Impersonal, Interpersonal, Hyperpersonal

Introduction

• Online interaction supports offline networks
• CMC interpersonal research restricted to
  • CMC or FtF environments only
  • Zero-history
  • Impression-forming only (Tidwell & Walther, 2002; Walther, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997)

Theories Driving Interpersonal CMC

• Cues Filtered Out, Impersonal
  • Social presence (Short, Williams, & Christie,1976)
    • the absence of nonverbal cues resident in FtF communication leads to computer-mediated messages considerably lessened in effect and are, therefore, impersonal
    • Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Hiltz et al., 1986; Rice, 1984
  • Media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984)
    • the more equivocal the communication task (the more interpretations that one can make concerning an exchange) and the richer the medium used, the more efficient the exchange
    • email is lean medium (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987)
• Cues Filtered In, Interpersonal
  • Social information processing theory (SIP) (Walther, 1992)
    • when interaction was not limited by time constraints, CMC interpersonal effects eventually equaled those found in FtF relationships
    • Walther 1992, 1993; Walther, Anderson & Parks, 1994; Walther & Burgoon, 1992
    • adapt other cues to make up for a lack of nonverbal cues
      • reducing uncertainty (URT) and making the “connection” via CMC
    • may require more than five times the amount of time to achieve the same relational effects as in FtF interaction
• Cues Bent and Twisted
  • Hyperpersonal (Walther, 1996)
  • Proceeded by sociological and descriptive
    • Hauben, 1995; Rheingold, 1993; Smith, 1992
  • sender, channel, receiver and feedback – work alone and together to intensify the interpersonal
  • exceeds dyadic communication norms
  • Receivers can maintain an idealized perspective
  • Senders can offer an optimized self-presentation
  • channel lacks physical presence
  • asynchronous quality
    • may allow for less task/interpersonal interruptions elsewhere
    • promote a more focused, enjoyable experience
  • as the receiver-sender-channel-feedback cycle is played out over and over again, it should reinforce initial impressions
  • photos were introduced (Walther, Tidwell & Slovacek, 2001)
    • what had previously been CMC-only interactions
    • positive relational effects were diminished
• Expanding the Cue-Agenda
  • Information-Seeking Strategies, Uncertainty, and Computer-Mediated Communication Toward a Conceptual Model (Ramirez, Walther, Burgoon & Sunnafrank, 2002)
  • existing theory and research on computer-mediated communication (CMC) provide a limited view of information-seeking behavior
  • proposes a conceptual model for its examination via CMC and new media
  • CMC environments offer alternative mechanisms for acquiring social information about others when nonverbal and contextual cues are absent
  • article points out that theories to this point focused on the channel
  • model includes goal-orientation and multi-faceted nature of information seeking behavior

   

  Criticism of the Perceptual Empirical Approach Rampant Presently in Interpersonal Communication

  • Time to examine mixed-mode relationships
    • Online to offline (Walther & Parks, 2002)
    • Offline to online (Walther, Boos & Kai, 2002)
  • Question: Can we maintain a level of closeness in migration?
    • Theoretical basis: propinquity, or perceived closeness (Korzenny, 1979)
    • New constructs: electronic propinquity with lingering physical memory