I need someone to do a Literary Analysis for English 112.

O P E N F O R U M

How anonymous are you online? Examining online social behaviors from a cross-cultural perspective

Hiroaki Morio Æ Christopher Buchholz

Received: 10 August 2006 / Accepted: 10 April 2007 / Published online: 19 July 2007

� Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Abstract Communication on the Internet is often described as ‘‘anonymous’’, yet the usage of the term is often confusing, even in academia. Three levels of ano-

nymity, visual anonymity, dissociation of real and online identities, and lack of

identifiability, are thought to have different effects on various components of

interpersonal motivation. Specifically, we propose that cross-cultural differences in

interpersonal motivation (autonomy vs. affiliation) are illustrated by choices indi-

viduals make when deciding whether or not to remain anonymous while commu-

nicating online. Autonomy is often valued in Western societies, whereas Eastern

societies tend to emphasize affiliation, suggesting that individuals in Western

societies will gravitate toward online communities that allow lower levels of ano-

nymity, while individuals in Eastern societies will be more likely to seek out online

communities that promote higher levels of anonymity. The research presented in

this article supports this notion, suggesting that we need to consider cultural dif-

ferences when designing online communication systems and other communications

technologies.

Introduction

Even though the increased bandwidth of the Internet (i.e., ‘‘broadband’’) allows for

richer face-to-face audiovisual communication, much of today’s interpersonal

H. Morio (&) Sapporo University, 7-3-1 Nishioka 3Jo, Toyohira-Ku,

062-8520 Sapporo, Japan

e-mail: [email protected]

C. Buchholz

Roanoke University, 221 College Lane, Salem, VA 24153-379, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

AI & Soc (2009) 23:297–307

DOI 10.1007/s00146-007-0143-0

interaction across the Internet is still conducted with text-based messages, such as

e-mails, electronic forums, instant messengers, and blogs. As a result, computer-

mediated communication (CMC) often restricts the amount of nonverbal informa-

tion that is communicated between individuals (e.g., tone of voice, facial

expression, body language). Emoticons and avatars may help convey limited

nonverbal information; however, they lack the richness of the nonverbal commu-

nication that is involved in face-to-face (FtF) communication. Actually, research on

social interaction indicates that, depending on culture, some individuals may prefer

more limited communication methods such as electronic forums over more

complete communication methods (e.g., video-conferencing).

Social psychology has a long history of studying the effect of anonymity and

its disinhibiting effect on individual’s behaviors. More recently, efforts have been

made to apply our knowledge of some of these mechanisms (e.g., deindividuation)

to our understanding of social behavior in CMC environments. Culnan and

Markus (1987), for example, created the ‘‘cues-filtered-out’’ approach, which

suggests that we can understand an individual’s online behaviors by understand-

ing, which socioemotional and nonverbal cues are missing. As a result of these

‘‘filtered-out’’ cues, text-based CMC is considered ‘‘anonymous’’: people are not

able to see each other in communication. This anonymity is considered to play a

key role in understanding why people engage in hostile behaviors online (Kiesler

et al. 1984).

Research that focuses on the anonymity of text-based CMC yields only part of

the puzzle; we argue that one must also understand the underlying motivational

processes involved in social interaction. In this paper, we will first elaborate on the

conceptualization of ‘‘anonymity’’ in today’s online communities based on Azechi’s

(2005). Second, we will discuss two different kinds of motivation involved in social

interaction (i.e., autonomy and affiliation) and how these interact with anonymity.

Finally, we will consider how cross-cultural differences in social motivation may

lead to very different online communication behaviors.

Clarification of the concept of ‘‘anonymity’’ in CMC

The word ‘‘anonymity’’ has been used as a key concept in describing and

explaining various aspects of CMC, however, the word is often used to describe

very different conditions (Joinson 2003). For instance, when anonymity of CMC is

discussed in the context of the cues-filtered-out approach it is considered visual

anonymity (c.f. Lea et al. 2001). As one might expect, with visual anonymity, you

cannot see your communication partners. With the exception of live video-

conferencing applications, CMC typically does not involve real visual images of

interactants. Visual anonymity exists in an online community if individuals

communicate with each other without their physical appearances attached to their

messages.

A second level of anonymity is the dissociation of real and online identities. In

online communities, there is ample anecdotal evidence that many individuals create

a new persona for themselves using nicknames and avatars (c.f. Turkle 1995).

