COMM 185

What Increases Warrant?

1) Access to individual's social network 2) Verifiable information -Email address -Photo -Website photo & info (Corporate/Institutional web vs personal web or social media profile) 3) Information about you Which has greater impact: -Information about someone that they themselves give? -Or information from others they do not control? 2 x 2 x 2 Experiment: -Facebook Self-Statements pos or neg, Friends' Statements pos or neg

Review: Epley & Kruger

1) Epley & Kruger's position about effectiveness of certain forms of CMC compared to communication that involves nonverbal cues can best be characterized as reflecting which theoretical perspective? -Cues-Filtered-Out 2) In the article by Epley & Kruger, which channel of communication do the authors state is the more ambiguous mode of communication, in that it cannot convey as much individuating information about a conversation partner? C. E-mail 3) The authors argue that voice-based communication -Is better than CMC at dispelling stereotyped first impressions 4) Compared to the interviewees in the voice conditions, answers given by interviewees in the CMC condition -None of the above -"Responses of each target in the voice condition were transcribed and e-mailed to an interviewer in the e-mail condition" 5) In the conduct of the experiment by Epley & Kruger, which channel of communication did the researchers use as an example of CMC? -E-mail Interpreting the Statistics: -We predicted that the interviewers' expectancies would influence their final impressions of the target's intelligence more heavily in the e-mail than in the telephone condition. 6) Epley and Kruger's study showed that -None of the above CMC in relation to speech?: Disparity Reduction in CMC: -Difference between assessments of smart vs dumb declined in correlation with number of messages exchanged What's The Point?: -People adapt to the restrictions of the media. -KNOWING that people have only text, they choose words other than those they might say if they were speaking. -And—maybe—emoticons, LOLs, etc. -But the point is that people KNOW and adapt. -Epley & Kruger's research methodology did not allow for this. -And they convinced many of you they proved things that they didn't really prove in a fair test. -For every p

2) Channel x Target Effects on Language Selection: Language, Editing, & Mindfulness in CMC

-"In a large-scale electronic discussion on students and technology..." Stimulus targets: -Likeable, prestigious PROFessor (M or F) -Antisocial vocational HS student (M or F) -College Student (undescribed, M or F) Predicted outcomes: -Personal language (I, me, you, us) -Language complexity (polysyllabic words, wds/sentence) -Affectionate language -Time spent composing messages -Degree of editing (bckspc, delete, insert, replace)

Lecture: Relational Communication Online

-How do we use CMC to relate? Two studies: 1) Language vs. Nonverbal, CMC vs. FtF 2) Channel x Target Effects on Language Selection

Matching

-How is Matching Computed? Self-report/questionnaire data -eharmony: 300 items -Personality, interests, temperament, desired characteristics Correlation/Similarity -Weighted factors Compatibility -Similarity (e.g., novelty-seeking) -Complementarity (e.g., dominance w/ submissiveness) Effectiveness of Matching? -No scientific evidence -Proprietary algorithms - no independent testing Psychological distortions: -Placebo effects (on satisfaction) -Confirmation bias (on interaction)

"Configural Dispersion," Trust, and Conflict

-Polzer, Crisp, Jarvenpaa, & Kim, 2006 "Faultlines in Geographically Dispersed Teams" -6-person groups with varied levels of co-location/distribution -Amount of conflict/trust -(NOTE: which has highest/lowest/moderate levels of?) Which theory/theories? -SIDE, SIP

Communicative Grounding (Clark & Brennan)

-Presence of conversational object -Mutual attention to conversational object -Mutual knowledge of mutual attention -Changes conversational deixis (Ex: "here" and "now") -Changes conversational effectiveness and efficiency Carnegie Mellon/Boeing Studies using bike repair as prototype: -Worker in field wears head-mounted camera, microphone, and speaker -Expert in office sees what worker sees, hears worker -Effects on correctness and time to completion

Walther & Whitty 2022

-Re-focus on malleable media Hyperpersonal processes "at scale" in social media: -Selective self-presentation -Receiver idealization -Channel affordances -Feedback processes -Application to Online Hate as a Prosocial Process

CMC, Time/Rate, & Relationships

-Relationships develop over time -Anticipation of future interaction helps "swift trust" -Long term groups get along better How can we reduce the problems of short term virtual groups? -Get them to do what long term teams do

Geographic Configural Dispersion, Misunderstanding, & Scapegoating

-When institutional or cultural differences -Insufficient information about others' norms (schedules, weekend/evening, holidays, etc.) -Remote partners don't perform as locals expect -Disappointment --> Anger --> Hostility --> Blame (scapegoating) -With blame, no self-reflection & improvement

Approaches to CMC Cue Changes

1) CFO: Cues-Filtered-Out -Social Presence Theory -Lack of Social Context Cues -Media Richness 2) SIP: Social Information processing Theory 3) SIDE: Social Identification Model of Deindividuation Effects 4) Hyperpersonal Model 5) Theory of Electronic Propinquity -Grounding (Language and Visual Information)

Four Empirical Studies on Role of Nonverbal Cues and CMC

1) Sprecher, 2014 (Initial interactions online-texting, online-audio, online-video, or face-to-face: Effects of modality on liking, closeness, and other interpersonal outcomes): -Abstract: After first interaction, dyads in CMC-text condition had lower scores on affiliative outcomes (e.g., liking) than other dyads -However, dyads in CMC-text condition "caught up" in positive reactions once had second interaction, which was conducted via CMC-video

The Present/Future

Algorithms based on behavioral data (vs. self-report): -Time on site -Response time to messages -Characteristics of met/rejected last dates (eHarmony and some others) -Algorithms based on genetic compatibility

Properties of Nonverbal Cues

Considered less controlled: -"given-off vs. given," or "leaky" Considered: -Iconic, or Ambiguous (vs. accountable) -Multiple & simultaneous channels -Efficient information exchange

Other Means Comparisons

Gender -Male/Female differences in POSITIVE or NEGATIVE reactions to sexting: -Sample of males too small to analyze Relationship -Experiences POSITIVE reactions to SENDING texts -Single 2.70, Dating 3.03, p=.09 (NSD) -Experiences POSITIVE reactions to RECEIVING texts -Single 2.40, Dating 3.02, p<.01 -Experiences NEGATIVE reactions to SENDING texts -Single 2.43, dating 2.06, p=.04 -Experiences NEGATIVE reactions to RECEIVING texts -Single 2.37

Three Hypotheses about Message Deception Detection Online:

Hypothesis 1: -Deception is detected by NV cues -When no NV cues online -CMC reduces deception detection

Group Videoconferencing with Voice-Activated Video

Object oriented Video: -Kraut et al.: In trying to DO things, focus is on object, not person -Video transmission of object -Provides grounding for verbal content

Overall: Effectiveness of Dating Sites

Short term: -Generally disappointing FtF -Photo distortions -Conversational behavior -Hyperpersonal effects of CMC + Modality-switching Long term: -Relational growth based on other factors than initial attraction/selection

Hyperpersonal Revisited

"Identity Shift" Research (Gonzales & Hancock): -Self-description in CMC (blog, social media) -Changes self-perceptions -More so with affirming feedback

A."Social Presence Theory"

"Social Presence": -The salience of another person in a conversation Cause: -The number of communicative cue systems Effects: -Warmth (down) -Task-orientation (up)

Grounding Theory

#6 Communicative Grounding Theory: -(Visual Communication Applied to Videoconferencing) -Videoconferencing has a spotty history Subjective data: -Video increases "presence" Observational studies: -Video is under-used -Fixated on FTF faces -System designs didn't recognize grounding

Cybersex

-"Cybersex, computer sex or net sex is a virtual sex encounter in which two or more persons connected remotely via a computer network" -Send one another sexually explicit messages describing a sexual experience. -Form of role-playing in which participants pretend they are having actual sexual relations -By describing their actions and responding to their chat partners in a mostly written form designed to stimulate their own sexual feelings and fantasies. -Sometimes includes real life masturbation. -Quality of a cybersex encounter typically depends upon the participants' abilities to evoke a vivid, visceral mental picture in the minds of their partners. -Cybersex can occur either within the context of existing or intimate relationships -Or among individuals who have no prior knowledge of one another and meet in virtual spaces or cyberspaces and may even remain anonymous to one another." Prevalence: Media Preferences -Web Sites/Video/Photos w/Visual Stimulation -Males 50%, Females 23% -Interactive Chat -Females 49%, Males 23% -"Women, on-line as elsewhere, prefer more interaction and the development of relationships -Seem to be less interested in visual stimuli (Web sites) alone. -Consistent with position expressed that differences exist between genders on relevant aspects of human mating psychology, namely, response to visual cues."

Sexting

-"the exchange of sexually charged material (picture or text) via mobile phone or social networking sites" Incidence: -20% adolescents (13-19) -Ranges across studies for young adults and older -Study of 611 Midwestern university students (Dir et al., Cyberpsychology & Behavior) Population totals ever: -67% sent texts, 80% received texts, 47% sent pics, 64% received pics UCSB 2023 Data: -(5 males, 37 females, 1 nonbinary, not declining) -75% sent texts, 89 % received texts, 80% sent pics, 86% received pics Demographic effects on frequency in Dir et al. Midwestern study -Males vs. Females -Straight vs. Gay and Bisexual -Single vs. Dating/Serious Relationship UCSB sent texts by phone -Males 80% vs. Females 86.5% (p=.56) -Straight 86% vs. Bisexual 83% (p=.63) -Single 61% vs. Dating/serious relationship 94% (p=.03) Dir et al. participants' reactions: Positive and Negative in parallel (correlated) Positive -"Makes one feel sexy", "makes one excited", "makes hooking up more likely", affectionate" Negative -"Makes one embarrassed", "makes one feel vulnerable", "feel pressured", "feel foolish" UCSB Reactions: -Top 4 positive aspects for sending sexts: -Horny -Aroused -Excited -Playful -Top 4 negative aspects for sending sexts: -Vulnerable -Awkward -Inappropriate -Dirty

Coding

-3 coders each channel -Likert scale ratings of ... -Kinesics: video with no sound -Vocalics: audio with "megamuffle" -Verbal: from transcripts

Evidence for SIP

-3-person decision-making groups CMC: -3 tasks, ongoing -Asynchronous work -Over six weeks FtF: -3 tasks, discrete -FtF meetings -Two weeks apart

YouTube SIDE Research

-Anti-marijuana Public Service Announcements (PSAs) + User comments Comments: -Positive/Negative (re. PSA, drugs) Measure: -Social Identification with comment posters Dependent Variables: -PSA evaluation -Marijuana risk perceptions Results: -Comments effect on PSA Evaluation -No effect on perceived harm from marijuana -Interaction of comments x Identification with commenters on perceived harm from marijuana -Viewer, more relate/identify with people comment on YouTube determines attitude on Marijuana

Theory of Electronic Propinquity

-Derived corollaries predict additive interactions, e.g., -Greater mutual directionality and greater bandwidth, even greater propinquity -Low bandwidth and high information complexity, lower propinquity -Lower bandwidth and lower information complexity, no change in propinquity (balance out)

Identity Deception in Online Dating

-Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs (2006): online daters report being torn between a desire for authenticity/accuracy and a desire for impression management -Relationship goals mediate this tension between accuracy and ingratiation -Serious relationship goal is less deceptive self-presentation -Categorical/filters constraints -Having to choose certain search filters results in misrepresentation -(e.g., 25-30; "bald" vs. "shaved") "Foggy Mirror": self images differ from others' perceptions: -Triggered by the limits of self-knowledge -Validate: some ask friends to look at their profile to "check" them Ambiguous terms: -One woman's "average" body-build is another man's "heavy" Actual vs. Ideal: -Many describe themselves the way they want or plan to be -"Profile as Promise"

CMC Correlations

-Explicit positive statements of affection -Monologue -Expressing joy -Offering personal information -Offering encouragement -: ) -Changing the subject -Indirect disagreement -Praise + novel proposition -No difference overall between amount of liking expressed in CMC or FtF

Virtual Online Speed Dating

-Groups gather via zoom -Talk as a large group -Break into groups of 4 -"Speed dating" in pairs

Ingroup favoritism or Outgroup denigration

-If group with you, like them and do it yourself -Like when people are same as us -Like ingroup, don't like outgroup -Stronger in CMC bc can't see each other

SIP Hypotheses

-If time is cut off, relational development is cut off -But unrestricted, CMC converges with FtF over time

Nonverbal Codes

-Kinesics (face & body movement) Facial Expression of Emotion: (Three regions of face) -Brow/forehead -Eyes/eyelids -Cheeks/mouth -Pure Blended Emotions (more than one emotion) Body: -Posture (Posture orientation) -Body movement -Gestures (Emblems, Illustrators, Adaptors) -Proxemic (distance) -Vocalic (voice aside from words) -Haptics (touch) -Physical appearance -Chronemics (time) -Artifacts (things)

Reading: Impression Management in Online Dating (C. Rudder/OKTrends)

-Looked at keywords and phrases, how they affected reply rates, and what trends were statistically significant. The result: a set of rules for what you should and shouldn't say when introducing yourself. Online dating advice at its best -Rule 1: Be literate -Rule 2: Avoid physical compliments -Rule 3: Use an unusual greeting -Rule 4: Bring up specific interests -Rule 5: If you're a guy, be self-effacing -Rule 6: Consider becoming an atheist

Reading: Case Study on Online Deception (Laby, N. )

-Montgomery — a 45-year-old former marine with a reddish mustache, bulging gut, and disappearing hair -Would be an 18-year-old marine named Tommy. He would be a black belt in karate, with bullet scars on his left shoulder and right leg, thick red hair, and impressive dimensions -Emboldened by his new identity, Montgomery logged onto Pogo in the spring of 2005 and met TalHotBlondbig50 -A 17-year-old from West Virginia, whose name, he later learned, was Jessica -Mary was the woman Montgomery may have killed for. -She'd used her daughter's identity to beguile the two men -Montgomery had no idea he'd been conned by Mary

Access

-More prospective matches than you could possibly meet offline -Simple probabilities -Promotion: Number of visitors, number of profiles; "Market leader in..." -Especially meaningful if difficult to find appealing partners otherwise -Lack social networks (e.g., recent move) -Network "overly saturated" with unsuitable partners -Breakup/divorced -Limited time for meeting (Long work hours/single parent) -Restricted by minority attribute (Sexual preference, religion)

Hypothesis 2:

-NV cues are relied on but falsely -Verbal cues are more accurate deception signals -When CMC has no NV cues, but does have verbal cues, -CMC increases deception detection -Stereotype liars cannot make eye contact (False: Liars maintain more eye contact)

Hypothesis 3

-NV cues of suspicion are stronger than deception -Deceivers use NV suspicion cues to improve deception -No NV cues, no suspicion cues, no deception improvement, therefore -CMC increases deception detection

Contradicting Position

-No matter what you think effect is, someone else thinks different Each position exists "out there:" -As absolutes -In society -In empirical research How can contradictions each be possible? -Each may pertain at times, but it depends (systematically) -Look at how the studies were done to find out -Suspend Intuitive bias toward FtF and NVC

Interactive Strategies

-Self-Disclosure in CMC "Getting to Know You a Bit at a Time" Tidwell & Walther, 2002: -M/F dyads conversed in CMC chat or FtF -Audiotapes and transcripts yielded 10,515 utterances -Coded for Questions, Disclosures, Other -Coded for Superficial, Moderate, and Deep -Partners rate Conversational Effectiveness Results: -CMC > FtF for Questions -CMC > FtF for Disclosures -CMC < FtF on superficial disclosure -CMC > FtF on moderate disclosure -FtF > CMC for Other Significant difference on correlations between Questions and Conversation Effectiveness: -CMC questions & effectiveness: r = +.42 -FtF questions & effectiveness: r = -.38

Results:

-Significant difference in perceived liking/disliking due to instruction -No significant effect for medium

How to Read Correlation Table

-Two variables -Correlation Coefficient (from .00 to +.99) = strength of association -i.e., how much it is that the more one variable changes, the more the other one does, too. -The bigger the r, the stronger the association. -It can also be negative, as negative as -.99 when the more one variable goes up, the other goes down. -"Sig" (p value or statistical intelligence) = probability that correlation, above it, is chance relationship -Sig <.05 is typical cutoff for statistically (non-chance) relationship Different variables: -Notice "sign" (direction) of the correlation. -Notice the negative sign on the correlation coefficient -The more someone agreed they started right away, the lower the day of their first post -Note what pairs of variables are significant and what aren't. -Might seem interesting to see what isn't significant, but don't interpret those other than to say the two variables are not related. -If p ("Sig") is significant, then look at the correlation's direction (positive or negative) and size. Interpret.

