Two experiments examined (a) if the gender of a randomly assigned character would affect individuals' inferences about an anonymous partner in computer-mediated communication (CMC) and (b) how the gender inference would moderate informational social influence. In Experiment 1, participants played a trivia game on a gender-biased topic (sports vs. fashion) with their ostensible partner via computer, represented by a gender-marked cartoon character. The results showed that both men and women, despite the arbitrary nature of character assignment, categorized the partner according to the character's gender. However, the effects of the gender inference on conformity were moderated by the topic and the participant's gender. First, when the topic matched the participant's gender, there was no character effect. Second, whereas women used “expertise heuristics”, exhibiting greater conformity to the male-charactered than female-charactered partner on a masculine topic, men displayed greater conformity to the male-charactered than female-charactered partner on a feminine topic, suggesting male resistance to female influence. Using a gender-neutral topic, Experiment 2 confirmed the explanations. Although the character triggered gender-stereotypical perception of the partner, when the gender was not diagnostic of expertise, the character's gender did not affect women's conformity behavior while men nonetheless showed greater conformity to the male-charactered partner.
Even though recent technological advancements support a wide array of communication channels beyond the exchange of simple texts between remotely located individuals, one of the most obvious differences between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and face-to-face (FtF) interaction is nonetheless the lack of social context cues in CMC, which range from non-verbal cues (e.g., facial expressions and gesture) to paraverbal cues (e.g., volume and pitch) to interpersonal cues (e.g., age, physical appearance) (Adrianson, 2001; Daft & Lengel, 1986; Rice, 1992). On the one hand, the absence of cues has been considered to lead to uninhibited behaviors, such as strong and inflammatory expressions, presumably by reducing the awareness of others' presence in the immediate communication environment (Kiesler & Sproull, 1992; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986). On the other hand, many researchers have regarded this “cueless” environment as a means to democratize communication by liberating individuals from power differentials based on various status cues (e.g., Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991; Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; McGuire, Kiesler, & Siegel, 1987). Not only does CMC create a low-risk environment for an opinion deviate (or a low-status individual) to publicly express his or her unpopular opinion (Dubrovsky et al., 1991; McGuire et al., 1987; McLeod, Baron, Marti, & Yoon, 1997; Siegel et al., 1986), they argue, it also allows ideas to be evaluated in terms of their merit and worth, not on the rank of the members themselves (Jessup, Connolly, & Tansik, 1990).
