Attitude moderation: A comparison of online chat and face-to-face conversation

Face-to-face conversation and online chat were compared on their tendency to moderate attitudes through exposure to an opposing perspective. As predicted on the basis of the greater self-focus and reduced presence of the other in text-based chat, strangers who chatted online for 20 min about a divisive social issue on which they held opposing attitudes showed less movement toward their partner's position as a result than did those who spoke face-to-face for the same length of time. The potential limitation of text-based online communication for bridging attitude divides is discussed. Online communication allows people to share ideas and hold each other's attention across the widest of physical and social divides. One feature that contributes to this democratic and cosmopolitan inclusivity is the absence of physical appearance as a hindrance to egalitarian dialogue in text-based exchanges (Joinson, 2001). This identifies online contact as a potential means of reducing social prejudice (Amichai-Hamburger & McKenna, 2006; Walther, 2009). Its success in this regard depends on the ability of the medium to promote attitude change through substantive discussion among dissimilar parties. Whether such attitude change occurs, however, appears to depend on the motivational context of the interaction. (2010), for example, found evidence for attitude convergence when one online interlocutor was motivated to establish an affinity with the other, but not when otherwise motivated. What remains unclear is whether the compulsions of the online medium on the whole tend to promote relatively more or less affinity-seeking in dialogical encounters with strangers than is the case in face-to-face conversation, specifically with respect to negotiating the challenges of initial difference or disagreement. From a uses-and-gratifications perspective, the primary function of informal, voluntary, and sustained online communication is the formation and maintenance of affinity groups. That said, there is good reason to believe that the medium is not as conducive as face-to-face communication to developing affinity among strangers. Despite the availability of digital voice and video interfaces, most online communicators opt for text-only platforms (Rainie, 2011; Shiu & Lenhart, 2004). This preference is telling. Face-to-face and voice encounters, real or virtual, are more taxing in that they require close attention to physical and auditory cues (Burgoon & Hoobler, 2002), and provide less expressive and editorial control. The greater reciprocal ''transparency'' (Gilovich, Savitsky, & Medvec, 1998) that is experienced face-to-face is associated with increased social accountability and risk. In contrast, purely text-based exchanges require less scrutiny of the other, …