Modeling in Online Communication

1. Modeling in Online Communication Lindsay Marsh and Eric Sharp Hanover College PSY 220: Research Design and Statistics Fall 2009

2. Introduction to Behavior Modeling • Bobo Doll study (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961) • This is prime example of behavior modeling.

3. ModelingThe Basics • Typical modeling experiment (Engler, 2006) - Bandura's theory • Modeling in everyday life – parents and teachers (Ashford, Bennett, & Davids, 2006)  • Smokers imitated the smoking behavior of confederates. They smoked many more cigarettes than they regularly would have and did so for a longer duration. (Harakeh, Nijmegen, Engels, Van Baaren, & Scholte, 2007)

4. Research QuestionRelating Modeling to On-line Communication • When chatting on-line, will participants alter their grammar if they are presented with conversation partners using different formality levels of grammar? • ‘Txt spk’ occurring outside realm of texting messages • SAT’s • Job Applications

5. Hypothesis • We expect that participants will model their grammar usage after the person with whom they are talking.  • Participants will use better grammar when presented with formal conversation responses. • Participants will use worse grammar when presented with informal conversation responses. • In social interactions, there is often a Chameleon Effect. (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999)

6. MethodParticipants • Participants were obtained through convenience sampling. • All were students of Hanover College. • 22 Total Participants • 59.1% (n=13) Females • 40.9% (n=9) Males • Ages 18 – 21 • Ethnicities Obtained = 21 Caucasian participants & 1 Multi-racial participant

7. MethodMaterials • Computer Lab • Yahoo Messenger (9.0.0.2162) • Yahoo accounts (Hanoverpsychstudent18271) • Conversation questions for participants to ask • Examples: • 1) “If you were a type of food, what type of food would you be and why?” • 2) “If you were being sent off to a deserted island, what three items would you take with you and why?”

8. MethodMaterials • Q: If you were a type of food, what type of food would you be and why? • Formal confederate scripts to each question • Formal response: “I would be chicken parmesan because I am hungry and that sounds delicious right now.” • Informal confederate scripts to each question • Informal response: “chicken parmesan, but mostly because im hungry and that sounds really good right now”

9. MethodProcedure • Participants signed an informed consent form. • Participants were given instructions: • Each P used online chat with 2 partners • Asked and answered questions on sheet • Switched chat partner and repeated process • Completed demographic questionnaire • Participants were debriefed and dismissed.

10. Expected Results • Will participants model their grammar usage in an online conversation to resemble the grammar usage that they are presented with? • Expected pattern: • Participants will model their grammar usage after the person with whom they are talking. • Participants will use better grammar when presented with formal conversation responses. • Participants will use worse grammar when presented with informal conversation responses.

11. ResultsFormulating Grammar Scores • Grammar rubric: • Required capitalization– 1 pt. • A subject and verb for each sentence – 1 pt. for each • An ending grammar mark for each sentence – 1 pt. • Grammar score = % of possible grammar points achieved • Each response scored blind by two judges • Correlation between scores above .99 in both formal and informal conditions • Combined to produce mean grammar score

12. ResultsMain Effect of Order 2 (formality: formal or informal) X 2 (order of condition: formal first or informal first) Within-Subjects ANOVA A significant main effect of order F(1, 20) = 6.92, p = .02

13. DiscussionSummary of Our Findings • Hypothesis: We expected that participants would model their grammar usage after the person with whom they were talking. • We did not find an immediate chameleon-like shift in formality when participants moved from each condition; therefore, our hypothesis was not supported. • Even though there was no chameleon-like shift in formality, there was some evidence of “first impression modeling.”

14. DiscussionLimitations • Small size of our sample with low statistical power • Limited sample – unrepresentative • Age-group • Children are more likely to imitate than adults, and imitation subsequently decreases with age (Grusec & Abramovitch, 1982). • Almost all-white sample • All students at a small liberal arts college • Modeling might vary depending on culture. • Collectivist culture vs. Individualist culture

15. DiscussionLimitations • Did not create natural conversation • Scripted conversation questions • Not as interactive • Was not crucial to read confederate responses • We may have overestimated the effect of modeling when we hypothesized that participants would change their grammar with each conversation. • The participants modeled their behavior initially and then retained the grammar of their first conversation throughout the remainder of the study. • The participants seemed to exhibit ‘first-impression modeling.’

16. DiscussionImplications of First Impression Modeling • Our participants retained initial modeling condition • To increase desired behavior, provide model BEFORE task • Real world applications: • SAT essays • Job applications • E-mails

17. DiscussionFuture Directions • Focus more on ‘first-impression modeling’ • Reasons for ‘first-impression modeling’ • Conform to social setting • Internalize behavior of setting • Maintain consistency of behavior • Set-up for future study • Change social setting – switch rooms • Observe if standard of behavior is reset

18. Questions? Modeling in Online Communication Lindsay Marsh and Eric Sharp Hanover College PSY 220: Research Design and Statistics Fall 2009