"Cues-Filtered Out" Perspective

-When nonverbal cues are absent, the functions they perform are suppressed Functions: -Impression formation and management -Emotional expression -Relationship management -CMC never same as FtF

Four Empirical Studies

2) Antheunis, Schouten, & Walther, 2019 (The hyperpersonal effect in online dating: text-based vs. videoconferencing before meeting FtF): -Speed dating experiment in which first round used CMC-text or skype. -Second round was face-to-face -Results: Greater attraction in CMC than Skype

Hyperpersonal FEEDBACK Processes

Behavioral Confirmation: -"Self-fulfilling prophecies" -Stereotyped preconceptions affect treatment of others -Others respond according to treatment -SMCR intensification loop for CMC

Lecture: Online Dating

Benefits and Variations of Online Dating Sites: -Access -Communication -Matching (self-selection vs. algorithm)

Lecture: Deception

Deception About Identities and Messages in CMC: -Identity Deception: Who someone is, categorically or with regard to attributes -Message Deception: Attitudes and facts

"Adding Audio and Video to an Office Environment" Gale, 1991:

Design Projects in 3 Conditions: -Whiteboard Only -Whiteboard + Audio -Whiteboard + Audio + Video Dependent variables: -Social presence ratings, time, and quality -Video Conferencing with Voice-Activated Video -Line of sight, voice activated -Video monitors Outcomes of Gale's study: -Subjective assessments of Social Presence: -Time for completion: Video longer not shorter Quality of completion: Add video not as good Use of video: attention monitoring -Think we need video, but not always best thing

CMC and Uncertainty Reduction Strategies

How do people form impressions in initial FtF interactions? -Berger & Bradac: 3 Strategies Passive Strategies: -Observational -Inefficient but unobtrusive Active Strategies: -Network inquiries, verification, "environmental interaction" -Moderately inefficient, potentially obtrusive Extractive Strategies (Ramirez et al.): -Using persistent online records and artifacts; Googling -Variably efficient, Low obtrusive Interactive Strategies: -Question-asking and self-disclosure -Highly efficient, very obtrusive

FTF Correlations

KINESIC -Direct body orientation -Facial orientation -Gaze -Facial pleasantness -Facial animation -Smiling -Facial concern -Nodding -Laughing -Involvement -Posture openness VOCALIC -Vocal happiness -Warmth -Pleasantness -Laughing -Receptivity -Cooperativeness -Condescension VERBAL -Insults -Offering personal information

Media Features Affect Message Deception: Plan-ability vs Recordability vs Cues vs Distance:

Mean number of lies per social interaction & Rates of deception by communication medium -Phone -FtF -IM -E-mail

New Approach: Three Foci of Conversations

Object-focused discussion: -Verbal/vocal is grounded against/augments visual content -Ex) "Is this the brake cable? Uh huh. Okay is that in place?" Person/affect-focused discussion: -verbal cues and nonverbal cues redundant -Ex) "I think we ought to emphasize the quality of the bikes we sell, even if it means a lower overall volume" Mixed Discussions: -verbal and nonverbal/visual provide complementary content/affect cues -Ex) "I've never really seen break cable like this. I'm not sure."

Lecture: Online Sexuality

Online Sexuality: -"erotic computer communication, from mild flirtations to seeking and sharing information about sexual services, to frank discussions of specific deviant sexual behavior, and the acting out of sexual behavior." Cooper et al.

Results

Personal language: -HS > Student, Prof Language complexity: -Prof > HS -Editing: Subject by Target Gender Interaction Effect Subject --> Target: Male --> Female: Student > Prof, HS Female --> Male: Student > Prof, HS Male --> Male: HS & Prof > Student Female --> Female: Prof & HS > Student -Editing correlates with Affectionate Language -Composing time correlates with Affectionate Language

Is there a technology effect?

