The Social Dynamics Approach to mediated communication

References

• Adler, R. B., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Proctor, R. F. (2006). Interplay: The process of interpersonal communication. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alonzo, M., & Aiken, M. (2004). Flaming in electronic communication. Decision Support Systems, 36(3), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(02)00190-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, A. A., Yeo, S. K., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Xenos, M. A. (2018). Toxic talk: How online incivility can undermine perceptions of media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30(1), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antheunis, M. L., Schouten, A. P., & Walther, J. B. (2020). The hyperpersonal effect in online dating: Effects of text-based CMC vs. videoconferencing before meeting face-to-face. Media Psychology, 23(6), 820–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2019.1648217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., & Brown, T. W. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balietti, S., Getoor, L., Goldstein, D. G., & Watts, D. J. (2021). Reducing opinion polarization: Effects of exposure to similar people with differing political views. PNAS, 118(52), e2112552118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2112552118
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullet, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 941–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.941
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beňuš, Š., Gravano, A., & Hirschberg, J. (2011). Pragmatic aspects of temporal accommodation in turn-taking. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3001–3027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482–1493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1482
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulman, M. (2016, January 12). Tinder Makes Users Less Likely to Commit to Relationships, Experts Warn. Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/tinder-makes-users-less-likely-to-commit-to-relationships-experts-warn-a6807731.html
   Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1–2), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93121003
   Google Scholar
• Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55(1), 58–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of emotion by email. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.31193163
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calhoun, C. (2002). Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780195123715.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Carr, C. T. (2020). CMC is dead, long live CMC! Situating computer-mediated communication scholarship beyond the digital age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casale, S., Fiovaranti, G., & Caplan, S. (2015). Online disinhibition: Precursors and outcomes. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, & Applications, 27(4), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000136
   Google Scholar
• Cheung, C., Wong, R. Y. M., & Chan, T. (2021). Online disinhibition: Conceptualization, measurement, and implications for online deviant behavior. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 121(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-2020-0509
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), e2023301118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.2277/0521561582
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006
   Google Scholar
• Clark-Gordon, C. V., Bowman, N. D., Goodboy, A. K., & Wright, A. (2019). Anonymity and online self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. Communication Reports, 32(2), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2019.1607516
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, N. T., & Dunaway, J. L. (2016). Party polarization, media choice, and mass partisan-ideological sorting. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), 272–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw002
   Google Scholar
• Davis, D., & Perkowitz, W. T. (1979). Consequences of responsiveness in dyadic interaction: Effects of probability of response and proportion of content-related responses on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(4), 534–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.4.534
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dennis, A., Fuller, R., & Valacich, J. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 32(2), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148857
   Google Scholar
• DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.2.121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., & Bryson, B. (1996). Have American’s social attitudes become more polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), 690–755. https://doi.org/10.1086/230995
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dings, R. (2021). Meaningful affordances. Synthese, 199(1–2), 1855–1875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02864-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2016). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feenberg, A. (1992). From information to communication: The french experience with videotex. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 168–187). Harvester Wheatsheaf.
   Google Scholar
• Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 921–950. https://doi.org/10.2307/256641
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garimella, V., & Weber, I. (2017). A long-term analysis of polarization on twitter. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14918
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, R. A., Carr, C. T., & Wohn, D. Y. (2016). It’s the audience: Differences in social support across social media. Social Media + Society, 2(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116678894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/352430
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338–376). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805080.016
   Google Scholar
• Heylighen, F. (2008). Complexity and self-organization. In M. J. Bates & M. N. Maack (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and Information Sciences (pp. 1–20). Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Hollenbaugh, E. E., & Everett, M. K. (2013). The effects of anonymity on self‐disclosure in blogs: An application of the online disinhibition effect. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(3), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, G., & Li, K. (2016). The effect of anonymity on conformity to group norms in online contexts: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Communication, 10(2016), 398–415.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, H., Kim, Y., & Huh, C. (2014). Seeing is believing: Effects of uncivil online debate on political polarization and expectations of deliberation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(4), 621–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2014.966365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iandoli, L., Primario, S., & Zollo, G. (2021). The impact of group polarization on the quality of online debate in social media: A systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170(C), 120924. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2021.120924
   Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jans, L., Koudenburg, N., Dillmann, J., Wichgers, L., Postmes, T., & den Hartigh, R. J. (2019). Dynamic reactions to opinion deviance: The role of social identity formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84, 103803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.36
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, J., & Puschmann, C. (2017). Alliance of antagonism: Counterpublics and polarization in online climate change communication. Communication and the Public, 2(4), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047317732350
   Google Scholar
• Kashima, Y., Klein, O., & Clark, A. E. (2007). Grounding: Sharing information in social interaction. In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 30–77). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kiesler, S., Siegel, J, & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinke, S., Hernández, N., & Bös, B. (2018). Introduction. Identity construction in complex discourse contexts. In B. Bös, S. Kleinke, S. Mollin, & N. Hernández (Eds.), The discursive construction of identities on- and offline (pp. 1–12). John Benjamins e-Platform.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, O., Spears, R., & Reicher, S. (2007). Social identity performance: Extending the strategic side of SIDE. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koudenburg, N., Gordijn, E. H., & Postmes, T. (2014). “More than words”: Social validation in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(11), 1517–1528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214549945
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koudenburg, N., Kannegieter, A., Postmes, T., & Kashima, Y. (2021). The subtle spreading of sexist norms. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(8), 1467–1485. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220961838
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koudenburg, N., & Kashima, Y. (2021). A polarized discourse: Effects of opinion differentiation and structural differentiation on communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(7), 1068–1086. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211030816
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koudenburg, N., Postmes, T., & Gordijn, E. H. (2013). Resounding silences: Subtle norm regulation in everyday interactions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 76(3), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272513496794
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koudenburg, N., Postmes, T., & Gordijn, E. H. (2017). Beyond content of conversation: The role of conversational form in the emergence and regulation of social structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(1), 50–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315626022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koudenburg, N., Postmes, T., Gordijn, E., & Bastian, B. (2013). Conversational flow promotes solidarity. PLoS One, 8(11), e78363. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078363
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2015). The benign online disinhibition effect: Could situational factors induce self-disclosure and prosocial behaviors? Cyberpsychology, 9(2), https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2015-2-3
   Google Scholar
• Lea, M., O’Shea, T., Fung, P., & Spears, R. (1992). Flaming’ in computer-mediated communication: Observations, explanations, implications. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 89–112). Harvester Wheatsheaf.
   Google Scholar
• McCroskey, J. C. (1982). An introduction to rhetorical communication (4th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Montoya, R. M., & Insko, C. A. (2008). Toward a more complete understanding of the reciprocity of liking effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(3), 477–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.431
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. (2006). Hearing the other side, in theory and in practice in hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617201.002
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen, M., Bin, Y. S., & Campbell, A. (2012). Comparing online and offline self-disclosure: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0277
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver, M. (2005). The problem with affordance. E-Learning & Digital Media, 2(4), 402–413. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2005.2.4.402
   Google Scholar
• Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? side-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25(6), 689–715. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365098025006006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26(3), 341–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00761.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lee, A. T., & Novak, R. J. (2005). Individuality and social influence in groups: Inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 747–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.747
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, V., Cappella, J., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846002317246506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proferes, N., Jones, N., Gilbert, S., Fiesler, C., & Zimmer, M. (2021). Studying reddit: A systematic overview of disciplines, approaches, methods, and ethics. Social Media + Society, 7(2), 205630512110190. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211019004
   Google Scholar
• Rapp, A., Curti, L., & Boldi, A. (2021). The human side of human-chatbot interaction: A systematic literature review of ten years of research on text-based chatbots. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 151(3), 102630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102630
   Google Scholar
• Reis, H. T., Crasta, D., Rogge, R. D., Maniaci, M. R., & Carmichael, C. L. (2018). Perceived partner responsiveness scale (PPRS). In D. L. Worthington & G. D. Bodie (Eds.), The sourcebook of listening research: Methodology and measures (pp. 516–521). John Wiley & Sons Incl. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119102991.ch57
   Google Scholar
• Rice, R. E., Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Sivunen, A., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2017). Organizational media affordances: Operationalization and associations with media use. Journal of Communication, 67(1), 106–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roos, C. A., Koudenburg, N., & Postmes, T. (2020). Online social regulation: When everyday diplomatic skills of harmonious disagreement break down. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(6), 382–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmaa011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roos, C. A., Koudenburg, N., & Postmes, T. (2021). Dealing with disagreement: The depolarizing effects of everyday diplomatic skills face-to-face and online. New Media & Society, 24(9), 2153–2176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444821993042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roos, C. A., Postmes, T., & Koudenburg, N. (2020). The micro-dynamics of social regulation: Comparing the navigation of disagreement in text-based online and face-to-face discussions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(6), 902–917. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220935989
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roos, C. A., Postmes, T., & Koudenburg, N. (2022). Attempts to encourage diplomacy in online interactions: Three informative failures. Acta Psychologica, 228, 103661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103661
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roos, C. A., Postmes, T., & Koudenburg, N. (2023). Feeling heard: Operationalizing a key concept for social relations. PLoS One, 18(11), e0292865. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292865
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roos, C. A., Utz, S., Koudenburg, N., & Postmes, T. (2023). Diplomacy online: A case of mistaking broadcasting for dialogue. European Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 314–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rösner, L., & Krämer, N. C. (2016). Verbal venting in the social web: Effects of anonymity and group norms on aggressive language use in online comments. Social Media + Society, 2(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116664220
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runions, K. C., Shapka, J. D., Dooley, J., & Modecki, K. (2013). Cyber-aggression and victimization and social information processing: Integrating the medium and the message. Psychology of Violence, 3(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampietro, A. (2021). Emojis and the performance of humour in everyday electronically-mediated conversation: A corpus study of WhatsApp chats. Internet Pragmatics, 4(1), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00062.samp
   Google Scholar
• Schiffrin, H., Edelman, A., Falkenstern, M., & Stewart, C. (2010). The associations among computer-mediated communication, relationships, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(3), 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1990). Collective intentions and actions. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. E. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 401–415). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Settle, J. E. (2018). Frenemies: How social media polarizes America. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108560573
   Google Scholar
• Shepherd, M. M., & Martz, W. B. (2006). Media richness theory and the distance education environment. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 47(1), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2006.11645945
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shifrin, A., & Giguère, B. (2018). Using group identity and norms to explain prosocial behavior in anonymous online environments. Journal of Interpersonal Relations, Intergroup Relations, and Identity, 11, 90–104.
   Google Scholar
• Sillars, A., & Zorn, T. E. (2021). Hypernegative interpretation of negatively perceived email at work. Management Communication Quarterly, 35(2), 171–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318920979828
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solomon, D. H., Brinberg, M., Bodie, G., Jones, S., & Ram, N. (2023). A dynamic dyadic systems perspective on interpersonal conversation. Communication Methods and Measures, 17(4), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2023.2237404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, H., Tolochko, P., Eberl, J.-M., Eisele, O., Greussing, E., Heidenreich, T., Lind, F., Galyga, S., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2020). In validations we trust? The impact of imperfect human annotations as a gold standard on the quality of validation of automated content analysis. Political Communication, 37(4), 550–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1723752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strandberg, K., Himmelroos, S., & Grönlund, K. (2019). Do discussions in like-minded groups necessarily lead to more extreme opinions? Deliberative democracy and group polarization. International Political Science Review, 40(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512117692136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuart, J., & Scott, R. (2021). The measure of online disinhibition (MOD): Assessing perceptions of reductions in restraint in the online environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 114(2), 106534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106534
   Google Scholar
• Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sung, K. H., & Lee, M. J. (2015). Do online comments influence the public's attitudes toward an organization? Effects of online comments based on individuals’ prior attitudes. The Journal of Psychology, 149(3–4), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.879847
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swaab, R., Postmes, T., van Beest, I., & Spears, R. (2007). Shared cognition as a product of, and precursor to, shared identity in negotiations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294788
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, Y., & Hew, K. (2020). Does mobile instant messaging facilitate social presence in online communication? A two-stage study of higher education students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(15). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00188-0
   Google Scholar
• Tong, S. T., & Walther, J. B. (2015). The confirmation and disconfirmation of expectancies in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 42(2), 186–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Törnberg, P., & Bauch, C. T. (2018). Echo chambers and viral misinformation: Modeling fake news as complex contagion. PLoS One, 13(9), e0203958. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203958
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trenholm, S., & Jensen, A. (2008). Interpersonal communication. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Khalid, C. (2015). Snapchat elicits more jealousy than Facebook: A comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 18(3), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0479
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallacher, R. R., Nowak, A., & Kaufman, J. (1994). Intrinsic dynamics of social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.20
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Atteveldt, W., van der Velden, M. A. C. G., & Boukes, M. (2021). The validity of sentiment analysis: Comparing manual annotation, crowd-coding, dictionary approaches, and machine learning algorithms. Communication Methods and Measures, 15(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1869198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voggeser, B. J., Singh, R. K., & Göritz, A. S. (2018). Self-control in online discussions: Disinhibited online behavior as a failure to recognize social cues. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02372
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walther, J. B., & Whitty, M. T. (2021). Language, psychology, and new new media: The hyperpersonal model of mediated communication at twenty-five years. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20967703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1977). The measurement of trust and its relationship to self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 3(3), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00523.x
   Google Scholar
• Yarchi, M., Baden, C., & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2021). Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media. Political Communication, 38(1–2), 98–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zayts-Spence, O. A., Tse, V. W. S., & Fortune, Z. (2023). ‘Feel like going crazy’: Mental health discourses in an online support group for mothers during COVID-19. Discourse & Society, 34(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265221116302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar