects within
groups is open to question, however. The outcomes pre-
dicted by deindividuation theory have not always been
observed; decreased aggression and even increased
affection have sometimes been expressed under anony-
mous conditions (e.g., Gergen, Gergen, & Barton, 1973;
Johnson & Downing, 1979). Likewise, in some CMC
studies, greater self-awareness, more cautious decision
making, increased attraction, and lack of disinhibition
all have been observed under conditions of anonymity
(Hiltz, Turoff, & Johnson, 1989; Lea & Spears, 1991,
1992, Study 2; Matheson & Zanna, 1988). In a recent
study, Coleman, Paternite, and Sherman (1999) found
that anonymous CMC groups reported more submer-
gence in the group and reduced perceptions of individu-
ality in accordance with a state of deindividuation. How-
527
ever, there was no evidence of a corresponding increase
in the negativity of group discussions.
One attempt to reconcile these conflicting observa-
tions has departed from the attempt to define generic
anonymity effects and instead considers the effects of
anonymity in relation to the specific social group context
that is salient. The Social Identity Model of Deindividua-
tion Effects (SIDE) aims to explain cognitive and strate-
gic effects of visibility and anonymity in both intragroup
and intergroup contexts within a single theoretical
framework (for overviews, see Reicher et al., 1995;
Spears & Lea, 1994; Spears, Postmes, & Lea, in press).
The SIDE model developed out of social identity theory
(Tajfel & Turner, 1985) and self-categorization theory
(Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) and
further specifies the effects of situational factors on the
operation of processes proposed by these theories.
Underlying this approach is a conceptualization of
self-construal as flexible and situation-specific. It com-
prises a range of self-categories that define people in cer-
tain contexts as unique individuals (i.e., their personal
identity) but in other contexts in terms of membership
in specific social groups (such as an activity group) and
wider social categories (such as nationality or gender)
(i.e., their social identities). A person’s behavior in any
situation can be placed along a continuum ranging from
entirely personal (conforming to personal standards) to
entirely group-based (conforming to salient group
norms and standards). According to SIDE, visual ano-
nymity reduces the communication of interpersonal
cues within the group, allowing certain social group and
category information that is less dependent on visual
cues for its communication to become more salient. This
has the effect of shifting perceptions of self and others
from the personal to the group level, thus encouraging
behavior that is normative for the salient group. In con-
trast to deindividuation theories, SIDE proposes that
anonymity promotes a shift in the kind of self-awareness
from the personal to the group self rather than a loss of
self-awareness. Similarly, perceptions of others shift
from being primarily interpersonal to being group-
based perceptions (stereotyping) under anonymity,
rather than there being a loss of attention to others.
A number of studies have been carried out that sup-
port this general prediction. More normative behavior
has been observed in face-to-face groups, in which the
visual anonymity of group members was achieved by means
of masks and overalls, as in classic deindividuation stud-
ies (Reicher, 1984), and also in computer-mediated
groups in which interactants were physically isolated and
hence visually anonymous (Lea & Spears, 1991; Postmes,
Spears, & Lea, 1998; Spears, Lea, & Postmes, in press).
Moreover, where it was measured in these studies, little
528 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
evidence was found of variations in amount of (private)
self-awareness.
Anonymity and Group Attraction: Competing
Perspectives on Group Cohesiveness
We turn now to consider how anonymity affects group
attraction according to the different theoretical perspec-
tives on group cohesiveness. Most traditional and con-
temporary formulations of group cohesiveness argue
that attraction to the group is based on interdependent
interaction toward the satisfaction of mutual goals
and/or the perception of interpersonal similarities
among individuals, both of which produce interpersonal
attraction. According to this interdependence
approach, group attraction can be viewed as the aggre-
gate of interpersonal bonds of attraction or interdepen-
dence (e.g., Cartwright, 1968; Lott & Lott, 1965;
Mudrack, 1989). In contrast, the social identity
approach regards group attraction as a conceptually dis-
tinct process involving depersonalized perceptions of
self and others in terms of a common group categoriza-
tion (Hogg, 1993; Turner, 1982; Turner et al., 1987).
Depersonalization does not necessarily mean that
interactions with others become impersonal or task-
focused, however. Rather, it simply means that percep-
tion and behavior become stereotyped in terms of the
salient group. We argue that anonymity encourages
depersonalized perceptions of self to occur because it
reduces the (inter)personal basis for social comparison,
self-awareness, and self-presentation. As a result, the self
tends to be perceived and presented less as a unique
individual and more in terms of its similarity to the per-
ceived prototypical attributes of the salient social group
(i.e., self-stereotyping). The anonymity of others means
that they also tend to be perceived as interchangeable
representatives of the group rather than as unique indi-
viduals (Turner et al., 1987). Under anonymity, percep-
tions of individual differences among interactants are
reduced, leading to less individuated impressions and a
less interpersonal basis for interaction (Coleman et al.,
1999; Reicher et al., 1995; Spears & Lea, 1992). In short,
SIDE proposes that depersonalized perceptions of self
and others increase attraction toward group members
and that this process is stimulated by the dearth of indi-
viduating cues in visually anonymous interactions (Lea &
Spears, 1995).