Replication by DeAndrea, Tong, Liang, Levine, & Walther, "The Effects of Social Desirability, Ground Truth, and Accountability on Deceptive Self-Presentations Method part 1: -College students come to lab for health info research -Interviewer asks demographics -Receive "biased scanning" induction (asked your best feature, what others like) -Asked distraction questions Asked height, weight, etc. -Asked how much they think people misrepresent weight Rival explanations to intentional deception: Did they just not know? Study 2: Ground truth -Half weigh & measure before interview Weight Discrepancy: M=.72lbs -Half weigh & measure after interview Weight Discrepancy: M= 6.10 lbs. Ground Truth or Accountability? Study 3: Imminent truth or not -Half told they will be weighed & measured in interview Weight Discrep M= 1.82 lbs -Half told nothing about weight and measure Weight Discrep M=6.32 lbs Conclusions: -People more or less do know their height and weight -People lie -They don't need technology to do it -They don't need a romantic goal -They lie less when they'd get caught

Where does video produce greater propinquity? Where does phone? Chat?:

Results: -Propinquity effects x Choice x Bandwidth -Using purely video vs. Mixed FtF & Video -Using purely phone vs. Mixed Video & Phone (phone not as good in mixed) -Using purely chat vs. Mixed Phone & chat Analysis and Results: -Video only bandwidth (more propinquity) -Video lower bandwidth (less propinquity) -Phone only bandwidth (more propinquity) -Phone lower bandwidth (less propinquity) -CMC only bandwidth (no choice, more propinquity) -CMC lower bandwidth (less propinquity) -Choice affects -Propinquity Higher and Only Bandwidth > lower -Bandwidth no effect, choice had effect -No differences between media when no choice Satisfaction: -Effect when CMC is comparatively lower bandwidth Implication of Propinquity Theory Now: -People do well with whatever they are "stuck" with

Hyperpersonal SENDER Processes

Selective Self-Presentation: -Mindful message construction -Reallocation of cognitive resources -No nonverbal "leakage"

B."Lack of Social Context Cues"

Social context cues: -Signal roles, status, norms of behavior -Static cues (interaction that don't change) -Dynamic cues (cues that can change in interaction) Absence: -Self-focused -Task-oriented -Impersonal -Hostile

Online Dating vs the Coronavirus Pandemic

Speed dating with Zoom -Procedures Email -Which theory?

Hyperpersonal CHANNEL Processes

Taking advantage of the mechanics of CMC to further optimize messages -Convenient, opportunistic use Intermittent interactivity: -Ample time for social and task message elements -Relaxed, enhanced message processing Editing: -Example: Editing affects relational communication

Evidence for CFO

Typical Experiment Design: -Assign subjects to CMC or FtF decision groups (3 to 5) -Equal time intervals -Transcripts collected/transcribed -Content analysis & comparison Results: CMC affects... Task-orientation (vs. social orientation): -Greater task-orientation "flaming" (hostile comments): -Greater in CMC Agreement messages: -Greater Face-to-face Participation equality: -Greater in CMC Number of statements: -Greater face-to-face Group consensus: -Greater face-to-face

Verbal Codes

Verbal content: -Instrumental -Affective -Relational Language Style: -Formality -Complexity -Ambiguity/Specificity -Extremity/Qualification -Immediacy -Intensity -...explicit/implicit -...ironic, sarcastic, etc.

Hyperpersonal RECIEVER Processes

When no individuating nonverbal cues: -Stereotypic judgments -May be group-based (like SIDE) -May be individual (personality) -Exaggerated impression of the source (Idealization)

The Rules of Virtual Groups

-Based on SIP -Adaptations to missing nonverbal cues 1) Start immediately -Online interaction takes longer, and you'll run out of time if you don't' 2) Communicate very frequently—maintain continuous contact -Communication is slow so accommodate this by frequent pace 3) Multi-task organization and substantive work -Phases of group interaction differ from off-line -Don't deliberate how you'll do it, who does what, or when, before you just start attacking the problem 4) Overtly acknowledge messages -What is a reasonable interpretation of no response? -Your partner agrees -Your partner disagrees -GauchoSpace is down -COVID 5) Be explicit about what you're thinking, doing, and planning -To indicate progress and tempo, so partners know what to expect, and when (not) to panic 6) Set interim deadlines and stick to them -Enhances logistical agreements and provides reliability -Don't over-rate real-time messaging - don't wait to "settle things" with chat -Chat is a lot of messages in a short time -Asynchronous Discussion Forums are a lot of messages over time -Need a lot of message

