When a thread or topic is started on a user-generated forum on the internet, it isn鈥檛 long before one of the contributors makes a seemingly unprovoked attack on a total stranger. What is it about non-face-to-face contact of this kind that makes this more common than it would otherwise be?
鈥� In 1987, psychologists Mary Culnan and Lynne Markus refined the 鈥渞educed cues theory鈥� to explain potentially abusive behaviour online.
They suggested that computer-mediated communication is inferior to face-to-face contact because social cues such as body language, tone, volume and intensity of speech are lacking. An online conversation therefore, except when a webcam or microphone is used, takes place in a what is termed a 鈥渟ocial vacuum鈥�. The reduced cues that are available to each correspondent can lead to a lack of individual identity (deindividuation), which in turn undermines any social and normative influences.
Advertisement
Overall the lack of these strong influences can lead to forms of uninhibited and atypical behaviour. Behind a computer screen you are usually fairly safe from physical retaliation. This creates a sense of safety and a disguise for participants which is further reinforced by the control individuals can exert over their online identity.
On user-generated forums, for example, you can choose what profile information about yourself is displayed, fabricate that information and in most cases choose not to disclose it to fellow participants at all. Similarly, in virtual worlds you can take on a name and an avatar which is entirely unlike the real you.
As to the motive behind an unprovoked attack, human beings are undeniably complex creatures: the reasons could range from simply having a bad day at work to wanting the excitement of causing trouble.
Thomas Venus, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, UK
鈥� Social interaction depends on innate and acquired attitudes, including the urge to be imposing, formidable or dominant. Contrary factors, such as fear, upbringing, affection or social pressures, tend to dampen down extremes of behaviour and prevent loss of control.
A healthy balance of all these produces negative feedback that structures one鈥檚 behaviour in a socially desirable manner. Remove this feedback, and misfits, habitual victims of bullying or products of unhappy backgrounds revel in the freedom to indulge in bullying or sadism that has driven sensitive victims to suicide.
More sensible recipients of this kind of correspondence simply wipe off such nuisances in their 鈥渒ill鈥� lists or otherwise 鈥渒ill them with silence鈥�, as the Japanese wisely put it.
However, people who indulge in abuse and bullying are widespread on internet forums, where they cannot be touched.
Other expressions of perceived immunity include football hooliganism in large crowds, and car drivers who feel safe insulting or threatening others. George Orwell characterised such impulses as 鈥渢he irresponsible violence of the powerless鈥�.
Similar behaviour is common among animals, most familiarly lapdogs in vehicles, or safe behind high fences. They pose and threaten like monsters, but then panic abjectly if their protection fails and someone calls their bluff.
Jon Richfield, Somerset West, South Africa
鈥淪imilar behaviour is common among animals such as lapdogs in vehicles or safe behind fences鈥�
鈥� What a stupid question, you total and utter鈥� LOL!
Fake Name, By email, no address supplied
Thanks to John Noble of Melbourne, Australia, who doesn鈥檛 know the answer, but points to an artist who does: 鈥� Ed