Abstract

In group discussions, people rely on everyday diplomatic skills to socially regulate the interaction, maintain harmony, and avoid escalation. This article compares social regulation in online and face-to-face (FtF) groups. It studies the micro-dynamics of online social interactions in response to disagreements. Thirty-two triads discussed, in a repeated measures design, controversial topics via text-based online chat and FtF. The fourth group member was a confederate who voiced a deviant (right-wing) opinion. Results show that online interactions were less responsive and less ambiguous compared with FtF discussions. This affected participants’ social attributions: they felt their interaction partners ignored them and displayed disinhibited behavior. This also had relational consequences: participants experienced polarization and less solidarity. These results offer a new perspective on the process of online polarization: this might not be due to changes in individual psychology (e.g., disinhibition), but to misattributions of online behavior.

中文翻译：

---

在线社会法规：当和谐分歧的日常外交技巧崩溃时

摘要

在小组讨论中，人们依靠日常外交技巧来社交调节互动，保持和谐并避免升级。本文比较了在线和面对面（FtF）群体中的社会法规。它研究在线社交互动的微观动力以回应分歧。通过基于文本的在线聊天和FtF，三十二个三合会在重复测量设计中讨论了有争议的主题。第四小组成员是同盟国，他发表了异议（右翼）。结果表明，与FtF讨论相比，在线互动的响应速度更快，模棱两可。这影响了参与者的社会归因：他们觉得自己的互动伙伴忽略了他们，表现出不拘一格的行为。这也产生了相关的后果：参与者经历了两极分化和较少的团结。