Computer-Mediated Communication PDF

Acquisitions Editor: Natalie Mandziuk Acquisitions Assistant: Sylvia Landis Sales and Marketing Inquiries: [email protected] Credits and acknowledgments for material borrowed from other sources, and reproduced with permission, appear on the appropriate pages within the text. Published by Rowman...

Acquisitions Editor: Natalie Mandziuk Acquisitions Assistant: Sylvia Landis Sales and Marketing Inquiries: [email protected] Credits and acknowledgments for material borrowed from other sources, and reproduced with permission, appear on the appropriate pages within the text. Published by Rowman & Littlefield An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowman.com 6 Tinworth Street, London SE11 5AL, United Kingdom Copyright © 2021 by The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Carr, Caleb T., author. Title: Computer-mediated communication : a theoretical and practical introduction to online human communication / Caleb T. Carr, Illinois State University. Description: Lanham : Rowman & Littlefield, [2021] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020055402 (print) | LCCN 2020055403 (ebook) | ISBN 9781538131701 (cloth) | ISBN 9781538131718 (paperback) | ISBN 9781538131725 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Telematics. | Social media. | Communication. | Social interaction—Computer simulation. | Computer literacy. Classification: LCC TK5105.6 .C37 2021 (print) | LCC TK5105.6 (ebook) | DDC 302.23/1—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020055402 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020055403 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. CHAPTER 4 Interpersonal Communication Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication LEARNING OBJECTIVES After reading this chapter, you should be able to … • Define interpersonal communication. • Distinguish between digital natives and immigrants, both conceptually and based on how they approach CMC. • Contrast SIPT with the CFO perspective to explain how people can form interpersonal relationships via CMC. • Discuss how CMC tools can create both equal and inflated perceptions of communication partners. • Apply the concept of masspersonal communication to explain the communication that occurs on social media and how it may differ from interpersonal communication. M y childhood was quiet. Except for the occasional ring of the house’s phone, communication didn’t interrupt or punctuate my day. The postal mail arrived daily but silently. Friends coming over often called first. Years later, my days now often seem a cacophony of alerts: email chimes, text alerts, social media dings, and even the audible vibration of my phone when its ringer is off mark a frequent flow of communication from family, friends, and colleagues. It’s not always an interruption; it is often a chance to catch up with friends worldwide. My email and social media help me stay connected with my friend in Taipei, my family in New Jersey, and my dear colleagues in Bielefeld (if such a place actually exists). Very counter to early assumptions of CMC as unable to facilitate interpersonal relationships, we now experience daily the ability of digital technologies to facilitate communication between relational partners. How do you feel when you get a Snap from your friend? How about when your phone chirps, letting you know you got a text from home? What about when you see your name on the school website for making the dean’s list? Likely, your experiences—and those of most of your classmates—made you a little resistant to the idea of impersonal communication online discussed in the previous chapter. In your daily online interaction with family, friends, and others, you likely interact with many people beyond impersonal communication, exchanging socioemotional information and helping establish, maintain, or end relationships. One reason for this experience (and perhaps resistance to impersonal CMC) is that you are likely a digital native. 51 52 CHAPTER 4 • Interpersonal Communication Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication Digital natives are those individuals who have grown up with technology—video games, personal computers, and the Internet have always been part of their lives (Figure 4.1). Various people will claim different cutoff ages to be considered a digital native, but most seem to circle being born around or after the year 1992 as the cutoff point for categorizing someone as a digital native. As a digital native, you likely have turned your entire life to increasingly specialized websites to access FIGURE 4.1 Because they grew up alongside CMC channels, digital information, you feel confident natives are familiar with and comfortable using digital communication in your skills to use technology tools. Messages, video chats, and social media are all natural parts of the way digital natives conduct their relationships, often not even aware to achieve specific goals, and of the norms and behaviors implicit in their media use. you are familiar with techniwundervisuals cal terms (even more so after Chapters 1 and 2) and jargon. Alternately, digital immigrants are those who may be adopting and integrating technology into their daily habits later in life. Your parents and grandparents likely did not have ubiquitous access to interactive digital technologies growing up, and as a result do not learn new media and tools as quickly as you do, do not always understand how or why a technology works, and may not even feel the need to adopt a new technology. It took about two years to convince my grandmother of the advantages of email over postal mail: she just didn’t see what was wrong with spending money to send a letter to arrive two weeks later. Prensky (2001, 2009) has worked to identify differences in attitudes and use of technology between digital natives and immigrants. Among the differences, digital natives typically speak a different language (or at least have a significantly different vocabulary including technology terms, lol-speak, and text pidgin), are used to processing information much faster and from multiple sources, and are more comfortable communicating online than digital immigrants because online communication has always been part of their lives. Understanding the difference between digital natives and digital immigrants helps explain the shift in CMC FIGURE 4.2 We now recognize that many CMC tools can facilitate interpersonal communication. From text-based emails and messages to research that led to theories rich audiovisual conferences, we increasingly use digital technologies to of interpersonal communicomplement and replace offline communication. cation. The earliest Internet FilippoBacci Electronic Propinquity researchers were, by nature, digital immigrants. As the Internet grew, researchers in the late 1970s could only learn about it and access it as they entered college or job fields. By the early 1990s, personal computers had emerged and started diffusing into the household. As a result, scholars began to study CMC from the mindset of a digital