Cover not available

Article published In: Internet Pragmatics
Vol. 1:1 (2018) ► pp.88–112

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Tracking opinion convergence online

The effect of facial attractiveness

 | Leiden University Centre for Linguistics
 | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Published online: 28 May 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00005.ter
Abstract
We investigate whether facial attractiveness, as one source of positive/negative attitudes towards one’s conversational partner, affects the degree and type of opinion convergence online, even in the absence of physical co-presence. Our hypothesis is that when you interact with someone you find attractive, opinion convergence will occur even if you are not physically co-present with them. Additionally, we tracked different types of opinion convergence (one-sided or mutual) and how convergence is linguistically negotiated in these different circumstances. Our hypothesis was confirmed, to a point. Opinion convergence was most frequent among Attracted pairs; however, opinion convergence was greatest among Neutral pairs. Opinion convergence was qualitatively different in the 3 conditions. This research adds to previous studies which highlighted aspects of communication unique to online environments (anonymity, invisibility) to explain the heightened tendency for face-threatening behaviours to occur online, by showing how implicit biases (operationalized here as facial attractiveness) can be an additional factor influencing online behaviour.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Online rudeness and the invisible other
  • 2.Previous research on the effects of lack of physical co-presence
  • 3.Motivation for the present study and research questions
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Screening survey
    • 4.3Online chat
    • 4.4Post survey
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Degree, frequency and type of opinion convergence as a function of facial attractiveness
    • 5.2The linguistic negotiation of opinion convergence in different attractiveness conditions
  • 6.Limitations
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (25)
References
Bamman, David, Jacob Eisenstein, and Tyler Schnoebelen. 2014. “Gender identity and lexical variation in social media.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(2): 135–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brownstein, Michael. 2017. “Implicit bias.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by Edward N. Zalta. Available online at: [URL]
Cloutier, Jasmin, Todd F. Heatherton, Paul J. Whalen, and William M. Kelley. 2008. “Are attractive people rewarding? Sex differences in the neural substrates of facial attractiveness.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20(6): 941–951. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coetzee, Vinet, Jaco M. Greeff, Ian D. Stephen, and David I. Perrett. 2014. “Cross-cultural agreement in facial attractiveness preferences: The role of ethnicity and gender.” PLoS ONE 9(7): e99629. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jang, Hyunseok, Juyoung Song, and Ramhee Kim. 2014. “Does the offline bully-victimization influence cyberbullying behavior among youths? Application of general strain theory.” Computers in Human Behavior 311: 85–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kwan, Samantha, and Mary Nell Trautner. 2009. “Beauty work: Individual and institutional rewards, the reproduction of gender, and questions of agency.” Sociology Compass 3(1): 49–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langlois, Judith H., Lisa Kalakanis, Adam J. Rubenstein, Andrea Larson, Monica Hallam, and Monica Smoot. 2000. “Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review.” Psychological Bulletin 1261: 390–423. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lipinski-Harten, Maciek, and Romin Tafarodi. 2013. “Attitude moderation: A comparison of online chat and face-to-face conversation.” Computers in Human Behavior 291: 2490–2493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Wendy, and Derek Ruths. 2013. “What’s in a name? Using first names as features for gender inference in Twitter.” Analyzing Microtext: Papers from the 2013 AAAI Spring Symposium. [URL]
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, and Patricia Bou-Franch. 2011. “On-line polylogues and impoliteness: the case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 2578–2593. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ma, Qingguo, Da Qian, Linfeng Hu, and Lei Wang. 2017. “Hello handsome! Male’s facial attractiveness gives rise to female’s fairness bias in Ultimatum Game scenarios – An ERP study.” PLoS ONE 12(7): e0180459. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Misoch, Sabina. 2015. “Stranger on the internet: Online self-disclosure and the role of visual anonymity.” Computers in Human Behavior 481: 535–541. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moor, Peter, Ard Heuvelman, and Ria Verleur. 2010. “Flaming on YouTube.” Computers in Human Behavior 261: 1536–1546. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nithyanand, Rishab, Brian Schaffner, and Phillipa Gill. 2017. “Measuring offensive speech in online political discourse.” In USENIX Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet (FOCI). Vancouver, Canada. August 2017.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, Sora, Eun-Yeong Na, and Eun-mee Kim. 2014. “The relationship between online activities, netiquette and cyberbullying.” Children and Youth Services Review 421: 74–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reicher, Steve, Russell Spears, and Tom Postmes. 1995. “A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena.” European Review of Social Psychology 61: 161–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rustagi, Mayur, R. Rajendra Prasath, Sumit Goswami, Sudeshna Sarkar, Santanu Chaudhury, Sushmita Mitra, C. A. Murthy, P. S. Sastry, and Sankar K. Pal. 2009. “Learning age and gender of blogger from stylistic variation.” In Pattern Recognition and Machine Intelligence: Third International Conference, PReMI 2009, ed. by Santanu Chaudhury, Sushmita Mitra, C. A. Murthy, P. S. Sastry, and Sankar Kumar Pal, 205–212. New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Satz, Samantha, David L. Pogge, and Philip D. Harvey. 2017. “Cyberbullying and adolescent mental health: A study of adolescents on an acute inpatient psychiatric unit.” Presented at the American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting, May 23, 2017, San Diego, CA.
Scott, Craig R. 2004. “Benefits and drawbacks of anonymous online communication: Legal challenges and communicative recommendations.” In Free Speech Yearbook, Vol. 411, ed. by S. Drucker, 127–141. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stein, Joel. 2016. “Tyranny of the mob.” TIME 108(8): 27–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suler, John. 2004. “The online disinhibition effect.” Cyberpsychology and Behavior 7(3): 321–326. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truong, Dan. 2015. “The great equalizer 2.0”. Available online at: [URL]
Wilcox, Keit, and Andrew T. Stephen. 2013. “Are close friends the enemy? Online social networks, self-esteem, and self-control.” Journal of Consumer Research 401: 90–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue