An epidemiological assessment of online groups and a test of a typology: What are the (dis)similarities of the online group types?
Introduction
Several authors have recently shown great interest in the dynamics of online groups, typically defined as three or more people who perceive membership in some common social identity and whose dominant form of interaction is through computer-mediated communication (CMC; Baker, 2008, Howard and Magee, 2013, McKenna, 2008, McKenna and Green, 2002). Most of these researchers have investigated particular nuances of certain types of online groups. For example, Sherman and Greenfield (2012) examined the social support members received from forums designed for pregnant teen mothers. Alternatively, Welbourne, Blanchard, and Wadsworth (2013) studied member motivations for joining virtual health communities for infertility, and its relationship to particular outcomes. Studies such as these provide great information about specific facets of individual online groups, but a commonly noted limitation is these studies’ generalizability. Welbourne Blancard, and Wadsworth stated, “we note that infertility groups have unique characteristics that may set them apart from virtual communities that focus on other health concerns … it will be important to see if our findings … will generalize to other virtual health communities” (2013, p. 137), demonstrating concerns over the generalizability of results to seemingly similar online groups.
To mitigate these worries over generalizability, some authors have created online group typologies (McKenna, 2008, Porter, 2004). These typologies categorize online groups based on their common characteristics, and assert that studies’ results can generalize if their online group samples fall within the same category. Despite these theoretical advancements on online groups, authors still note large concerns about generalizability (Baker & O’Neil, 2002; Fulk and Gould, 2009, Welbourne et al., 2013). A reason for this apprehension is the lack of extant information on the (dis)similarities of online groups. Rarely do existing studies concurrently investigate aspects of multiple online groups, although theoretical propositions are often made (Burke et al., 2010, Howard and Magee, 2013, Matzat, 2009). This leaves authors unsure whether observed effects actually exist in alternative online groups. The answer to this ambiguity cannot be provided with extant studies, but the current study aims to provide information on several uncertainties about online groups.
In the current study, several types of online groups are analyzed using an existing typology of online groups. This analysis largely focuses on the commonalities and differences in online groups, in order to determine the (dis)similarity of the identified group types. The group aspects of interest were chosen due to their importance in previous studies, and include group identity (Barker, 2009, Kim, 2009, Kim, 2010, Kim and Park, 2011), self-presentation (Bessière et al., 2007, Jin, 2010, Jin and Park, 2009), social support (Dietz-Uhler et al., 2005, Wildermuth, 2004), and well-being (Coursaris and Liu, 2009, Lewandowski et al., 2011, Tichon and Shapiro, 2003). Through studying these aspects, the (dis)similarities between the groups are uncovered, allowing inferences about the generalizability of studies’ results and distinctions made between online group types. Also, the current study provides a test of a popular online group typology (Bargh and McKenna, 2004, McKenna, 2008, McKenna and Green, 2002), which has not had any investigation into its validity before. If the typology is supported, then future studies can more safely incorporate it into their studies. Finally, through this process, many novel relationships are discovered. Several of the group aspects studied have not been investigated in all types of online groups, leading to the opportunity for future studies, which are discussed.
Section snippets
Existing online group typology
To address concerns over generalizability in online group studies, a survey of a wide array of online groups is needed. A vast multitude of online groups exist, making it impossible to concurrently study all online groups in existence. Instead, it is more feasible to draw comparisons between online group types based on an existing typology. Fortunately, several researchers have created typologies of online groups. Among the most popular was created by McKenna (Bargh and McKenna, 2004, McKenna,
Participants
To sample from each type of online group, three types of online groups were sampled: Lesbian–Gay–Bigender–Transsexual (LGBT) interest forums, cancer support forums, and Harry Potter fan forums. The LGBT interest forums represent stigmatized identity groups; the cancer forums represent support groups; and the Harry Potter fan forums represent avocation groups. Although several online groups can be categorized into each online group type, LGBT and cancer online groups are the most often studied
Results
Correlations are presented in Table 1 for each type of online group. Scale reliabilities are given on the diagonal of this table, and these reliabilities were calculated with all three samples combined. Due to the large amount of correlations presented, it is very likely that several correlations are significant due to Type II error. For this reason, the current study does not use this information to provide support for hypotheses, and it is all exploratory in nature; however, this should not
Discussion
The primary research question of the current article was to assess the overlapping qualities of multiple online groups. To answer this question, members’ group identity, self-presentation, social support, and well-being of multiple types of online groups was investigated. The results illustrated many notable group differences. Particularly, avocation group members had lower offline and online identities than support and stigmatized identity group members. Also, support and stigmatized identity
Conclusion
The goal of the current study was to test a popular online group typology, and address several concerns about the generalizability of online group studies. To accomplish this, three different types of online groups were surveyed: support groups (cancer support forum), stigmatized identity groups (LGBT forum), and avocation groups (Harry Potter fan forum). The results show that the groups differed on many aspects, including group identity, self-presentation, well-being, and social support;
References (90)
Group identity, social distance, and intergroup bias
Journal of Economic Psychology
(2007)- et al.
Measuring problem solving in computer environments: Current and future studies
Computers in Human Behavior
(2002) - et al.
