Although there is an increasing amount of research on support-seeking in cyberspace, very little is known about what features of online support-seeking can enhance the quality of received support. The present experiment examined how support-seekers’ use of cues to personal identity in their user profile can influence the level of person-centeredness and politeness in others’ responses to their support-seeking postings. Results showed that support-seekers whose user profile contained a portrait picture and a first name ID tended to receive higher person-centered and more polite support messages than support-seekers whose user profile did not contain those cues to personal identity.
AakhusM.RumseyE. (2010). Crafting supportive communication online: A communication design analysis of conflict in an online support group. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 65-84. doi:10.1080/00909880903483581
2.
AntheunisM. L.SchoutenA. P. (2011). The effects of other-generated and system-generated cues on adolescents’ perceived attractiveness on social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 391-406. doi:10.1111/j.10836101.2011.01545.x
3.
ApplegateJ. L. (1980). Adaptive communication in educational contexts: A study of teachers’ communicative strategies. Communication Education, 29, 158-170. doi:10.1080/03634528009378407
4.
BaneC. M. H.HaymakerC. M. B.ZinchukJ. (2005). Social support as a moderator of the big-fish-in-a little-pond effect in online self-help support groups. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 10, 239-261. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9861.2005.tb00015.x
5.
BarakA.BlochN. (2006). Factors related to perceived helpfulness in supporting highly distressed individuals through an online support chat. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9, 60-68. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.60
6.
BarakA.Boniel-NissimM.SulerJ. (2008). Fostering empowerment in online support groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1867-1883. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.004
7.
BergerC. R. (1988). Uncertainty and information exchange in developing relationships. In DuckS. (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 239-256). New York, NY: John Wiley.
8.
BioccaF.HarmsC.BurgoonJ. K. (2003). Towards a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12, 456-480. doi:10.1162/105474603322761270
9.
BordiaP. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of the experimental literature. The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 99-120.
10.
BrooksR. A. (1999). Cambrian intelligence: The early history of the new AI. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
11.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BurlesonB. R. (1982). The development of comforting communication skills in childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 53, 1578-1588. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep8588469
13.
BurlesonB. R. (1985). The production of comforting messages: Social-cognitive foundations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 253-273. doi:10.1177/0261927X8543006
14.
BurlesonB. R. (1987). Cognitive complexity. In McCroskeyJ. C.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 305-349). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
CassellJ.SullivanJ.PrevostS.ChurchillE. (Eds.). (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
16.
ChristophersonK. M. (2007). The positive and negative implications of anonymity in Internet social interactions: “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 3038-3056. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.09.001
17.
CoulsonN. S. (2005). Receiving social support online: An analysis of a computer-mediated support group for individuals living with irritable bowel syndrome. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8, 580-584. doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.580
18.
CummingsJ. N.SproullL.KieslerS. B. (2002). Beyond hearing: Where the real-world and online support meet [Special Issue: Groups and Internet]. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 78-88. doi:10.1037//1089-2699.6.1.78
19.
CyrD.HassaneinK.HeadM.IvanovA. (2007). The role of social presence in establishing loyalty in e-service environments. Interacting With Computers, 19, 43-56. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2006.07.010
20.
DonathJ. S. (1998). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In KollockP.SmithM. (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29-59). London, England: Routledge.
21.
FogelJ.AlbertS. M.SchabelF.DitkoffB. A.NeugutA. I. (2002). Internet use and social support in women with breast cancer. Health Psychology, 21, 398-404. doi:10.1037//0278-6133.21.4.398
22.
GoffmanE. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York, NY: Pantheon.
23.
GoldsmithD. J. (1994). The role of facework in supportive communication. In BurlesonB. R.AlbrechtT. L.SarasonI. G. (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community (pp. 29-49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
GriffithsK. M.CalearA. L.BanfieldM. (2009). Systematic review on Internet Support Groups (ISGs) and depression (1): Do ISGs reduce depressive symptoms?Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(3), e40. doi:10.2196/jmir.1270
25.
