The Six Dimensions of Online Disinhibition: II

In Part I of this exploration, I examined three factors of computer-mediated communications (widely known as CMC) that tend to suppress inhibitions that demand that we treat each other with respect. In this Part II, I examine three more. [Suler 2004][Kraut 1999] In describing each factor, I provide reasons why these factors might have significantly less ability to induce disinhibition in the context of workplace cyberspace than they once had in the context of public cyberspace.

Three more factors that support the online disinhibition effect

Below are descriptions of three factors that support the online disinhibition effect. In Part I, I discussed three other factors, commenting on how we can reduce the effectiveness of their support for disinhibition. But because the workplace cyberspace environment already attenuates the support offered by these next three factors, I instead emphasize the reasons for this attenuation, and how to enhance that attenuation.

Solipsistic introjection

The term solipsistic introjection is a bit science-y for everyday use, so bear with me while I create an everyday equivalent. Outside the context of philosophy, solipsism is self-centeredness or selfishness in the extreme. In psychology, introjection is the unconscious adoption by one person of the values or attitudes of another. Combining these ideas with the idea that the environment iduces the introjection, I arrive at this alternative to the term solipsistic introjection: "Reflexive internalization of the other." Whether we call it solipsistic introjection or reflexive internalization of the other, the idea is that over the course of a correspondence by text-based exchange of messages, we develop internal representations of our correspondents. Those representations might consist of pseudo-audio (the voice in my head) or pseudo-photographs (still images of what the other person looks like, in some imagined setting), or pseudo-video (imagined full-motion imagery).

When the exchange between two people is text-based (text messaging, email, and the like) we're free to create our own imagery and sound. But it's all imagined. And because it's all imagined we sometimes — and quite naturally — ease into imagined interactions. Unless these imagined interactions also include imagined inhibitions, the risk of disinhibition in the course of the text exchanges can be significant. This is an example of how reflexive internalization of the other can elevate the risk of disinhibition.

But notice Especially in a text-only online environment,
we're only partially visible to others.
Sensing this, we feel free to do or say
things we might not do or say in real life.how dependent this mechanism is on text-based exchange. Because the exchange is text-based, we internalize the other in imagination. In more modern computer-mediated communications, we do have photography, audio, and video. Presumably this constrains the imagination as we internalize the other, and that reduces the disinhibition effect.

This suggests a strategy for limiting the online disinhibition effect in workplace cyberspace. Ensure that photos and video are widely used to make people familiar with how their colleagues look, sound, and behave. For example, in organizations where videoconferences are common, encourage everyone who participates to participate with cameras turned on. Make people familiar with how their colleagues look, sound, and behave.

Dissociative imagination

In the context of public cyberspace, dissociative imagination denotes the sense that all of us — our cyberspace selves and our imagined representations of the people we meet in public cyberspace — all of us are living in a separate, imagined space. This imagined space is distinct from the real space in which we lead our real lives. It makes no demands of us. We're free to exit whenever we want to. And it is this separateness that amplifies the disinhibition effect. In this imagined space, if we transgress in some way, if we offend someone, or if we feel harmed ourselves, we can exit the imagined space and return to "real life." Or, possibly, sign in to another imagined space.

This picture of life in public cyberspace was applicable in 2004 to much of the computer-mediated world. In particular, it's a very good fit to public cyberspace communities known as forums. But it's far less relevant to workplace cyberspace. Compared to public cyberspace, workplace cyberspace is closer to real life in many respects. First, and most important, is the fact that it overlaps with "real life." For many of us, the people in workspace cyberspace are real. We know them. We've met in person. One of them is sitting in the cubicle next to mine. Another is my supervisor.

Second, we can't just sign off workplace cyberspace, because if we do, for most of us, the financial consequences are severe — no more paychecks.

Finally, with respect to the jobs we have, there is only one workplace cyberspace. If we transgress, or if we are harmed, there is no other workplace cyberspace to sign in to, unless we seek employment elsewhere. It is for this reason, for example, that targets of workplace cyberbullies feel trapped.

These factors, taken together, dramatically weaken the ability of dissociative imagination to support online disinhibition. And we can exploit this weakness to reduce the incidence of the online disinhibition effect by establishing communities of practice that draw from all parts of the organization. This strategy supports the internal propagation of a person's reputation. If we do what we can to unify all corners of workplace cyberspace into a single whole, we ensure that there is nowhere to run, and nowhere to hide.

Minimization of status and authority

Twenty years ago, in the text-heavy environment of email and web forums, as Suler writes, "While online a person's status in the face-to-face world may not be known to others and may not have as much impact." Even if someone were relatively well known and had high status, dissociative anonymity would attenuate the effect of fame and status if the individual chose (or was assigned) a cryptic handle. Even if famous individuals wanted to use relatively "transparent" handles, they might be relegated to something like wfoster897 if their own names were already in use. Status and authority were therefore often hidden from view.

This situation fit well with the ethos of the early Internet, which held that "we are all equals." And adherents to this belief could be forgiven for taking it a step further to gain comfort enough to speak their minds on a range of topics they would be much less likely to address in real life. That's how minimization of status and authority supported online disinhibition in public cyberspace, and even in early forms of workplace cyberspace.

The story is rather different now in modern forms of workplace cyberspace. Status and authority are usually evident. Senior managers, who benefit from this configuration, are well positioned to make certain that their own status and authority are clear. They can bring this about by policy, of course, but if that option isn't available to a senior manager, sending email messages to large groups with regularity is sufficient to make that manager's handle well known to everyone.

For these reasons minimization of status and authority no longer support online disinhibition as well as they once did. This suggests a strategy for limiting the online disinhibition effect in workplace cyberspace. Ensure that the actual names of all participants are well known and visible to all other participants.

Last words

The modern workplace is increasingly dependent on computer-mediated communications. And experience has shown that this configuration is vulnerable to the online disinhibition effect. But by understanding how the online disinhibition effect depends on text-based interactions, we can more easily devise policies and strategies that interfere with the processes that produce the online disinhibition effect. Those policies and strategies also have the effect of strengthening relationships between co-workers. And that's a good thing.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Politics:

If Only I Had Known: II

Ever had one of those forehead-slapping moments when someone explained something, or you suddenly realized something? They usually involve some idea or insight that would have saved you much pain, trouble, and heartache, if only you had known.

Let's Revise Our Rituals

Throughout the workday, we interact with each other on many levels. Some exchanges are so common and ritualized that we're no longer aware of them. If we revise these rituals slightly, we can add some zing to our lives.

Some Hazards of Skip-Level Interviews: I

Although skip-level interviews have their place, they can be dangerous, explosive, and harmful to the organization. What are the dangers?

That Was a Yes-or-No Question: I

In tense situations, one person might question another. As the respondent replies, the questioner interjects, "That was a yes-or-no question." The intent is to trap the respondent. How does this work, and how can the respondent escape the trap?

That Was a Yes-or-No Question: II

When, in the presence of others, someone asks you "a simple yes or no" question, beware. Chances are that you're confronting a trap. Here's Part II of a set of suggestions for dealing with the yes-or-no trap.

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info