298 AI & Soc (2009) 23:297–307

123

By creating this new identity an individual can virtually become a different person,

with different personalities and values. Some individuals even adopt a new gender,

age, and/or a race. With dissociation of real and online identities, someone’s online

behaviors are not directly tied to that person’s physical self. Because of this

dissociation, we argue that there is less accountability for online behaviors when

compared to behaviors in ‘‘real’’ life. Currently, most online communities allow

users to communicate with IDs or handle names without revealing their real names,

thus permitting the dissociation of identities.

A third level of anonymity is the concept of lack of identifiability, in which an

individual’s behaviors are not distinguishable from others’ behaviors (Douglas and

McGarty 2001; Azechi 2005). Of the three levels of anonymity discussed so far,

lack of identifiability is the closest to ‘‘true anonymity’’ in that individuals are no

longer able to determine the source of the messages that they are receiving. Some

newsgroups, for example, allow the distribution of submitted messages without the

authors’ identity. Another example of such a community is an electronic forum that

does not require users to attach their IDs to messages.

As Azehci (2005) pointed out, these different levels of anonymity are

hierarchical in nature (Fig. 1). Visual anonymity is the lowest level of anonymity

in CMC. E-mails, for example, do not include photographs of the senders or any

other nonverbal cues. However, at this level of anonymity there is often some

connection to one’s ‘‘real’’ identity in that you usually send and receive e-mails

to and from individuals that you know. Chat rooms provide a good example for

the next level of anonymity (dissociation of real and online identity). While

participating in chat rooms, individuals often have a level of anonymity that allows

these individuals to present their online persona in a way that may or may not be

consistent with their ‘‘real’’ personality (using nicknames, avatars, or misrepresent-

ing other information available to other chat room members). Finally, at the highest

level of anonymity, lack of identifiability, individuals are completely anonymous.

Newsgroups and other services that allow messages to be posted without any

identifiable markings make up this highest level.

Fig. 1 Hierarchical structure of different anonymity conditions

AI & Soc (2009) 23:297–307 299

123

Online communities with visual anonymity

The psychological impact of visual anonymity on online behaviors has been

discussed in the context of social identity theory. Postmes et al. (1998), for example,

proposed The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE model),

which suggests that visual anonymity facilitates deindividuation or depersonaliza-

tion. Deindividuation is the ‘‘tendency to perceive the self and others not as

individuals’’ but ‘‘as representatives of social groups or wider social categories’’.

Situations that limit nonverbal and socioemotional information, such as in the case

of CMC, should lead to an increase in the deindividuation effect. Postmes et al.

(1998) suggest that visual anonymity increases the salience of the immediate social

norms of a particular situation, making people more aware of these norms and thus

more likely to comply with them. If one were anonymously participating in a chat

group about sexism, for example, the deindividuation effect would predict that one

would be more likely to behave in a manner that is consistent with the group,

regardless of the behavior. In other words, if the majority of the group was acting in

a sexist way, any particular individual would be likely to conform to that behavior;

but if the majority of the group was acting in a non-sexist way, any particular

individual would be likely to conform to that behavior, as well.

Online communities with dissociation of real and online identities

Visual anonymity exists in most online communities; however, the dissociation of

real and online identities occurs less frequently in online communities. In some

communities, like electronic forums, users are often required to register before

joining a forum; however, users do not have to reveal their real name or identity.

Dissociation of real and online identities also occurs in communities where people

use handle names or nicknames to identify themselves. In other communities,

individuals are required or choose to use their real names in communication. In

an online community with a corresponding offline community, it is typical that

participants use their real names in communication. An example of such a

community would be electronic mailing lists for academics and other professionals.

In other online communities, such as social network services (SNS) or blog

communities, people may want to use their real names as their identities. When

people communicate with their real names as identities in an online community,

there is no dissociation of real and online identities.

Due to the fact that dissociation of real and online identities creates a situation

that is more anonymous than the visual anonymity level, the effect of deindivid-

uation on individual’s perception of others is expected to be stronger. As a result,

SIDE model predicts that individuals participating in communities that encourage

the dissociation of real and online identities will demonstrate a strengthened

compliance to the immediate group norms. In addition to this aspect of enhanced

anonymity, dissociation of real and online identities should have a significant

psychological effect on an individual’s identity. A user may create a new identity in

a given online community, which is very different than his or her identity in real

world. Likewise, various attributes of an individual’s identity, such as gender, age,

300 AI & Soc (2009) 23:297–307

123

race, socioeconomic status, and occupation, can be either trivialized or fabricated.