In contrast to this social identity route to attraction, a
number of other perspectives propose the opposite;
namely, that anonymity decreases attraction to group
members. Once again, recent research into com-
puter-mediated groups has focused attention on this
issue. These accounts implicitly invoke a traditional
interdependence explanation of group attraction that
focuses on the development and maintenance of inter-
personal bonds as the basis of group cohesion and attrac-
tion. They imply that conditions that prevent or retard
the formation of such bonds, such as visual anonymity,
will reduce attraction to the group. Because anonymity
removes interpersonal cues, it decreases attention to
others, reduces concerns about being positively evalu-
ated by others, and creates an impersonal, task-oriented
focus for group interaction. This impersonal focus
reduces politeness and tolerance, promotes conflict and
hostile behavior, and impedes the development of
attraction and interpersonal relations (Jessup, Connolly,
& Tansik, 1990; Kiesler et al., 1984; Walther, 1992). A
related suggestion is that impersonal task focus may be a
general norm affecting temporary or short-term groups
(i.e., as in most experimental settings) that is amplified
by anonymity (Walther, 1997).
However, whereas reduced attraction has been
observed in anonymous computer groups (Kiesler,
Zubrow, Moses, & Geller, 1985), other studies have
found no effect (Coleman et al., 1999; Walther &
Burgoon, 1992) or even increased attraction (Lea &
Spears, 1992, Study 2; Walther, 1995). Furthermore, the
evidence for the role of evaluation concern or imper-
sonal task focus is weak. Kiesler et al. (1985) found less
responsiveness to others and greater adherence to the
task accompanied by significantly less positive interper-
sonal evaluations in anonymous CMC compared with
face-to-face interaction. However, the crucial mediation
analysis that would establish task focus and reduced
attention to others as causal processes was not reported.
Walther (1997) observed lowered attraction within
short-term groups interacting in anonymous CMC
under high group salience conditions than within
groups interacting for longer or under individual
salience conditions; however, there was no correspond-
ing effect on task orientation. Moreover, the high group
salience conditions were significantly less task oriented
than the low group salience conditions, contrary to the
prediction that reduced attraction responses were
guided by a generic impersonal/task-focus norm. Other
studies also have found significantly less impersonal task
focus in anonymous CMC interactions (Walther, 1995;
Walther & Burgoon, 1992).
Overview and Hypotheses
To summarize, the SIDE model makes specific predic-
tions regarding the effects of anonymity and the underly-
ing processes that contrast with traditional group theo-
ries. These different perspectives were tested in a study
in which physically isolated participants discussed a
number of issues in small groups using text-based com-
puter conferencing under visually anonymous or
video-mediated (i.e., identifiable) conditions. On the
basis of the SIDE model, we predicted that visual ano-
 Lea et al. / ANONYMITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES
nymity would lead to greater group attraction. In terms
of the mediating process, we predicted that anonymity
would increase the tendency for interactants to catego-
rize the self in terms of the group, which in turn should
increase group attraction. Second, self-categorization
should enhance the tendency to see others in group
terms (stereotyping), which should independently
increase group attraction. In sum, the effect of anonym-
ity on attraction may follow two routes, both of which
crucially depend on anonymity enhancing self-categori-
zation. The predicted shifts toward group-based percep-
tions of self and others as a consequence of anonymity
are not predicted by deindividuation theory, which, in
addition, would generally predict a negative relation
between anonymity and group attraction.
A number of alternative mediation paths were hypothe-
sized from consideration of traditional deindividuation
theory and the competing interdependence approach
to group attraction described above. Both predict that
visual anonymity should decrease group attraction by
reducing evaluation concern and by increasing percep-
tions of an impersonal task focus, concomitant with a
loss of attention to self and others (Festinger et al., 1952;
Kiesler et al., 1984, 1985; Kiesler & Sproull, 1992; Kiwesler
et al., 1985; Martens & Lander, 1972; Prentice-Dunn &
Rogers, 1989; Walther, 1992).
We also explored task focus and evaluation concern in
relation to the SIDE model, specifically their effects in
relation to the central self-categorization variable. There
were several possibilities here. If visual anonymity
increases task focus because it is perceived to be norma-
tive for short-term groups (Walther, 1997), then the effect
should be mediated by the extent to which participants
see themselves as members of a group. Self-categorization
might increase participants’ evaluation concern by in-
creasing their focus on the group-based aspects of
self-identity. On the other hand, self-categorization
might decrease evaluation concern because it reduces
their focus on individual aspects of the self and encour-
ages feelings of acceptance by the group.
Finally, another purpose of the present study was to
assess effects of anonymity on self-categorization in
terms of a wider social category (such as nationality) that
was made salient during interaction, independently from
anonymity effects on local group self-categorization. The
effects of local group identification and social category
identification on normative behavior have been con-
founded in previous research on SIDE in which the salience
of both have been simultaneously raised (Lea & Spears,
1991; Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 1998). Visual anonymity
may enhance perceptions of self in terms of a wider
social category. However, this effect may be small com-
pared with the effect on local group self-categorization
because participants have prior knowledge of a preexist-
529
ing social category and may therefore already hold a rela-
tively clear and stable definition of the category and their
relation to it. By contrast, the local group identity is con-
structed more immediately in the interaction situation.
Supporting this, a recent meta-analysis of 60 independ-
ent studies of deindividuation found that group behav-
ior was explained more adequately by reference to situa-
tion-specific rather than general social norms (Postmes
& Spears, 1998). Assuming that self-categorization was
the underlying process responsible for these effects, the
meta-analysis also suggests that local group self-categori-
zation should have a stronger influence on group attrac-
tion than self-categorization with a wider social category.
It was therefore predicted that there would be no addi-
tional independent effect of visual anonymity on attrac-
tion that was mediated by self-categorization with a
salient social category (nationality).
Another possibility is that visual anonymity increases
self-categorization with a social category only under con-
ditions where social category salience is already high. For
example, in the case of nationality, visual anonymity
might become more influential when interacting with
others who have a different nationality from oneself.
Under these conditions, differences in nationality
among interactants should increase self-perception and
self-presentation in line with one’s own nationality,
whereas visual anonymity should reduce the (inter)per-
sonal basis for social comparison, self-awareness, and
self-presentation.
METHOD
Overview
Volunteers participated individually in group dis-
cussions of three topics, with two confederates using a
computer-based conferencing system in a simulation of
international Internet communications. In the visually
anonymous condition, communication was text-based,
and in the visually identifiable condition, it was supple-
mented by two-way real-time silent video. Participants
were the same gender, age, and status as the confeder-
ates. Confederate attitudes were held constant across
conditions. Dependent measures were collected from
four self-report postdiscussion questionnaires from
which measures of local group self-categorization and
stereotyping of others and British self-categorization
were obtained in addition to group attraction, task focus,
and evaluation concern.
Equipment
Three Macintosh computers were connected over a
local area network to a Sun Sparc-10 computer running a
CU-SeeMe video-conferencing reflector. A Connectix
Quickcam fixed-focus video camera connected to each
530 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
computer’s serial port captured the user’s head and
shoulders in four-bit grayscale real-time video motion. In
practice, a frame-rate of nine frames per second and
transmission rate of 40 to 80 kbits/sec were achieved.
CU-SeeMe client software displayed the video of the
three users in 160 × 120 pixels video windows horizon-
tally placed on the top half on each 15-in. 640 × 480 pix-
els computer screen. The screen also displayed a
text-input window beneath a larger, scrollable,
text-conferencing window. Users could type a message
(up to 256 characters) in the input window and press the
“return” key, whereupon the message would appear
almost instantaneously in the conferencing window on
every computer display, prefixed by a user identifier. In
the visual anonymity conditions, the cameras were
removed and the video windows were not displayed. A
fourth Macintosh, running the conferencing system in
receive-only mode, was used by the experimenter to
monitor the sessions and send instructions to the group
using a network broadcast utility.
Local Group and Category Salience
On arrival, participants were informed that they were
part of a group that would be discussing three topics in a
study of the Internet for international communication.
Participants were told their local group name and group
member identifier, which was to be used in all communi-
cations. Nationality salience was raised by presenting the
study as part of a British-German research collaboration
involving group members who were students residing in
Germany. As an additional manipulation of nationality
salience, participants were either told that the other
group members were British nationals or German
nationals.
In reality, the other group members were two British
female postgraduate students acting as confederates.
They were fluent German speakers and had lived in Ger-
many for 1 year. Confederates role-played either British
or German students. In the German role-play condition,
the confederates introduced a small number of typical
grammatical errors into their English conversation. Oth-
erwise, confederates expressed their attitudes toward
the discussion topics in a consistent manner in every ses-
sion. Satisfactory performance was achieved following
practice group discussions and inspections of the tran-
scripts of the interaction.
Procedure
The study included 56 British, female, 1st-year psy-
chology students who were randomly assigned to condi-
tion. On arrival at the laboratory, the participant read a
printed sheet that introduced the experiment and
described the experimental procedure. The participant
was then shown how to connect to the conferencing sys-
tem (to which the confederates were already connected
from different rooms in the same building as the partici-
pant). After a short delay, she saw a system message wel-
coming her to “The Conferencing System of the Freie
Deutsche Universität” to promote the idea of an Internet
connection to Germany. She was then presented with
the text conferencing windows, which were augmented
in the visually identifiable condition by the three video
windows.
The participant was asked to introduce herself to the
group by name and location, and the confederates also
provided names and locations. This was the only point at
which individual names were exchanged. During the dis-
cussions, the group identifiers that prefixed messages
were always “A3:” for the participant and “A1:” and “A2:”
for the confederates to reinforce local group member-
ship. From this point on, the procedure was controlled
by the experimenter sending alert messages to the par-
ticipants’ screens from a computer in another room. The
group discussed three topics (vegetarianism, immigra-
tion, and politeness) in sequence for 30 minutes. Con-
federates alternated the beginning of each discussion
topic. At the end of the discussion period, participants
completed four dependent-measure questionnaires.
Dependent Measures
Items on all questionnaires consisted of a statement
tied to a 9-point rating scale anchored not at all and very
much at the extremes. Items were adapted from previous
studies of face-to-face groups conducted within the
social identity framework (e.g., Brown, Condor,
Mathews, Wade, & Williams, 1986; Hogg & Hains, 1996)
and from previous CMC studies (e.g., Lea & Spears,
1991; Walther, 1997) supplemented by new items that
were judged to have good face validity for the constructs.
A group perceptions questionnaire (17 items) measured
the participant’s self-categorization with the local group.
Participants were instructed to
take a few moments to think about your group’s identity.
This is a cluster of things that describe what your group is
like and how your group behaves. Think about your
group’s performance during the discussions and keep
this group in mind when you answer the following items.
A group relations questionnaire (15 items) measured
the participant’s attraction to the group, her concern
over the group’s evaluation of her, and the group’s focus
on the task and on interpersonal relations. An individual
perceptions questionnaire (4 items) measured the par-
ticipant’s perceptions of the group prototypicality of
each confederate. Participants were instructed to “think
about the individual known to you as Person A1 and the
characteristics of Person A1 that have been revealed to
 Lea et al. / ANONYMITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES 531

TABLE 1: Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for the Input Variables

ANON GS SC-G GATT SC-B NAT TF EVC

Visual anonymity (ANON) 1.00

Group stereotyping (GS) 0.06 1.00
Group self-categorization (SC-G) 0.36** 0.43** 1.00
Group attraction (GATT) –0.02 0.39** 0.51** 1.00
British self-categorization (SC-B) –0.26 –0.04 –0.09 –0.12 1.00
Nationality (NAT) –0.03 –0.02 0.14 –0.07 –0.22 1.00
Task focus (TF) 0.30* 0.02 0.04 –0.03 –0.09 0.08 1.00
Evaluation concern (EVC) 0.33* –0.13 –0.08 –0.09 –0.14 0.38** 0.26 1.00
M 0.00 6.89 –0.04 –0.05 –0.05 0.00 –0.02 0.04
SD 1.00 1.12 1.21 1.16 1.01 1.00 1.10 1.03

NOTE: N = 50.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

you through the interactions.” The questionnaire was
completed again for “Person A2.” Finally, a British per-
ceptions questionnaire (20 items) measured the partici-
pant’s self-categorization in terms of British nationality.
Participants were instructed to “think for a moment
about British people, their attitudes and behavior in gen-
eral and how they differ from other nationalities and
their attitudes and behavior.” Items were piloted on a
similar target population of female 3rd-year psychology
students and selected to parallel the group perceptions
questionnaire, with some modification to take into
account the prior existence of this category.
Computed Scales
Factor analysis with oblique quartimax rotation was
performed on the Group Perceptions, Group Relations,
and British Perceptions scales in turn to extract factor-
based scales. An acceptable factor solution was deter-
mined by the Scree test and by counting the number of
items in the ±0.1 hyperplane for different rotations of
the factor pattern matrix so as to obtain a solution that
minimized cross-loading items (Cattell, 1978). Oblique
factor score weights were applied to all of the items in
each respective questionnaire to produce factor-based
scales.
The Group Self-Categorization scale accounted for
51% of the variance in the group perceptions question-
naire. Top-loading items were as follows: “I feel a connec-
tion with this group” (.96), “I see myself as a member of
this group” (.93), and “At this moment I can identify with
this kind of group” (.77). This scale corresponds to the
cognitive component of social identification; that is,
awareness of group membership (Ellemers, Kortekaas, &
Ouwerkerk, 1999; for a review of measures, see Haslam,
in press).
The British Self-Categorization scale accounted for 37%
of the British perceptions questionnaire. Top-loading
items were as follows: “I feel a connection with British
people” (.83), “I see myself as British” (.78), and “During
the discussions I felt British” (.72).
Three factor scales accounted for 52% of the group
relations questionnaire. These were Group Attraction
(30%) (e.g., “I enjoyed working with this group” [.95], “I
like this group” [.83]), Evaluation Concern (14%) (e.g.,
“During the discussions I thought about whether the
group liked me as a person” [.96], “During the discus-
sions I thought about whether the group liked having me
as a group member” [.92]), and Task/Impersonal Focus
(8%) (e.g., “During the discussions we all focused on the
task in hand” [.92], “During the discussions we were all
interested to get to know each other” [–.50]).
Stereotyping of others in terms of the local group was
measured by calculating the mean of the four items of
the individual perceptions questionnaire, averaged
across A1 and A2 (α = .93). The items forming this scale
were as follows: “Person A1 (A2) has the right spirit for
this group,” “Person A1 (A2) makes a good group mem-
ber,” “Person A1 (A2) is an ideal member of this group,”
and “Person A1 (A2) has what it takes to be a member of
this group.”
RESULTS
Data from five groups were eliminated from the analy-
sis because of equipment or network failures or because
participants self-reported non-British nationality, leav-
ing 25 groups in the visible condition and 26 groups in
the nonvisible condition. Participants’ ages ranged from
18 to 25 years (Mdn = 20 years). The data were analyzed
by linear structural equation modeling using LISREL 8
(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). Sample size constrained the
number of model parameters that could be reliably esti-
mated; therefore, analyses focused on estimation of
structural models using the computed scales described
above as indicators. The input correlation matrix is pre-
sented in Table 1.
532 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Figure 1 The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) on group attraction mediated by depersonalization of self and others.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Model assessment was based on the χ2 measure of
overall goodness of fit (GFI) (for which a probability of
p = 1.0 indicates a perfect fit between hypothesized
model and data and a probability smaller than α = .05
indicates a significant deviation of the model from the
data). Models yielding a χ2 value that was not signifi-
cantly greater than the value for the null model also were
rejected. Selection between competing models yielding
reasonable fit values and parameter estimates was con-
ducted by comparing values of χ2 using α = .05.
SIDE Group-Level Effects
The SIDE hypotheses were tested by estimating the pre-
dicted paths among six variables: visual anonymity, con-
federates’ assumed nationality, British self-categorization,
self-categorization in terms of the local group, stereotyp-
ing of others in terms of the local group, and attraction
to the group.
A direct effect of visual anonymity on group attraction
was first estimated. Anonymity significantly increased
attraction to the group, as predicted, and accounted for
28% of the variance in group attraction (γ = .53, p < .01);
however, the model did not fit the data, χ2(4) = 12.43, p =
.01. The SIDE model of group-level effects was then esti-
mated. This model, which is shown in Figure 1, provided
a satisfactory fit with the data, χ2(8) = 2.04, p = .98 (GFI =
.99), which was significantly better than the null model,
χ2diff(7) = 74.79, p < .001. Visual anonymity significantly
increased self-categorization (γ = .27, p < .01), which in
turn significantly increased group attraction (β = .35, p <
.01). In addition, self-categorization significantly
increased stereotyping of others (β = .46, p < .001), which
also significantly increased group attraction (β = .25, p <
.05).
Additional tests of mediation were carried out as fol-
lows. The direct effect of visual anonymity on stereotyp-
ing of others was zero when included in the model (γ =
–.03, ns), indicating that self-categorization mediated an
effect of visual anonymity on stereotyping of other group
members. The model therefore assumes that an increase
in group attraction caused by stereotyping others in
terms of the group is dependent on an antecedent per-
ception that the self is included in the group. The results
support both predicted routes by which visual anonymity
increases attraction within groups; namely, by increasing
self-categorization with the group and by increasing the
stereotyping of others in a self-included group. Finally,
the previously estimated direct effect of visual anonymity
on group attraction (.53) was reduced to near zero when
included in the model (γ = –.02, ns), indicating that the
social identity routes to attraction adequately modeled
the anonymity effect.
SIDE Category-Level Effects
The category-level effects of visual anonymity on
group attraction were next estimated independently of
the group-level effects. Preliminary analysis revealed a
significant skew on the British Self-Categorization scale
(z = –3.32, p < .01), reflecting that most participants per-
ceived themselves as British to some degree. However,
there was no evidence from the distribution of a ceiling
effect. Visual anonymity had no significant effect on Brit-
ish self-categorization (γ = –.69, ns), which, in turn, had
no significant effect on group attraction (β = –.46, ns).
The simple direct effect of visual anonymity on group
attraction was significant when included in the model
(γ = .52, p < .01), indicating that its effect was not medi-
ated through British self-categorization. In addition, this
model provided a poor fit with the data, χ2(6) = 18.92,
p = .004. The model provided no support for a category-
level effect of visual anonymity on local group attraction
mediated through British self-categorization.
 Lea et al. / ANONYMITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES
Figure 2 Alternative model of visual anonymity effects mediated by evaluation concern and impersonal task focus.
*p < .05.
Group-level and category-level effects of visual anonym-
ity were then simultaneously estimated in a combined-
effects model to evaluate the relative contribution of local
group self-categorization and British self-categorization
on group attraction. This model provided a good fit with
the data, χ2(7) = 1.67, p = .98. It confirmed the significant
effect of self-categorization with the local group on
attraction (β = .36, p < .01) and the absence of a corre-
sponding category-level effect (β = –.04, ns). The inclu-
sion of category-level effects in the model increased by
only 1% the proportion of variance in group attraction
accounted for by the group-level effects model.
The effects of an interaction between visual anonym-
ity and the manipulation of nationality of others were
next estimated. This model tested whether visual ano-
nymity in a group comprising members of a different
nationality might lead to greater enhancement of British
self-categorization (or self-categorization in terms of the
local group). The Anonymity × Nationality interaction
had no significant effects on British self-categorization
(γ = .20, ns) or on local group self-categorization (γ = .06,
ns), and the overall fit of the model was very poor, χ2(8) =
21.68, p < .01. These results again suggest that the salient
category (perceived nationality) of participants was not
responsible for the group attraction effects.
Evaluation Concern and Task Focus
Alternative predictions that anonymity effects on
group attraction are mediated by evaluation concern
and task focus were next tested in a model in which the
paths between the four essential variables were esti-
mated: visual anonymity, task focus, evaluation concern,
and group attraction. This model provided a satisfactory
general fit with the data, χ2(2) = .61, p = .74 (GFI = 1.00),
although not significantly better than the null model,
χ2diff(4) = 9.0, p > .05. Examination of the path coeffi-
533
cients revealed no support for the prediction that task
focus and evaluation concern mediate anonymity effects
on group attraction (see Figure 2). Visual anonymity had
the effect of increasing evaluation concern (γ = .48, p <
.05), but evaluation concern had no effect on attraction
to the group (β = –.08, ns). Visual anonymity significantly
increased task/impersonal focus (γ = .38, p < .05); how-
ever, task/impersonal focus had no effect on attraction
to the group (β = .02, ns). The proportion of variance in
group attraction accounted for by this model was essen-
tially zero (R 2 = .01). Together, these results indicate that
although visual anonymity did have specific effects on
evaluation concern and task focus, increasing both, nei-
ther of these variables mediated the effect of visual ano-
nymity on group attraction, contrary to predictions
derived from interdependence approaches.
Next, the above model was tested against models
exploring task focus and evaluation concern in relation
to SIDE self-categorization effects. We first tested
whether self-categorization mediated the effects of visual
anonymity on task focus and evaluation concern.
Self-categorization had no significant effects on task
focus and evaluation concern (β = –.12, ns, and β = –.29,
ns, respectively), χ2(2) = .96, p = .62, and the direct effects
of visual anonymity on task focus and evaluation concern
remained significant (γ = .46, p < .01, and γ = .55, p < .05,
respectively). We then tested the converse: whether task
focus and evaluation concern mediated the effect of
visual anonymity on self-categorization. Task focus and
evaluation concern did not mediate any of the effects of
visual anonymity on self-categorization (β = –.10, ns, and
β = –.26, ns, respectively), χ2(4) = 1.45, p = .84. We also
tested whether task focus and evaluation concern medi-
ated any of the effects of self-categorization on group
attraction. However, the effects of self-categorization on
group attraction mediated by task focus and evaluation
534 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
concern were essentially zero (β = –.01, ns, and β = .03, ns,
respectively), χ2(4) = 9.48, p = .05. These various null
results suggest that both task focus and evaluation con-
cern were redundant additions to the SIDE model of
visual anonymity effects on group attraction.
DISCUSSION
This study investigated how visual anonymity affects
attraction to the group by testing the causal paths for sev-
eral variables that are considered to be responsible for
anonymity effects. The results have implications for the-
ories of deindividuation, group cohesiveness, and social
identity. The initial finding that visual anonymity
increased attraction to the group is contrary to classic
deindividuation theory, which, in general, predicts more
negative relations (e.g., hostile and aggressive behavior)
to be directed toward others as a result of visual ano-
nymity (e.g., Festinger et al., 1952; Kiesler et al., 1984;
Kiesler & Sproull, 1992; Singer et el., 1965; Zimbardo,
1969). It supports other studies that have shown that
anonymity can promote positive, not just negative, social
relations (Gergen et al., 1973; Johnson & Downing,
1979; Lea & Spears, 1992, Study 2; Walther, 1995).
This finding also is contrary to the traditional interde-
pendence formulation of group cohesiveness and the
role of visibility therein. According to the interdepen-
dence argument, group attraction results from maximiz-
ing interpersonal bonds (Cartwright, 1968; Mudrack,
1989), and visual anonymity reduces the perception of
personal cues on which the development of interper-
sonal bonds is dependent (Jessup et al., 1990; Kiesler et al.,
1984; Kiesler & Sproull, 1992; Walther, 1992). The
results are, however, consistent with the SIDE model of
anonymity effects, which predicts that group attraction is
the product of depersonalized perceptions of self and
others that are enhanced by visual anonymity within the
group (Hogg, 1993; Lea & Spears, 1995; Turner, 1982;
Turner et al., 1987).
Most formulations of deindividuation theory define
the subjective state in terms of reduced self-awareness or
loss of self (Diener, 1980; Festinger et al., 1952; Prentice-
Dunn & Rogers, 1989; Zimbardo, 1969). In this study,
visual anonymity was found to increase self-categorization
in line with the social identity formulation of deindi-
viduation as involving a shift of self-focus from personal
to group-based aspects of the self (rather than a reduc-
tion in self-awareness). Furthermore, self-categorization
increased the tendency to perceive others in terms of
their similarity to the prototypical group member. Thus,
rather than a reduction of attention to others, self-cate-
gorization induced a shift in attention to others in terms
of their similarity to the prototypical group member. It is
these social identity–based depersonalization processes
that SIDE considers comprise deindividuation (Reicher
et al., 1995; Spears & Lea, 1992, 1994).
These results also support the conceptualization of
group attraction as a depersonalized-attraction process
involving perceptions of others in terms of their
prototypicality as members of a self-included group
(Hogg, 1993; Turner, 1982; Turner et al., 1987). Previous
research into group attraction has found that high
group salience increased group identification and
reduced variability in person perception ratings of other
group members, consistent with more depersonalized
perceptions (Kelly, 1989). Research also has shown that
group identification increased prototypical perceptions
and attraction toward group members (e.g., Hogg &
Hains, 1996; Hogg, Hardie, & Reynolds, 1995). Essen-
tially the same social identity processes that affected the
perceptions and behavior of members of face-to-face
groups were found to be operating within the computer-
mediated groups here. Moreover, visual anonymity
increased these effects. However, the present study helps
to clarify prior results. Group identification involves both
cognitive (self-categorization) and affective components
(e.g., attraction of group membership) (Ellemers, 1999).
Many group identification scales include a direct mea-
sure of group attraction (e.g., Hogg & Hains, 1996;
Reicher, Levine, & Gordijn, 1998). By focusing on self-
categorization, the present study isolates the cognitive
component of identification and demonstrates its cen-
tral role in producing a positive affective response to the
group.
Turning now to the mediation analyses of task focus
and evaluation concern, visual anonymity was found to
increase impersonal task focus within the group, sup-
porting various studies of anonymous CMC (Kiesler et al.,
1984; Kiesler & Sproull, 1992; Walther, 1992). However,
task focus had no significant effect on group attraction.
This is contrary to classic deindividuation theory, which
predicts that because task focus directs attention away
from the self it should increase hostility toward others
(e.g., Diener, 1979). This result also is contrary to the
interdependence formulation of group cohesiveness,
which would predict that task focus should reduce the
capacity to develop the interpersonal bonds on which
group attraction is deemed to be dependent. Alterna-
tively, task focus should increase attraction to the group
because it reflects mutual interdependence toward a
group goal (Cartwright, 1968; Jessup et al., 1990; Kiesler
et al., 1984; Kiesler & Sproull, 1992; Lott & Lott, 1965;
Mudrack, 1989; Walther, 1992).
