computer-mediated communication Flashcards
what is CMC and CMC research
- birthed when two computers were connected for the first time in 1969
- people started to communicate a lot through the computer, once connected
- research happened in the 70s-80s (electronic mails, teleconferencing, electronic bulletins)
cues-filtered-out perspective of CMC
- predominant perspective in early CMC research
- focus was on the technology itself
- not necessarily -ve, just felt like technology was lacking
social presence theory (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976)
“the degree of salience of the other person in the interaction”
text-based messages deprive CMC users of the sense that other warm bodies are jointly involved in the interaction to the extent we no longer feel that anyone is there, communication becomes more impersonal, individualistic and task-oriented
- communication media vary in its capacity to transmit cues (e.g. landline phone vs smartphone)
- less cues transmitted (low bandwidth) → less presence → less warmth and involvement perceived
media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984)
centres around the “richness” construct
- number of cues; immediacy of feedback; potential for natural language; potential for personalization (tailored specifically)
- e.g. face-to-face (“rich”), telephones, CMC (“lean”)
- face-to-face communication provides a rich mix of verbal and nonverbal cue systems that can convey highly nuanced emotions and even double meanings
- CMC has limited bandwidth which makes it lean – appropriate for transacting mundane business, but not for maintaining close relationships
- match between equivocality of message situation and richness of medium produces best outcomes
BUT for the case of “You’ve Got Mail!”
- the anonymity of their identities online allowed them to express themselves in an authentic way
limited social context cues
CMC makes it hard to perceive social cues (individuality, status, normative behavior)
- CMC users have no clue as to their relative status and norms for interaction
- e.g. “Can you detect charisma through CMC? “Affection?”
- hence people become self-focused, disinhibited, belligerent, etc. in CMC → increased flaming, a hostile language that zings its target and creates a toxic climate for relational growth on the Internet
change in perspective
from technology-centered approach to communication-process-centered approach
- more complicated use of communication technologies - - couldn’t keep up with tech developments
- CMC research moves into the interpersonal, organizational domain
social identity/deindividuation theory (SIDE)
when you are visually anonymous, you feel deindividualised → group identification/membership (focus on group cues instead of individual cues) → group dynamics
- only “us” and “them”, but not “me” and “you”, in CMC
- CMC may be good for task-oriented communication; but not for interpersonal relationship building
e. g. cyberbullying, in-group/outgroup mentality
critique: not relevant in this day and age but still happens
social information processing (SIP) theory
assumptions (Walther, 1992)
- nonverbal cues are missing in CMC but communicators are motivated to develop impressions and affinity (regardless of medium)
- when nonverbal cues are unavailable, communicators adapt; they focus on available cues in CMC
components of SIP
verbal cues: in (early) CMC, users need to create full impressions of others based on verbal communication – based solely on the linguistic content of online messages (e.g. choice of words: my dear friend, my breath catches in my chest…)
time: exchange of social information through text-only CMC is slower; thus CMC needs more time to fully developed; impressions are formed at a slower rate
hyperpersonal model (Walther, 1992)
sometimes CMC relationships surpasses face-to-face communication – CMC relationships that are more intimate than if partners were physically together
four elements that contribute to this effect
sender: selective self-presentation (e.g. tinder profile)
- people who meet online have an opportunity to make and sustain an overwhelmingly positive impression
receiver: over-attribution of similarity
- more often we make internal attribution about others
- attribution is a perceptual process whereby we observe what people do and then try to figure out what they’re really like
- lack of cues, yet still jump to conclusions (make internal attributions)
- over-attribute to information on profile → idealized image of other
channel: on your own time
- CMC can be asynchronous – parties can use online communication non simultaneously
- in CMC, one may plan, contemplate, edit one’s comments more mindfully and deliberatively than face-to-face → advantage when dealing with touchy issues, misunderstandings, or conflict between parties
- locking in a time for communication raises expectations for significance that may be hard to meet
feedback: self-fulfilling prophecy
- the tendency for a person’s expectations of others to evoke a response from them that confirms what he or she anticipated
- only creates hyperpersonal relationships if CMC parties first form highly favourable impressions of each other
- something like a positive loop
warranting theory (Walther & Parks, 2002)
the extent to which information is immune to manipulation by the source –> it’s a perception
- often some disconnection between self and self-presentations online
- people know, through some experience, how easily claims can be fabricated in CMC
- “warrant” (warranting cues)
= a cue that authenticates an online self-presentation = provides information about warranting value
various factors affect warranting value of information
- source of information; perceived motivations; valence of information
- warranting value moderates the degree of impact of the information (self-presentation) on impressions
valance of info:
low (pictures -> can edit), high (FaceTime)