HassaneinK.HeadM. (2007). Manipulating perceived social presence through the web interface and its impact on attitude towards online shopping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 689-708. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.11.018
26.
HayesA. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford. Available from http://www.guilford.com/
27.
HeeterC. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1, 262-271.
28.
HendersonS.GildingM. (2004). “I’ve never clicked this much with anyone in my life”: Trust and hyperpersonal communication in online friendships. New Media & Society, 6, 487-506. doi:10.1177/146144804044331
29.
HerringS. C. (2002). Computer-mediated communication on the Internet. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 109-168. doi:10.1002/aris.1440360104
30.
HighA. C.DillardJ. P. (2012). A review and meta-analysis of person-centered messages and social support outcomes. Communication Studies, 63, 99-118. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.598208
31.
HiltzS. R.TuroffM. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via computer. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
32.
HindujaS.PatchinJ. W. (2008). Personal information of adolescents on the Internet: A quantitative content analysis of MySpace. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 125-146. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.05.004
33.
HoltgravesT.YangJ. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 246-256.
34.
HorganA.McCarthyG.SweeneyJ. (2013). An evaluation of an online peer support forum for university students with depressive symptoms. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 27, 84-89.
35.
HosmerL. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 379-403.
36.
HøybyeM. T.JohansenC.Tjørnhøj-ThomsenT. (2005). Online interaction: Effects of storytelling in an Internet breast cancer support group. Psycho-Oncology, 14, 211-220. doi:10.1002/pon.837
37.
HuguetP.GalvaingM. P.MonteilJ. M.DumasF. (1999). Social presence effects in the stroop task: Further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1011-1025.
38.
ImE.-O.CheeW. (2008). The use of Internet cancer support groups by ethnic minorities. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 19, 74-82. doi:10.1177/1043659607309140
39.
JonesS. M. (2004). Putting the person into person-centered and immediate emotional support: Emotional change and perceived helper competence as outcomes of comforting in helping situations. Communication Research, 31, 338-360. doi:10.1177/0093650204263436
40.
KahaiS. S.SosikJ. J.AvolioB. J. (2003). Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 499-524. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00049-3
41.
KanawattanachaiP.YooY. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 187-213.
42.
KieslerS.SiegelJ.McGuireT. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
43.
KreijnsK.KirschnerP. A.JochemsW.van BuurenH. (2004). Determining sociability, social space, and social presence in (a)synchronous collaborative groups. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 155-172. doi:10.1089/109493104323024429
44.
LeeE. J. (2006). When and how does depersonalization increase conformity to group norms in computer-mediated communication?Communication Research, 33, 423-447. doi:10.1177/0093650206293248
45.
LeeE. J.JangJ. W. (2013). Not so imaginary interpersonal contact with public figures on social network sites: How affiliative tendency moderates its effects. Communication Research, 40, 27-51. doi:10.1177/0093650211431579
46.
LeeK. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14, 27-50. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x
47.
LeeK. M.NassC. (2005). Social-psychological origins of feelings of presence: Creating social presence with machine-generated voices. Media Psychology, 7, 31-45.
48.
LiuH. (2008). Social network profiles as taste performances. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 252-275. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00395.x
MacGeorgeE. L. (2001). Support providers’ interaction goals: The influence of attributions and emotions. Communication Monographs, 68, 72-97. doi:10.1080/03637750128050
51.
MacGeorgeE. L.FengB.BurlesonB. (2011). Supportive communication. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.). Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 317-354). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
MacGeorgeE. L.FengB.ButlerG. L.BudarzS. K. (2004). Understanding advice in supportive interactions: Beyond the facework and message evaluation paradigm. Human Communication Research, 30, 42-70. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00724.x
53.
MeschG. S.BekerG. (2010). Are norms of disclosure of online and offline personal information associated with the disclosure of personal information online?Human Communication Research, 36, 570-592. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01389.x
54.
