The Online Disinhibition Effect
For those of us who have blogs and are heavily involved in social media, their benefits are easily recognizable. Their strength lies in their ability to invite and encourage communication or, as Susan Getgood writes,
“The reason blogs have traction is that they deliver on the promise of the World Wide Web. Everybody *can* be a publisher. That completely changes the equation — the ‘printing press’ is no longer scarce, limited to those with deep pockets.”
Of course, along with that discourse comes risk. As Jeremy Pepper has often said, “if you have a thin skin, you shouldn’t blog.” And he’s right. Sharing ideas, taking positions and defending them against criticism isn’t for the faint of heart. Occasionally what’s written on a blog is even challenged via lawsuit, which Kami Huyse writes about here.
But generally one presumes that challengers, critics or detractors are rational and fair responders, albeit passionate ones. However, the blogging world and other forms of social media also has its unbalanced participants.
Perhaps these individuals are a result of what psychologist John Suler (who also has a blog, The Psychology of Cyberspace) terms the Online Disinhibition Effect:
“It’s well known that people say and do things in cyberspace that they wouldn’t ordinarily say or do in the face-to-face world. They loosen up, feel more uninhibited, express themselves more openly. Researchers call this the ‘disinhibition effect.’ It’s a double-edged sword. Sometimes people share very personal things about themselves. They reveal secret emotions, fears, wishes. Or they show unusual acts of kindness and generosity. We may call this benign disinhibition.
On the other hand, the disinhibition effect may not be so benign. Out spills rude language and harsh criticisms, anger, hatred, even threats…. We might call this toxic disinhibition.
On the benign side, the disinhibition indicates an attempt to understand and explore oneself, to work through problems and find new ways of being. And sometimes, in toxic disinhibition, it is simply a blind catharsis, an acting out of unsavory needs and wishes without any personal growth at all.
What causes this online disinhibition? What is it about cyberspace that loosens the psychological barriers that block the release of these inner feelings and needs? Several factors are at play. For some people, one or two of them produces the lion’s share of the disinhibition effect. In most cases, though, these factors interact with each other, supplement each other, resulting in a more complex, amplified effect.”
Suler then outlines several factors in detail:
-
You Don’t Know Me (dissociative anonymity)
-
You Can’t See Me (invisibility)
-
See You Later (asynchronicity)
-
It’s All in My Head (solipsistic introjection)
-
It’s Just a Game (dissociative imagination)
-
We’re Equals (Minimizing Authority)
Suler’s article certainly sheds light on the inappropriate behavior occasionally seen online and is therefore well worth the read.
(Source of Medusa picture here)
I think that you can also see this effect in reality television. While you may wonder how the participants do the things they do, the camera has become just a part of the furniture to them.
My question, as all of our skins get more calloused, how will this reflect in our writing, and more importantly, in our personal and professional relationships?
Will candor take a front seat to professional etiquette?
Also, some of these are not all negative, like the minimizing of authority. Of course, it is this very point that has so perplexed and annoyed people that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo (literally) and that want to maintain a controlled system that often locks in the bad practices as well as the good.
There’s some really whacked out people online, Andrea, that’s for sure.
I once got a little tipsy at a frat party and I think what happened was a result of the disinhibition effect, too.
Andrea,
Sorry I allowed a character to blog. Wanted to see what that was like … kind of creepy.
Last time
Scott
Kami:
Sometimes it goes beyond candor and is simply lack of self-restraint. Just because something *can* be said or done doesn’t mean it should be. And the long-term effects of a lack of self-restraint sometimes can’t be measured for years (think prospective employers googling students’ profiles).
Scott:
You get one pass on this.
Andrea; Yes, I learned that restraint in high school. I used to believe that if I thought it, it must be said. The blogosphere often reminds me of high school. Interesting thought and something to chew on.
Interesting post Andrea. I was thinking about this yesterday when I was watching Richard Dreyfuss attack the 24 hour media for being too reactive and not producing considered comment in their broadcasts. I was thinking about the way that I type and re-type a phrase when I’m composing emails or blog posts. I dread to think how many people I would have inadvertantly offended if I didn’t go through these edits. The delete key is a wonderful thing.
Very interesting, Andrea. Thanks for posting. I will be sure to read the article you cite.
A while back I read about a study that said egocentrism was at the root of many nasty email exchanges. I think this relates to what you’re saying. My original post: http://trafcom.typepad.com/blog/2006/02/danger_lurks_in.html
Sam:
Good points. I tend to check and re-check my material too, and even then I’ve noticed that there has unfortunately been room for misinterpretation. Maybe that’s a risk we’ve got to be willing to take when we interact so heavily in a text-only environment.
Donna:
I re-read your post and the APA article, thanks. What stood out in the article for me was this part:
“Of course there’s nothing new about text-based communication; people have been writing letters for centuries… But what’s different in this medium is… the ease with which we can fire things back and forth. It makes text-based communication seem more informal and more like face-to-face communication than it really is.”
For all my attempted caution, I know in my own e-mails the tone I’ve tried to convey sometimes hasn’t come across as intended. And what to do then? Send a follow-up, clarifying e-mail, pick up the phone? I’ve done both. As I said to Sam above, maybe this risk of misinterpretation is something we’ve got to be willing to accept — within reason — as a trade-off for the practicality online communication provides.
Which then goes back to my point of ‘reading your email out aloud’ before you hit ’send’. More info here: http://leehopkins.net/2006/01/27/your-email-is-not-read-how-you-write-it/
p.s. just cited you and Donna in a post on my blog: http://leehopkins.net/2006/05/05/the-online-disinhibition-effect/
It’s a tricky one isn’t it? I imagine we’ve all had a text message/email/blog post misinterpreted because it was read in a different tone than was intended. Short of emoticons, I think you’re right, we’ll have to run that risk. Although the We Media conference has mentioned the increase in uptake of videoblogging and phoneblogging but I can’t see it taking the place of text – especially when you can hide behind a printed page so easily.
Lee: Thanks, as always.
Sam:
Yeah, I don’t see vblogging etc. overtaking text completely either, simply because some people won’t be up on the technology yet. I agree that it’s easier to hide behind text.
It’s hard.
The one thing that a blog allows – that disinhibition effect – (which to me is all about being comfortable enough to rant to nobody in general and about any topic), can also be your undoing. Especially when you realize people ARE actually reading it.
The tone of what you’re saying can be missed so easily, especially in emails as well. Only thing I try to do is not blog something that I wouldn’t say to the person if I were there in person.
And if they didn’t get the gist of what I meant the first time? I’d explain a second, then give up trying after that.
;-p
Very interesting. Yes, it seems that people online have more freedom than in the real world. I think also that this is because the Internet itself is a haven for liberalism, where all kinds of freedom, like most especially the freedom of speech, are highly recognized.
http://onlinepr.gbwatch.com/
MTLB:
Another risk is that people take things out of context, be that a line or portion of a post, or a post as solely reflective of an entire body of work.
Mary:
I agree that freedom of speech is highly regarded in the online world, perhaps because for some people, especially those in less open political environments, this may be the only form of communicating with the outside world.
Thanks also for the link to your site, which I’ll check out.