People create an online ‘‘persona’’ that is independent of their real identity (Turkle

1995).

Dissociation of real and online identities is similar to Azechi’s (2005) notion of

lack of personal specification. However, Azechi suggests that as anonymity

increases, communication becomes less social and more information oriented,

whereas, the idea of dissociation of real and online identities allows for a high level

of social interaction even under anonymous situations. More specifically, Azechi’s

Information Humidity Model (IHM) describes lack of personal specification as a

type of anonymity that exists when messages are not tagged with the senders’

attributes (name, address, or other demographic information). Azechi suggests that,

under these conditions, communication becomes more knowledge oriented and less

social. However, the online communities that we examined allow or even encourage

the exchange of interpersonal information (i.e., one’s feelings and emotions) and

are, consequently, more social in nature. We decided to use the concept of

dissociation of real and online identities because it allows for socioemotional

interactions even under anonymous circumstances.

Furthermore, the conceptual differences between ‘‘lack of personal specification’’

and ‘‘dissociation of real and online identities’’ reflect theoretical differences in

IHM and our model. The term ‘‘lack of personal specification’’ implies that people

are no longer fully specified (i.e., identified as a unique identity). Without personal

specification, people are deduced to mere handle names, losing all of the

characteristics that they posses. On the other hand, we emphasize that people do

create and maintain a ‘‘specified’’ online identity. While this ‘‘new’’ identity doesnot

typically reveal any ‘‘real’’ user information, it does however, reveal a unique

identity with specific characteristics that set it apart from other online members in

ways that can have a large impact on social interactions.

Online communities with lack of identifiability

The last step toward total anonymity is lack of identifiability. Lack of identifiability

exists in communities where there is no information provided about the sender of

messages. In such a community, all of the participants’ messages or communicative

behaviors are mixed with others, leading to virtual ‘‘true’’ anonymity. A user’s

personality and behavior are no longer distinguishable from other participants in the

community. As a result, there is no accountability for participants’ behaviors.

There are not very many examples of online communities that lack identifiability.

Lack of identifiability is typically observed when a community with message boards

offers a default user name. Participants have the option of providing their own user

name (which would exemplify one of the first two levels of anonymity) or of using a

default user name that is truly anonymous. One example of such a community is the

electronic news site Slashdot. Slashdot is not only a news site but a highly popular

community where people exchange opinions regarding issues ranging from

technology to politics. At Slashdot, participants can post their messages as an

‘‘anonymous coward’’, a default user name. While there is a registration process

where participants could provide personal information, it is not required.

AI & Soc (2009) 23:297–307 301

123

Likewise, in Japan, there is a collection of message boards called ‘‘2channel’’.

2channel has a similar mechanism that allows users to communicate without

identifiability. At 2channel, the lack of identifiability is even more emphasized, as

there is no registration process for users to ensure identifiability. The system does

provide a way to uniquely identify an individual, yet this feature is rarely used by

the participants in the community. 2channel is one of the most popular online

communities in Japan (Matsumura et al. 2005).

At this level of anonymity, ‘‘personal identification’’ does not exist (Azechi

2005). According to Azechi, communities without personal identification are

information oriented and, therefore, people do not seek to form any interpersonal

relationships. In this paper, we argue that human interaction, regardless of the level

of anonymity, will always be social in nature. More specifically, we aim to

illuminate the possible influences of level of anonymity on interpersonal motivation.

Thus, IHM, which assumes that anonymous individuals are not motivated to engage

in interpersonal relationships, is not directly applicable in this context. In the next

section, we discuss some interpersonal motivations that are relevant to our

examination of the effects of anonymity on online communications.

The two contradicting goals of social interaction: autonomy and affiliation

Human beings are thought to be born with innate mechanisms that drive us to

engage in interaction with other individuals. As this paper deals with the social

aspects of CMC, we will now introduce two key motivational factors, affiliation and

autonomy, that are crucial for understanding social behavior. Nowak and Vallacher

(2002) suggest that affiliation and autonomy are two conflicting goals of social

interaction. To achieve the goal of affiliation, it is important for interactants to

synchronize with others in the group. Research in social psychology has revealed

that people have a strong tendency to follow other people’s behavior for normative

and informational reasons (c.f. Asch 1951). Individuals often engage in imitation

and compliance in order to gain acceptance from the group. On the other hand,

autonomy refers to one’s ability to control one’s environment, as well as the need to

be unique and independent from others.

While these motivations are basic for human beings, affiliation and autonomy

motivations are in apparent conflict. When interacting with others, we behave like

others in order to achieve affiliation, however, acting like others undermines our

level of autonomy. On the other hand, if one behaves uniquely to achieve autonomy,

the person is at risk of failing to be accepted by others. While the goals of affiliation

and autonomy are in apparent conflict, most individuals are able to achieve some

balance between the two.

Culture and the goals of social interaction

While all human beings need to meet both goals of affiliation and autonomy, there

are cross-cultural differences as, to which goal is emphasized as more important

(Hofstede 1980; Oyserman et al. 2002). Among various cultural differences in

302 AI & Soc (2009) 23:297–307

123

values, the dimension of individualism/collectivism (IC) is of particular interest

in understanding cultural differences in interpersonal behavior. A society is thought

to be collectivistic when people in the society give priorities to groups’ goals

and interest over individuals’; whereas individuals in an individualistic society

emphasize personal goals over those of the group. According to Hofstede (1980),

Western countries, such as the United Sates and European countries score high on

individualism, while Eastern countries, such as Japan and South Korea, score low,

thus showing collectivistic tendency.

Markus and Kitayama (1991) expanded on this notion suggesting that IC

corresponds to an individual-level cultural orientation called ‘‘self-construal’’.

People in Western, or individualistic, cultures construe the self as independent,

while those in Eastern/collectivistic cultures construe the self as interdependent. As

a result, people in different cultures place emphasis on different aspects of

relationships: independence or interdependence. Nisbett (2003) suggested that these

differences in values and orientation in relationships are deeply rooted in the

different cognitive styles of Western and Eastern cultures.

As a result of these different interpersonal orientations, individuals in Eastern

and Western cultures emphasize differing social motivations (i.e., affiliation and

autonomy). Individuals in Eastern cultures are oriented toward interdependence,

value the harmony of the group, and are therefore, more motivated by affiliation

than by autonomy. When interacting with other group members, individuals from

Eastern cultures are more likely to conform to group standards and mimic other

individual’s behavior. On the other hand, individuals in Western cultures value

competence and independence; thus, their behavior is governed by autonomy

motivation. Their goals are to be unique, independent, and competent.

Cultural differences in online social behavior

These cultural differences in what motivates people toward interpersonal behaviors

have important implications for online social behaviors as well. We propose that the

anonymity afforded by online communication can illustrate the cultural differences

in autonomy and affiliation motivation. More specifically, we argue that individuals

in Western cultures will gravitate toward online communities that allow lower levels

of anonymity (i.e., visual anonymity and dissociation between real and online

identities); while, individuals in Eastern cultures will be more likely to seek out

online communities that promote the highest level of anonymity (i.e., lack of

identifiability).

Lack of identifiability is closely related to the goal achievement process in

interpersonal interaction, because without any form of identification, people are no

longer able to achieve autonomy motivation in social interaction. If there is no

personal identification linked to messages, then it is impossible to be independent

and unique. On the other hand, we propose that achievement of the affiliation goal is

facilitated by such a situation. By eliminating personal identification, one is simply

embedded in the group, indistinguishable from others. It is our belief that decreasing

autonomy should increase the feeling of affiliation. Therefore, we propose that

AI & Soc (2009) 23:297–307 303

123

individuals participating in online communities without identifiability are mainly

seeking affiliation motivation.

In Western culture, where independence and uniqueness is highly regarded, an

online community without identification should be less preferable than one that

allows such individual identification. On the other hand, in Eastern culture, such an

online community perfectly matches people’s need to be a part of something larger

than themselves and should enhance a sense of unity with the group. As a result, it is

expected that individuals in Eastern cultures will prefer online communities without

any form of identification, while individuals in Western cultures will prefer online

communities that provide personal identification. We argue that this is the reason

why 2Channel, a totally anonymous online community, has gained so much

popularity in Japan. Likewise, we suggest that this is why there is no equivalent

popularity for these types of communities in Western countries.

A cross-cultural examination of online communities: a preliminary investigation of Slashdot communities in the US and Japan

In the previous section, we discussed how different levels of anonymity would have

different meanings in different cultures. In this section, we examined data from

Slashdot online communities in the US and Japan in order to look for evidence of

the aforementioned cultural differences.

The Japanese Slashdot was created as a ‘‘Japanese version’’ of the original US

Slashdot. As the Japanese Slashdot community is based on the US system, the

communities in both countries provide an equivalent user-interface. They also have

a similar user-base that mainly includes people who are computer enthusiasts. The

US and Japanese Slashdot communities were used as examples because Slashdot is

one of the few existing online communities that illustrates the highest level of

anonymity, lack of identifiability, in both Eastern and Western societies. In both

communities, a user can either add their messages as an ‘‘anonymous coward’’, thus

ensuring the lack of identifiability, or as a registered user with a nickname

(dissociation of real and online identity). In other words, users can choose a level of

anonymity that suits them. Thus, the community is made up of a mixture of

individuals exhibiting different levels of anonymity.

We analyzed the communication logs listed in each community’s ‘‘Hall of

Fame’’ on 24 January, 2006. In both the US and Japanese Slashdot communities, the

Hall of Fame listed the ten ‘‘most active’’ and ‘‘most visited’’ topics. Table 1 shows

the number of comments for each topic, as well as the percentage of people who

used the ‘‘anonymous coward’’ designation. The US Slashdot was more active; the

topics in the US Slashdot received roughly five to six times more comments than

those in Japanese Slashdot. It is also notable that the percentages of anonymous

cowards were more stable for the most active topics, probably because the most

active topics had more comments by definition.

As noted above, the level of anonymity in Slashdot communities is a mixture of

dissociation of real and online identities and lack of identifiability; so, it is necessary

to examine, which level of anonymity people choose in each culture when given the

304 AI & Soc (2009) 23:297–307

123

choice. A quick glimpse of the table confirms our prediction that Japanese people

would prefer to discuss or voice their opinions when there is a lack of identifiability.

The US Slashdot has a much lower rate of anonymous cowards, indicating a

preference to be identifiable. For the most active topics, 25% of comments on

average were made as anonymous coward in the US, compared to 69% in Japan.

Pearson Chi-squared test of association was conducted to confirm that the Japanese

used more anonymous coward than the Americans (v2 = 4971.26, P < 0.0001). For the most visited topics, 21% of the comments were by anonymous cowards in the

US, compared to 57% in Japan, also significant at a = 0.001 (v2 = 1275.21).

Conclusions

Due to the industrialization and modernization of the past several decades, changes

in social and economic structure have inevitably caused East Asian countries, such

as Japan and Korea, to become more westernized. Due to this fact, some argue that

Japan should not be considered as an exemplar of collectivistic societies (Takano

and Osaka 1999). Yet the striking cultural differences, in the normative degree of

Table 1 Cultural comparison of percentages of ‘‘Anonymous Coward’’ in Slashdot

Topic Number of

posts

Percentage

of AC

Topic Number of

posts

Percentage

of AC

‘‘Most active’’ topics in Japan ‘‘Most active’’ topics in the US

1 1,018 72 1 5,687 27

2 811 83 2 4,183 30

3 668 65 3 3,468 24

4 660 62 4 3,451 16

5 613 53 5 3,360 20

6 612 72 6 3,315 18

7 609 85 7 3,314 31

8 601 45 8 3,265 28

9 585 73 9 3,212 28

10 578 75 10 3,201 30

‘‘Most visited’’ topics in Japan ‘‘Most visited’’ topics in the US

1 34 15 1 2,764 34

2 75 37 2 1,095 2

3 444 74 3 414 18

4 87 75 4 1,027 31

5 299 71 5 619 4

6 436 60 6 441 38

7 146 47 7 1,228 32

8 336 62 8 150 41

9 358 23 9 1,368 1

10 123 63 10 499 3

AI & Soc (2009) 23:297–307 305

123

anonymity, found in this study suggests that there continues to be a difference

between Eastern and Western cultures in how people are motivated to seek and

interact with others online.