MorrowP. (2006). Telling about problems and giving advice in an Internet discussion forum: Some discourse features. Discourse Studies, 8, 531-548. doi:10.1177/1461445606061876
55.
RainsS. A.YoungV. (2009). A meta-analysis of research on formal computer-mediated support groups: Examining group characteristics and health outcomes. Human Communication Research, 35, 309-336. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01353.x
56.
RempelJ. K.HolmesJ. G.ZannaM. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.
57.
RiniC.Dunkel-SchetterC. (2010). The effectiveness of social support attempts in intimate relationships. In SullivanK. T.DavilaJ. (Eds.), Support processes in intimate relationships (pp. 26-67). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
58.
RutterD. R.StephensonG. M. (1979). The role of visual communication in social interaction. Current Anthropology, 20, 124-125.
59.
SarasonI. G.SarasonB. R. (2009). Social support: Mapping the construct. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 113-120. doi:10.1177/0265407509105526
60.
SassenbergK.PostmesT. (2002). Cognitive and strategic processes in small groups: Effects of anonymity of the self and anonymity of the group on social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 463-480.
61.
SchallertD. L.ChiangY. V.ParkY.JordanM. E.LeeH.ChengA. J.. . .SongK. (2009). Being polite while fulfilling different discourse functions in online classroom discussion. Computers & Education, 53, 713-725. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.009
62.
SchulzP. J.RubinelliS.ZuffereyM. C.HartungU. (2010). Coping with chronic lower back pain: Designing and testing the online tool ONESELF. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 625-645. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01509.x
63.
ShawB. R.HawkinsR.AroraN.McTavishF.PingreeS.GustafsonD. H. (2006). An exploratory study of predictors of participation in a computer support group for women with breast cancer. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 24, 18-27.
64.
ShortJ.WilliamsE.ChristieB. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York, NY: John Wiley.
65.
SkalskiP.TamboriniR. (2007). The role of social presence in interactive agent-based persuasion. Media Psychology, 10, 385-413. doi:10.1080/15213260701533102
66.
SparksS. M. (1992). Exploring electronic support groups. American Journal of Nursing, 92, 62-65.
67.
SproullL.KieslerS. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1513.
68.
SproullL.KieslerS. (1991) Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
69.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
70.
TanisM. (2007). Online social support groups. In JoinsonA.McKennaK.PostmesT.ReipsU. D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 139-154). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
71.
TanisM.PostmesT. (2005). A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perception, group membership and trusting behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 413-424. doi:10.1002/ejsp.256
72.
TanisM.PostmesT. (2007). Two faces of anonymity: Paradoxical effects of cues to identity in CMC. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 955-970. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.004
73.
TanisM.PostmesT. (2008). Cues to identity in online dyads: Effects of interpersonal versus intragroup perceptions on performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 96-111. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.12.2.96
74.
TaylorL. D. (2011). Avatars and emotional engagement in asynchronous online communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 207-212. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0083
75.
van Uden-KraanC.DrossaertC.TaalE.ShawB.SeydelE.van de LaarM. (2008). Empowering processes and outcomes of participation in online support groups for patients with breast cancer, arthritis, or fibromyalgia. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 405-417. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.044
76.
WaltherJ. B.BunzU. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55, 828-846. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03025.x
77.
WaltherJ. B.ParksM. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
78.
WenK. Y.McTavishF.KrepsG.WiseM.GustafsonD. (2011). From diagnosis to death: A case study of coping with breast cancer as seen through online discussion group messages. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 16, 331-361. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01542.x
79.
WheelessL. R.GrotzJ. (1977). The measurement of trust and its relationship to self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 3, 250-257.
80.
WinzelbergA. (1997). The analysis of an electronic support group for individuals with eating disorders. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 393-407.
81.
XieB. (2008). Multimodal computer-mediated communication and social support among older Chinese Internet users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 728-750. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00417.x
