Communication Theory - CMC

Social Information Processing Theory

Definition

Social Information Processing (SIP) theory is an interpersonal communication theory that suggests that online interpersonal relationship development might require more time to develop than traditional face-to-face relationships.

Explanation

• Joseph Walther (1992), claimed that CMC users could adapt and use computer effectively to develop close relationship.

• Until now there is still debate between the effectiveness to develop close relationship with CMC.

• He believes that relationships grow only to the extent that parties first gain information about each other and use that information to form interpersonal impressions of who they are.

The Developtment of Relationship through CMC

Two Features of CMC

Two features of CMC provide a rationale for SIP theory, which are :

· Verbal cues

CMC users can create fully formed impressions of others based solely on linguistic content of messages. When motivated to form impressions and develop relationships, we could use verbal / linguistic content of computer-mediated messages

· Extended time

The exchange of social information through CMC is much more slower than face to face communication. Though the exchange of social information is slower via CMCthan face-to-face, over time the relationships formed are not weaker or more fragile.

Verbal Cues

Verbal cues of affinity replace nonverbal cues.

· Walter claims that humans crave relationship just as much online as they do in face toface interactions. But, with the absence of nonverbal cues, which typically signal affinity, users must rely on text-only messages.

· He argues that verbal and nonverbal cues can be used interchangeably.

· Experimental support for a counter-intuitive idea.

- Walther and two of his former graduate students ran a comparative study to test how CMC users pursue their social goals and if affinity can be expressed through a digital medium.

- In their study, the participants discussed a moral dilemma with a stranger via either CMC or face-to-face. The stranger was in actuality a research confederate told to pursue a specific communication goal. Half the confederates were told to interact in a friendly manner and the remaining pairs were told to interact in an unfriendly manner.

- The mode of communication made no difference in the emotional tone perceived by the participants.

- Self-disclosure, praise, and explicit statements of affection successfully communicated warmth as well as indirect agreement, change of subject, and compliments offered while proposing a contrasting idea.

- In face-to-face interactions, participants relied on facial expression, eye contact, tone of voice, body position, and other nonverbal cues to communication affiliation.

Extended Time

Extended time: The crucial variable in CMC.

· Walther is convinced that the length of time that CMC users have to send messages is the key determinant of whether their message can achieve a comparable level of intimacy as face-to-face interactions.

· Messages spoken in person take at least four times as long to say via CMC. This differential may explain why CMC is perceived as impersonal and task-oriented.

· Since CMC express messages more slowly, Walther advises users to send messages more often.

· Anticipated future interaction and chronemic cues may also contribute to intimacy on the Internet.

- People will trade more relational messages if they think they may meet again and this anticipated future interaction motivates them to develop the relationship.

- Walther believes that chronemic cues, or nonverbal indicators of how people perceive, use, or respond to issues of time, is the only nonverbal cue not filtered out of CMC.

CMC vs Face to Face

· Face to face communication is like drinking a big gulp of water- the flood of verbal and non verbal information makes it possible to form a quick interpersonal impression. The process is quite fast so it is like drinking a big gulp of water.

· Communicate through computer, it is like drinking through straw- one sip at a time. The relationship could develop, but it would take much longer time. Because of the extended time.

CMC Relationship is Hyperpersonal

Hyperpersonal perspective: It doesn’t get any better than this.

· Walther uses the term hyperpersonal to label CMC relationships that are more intimate than romances or friendships would be if partners were physically together.

· He classifies four types of media effects that occur precisely because CMC users aren’t proximal.

- Sender: Selective self-presentation.

* Through selective self-presentation, people who meet online have an opportunity to make and sustain an overwhelmingly positive impression.

* As a relationship develops, they can edit the breadth and depth of their self-disclosure to conform to the cyber image they wish to project.

- Receiver: Overattribution of similarity.

* Attribution is a perceptual process where we observe people’s actions and try to figure out what they’re really like.

* In the absence of other cues, we are likely to overattribute the information we have and create an idealized image of the sender.

* Martin Lea and Russell Spears describe this identification as SIDE—social identity deindividuation.

- Channel: Communicating on your own time.

* Walther refers to CMC as an asynchronous channel of communication, meaning that parties can use it non simultaneously.

* A benefit is the ability to plan, contemplate, and edit one’s comments more than is possible in spontaneous, simultaneous talk.

- Feedback: Self-fulfilling prophecy.

* A self-fulfilling prophecy is the tendency for a person’s expectation of others to evoke a response from them that confirms what was anticipated.

* Self-fulfilling prophecy is triggered when the hyperpositive image is intentionally or inadvertently fed back to the other person, creating a CMC equivalent of the looking-glass self.