One caveat of this study is a possible limit to the generalizablity of these

results. First of all, our evidence is limited to the specific online communities of

Slashdot in the US and Japan. Also, the characteristics mentioned in this study are

only applicable to Japanese and US culture, and may not be generalizable to the

larger Eastern and Western cultural groups. To eliminate this issue a more

inclusive survey of existing online communities across various countries in both

Eastern and Western cultures is necessary. In addition, the evidence provided in

this study is correlational in nature; therefore, we are unable to directly test the

causal relationship suggested between social motivation and preference of

anonymity level. Experimental studies need to be conducted in order to prove

that cultural differences in social motivation and interpersonal orientation directly

cause preference of anonymity levels.

As a concluding remark, we would like to discuss the implications of our findings

for understanding and facilitating social intelligence. Broadly defined as ‘‘the ability

for people to relate to, understand and interact effectively with others’’ (Fujihara

2001), social intelligence is not simply a sum of each individuals’ social interaction

skills. Morio et al. (2004) suggest that in order to design effective social systems we

must not only examine individual differences in interaction styles but we must

understand the system-wide social dynamics that emerge in these social systems In

contrast to theories such as Azechi’s Information Humidity Model, we argue that

systems can be highly social, and therefore socially intelligent, even at high levels

of anonymity. In light of this, we highlighted two important factors that influence an

individual’s online social behaviors: anonymity and culture. The findings of this

study, while preliminary in nature, do suggest that the level of anonymity in an

online community has a significant impact on its users’ behaviors. In addition,

cultural differences, hypothesized to reflect differences in interpersonal motivation,

appear to interact with the overall level of anonymity. Because of this interaction,

the anonymity level built into the system should match potential user preference,

partially determined by culture, to maximize social intelligence. For example, in

Western cultures, or where uniqueness and competition are emphasized, a system

without total anonymity would be more successful. On the other hand, systems with

more anonymity will find more success in cultures where harmony and cooperation

are emphasized such as with Eastern cultures.

References

Asch SE (1951) Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In:

Guetzknow H (Ed) Groups, leadership, and men. Carnegie Press, Oxford

Azechi S (2005) Information humidity model: explanation of dual modes of community for social

intelligence design. AI Soc 19:110–122

Culnan MJ, Markus ML (1987) Information technologies. In: Jablin FM, Putnam LL, Roberts KH, Porter

LW (Eds) Handbook of organizational communication: an interdisciplinary perspective. Sage,

Newbury Park, pp 420–443

306 AI & Soc (2009) 23:297–307

123

Douglas K, McGarty C (2001) Identifiability and self-presentation: computer-mediated communication

and intergroup interaction. Br J Soc Psychol 40:399–416

Fujihara N (2001) How to evaluate social intelligence design. In: Terano T, Nishida T, Namatame A,

Tsumoto S, Ohsawa Y, Washio T (eds) New frontiers in artificial intelligence––Joint JSAI 2001

workshop post-proceedings, lecture notes in artificial intelligence 2253. Springer, Berlin

Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s consequences. Sage, Beverly Hills

Joinson AN (2003) Understanding the psychology of internet behavior: virtual worlds, real lives.

Palgrave, Basingstoke

Kiesler S, Siegel J, McGuire T (1984) Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communi-

cation. Am Psychol 39:1123–1134

Lea M, Spears R, de Groot D (2001) Knowing me, knowing you: anonymity effects on social identity

processes within groups. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 27:526–357

Markus H, Kitayama S (1991) Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.

Psychol Rev 98:224–253

Matsumura N, Miura A, Shibanai Y, Ohsawa Y, Nishida T (2005) The dynamism of 2channel. AI Soc

19:84–92

Morio H, Latané B, Richardson D (2004) Interpersonal attraction from electronic self-disclosure:

cumulative effect of CMC. Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on social intelligence design, 101–109

Nisbett RE (2003) The geography of thought. Free Press, New York

Nowak A, Vallacher RR (2002) Emergence of personality: personality stability through interpersonal

synchronization. In: Cervone D, Mischell W (Eds) Advances in personality science. Guilford, New

York

Oyserman D, Coon HM, Kemmelmeiser M (2002) Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation

of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 128:3–72

Postmes T, Spears R, Lea M (1998) Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE effects of computer-

mediated communication. Communic Res 25:689–715

Takano Y, Osaka E (1999) An unsupported common view: comparing Japan and the US on

individualism/collectivism. Asian J Soc Psychol 2:311–341

Turkle S (1995) Life on the screen: identity in the age of the internet. Simon & Schuster, New York

AI & Soc (2009) 23:297–307 307

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.