native. Rather than approaching the computer as a new and clandestine tool, in the early 1990s, scholars began approaching CMC based on the way they used it in their labs and personal lives: interpersonally. Interpersonal communication includes exchanges between at least two interactants that allow the participants to form a meaningful understanding and/or relationship based on their individual selves, traits, and personalities (Bochner, 1989). Typically, we consider interpersonal communication socioemotionally rich as it allows perceptions of relational closeness, understanding, and empathy. Interpersonal communication has one of the longest traditions of study within the field of communication (Knapp & Daly, 2011). Many of the relationships we value and that help us in our daily lives are interpersonal relationships. We maintain close relationships with friends, family, and coworkers through interpersonal communication. As we learn about them and they learn about us, our relationships become not only broader (in that we know more about each other) but also deeper as we become more integrated into each other’s lives. Indeed, it is our interpersonal ties that provide us social support, guidance, and a sense of belonging. Scholars (as well as most individuals who regularly use the Internet) have long recognized the ability of CMC to allow us to feel closer. Interpersonal communication has also been valued as a building block of education, community, political engagement, and relational development. Though early theories denied CMC as a viable alternative to FtF communication for interpersonal communication, by the mid-1990s, scholars had begun to predict how and when online communication could be just as socioemotionally rich and interpersonal as FtF interaction. However, note that the idea that technology could facilitate interpersonal communication actually developed soon after the CFO paradigm. Like yet another reboot of the Batman movie franchise, the resurgence of the theory of electronic propinquity was inevitable; and as it lay in wait, the theory helped guide scholars to a better understanding of interpersonal communication online. Electronic Propinquity How do you feel when you talk with a parent? How about when you talk to a stranger? Likely the answers to those questions are different, even if the discussion is the same. The reason they are different is because you have a different level of propinquity with each of them. Propinquity is the perception of relational or psychological closeness felt toward another person. This psychological closeness can take many forms and has been measured using the variables of interpersonal attraction, homophily, and social attraction (Burgoon et al., 2002; Korzenny, 1978; Walther & Bazarova, 2008); but all these variables consider the same thing: how psychologically close we feel to another person. Initially, propinquity was addressed offline using analog channels like telephones and closed-circuit audiovisual conferences. Studies have long showed that physical closeness—proximity—is related with interpersonal communication. We tend to spend more time geographically near family and friends than we do less close acquaintances, and we more often play softball and go out for coffee with good friends than with mere classmates. Even professionally, we tend to like and work with those we see more often (Allport, 1979). Although this makes sense to us when we are colocated—existing in the same space—with someone, when we 53 54 CHAPTER 4 • Interpersonal Communication Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication are together geographically, it may be more difficult to think about propinquity online. Interestingly, the notion that people could feel emotionally close to others online was put forward about the same time as the CFO perspectives were being articulated. However, due to some unfortunate early experiments and slower developments in technological affordances, the idea of online propinquity was shelved for almost three decades (Walther, 2011). Fortunately, the idea of propinquity has recently seen a resurgence and empirical support. In 1978, psychologist Philepe Korzenny, then at Michigan State University, forwarded the idea of electronic propinquity. Electronic media, claimed Korzenny, could allow communicators to experience a sense of closeness just like an FtF exchange. In 1978, “electronic media” were much more limited than they are now. Recall from Chapter 2 the state of the Internet in the late 1970s: few beyond the military and a very few academics working on computer systems had access to tools such as email and file transfers, limiting the available “electronic media” to television, radio, telephones, and written letters. However, even in this limited media environment, Korzenny still put forward his notion that mediated interactions could allow individuals to feel close to each other. Importantly, the theory of electronic propinquity (TEP) was put forward relying on factors that, although precise, were not medium-specific and were therefore able to guide research even as technologies such as the WWW, Instagram, and Zoom appeared—some as much as forty years later. Theory of Electronic Propinquity The theory of electronic propinquity predicts the psychological perception of closeness with a communication partner is influenced by several specific factors: channel bandwidth, mutual directionality, task complexity, communication skills, communication rules, and available media choices (see Figure 4.3). Some of these factors are guided primarily by the features and affordances of the medium itself, including bandwidth and mutual directionality. Although it has another, more specific meaning when discussing Internet infrastructure, in TEP bandwidth refers to a channel’s capacity to carry multiple cues, similar to MRT’s notion of a “rich” channel. A Skype audiovisual conference—a channel with high bandwidth—allows you to verbally talk with a communicative partner who can also see your nonverbal messages (including facial expressions) and any text you type to supplement these channels. Alternately, an instant messenger chat program may have less bandwidth when it facilitates only text communication. The more bandwidth a channel has, the greater its ability to create a sense of psychological closeness—electronic propinquity—because we can use that greater number of channels to convey meaning and socioemotional content. Again, bandwidth in TEP FIGURE 4.3 Korzenny’s (1978) theory of electronic propinquity (TEP) does not mean the rate of makes predictions about the perceived closeness interactants feel when data transfer enabled by an their communication is mediated, based on the characteristics of the Internet connection by the medium and their use of it. Electronic Propinquity medium. Even a phone call offers a moderate amount of bandwidth through vocal and temporal cues, as conceptualized in TEP. Next, mutual directionality addresses the quickness of feedback facilitated by the channel. Mutual directionality is positively associated with electronic propinquity, so that channels allowing quicker interactions among communicators should enable higher levels of electronic propinquity. Radio and Periscope streams, media that limit or make feedback difficult, facilitate lower propinquity because communicators experience limited abilities to react to each other. Alternately, instant messenger, a medium facilitating rapid and mutually directed messages, facilitates high propinquity by enabling more real-time reactions and discussions among participants. Other factors of electronic propinquity are influenced by the needs and experiences of the individual users and their interactions, including task complexity, communication, skills, and communication rules. Propinquity may be decreased as users attempt to engage in greater task complexity, which refers to how complicated, intricate, or involved the focus of the interaction is. As users attempt to complete a more complex or difficult task, they will spend more time processing procedural and task communication than they do processing socioemotional cues, and consequently they experience lower levels of propinquity. For example, while on a videoconference to set out the new quarter’s budget by the end of the day, members on the call will likely be focused on spreadsheets and previous earnings and budgets, and as such not have much time to socialize (and thereby increase propinquity). In a less complex task, like picking the date for the next budget review, members may have more time to communicate about relational or off-task topics, thereby increasing propinquity. Additionally, individuals with greater communication skills can increase the propinquity of a medium. Those able to make more sense of cues, particularly nonverbal cues, in the messages the medium facilitates will be more able to use the available bandwidth to both encode and make sense of messages, thereby feeling closer to their communication partner. For example, while your grandmother may not like (or even be able) to use Instagram because she just doesn’t understand it and doesn’t feel like she’s talking to a person, you likely are able to meaningfully talk with friends via Insta as you’ve developed your own set of cues to send and interpret, like emoticons and ingroup language. The final two factors in TEP—communication rules and available media— deal with some of the structural and technical options communicators face. Communication rules refers to the technological and social guidelines that govern interactions. As the number of communication rules increases, communicators are constrained by these rules as they interact, and therefore they may feel less close because of a more structured or formal interaction. For example, the social norms of Facebook dictate with whom you can interact (those who you already know and will accept a Friend request) while the system of the Bumble dating app instructs that only females can initiate communication. In media and online environments with fewer rules, users who understand the communication rules can send a wider array of messages that allow for greater diversity in the messages sent and received. Finally, propinquity decreases as there are more available media choices. This may sound contradictory at first: Shouldn’t more options mean you can pick the best medium for communication? Korzenny proposed that as users have fewer media at their disposal available for communication, they are forced to make the best of the limited tools or media at their disposal for interpersonal communication. In practice, we see this happen quite often. When you have a seemingly unlimited number of media at your disposal to communicate with your family, you don’t spend as much 55 56 CHAPTER 4 • Interpersonal Communication Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication FIGURE 4.4 One group that often experiences electronic propinquity and its tenets is deployed servicemembers. With their available channels limited, even limited-bandwidth messages like letters or texts from home are carefully read and reread, as both the deployed and family on the homefront seek to maintain emotional closeness through mediated communication. How do the other tenets of electronic propinquity theory help (or hinder) a sense of psychological closeness with geographically distant relational partners? Mark Edward Atkinson/Tracey Lee time carefully constructing your messages and interpreting your family’s response. However, when you are only allowed to use postal mail to communicate with them, you begin to more carefully construct and interpret messages, resulting in an increased sense of propinquity. We see some evidence of this in instances where family members are communicating with military servicemembers deployed abroad (Figure 4.4): when the opportunities and channels for interaction are limited, communicators spend more time considering and structuring their messages to maximize their communicative and relational potential (Merolla, 2010). Tests of Electronic Propinquity After proposing TEP in 1978, Korzenny went on to test the theory (Korzenny & Bauer, 1981) with disappointing results: none of the proposed relationships were supported. Why this initial test of TEP failed is not quite clear. It could have been because of the relatively limited media available at the time (the 1978 manuscript only got as far as closed-circuit camera feeds), or (more likely) due to the public’s limited interaction with and use of electronic interpersonal media. But for whatever reason, TEP was generally ignored by media and CMC researchers and lay dormant for thirty years. It wasn’t until Walther and Bazarova revisited TEP in 2008 that it received renewed attention. Their test of TEP used experimental groups and controlled for media alternatives to communication, and they found strong support for the propositions of TEP. Specifically, results supported the effect of bandwidth and media choice on electronic propinquity. When small groups used multiple modes of mediated interaction (i.e., text, audio, and video channels) to communicate, the increase in available bandwidth was related to stronger perception of social closeness with fellow group members, and groups asked to undertake difficult, complex tasks reported lower levels of propinquity afterward. Walther and Bazarova’s (2008) support of TEP also shed light on previous findings regarding CMC that challenged the dominant early paradigm of CMC as a lean medium. Since 1992, research had begun to assert that CMC can be used to facilitate rich, interpersonal communicative exchanges. The ultimate support of TEP helped explain why online communication, even without the nonverbal cues of FtF communication, allowed individuals to feel relationally and psychologically close to those with whom they communicated online. Constraints within computer-mediated channels forced users to make better use of the more limited channels they had available via CMC tools to feel psychologically close to those with whom they communicated. Social Information Processing Theory 57 Research in Brief When the sun go down, ain’t nobody else around. That’s when I need you baby. Long-distance relationships are a challenge. Whether the couple are deployed in the military, away at school, or simply live in different states or nations, CMC increasingly helps couples span time and distance, communicating to maintain their relationship. But with all the CMC channels now available, what’s really needed to make us feel psychologically close with our loved ones? Kaye and colleagues (2005) sought to answer this question through the lens of the theory of electronic propinquity (TEP) (Korzenny, 1978). Interestingly, one of propinquity’s tenets is that lower-bandwidth channels should increase perceptions of psychological closeness: as individuals are able to convey less information, the information they can convey takes on greater meaning. To test this proposition, Kaye and colleagues (2005) built an app and distributed it to five couples in long-distance relationships. The app was quite simple: a little transparent circle was placed on their Windows taskbar (near the time and calendar). When one partner clicked the circle, their partner’s corresponding circle glowed red and then faded over a 12-hour period. That’s it. That’s really all there was to it. Clicking the button only conveyed one bit of information—that the button had been clicked. And yet, comparing couples’ self-reported closeness after a one-week period of using this one-bit cue revealed couples felt closer and more intimate, from nothing more than that little glowing dot. So what happened? Well, consistent with TEP (and perhaps SIPT [Walther, 1992]), couples made the most out of the limited information they had and learned to use that simple cue. Participants reported that it provided just a little extra way of communicating, so that coming back to one’s computer to see the button glowing was interpreted as the other person thinking of them. In fact, although the button glowed for half a day, couples used their button an average of 35 times each day. Unlike a phone call or text that requires a response or some form of processing, the one-bit dot simply acknowledged the romantic partner and relationship, and partners used it as a means of remaining close even when apart. What, then, does it take to feel close to someone even when separated by oceans? Perhaps a simple click is all that’s needed to remind them you’re thinking of them. Reference Kaye, J. J., Levitt, M. K., Nevins, J., Golden, J., & Schmidt, V. (2005, April 2–7). Communicating intimacy one bit at a time [Paper presentation]. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’05), Portland, OR. Social Information Processing Theory When you talk with people online, you often likely do so because it makes you feel close to them. You email a former professor who wrote a letter of recommendation to let her know you got that summer internship, you post “Happy Birthday” on a friend’s Facebook wall to let him know you care, and you Skype your parent because you felt a little homesick this weekend. You probably know inherently (You! The digital native!) that CMC allows rich communication that facilitates electronic propinquity. However, you may not exactly know why CMC allows you to feel close to someone you email, Facebook, or video chat, how it allows you to form and maintain relationships, and how what was once considered a lean set of media can now allow us to exchange emotions, feelings, and other socioemotionally rich messages. Social information processing theory was one of the first theories to explain the mechanisms and processes that allow CMC to facilitate interpersonal exchanges and relationships. Early support of this central CMC theory helped extend scholarship exploring the processes and effects of CMC beyond the CFO paradigm. Joseph B. Walther’s (1992) social information processing theory (SIPT) of communication has been widely used to predict and explain how individuals can form rich, socioemotional, interpersonal relationships via CMC. Indeed, SIPT was formed under the premise that media users are motivated to form rich, deep impressions of 58 CHAPTER 4 • Interpersonal Communication Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication each other, regardless of medium. After all, why would people try to communicate with others online if such communications didn’t foster the perceptions of propinquity that drives much of human interaction? From the CFO perspective, people were wasting time on the Internet talking with others impersonally and without the benefit of relational development, which by 1992, had started to seem as naïve as it does to digital natives now. The articulation of SIPT explained how and why individuals may be using CMC interpersonally, even if they weren’t aware of doing so. Time in SIP At its core, SIPT predicts that, given enough time, users adapt the limited cues available via CMC and ultimately use the available cues to form rich, interpersonal connections. The primary mechanism of SIPT is time: Given enough time, users can adapt their verbal communication online to accommodate for the loss in nonverbal cues and to facilitate perceptions of electronic propinquity. Importantly here, “time” does not just mean the passage of minutes or days, but rather should be interpreted to mean the sequential exchange of interactive messages. Just because you email someone now and then again in a year does not mean you have built a relationship. Instead, SIPT requires you and your communication partner to exchange multiple messages that reply to each other and advance the communication between you. Time—and the number of exchanges and the amount of information exchanged—is a critical component of SIPT because online communication takes longer than other forms of communication. In fact, it takes more time to communicate online than it does face-to-face simply because typing and reading is about three times slower than talking and listening (Burgoon & Hale, 1987; Tidwell & Walther, 2002). Not only does it take more time to compose and reply to messages online than it does face-to-face, it may take more time to learn how to encode and decode simple textbased messages, and consequently more time spent interacting with someone gives you both more time to learn, create, and adapt to the types of cues and messages the CMC channel allows you to send. Adapting Cues in SIP Face-to-face, we know how to use cues to tell friends we are happy: we smile, raise the pitch of our voice, and have a spring in our step. But how do we communicate happiness without facial expressions? Recalling the CFO paradigm, one reason CMC was originally predicted to not facilitate interpersonal communication was because it inherently lacked the cues necessary to provide a sense of closeness: appearance, proximity, and facial gestures. Social information processing theory does not try to argue these cues are directly facilitated by online media. Instead, SIPT points out that, given enough time, users will find or develop new ways to transmit, receive, and make sense of new verbal cues that replace missing nonverbal cues. If we cannot smile at a friend online, how do we tell them we are happy, beyond simply typing “I’m happy”? Language One way we may communicate our happiness is through subtly altering our language and word choice. We may use more positive expression words, even when not describing our current emotional state. Texting your friend one night, you comment that the coffee this afternoon was “great,” your morning class was “excellent,” and the evening class was “better than usual.” Using this many positives may not be typical in your daily exchanges, and having received so many to establish a norm your friend replies that you seem happy today. Even though you did not directly state this, your friend Social Information Processing Theory has learned your linguistic habits and can interpret cues even from a limited amount of text. Walther, Loh, and Granka (2005) experimentally validated these linguistic adaptations to our conversational partners by having lab assistants assigned to a dyad increase or decrease their friendliness in either an online or FtF session. Consistent with SIPT, verbal behaviors counted for a significant amount of variance in participants’ perceptions of the confederates’ friendliness, but more so in the online rather than condition. Restated, the specific words used online counted for more online when they were the only cues available rather than offline where alternate cues could also be used. 59 FIGURE 4.5 Common emoticons created through alphanumeric characters and their emoji equivalents. These emoticons can be used to send nonverbal cues through text, letting users communicate emotions beyond the body of their message’s text. Emoticons Besides altering the words we use, we may also use text characters to create images to replace our missing nonverbal cues in CMC. Sometimes, we may simply type out a nonverbal gesture or expression, such as when we type “lol” or “::grin::” into an email to indicate the humor has us laughing out loud. Another option is to use alphanumeric characters that have become commonly accepted as nonverbal expressions. Commonly called emoticons, these icons are configurations of characters meant to represent facial expressions or physical action (see Figure 4.5). Configurations of letters, numbers, and punctuations have evolved and been integrated into the online lexicons of communicators to compensate for not being able to physically express a smile online. Indeed, these icons now commonly appear online and have even been codified for digital communication (typing “:)” into new versions of Microsoft Word will automatically replace the two characters with a ). However, what effect do emoticons actually have on how we interpret a message? While emoticons have certainly pervaded the lexicon of digital natives, the use of emoticons is often a means of adapting to channels where nonverbal cues are limited. Though it’s better than nothing, it is notable that emoticons may not have the same effect as the nonverbal cue they textually represent. Walther and D’Addario (2001) studied the relationship between verbal messages and emoticons online. The verbal content (i.e., the words used to communicate) in an interaction affected the way the message was interpreted more than the emoticon that followed. But interestingly, not all emoticons seem to have the same communicative weight. Walther and D’Addario found that although negative emoticons (e.g., “:(”) negatively impacted the positivity of a message, positive emoticons (e.g., “:)”) did not have an equal effect to make the message seem more positive to receivers. Although posting a smiley emoticon after a message may make you feel better about the 60 CHAPTER 4 • Interpersonal Communication Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication message’s contents, it is more important to make sure the contents carefully encode your intention because the smiley icon does not make the message’s meaning as positive to the receiver as it does to you. A smile to you as a means of happiness may be taken as an expression of sarcasm to others. Beyond Text Social information processing theory was initially developed and posited only considering text-based CMC. In 1992, there was no Zoom, YouTube, or Instagram as means of communication using multimedia and multiple cues. However, SIPT has proven relatively robust even as CMC moves beyond text-only forms of communication, and remains useful as we are increasingly able to communicate via CMC tools that include audiovisual cues. Now, individuals may learn about each other online through photographic representations, profile photos and other imagery common in websites, social media, online newspapers, and other CMC channels. Pictures of an interaction partner can instill a feeling of propinquity, even if the picture is shown before interacting with the person (Tanis & Postmes, 2003). That a picture can increase feelings of closeness explains why so many services for online communication—including Instagram, Twitter, Zoom, and discussion boards—ask users to upload a profile photo. Having a picture of the individual with whom you are interacting can increase perceived electronic propinquity before you actually directly communicate. Even in high-bandwidth channels such as Zoom, users do not have access to all forms of nonverbal communication (e.g., haptics and proxemics), and so they can read into the cues available (like a picture) to compensate for missing cues. Consequently, though SIPT may have been put forth to deal with text-based CMC, critical tests of the theory have found its basic tenets apply even in richer media that afford users more than just text-based channels for interaction (e.g., Sprecher, 2014; Tates et al., 2017). Equaling Face-to-Face Closeness Online Ultimately, SIPT predicts that, given enough time and interactions, users can develop and maintain relationships online that are on par with offline relationships. Though the Internet had not quite diffused to the general population when it was put forth, Walther’s SIPT represented a change in almost 20 years of theorizing by predicting that online communication could facilitate interpersonal exchanges equal to the gold standard of offline exchanges. However, some SIPT findings soon began to suggest perceptions actually exceeded the perceptions hypothesized. These findings, as well as the increasing prevalence of CMC tools, led Walther to put forth another model that went a step further and predicted CMC could actually surpass FtF perceptions. The Hyperpersonal Model If you have ever had a pen pal, a summer camp romance, or a long-distance relationship, you likely have already experienced a hyperpersonal relationship without even knowing it, or at least without the words to explain your experience. The hyperpersonal model of communication (Walther, 1996) was put forward to explain how individuals may use limited-cues channels to develop relationships that may go beyond what is possible face-to-face. The hyperpersonal model is particularly helpful to understand how people communicate and relate when interactions occur entirely online. In stark contrast to the CFO paradigm, the hyperpersonal model of communication argues individuals can actually form enhanced impressions when their communication is computer-mediated. The Hyperpersonal Model One of the more heavily utilized models of CMC, Walther’s hyperpersonal model is also one of the most complex, even though it closely parallels the familiar transactional model of communication. Before getting into the model, it may be helpful to begin by defining and discussing the model’s outcome. A hyperpersonal relationship is one in which the sender is idealized, so that impressions of the individual are stronger and more salient than similar impressions that may be developed face-to-face, and are thus hyperpersonal (rather than interpersonal) because they surpass the levels of perceptions and attributions typically occurring in an interpersonal relationship. These enhanced impressions and effects are the result of four elements of the hyperpersonal model of communication. The Hyperpersonal Model The hyperpersonal model explains how CMC may facilitate interpersonal impressions “that exceed the desirability and intimacy that occur in parallel offline interactions” (Walther, 2011, 460). When individuals communicate through mediated channels, they have opportunities not afforded in FtF interactions that can be used to develop enhanced perceptions. Note that the model, while developed specifically for CMC, should still hold when not interacting specifically online (Carr, 2020a), as the elements discussed in what follows also manifest in other forms of mediated interactions, including written communication. A shift happens when we are able to selectively present ourselves and the traditional transactional model of communication is modified. While the elements of the transactional model remain the same, individuals interacting through some intermediary channel are able to take advantage of features of the medium and the changes in how messages are encoded and decoded that result in idealized perceptions of each other (see Figure 4.4). These idealized perceptions can occur when using online tools like dating websites (Hancock & Toma, 2009) or blogs (Walther et al., 2011), but they should also occur when interacting with a pen pal via written, postal mail (Shulman, Seiffge-Krenke, & Dimitrovsky, 1994). The hyperpersonal model therefore becomes an effective explanatory tool for idealized impressions in online dating, summer camp romances, and long-distance relationships. The hyperpersonal model predicts individuals derive enhanced, idealized impressions of others when interacting via mediated communication due to four factors: senders’ selective self-presentation, receivers’ idealization, the disentrainFIGURE 4.6 The hyperpersonal model of communication builds on ment of mediated channels, the transactional model to account for idealized self-presentation and and a feedback loop reinforc- confirmatory feedback to result in idealized perceptions via mediated channels. ing idealiziation. Sender’s Selective Self-Presentation When you present yourself in a mediated context, you have an advantage you do not have offline: you get to pick how you are represented, unlike in FtF interactions where you can’t always choose what messages you send off to make sure they are the “you” you are trying to represent. Remember that yearbook photo of you with the goofy smile? When you build your Facebook profile, you pick the information that makes up who you are: the pictures, the interests, and the status updates. And because most of us want to put our 61 62 CHAPTER 4 • Interpersonal Communication Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication best selves forward, we pick the information that presents the ideal, best version of ourselves (Schouten et al., 2014). We populate our Facebook profile with pictures in which we look good (Who cares if our friend has a goofy expression?!) and are doing fun things, we list only our favorite cool bands while not acknowledging our hidden and shameful love of Nickelback, and we create and share posts we hope reflect our thoughtful musings rather than the ridiculous conversation we had last night at 3 a.m. In short, we are generally careful to purposefully and carefully present the self we think our intended audience will most value. Senders’ ability to selectively present themselves is the first and most powerful aspect of the hyperpersonal model. Because they have control and time to manipulate what they present, individuals can carefully construct the persona they want others to perceive (Turkle, 1995), and in doing so often present a more favorable version of themselves than may exist offline. These selective self-presentations can range from simple omission of negatives to explicit deception. For example, when you interact with a stranger in a Chatroulette chat room, you may decide not to disclose you are a smoker (a perceived negative) while emphasizing the work you did for Habitat for Humanity. (In fact, you were just lending a friend your pickup truck to move plywood and didn’t even personally enter the build site. But online, who’s to know otherwise?) As we want others to like us, we typically present an idealized version of ourselves to maximize our strategic and relational goals, and these idealized self-presentations lead to hyperpersonal perceptions. In the words of Brad Paisley (2007), “I’m so much cooler online.” Receiver’s Idealization of Sender Like the sender, the receiver in a communicative exchange plays a role in the hyperpersonal model by attempting to idealize the sender. Just as senders want others to like them, receivers want to like those with whom they interact (Berschied & Walster, 1969). (Why would you want to interact with someone you don’t like?) Consequently, we often seek out interaction with those we like or try to justify why we like those with whom we interact. Consequently, when interacting online, we use the available cues to support our affinity toward one another. When interacting with someone with whom we have not previously interacted, we try to find cues we recognize from our previous experiences. These cues are then interpreted by comparing them against known group identities and stereotypes. Sometimes, we recognize someone’s attributes based on the social categories to which the sender indicates he or she belongs. For example, were you to encounter someone online with the username YankeesFan14, you may assume your partner is a fan of the New York baseball team, which provides you some clues as to what this person values and how you may interact (Heisler & Crabill, 2006). However, there are also certain stereotypes associated with Yankees fans (beyond their sports team) that you may also overlay onto your chat partner: Assumptions of geographic location, extroversion, political leanings, and even dialect and vocal patterns may be made simply based on the user name and the social group it suggests (more on this in the next chapter). As receivers selectively focus on positive group identities and stereotypes, they