Why do you play world of warcraft? an in-depth exploration of self-reported motivations to play online and in-game behaviours in the virtual world of azeroth
Computers in Human Behavior
(2013) - et al.
The who and the what of usage of two cancer online communities
Computers in Human Behavior
(2007) - et al.
An analysis of social support exchanges in online HIV/AIDS self-help groups
Computers in Human Behavior
(2009) - et al.
Virtually homosexual: Technoromanticism, demarginalisation and identity formation among homosexual males
Computers in Human Behavior
(2013) - et al.
Not me or thee but we: The importance of group identity in eliciting cooperation in dilemma situations: Experimental manipulations
Acta Psychologica
(1988) - et al.
Virtual research assistants: Replacing human interviewers by automated avatars in virtual worlds
Computers in Human Behavior
(2013) - et al.
To boldly go where no group has gone before: An analysis of online group identity and validation of a measure
Computers in Human Behavior
(2013) - et al.
Internet peer support for individuals with psychiatric disabilities: A randomized controlled trial
Social Science and Medicine
(2011)
“I want to be different from others in cyberspace”: The role of visual similarity in virtual group identity
Computers in Human Behavior
Balancing uniqueness and assimilation in computer-mediated groups
Computers in Human Behavior
The effect of uniform virtual appearance on conformity intention: Social identity model of deindividuation effects and optimal distinctiveness theory
Computers in Human Behavior
The effect of informal social support: Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication
Computers in Human Behavior
Improving retention rate and response quality in Web-based surveys
Computers in Human Behavior
Computer-supported work group potency and effectiveness: The role of transformational leadership, anonymity, and task interdependence
Computers in Human Behavior
Motivations in virtual health communities and their relationship to community, connectedness, and stress
Computers in Human Behavior
Collective identity: Group membership and self-conception
Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the depression anxiety stress scales in clinical groups and a community sample
Psychological Assessment
Down the rabbit hole: The role of place in the initiation and development of online relationships
The internet and social life
Annual Review of Psychology
Older adolescents’ motivations for social network site use: The influence of gender, group identity, and collective self-esteem
CyberPsychology and Behavior
The ideal elf: Identity exploration in World of warcraft
CyberPsychology and Behavior
The social self: On being the same and different at the same time
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations
American Psychologist
Membership claims and requests: Conversation-level newcomer socialization strategies in online groups
Small Group Research
Shyness and locus of control as predictors of internet addiction and internet use
CyberPsychology and Behavior
Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Big five personality factors and leader emergence in virtual teams: Relationships with team trustworthiness, member performance contributions, and team performance
Group and Organization Management
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Social support in cyberspace: A content analysis of communication within a Huntington’s disease online support group
Patient Education and Counseling
Beyond hearing: Where the real-world and online support meet
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice
Formation of and adherence to a self-disclosure norm in an online chat
CyberPsychology and Behavior
Intergroup bias: status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity
Journal of personality and social psychology
Snowball sampling by mail: Application to a survey of smokers in the general population
International Journal of Epidemiology
Alliance portfolios and innovation performance: Connecting structural and managerial perspectives
Group and Organization Management
An exploration of helping processes in an online self-help group focusing on issues of disability
Health and Social Work
Romantic relationship development in the age of facebook: An exploratory study of emerging adults’ perceptions, motives, and behaviors
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Concealable stigmas and positive self-perceptions: Feeling better around similar others
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Voice climate, work outcomes, and the mediating role of psychological empowerment: A multilevel examination
Group and Organization Management
Peer counseling in an online chat service: A content analysis of social support
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Features and contexts in technology research: A modest proposal for research and reporting
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Personality profiles associated with different motivations for playing world of warcraft
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Perceived social support, social skills, and quality of relationships in bulimic women
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Cited by (11)
Kicking out the trolls – Antecedents of social exclusion intentions in Facebook groups
2017, Computers in Human BehaviorCitation Excerpt :Likewise, Sassenberg (2002) showed that especially on-topic chat groups have certain communicative norms their members adhere to. Howard (2014) demonstrated that online groups do equip their members with online social identities. Moreover, Mikal and colleagues (Mikal, Rice, Kent, & Uchino, 2014) demonstrated that members of online communities (a) openly communicate acceptable behavioral standards and (b) behave in line with these standards themselves.
Offline time is quality time. Comparing within-group self-disclosure in mobile messaging applications and face-to-face interactions
2016, Computers in Human BehaviorCitation Excerpt :Self-disclosure within a group is a relatively unexplored area of research. We consider a constellation of at least three individuals interacting with each other as a group (Howard, 2014). In addition, these individuals have to “share a common social identification of themselves … or perceive themselves to be members of the same social category” (Turner, 1982, p. 15).
A Hierarchical (Multicomponent) Model of In-Group Identification: Examining in Russian Samples
2015, Spanish Journal of PsychologyUnderstanding same-sex relationships in gay individuals
2023, Medical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil VidyapeethLeading factors that explain engagement in closed Facebook groups
2020, Information ResearchA hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification: adaptation of a measure to the Brazilian context
2019, Psicologia: Reflexao e Critica