Impersonal task focus did not mediate the effect of
visual anonymity on self-categorization. If increased task
focus as a consequence of anonymity implies a reduction
in focus on the self, consistent with traditional deindi-
viduation theory (Diener, 1979; Prentice-Dunn & Rog-
 Lea et al. / ANONYMITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES
ers, 1982, 1989), the analyses revealed no significant relation
between this effect and the process of self-categorization
with the group. This suggests that reduced self-awareness
induced by anonymity has few implications for whether
the self is viewed in personal or group terms and corrob-
orates the interpretation of self-categorization as a
switch in the kind of self-awareness rather than a loss of
self-awareness.
Self-categorization did not mediate the effect of vis-
ual anonymity on task focus. This result suggests that task
focus did not form a significant part of the group defini-
tion in this particular case. In addition, task focus did
not mediate the effect of self-categorization on group
attraction. If task focus was a group norm, then self-
categorization with the group should have increased its
perception, and normative task focus should have been
attractive. Both of these results are contrary to predictions
that task focus may be a generic norm for short-term
groups (Walther, 1997).
Visual anonymity was found to increase evaluation
concern, but evaluation concern had no effect on group
attraction. This pattern of results is contrary to formula-
tions of deindividuation theory and social facilitation
theory. These predict that anonymity should reduce
public self-awareness or concern over how one is being
evaluated by others, leading to more negative behavior
(Festinger et al., 1952; Kiesler et al., 1985; Kiesler &
Sproull, 1992; Martens & Lander, 1972; Prentice-Dunn &
Rogers, 1989). Instead, it seems that some aspect of ano-
nymity—not being seen by others or not being able to
see others’ nonverbal responses—increases evaluation
concern. However, there was no relation between evalua-
tion concern, self-categorization, and group attraction.
Evaluation concern did not mediate the relationship
between visual anonymity and self-categorization. That
is, it does not appear that participants saw themselves
more in terms of the group when anonymous because
they were more concerned over how they were being
evaluated by others. Similarly, self-categorization did not
increase evaluation concern (because they were con-
cerned, as group members, with how the group evalu-
ated them), and it did not decrease evaluation concern
(because of the reassurance provided by a sense of
belonging to the group). Finally, evaluation concern did
not mediate the effects of self-categorization on group
attraction. In sum, visual anonymity had a significant
effect on evaluation concern that deserves further
research (e.g., by decomposing visual anonymity so as to
distinguish between anonymity of self to others and ano-
nymity of others to self). However, evaluation concern
and public self-awareness do not appear to have any
implications for anonymity effects on social identity pro-
cesses and group attraction.
535
In the intragroup context studied here, visual ano-
nymity effects are argued to be primarily due to the
reduction of interpersonal information and the conse-
quent relative salience of social group information, lead-
ing to depersonalized perceptions of self and others in
terms of the group. An additional effect of depersonal-
ization may be to increase perceptions of group homoge-
neity that could in turn increase the salience of the group.
Such an effect is likely to be stronger in intergroup con-
texts, however, where the group is defined more directly
in contrast to a specific outgroup. Intergroup situations
place further qualifications on anonymity effects
because strategic considerations may come into play
(Reicher et al., 1995; Spears & Lea, 1994). For example,
increasing the visibility of ingroup members may
increase their ability to support one another when faced
with sanctions from a powerful outgroup. Under these
conditions, visibility may have a strategic effect on group
attraction (and the expression of group norms) that is
antagonistic to the cognitive effect described here (e.g.,
Reicher et al., 1998). Further research is required to
delineate these two processes and their countereffects.
The present study manipulated full visual anonymity
within the group in accordance with much of the previ-
ous deindividuation literature to trace its processes and
effects. However, rather than treating anonymity as a
monolith, more complete understanding of its effects
may emerge from the decomposition of anonymity into
its different aspects. Anonymity of the self to others can
be distinguished both conceptually and operationally
from the anonymity of others to the self within the
group. Although deindividuation studies focus primarily
on visual anonymity, there is a danger in assuming that it
is representative of all forms of anonymity. Other forms
of anonymity, such as nominal anonymity (lacking a
name or personal identifier), biographical anonymity
(lacking details of self), or domiciliary anonymity (lack-
ing a traceable address), may have different or addi-
tional consequences, such as reducing feelings of
accountability. Future research needs to consider the
effects of the full range of anonymity forms and their
functions in different intragroup and intergroup con-
texts and to examine how different forms and aspects of
anonymity function in combination with one another.
To summarize, the results of the present study appear
contrary to many aspects of deindividuation theory and
also to the interdependence formulation of group cohe-
siveness but support the social identity formulation of
both deindividuation and group attraction. The results
indicate that anonymity effects on group attraction are
mediated by self-categorization and stereotyping of oth-
ers in terms of the local group. These shifts in the type of
self- and other perceptions and their effects on attrac-
tion are independent of gains or losses in private or pub-
536 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
lic self-awareness. The results also help to clarify the rela-
tion between local group identifications and those
arising from membership in social categories such as
nationality. In previous studies of the SIDE model, it was
unclear whether anonymity effects resulted from
self-categorization at the local group or wider social cate-
gory level (e.g., Lea & Spears, 1991; Postmes et al., 1998).
The present study found that anonymity increased local
group self-categorization but not self-categorization in
terms of the preexisting social category that was made
salient. These results suggest that the effect of visual ano-
nymity on perceptions and behavior operates primarily
at the level of the local group by facilitating construction
of relatively transient identifications rather than by rein-
forcing preexisting identifications at the level of wider
social categories. This pattern also accords with the con-
clusion drawn from meta-analyses of deindividuation
studies where anonymity increases conformity to situation-
specific group norms rather than general social norms
(Postmes & Spears, 1998).
REFERENCES
Brown, R. J., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. (1986).
Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organiza-
tion. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 273-286.
Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright &
A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (pp. 91-109).
London: Tavistock.
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and
life sciences. New York: Plenum.
Coleman, L. H., Paternite, C. E., & Sherman, R. C. (1999). A reexami-
nation of deindividuation in synchronous computer-mediated
communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 51-65.
Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1160-1171.
Diener, E. (1980). Deindividuation: The absence of self-awareness
and self-regulation in group members. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), The
psychology of group influence (pp. 209-242). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. (1999). Self-categoriza-
tion, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related
but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 29, 371-389.
Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some conse-
quences of de-individuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 47, 382-389.
Gergen, K. J., Gergen, M. M., & Barton, W. H. (1973). Deviance in the
dark. Psychology Today, 7, 129-130.
Haslam, S. A. (in press). Psychology in organizations: The social identity
approach. London: Sage.
Hiltz, S. R., Turoff, M., & Johnson, K. (1989). Experiments in group
decision making, 3: Disinhibition, deindividuation, and group
processes in pen name and real name computer conferences, Deci-
sion Support Systems, 5, 217-232.
Hogg, M. A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and some
new directions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 85-111.
Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1996). Intergroup relations and group
solidarity: Effects of group identification and social beliefs on
depersonalized attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 70, 295-309.
Hogg, M. A., Hardie, E. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (1995). Prototypical simi-
larity, self-categorization, and depersonalized attraction: A per-
spective on group cohesiveness. European Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 25, 159-177.
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, 333-348.
Johnson, R. D., & Downing, L. L. (1979). Deindividuation and
valence of cues: Effects on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1532-1538.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8. Chicago: Scientific
Software Inc.
Kelly, C. (1989). Political identity and perceived intragroup homoge-
neity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 61, 319-332.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological
aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psycholo-
gist, 39, 1123-1134.
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and commu-
nication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 52, 96-123.
Kiesler, S., Zubrow, D., Moses, A. M., & Geller, V. (1985). Affect in com-
puter- mediated communication: An experiment is synchronous
terminal- to-terminal discussion. Human-Computer Interaction, 1,
77-104.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication,
de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal
of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 283-301.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in
computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational
Computing, 2, 321-342.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal rela-
tionships over computer networks. In J. T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.),
Understudied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 197-233). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal
attraction. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309.
Martens, R., & Lander, D. M. (1972). Evaluation potential as a deter-
minant of coaction effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
8, 347-359.
Matheson, K., & Zanna, M. P. (1988). The impact of computer-medi-
ated communication on self-awareness. Computers in Human
Behavior, 4(3), 221-233.
Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Defining group cohesiveness: A legacy of con-
fusion. Small Group Behavior, 20, 37-49.
Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and anti-normative
behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238-259.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social
boundaries? SIDE effects of computer-mediated communication.
Communication Research, 25, 689-715.
Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). Effects of public and pri-
vate self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 503-513.
Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1989). Deindividuation and the
self-regulation of behavior. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), The psychology of
group influence (2nd ed., pp. 86-109). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Reicher, S. D. (1984). Social influence in the crowd: Attitudinal and
behavioral effects of deindividuation in conditions of high and
low group salience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 341-350.
Reicher, S., Levine, M., & Gordijn, E. (1998). More on deindividuation,
power relations between people and the expression of social iden-
tity: Three studies on the effects of visibility to the in-group. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 15-40.
Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model
of deindividuation phenomena. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone
(Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 161-198).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group
processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 37, 157-187.
Singer, J. E., Brush, C. E., & Lublin, S. C. (1965). Some aspects of
deindividuation: Identification and conformity. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 1, 356-378.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the
“social” in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.),
 Lea et al. / ANONYMITY AND SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES
Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 30-65). London:
Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden
power in computer-mediated communication. Communication
Research, 21, 427-459.
Spears, R., Lea, M., & Postmes, T. (in press). Social psychological the-
ories of computer-mediated communication: Social pain or social
gain? In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The handbook of language
and social psychology (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Spears, R., Postmes, T., & Lea, M. (in press). A SIDE view of social
influence. In J. P. Forgas & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Social influence:
Direct and indirect processes. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the
networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of inter-
group behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of
intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social
group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations
(pp. 15-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S.
(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
537
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated
interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19,
52-90.
Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated com-
munication: Experimental observations over time. Organizational
Science, 6, 186-203.
Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in interna-
tional computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication
Research, 24, 186-203.
Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in
computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research,
19, 50-88.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason,
and order vs. deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In W. J. Arnold &
D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237-307).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Received January 13, 1999
Revision accepted May 4, 2000