engage in the second process of the hyperpersonal model: idealized perceptions. Forming impressions of others based on limited cues, often selected by senders to increase receivers’ impressions, receivers often form impressions that are more positive or of traits more desirable for communicative partners, viewing them in the best possible way. Receivers play an important role in hyperpersonal communication by exaggerating perceptions of message senders, compensating for missing information or cues with the receivers’ own assumptions and desires. In this way, receivers often The Hyperpersonal Model aid senders by filling in mental blanks in senders’ self-presentation in ways that benefit the senders. Channel Entrainment When individuals have the time and ability to carefully construct their message, it allows them additional opportunities for careful and strategic message creation. Channel entrainment refers to a sender’s ability to synchronize a message with a strategic self-presentation as facilitated by a particular communication channel. A channel that enables the deliberate construction of a message can be considered a highly entrained channel, while a channel that does not allow careful management of self may be considered a less entrained channel. By taking advantage of the limitations and abilities of a channel to carefully construct a message, a sender can more carefully present an idealized self. Channel entrainment is often closely tied to the synchronicity and richness of the channel. The faster information and feedback are exchanged, and the more cues that can be exchanged simultaneously, the less opportunity for individuals to carefully construct their messages to achieve strategic relational goals. When using asynchronous media such as email or a word processor, most of us naturally find ourselves using the property of channel entrainment as we delete errant phrases, replace words with synonyms to better our rhetoric, and carefully proofread our composition before finally submitting it to its reader (Walther, 2007). In less entrained channels, such as FtF communication, our ability to self-edit is reduced by communicating in real time. Thus, we are forced to interact with people through our verbal faux pas, while wearing the “Bieber Fever” shirt we donned at the gym, or with our uncontrollable bad breath due to the garlic bagel that was our lunch. This may not be how we would present ourselves through CMC; but face-to-face these cues must be given off to communicators. Clearly, the differences in channel entrainment in these two scenarios have huge implications for how we would be perceived by our receiver due to our ability to control and edit the cues to which the receiver has access via our channel of communication. Put briefly, the ability to selectively edit a message enhances a sender’s ability to selectively present her or his idealized self. Idealizing Feedback Loop The final element of the hyperpersonal model is idealized feedback from the receiver regarding the sender, which the sender can then use to guide even more favorable self-disclosures. This reinforcing process between presentation and feedback is known as the feedback loop. The hyperpersonal model predicts that when receivers obtain selectively presented information from the sender and idealize the sender itself, they respond to the message source that reciprocates and reinforces that idealized information. For example, if we are texting and you mention that you love dogs and fishing, and I reply that I also love dogs, you take this as confirmation the topic or trait of “dog lover” is valued (at least over fishing), and therefore talk more about dogs rather than fishing, which ultimately makes me like you even more. One explanation suggested as to why receivers may provide idealized feedback to a sender was Snyder, Tanke, amd Berscheid’s (1977) behavioral confirmation, which describes how individuals’ impressions of a partner affect response patterns. For example, when we are led to believe the person with whom we are talking is physically attractive, we treat them as more attractive. This feedback loop, whereby selective self-presentations lead to reinforcing idealized feedback, completes the hyperpersonal model and helps explain how the hyperpersonal model may result in more positive impressions: good presentations beget good impressions and feedback, which beget more good presentations. 63 64 CHAPTER 4 • Interpersonal Communication Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication Hyper-positive and Hyper-negative Impressions Mostly, hyperpersonal impressions are addressed as positive: we feel greater attraction, better intimacy, and closer to people we only meet online than those we meet face-to-face. Indeed, this is one of the problems of online dating: we find a suitor whom we begin to idealize as we talk with him or her. However, research has slowly begun to acknowledge the potential to develop a hypernegative impression of another (High & Solomon, 2014; Walther, 2007). For example, should an online dating partner display attributes you do not find desirable, you may actually hyper-dislike the suitor rather than just feel apathetic about a bad match and FIGURE 4.7 Three processes—FtF interaction, move on, as you would face-to-face. SIPT, and the hyperpersonal model—predict Although the hyperpersonal model is different processes and outcomes related to how often discussed with respect to positively we form impressions of others. Typical perceptions via offline interaction grow steadily until stabilizing. valenced impressions, it is important to Social information processing theory proposes that remember that, at its core, the hyperpersonal perceptions start slowly and then develop more model discusses the intensification of impresquickly, until also leveling off at levels comparable to sions. Negative impressions can be intensified perceptions formed offline. The hyperpersonal model just as readily as positive impressions. The suggests that perceptions may also start off slowly, but ultimately achieve higher levels than their offline reason researchers typically study positive counterparts. hyperpersonal effects is simply because it is more natural to have prolonged interactions (thereby giving time for the feedback loop to close and engage) with those whom we view positively than with people we dislike. But the principles of the hyperpersonal model should work to guide both overly positive and overly negative impressions of others, surpassing what could be created face-to-face. Masspersonal Communication Social information processing theory and the hyperpersonal model were developed to explain interpersonal communication in its purest sense: one-to-one communication. These theories generally left explaining large-scale interaction to theories of mass communication or group communication. Historically, mass communication theory (e.g., Shannon and Weaver’s [1949] SMCR model) described one-to-many communication with minimal feedback while interpersonal communication theory described one-to-one communication with greater opportunities for feedback. These theories rarely were cross-applied, leading to divisions in the communication discipline (Rogers, 1999), especially at the intersection of mediated communication. However, new media have emerged that have blended mass communication and interpersonal communication, blurring the lines that previously delineated subdisciplines in communication science. Online tools like TikTok, YouTube, Twitter, and blogs now allow individuals to broadcast a mass message simultaneously to many recipients (a la mass communication), but are unique in that many of the recipients are friends and acquaintances of the sender and readily able to provide feedback regarding the mass message (similar to interpersonal communication). In this way, these new media facilitate masspersonal communication. Masspersonal Communication 65 O’Sullivan and Carr (2018) articulated masspersonal communication as a means of describing and conceptualizing communication that conflates mass and interpersonal channels and interactions. Masspersonal communication occurs when an individual uses a mass channel for interpersonal communication, interpersonal channels for mass communication, or both simultaneously (see Figure 4.8). When graffitiing your message of love on an overpass, you are using a mass medium to target an individual receiver who you hope notices and replies, and are thereby FIGURE 4.8 When Sarah Michelle Gellar tweeted to using masspersonal communication. Perhaps and about Ben Platt on Twitter, that message was also the cleanest example of masspersonal com- accessible to anyone else on Twitter, and was therefore munication is a status message on Facebook. masspersonal. She could have used interpersonal When you post a status, you do so in a mass communication by direct messaging him to privately congratulate him on slaying his musical performance medium—the status is immediately transmit- that night, but instead she tweeted masspersonally. ted to all of your Facebook Friends. However, What motivation would she have had to communicate Facebook allows friends and family with this way, and how would it affect (a) Ms. Gellar, (b) Mr. whom you have interpersonal ties to reply Platt, and (c) their respective followers? personally and individually to you about your status. Online tools—especially social media—have made it easier to engage in masspersonal communication. Although masspersonal communication seems to be emerging quickly as a context for communication, research has been slower to understand its effects. Some research suggests masspersonal communication alters the way we see ourselves, so that creating a message in a masspersonal context effects the way we think about ourselves and our relationships. Walther and colleagues (2011) found that individuals told to create a blog post recalling a time they were extroverted viewed themselves as more extroverted than individuals who posted similar recollections to a Word document. Similarly, masspersonal effects have begun to be explored in online education, as college courses move to collaborative learning environments. Carr and colleagues (2013) found students learned better watching an online lecture when they perceived they were among strangers rather than classmates, suggesting learners can take advantage of a masspersonal communication environment to help them learn. Another way masspersonal communication has been explored is through looking at when masspersonal channels rather than interpersonal channels are used for relational communication. Exploring how couples in relationships used various channels available to them, Tong and Westerman (2016) found that couples used masspersonal channels (e.g., Facebook wall posts) to communicate more mundane relational maintenance messages and more positive communication, but used interpersonal channels (i.e., private/direct messages) to communicate intimate, private, or negative information. Finally, research is beginning to emerge indicating that social network sites afford meaningful social support, as support can be drawn from a mass audience comprised of meaningful interpersonal ties (e.g., Krämer et al., 2014; Rozzell et al., 2014). Much work remains to be done to understand the complexities of interacting in a mass medium on an interpersonal level and vice versa, but the emergence of social media as masspersonal channels has challenged research to quickly catch up. This challenge is compounded by the rapid advancement of media tools that change the nature of relationships and interactions. 66 CHAPTER 4 • Interpersonal Communication Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication Concluding Interpersonal CMC It likely did not come as a surprise to learn that interpersonal communication can occur online. The world may be a little louder; but that’s because it’s also filled with more opportunities to connect with friends and family. Perhaps even while reading this chapter, you heard your device chime and you took a break to check Instagram, reply to a friend’s WeChat message, or Skype home to check in with the family. Though they took almost 20 years of CMC scholarship to develop, theories of interpersonal communication are now a dominant force in the field and greatly help us understand how people relate online. And while the idea that we can have computer-mediated interpersonal interactions is likely not awe-inspiring to you, hopefully the SIPT, hyperpersonal, and masspersonal perspectives can shed light on how you view your online communication and help you understand both the technological and communicative processes that enable that interpersonal communication. Many digital natives have grown up with CMC and therefore find processing CMC very natural, but unpacking and understanding the mechanisms that differ between online and FtF communication greatly aids in understanding how communication works when mediated, and in ways that transcend specific devices to be applied when the next apps emerge. Key Terms digital natives, 52 digital immigrants, 52 interpersonal communication, 53 [electronic] propinquity, 54 emoticon, 59 hyperpersonal relationship, 61 channel entrainment, 63 behavioral confirmation, 63 masspersonal communication, 65 Review Questions 1. Think of the last message you sent or received through a computermediated channel. Applying TEP, how did the characteristics of the channel, the communicators, and the communication goal influence how close you felt to that sender/receiver? 2. Using SIPT or the hyperpersonal model, explain how CMC can foster a sense of presence or closeness. What changed from the impersonal CFO perspective of the previous chapter to enable this process? 3. What is meant by “time” in SIPT? What role—if any—does this “time” play in the hyperpersonal model? 4. How may masspersonal messages be different than interpersonal messages? Think about the composition of the messages, but also the relational implications and effects. How does the audience (both intended and accidental) of a masspersonal message influence how it is constructed and interpreted?