Reading: The Fake Catholic College Girl who Duped Twitter

-Catholic Twitter is a subculture where (mostly young) and hipster-lifestyle-inclined Catholics -Catfishing is an internet-ism that refers to someone pretending to be someone they're not on social media sites -Account catered to "both to angsty Catholic twenty-somethings and 17-year-old girls with Disney fantasies" -Easily mixed a traditional faith with slightly left-leaning politics -Featured pictures of exotic travels and the beautiful girl (supposedly) behind the account Making her a well-liked Catholic Twitter-er. -Over the course of about six months, Padusniak formed a friendship with This Catholic Girl -Eventually, the cancellations became suspicious -Friend convinced Padusniak to ask El for a photo of herself with a piece of paper with Chase's name on it -Became clear that she was not the young, single college-aged Catholic she had been purporting to be -But a 30-year-old married woman, with social media accounts for her real person as well Elspeth Howard -She has hurt many (her husband included) -Person who is most suffering the fallout of this incident is the woman behind the façade -Largely acted out of sadness and loneliness rather than out of true malice

1) "Let Me Count the Ways: Affinity in CMC and FTF Interaction":

-Do CMC users adapt verbal, textual, & other remaining cues to what people otherwise do nonverbally? Methods: -Dyads in FTF room or via Chat -Confederate instructed to be friendly or be unfriendly ad hoc Be nice -Increase your liking and involvement with the other person. Be Mean -Decrease your liking and involvement with the other person -Naïve subjects rate confederate on liking

Passive Strategies

-Donath, 1996: Anatomy of Electronic Message Signals Domain of address: -Institutional vs. commercial -Accountability Identity in diction and language: -Self-references and vocabulary -Expertise/Jargon Sig files: -Claims + links to offline world

Dependent Measure: Impression Development

-Evaluate this person on the qualities listed Results: (Time, Media, and Impression development) -FtF impressions developed after first meeting and stay developed -CMC impressions after first task were undeveloped, but after second task, more developed, after third task, became same as FtF

Electronic Propinquity Test: Korzenny & Bauer (1981):

-General hypotheses failed, theory considered falsified -May have been confounded due to inadvertent choice factor Replication Objectives: -Test propinquity theory -Demonstrate confound due to choice -Extend theory to CMC Hypothesis: (As bandwidth increases) -Complexity of the information decreases -Level of communication skills increases -Number of choices of media decreases -The greater amount of psychological propinquity. Methods: -Individual communication skills measured -Groups of 3-4 -Media Bandwidth/Choice -"Pure" media groups (no choice) -"Mixed" media groups (with choice) -Descending bandwidth Tasks: -3 decision-making task variations -Perceived difficulty

Cyberaffairs

-Ongoing intimate/cybersexual encounters over time among a dyad Tend to become unexpectedly intimate -Men's interest in cybersex decreases with age -Women's interest increases slightly -No signif. difference between singles vs committed relationships Traumatic for RL partner -As physical infidelity Questionable re: adultery -Emotional and sexual exclusivity -Secrecy -Consequential emotions and breach of trust -Grounds for divorce in CA

Initial research: when novel behavior

-Social attraction goes up (+), down (-), or no effect Visually Together & Individual Ident Salient: -Attraction = no effect Visually Together & Group Ident Salient: -Attraction = no effect Visually Separated & Individual Ident Salient: -Attraction = down Visually Separated & Group Ident Salient: -Attraction = up

Passive vs. Active vs. interactive Strategies

-Uncertainty Reduction in Social Networking Sites Antheunis, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2010 Hypotheses: (Passive > Active > Interactive strategies) -Passive: physical appearance (photos) & static disclosures ("About me") -Active: Networks of acquaintances and reactions to others -Interactive: Direct messaging discussions Findings: -All sources used -Only interactive aspects significantly affect uncertainty reduction

Active Strategies

-Warranting: A Theoretical Perspective on Trusted Information "Warranting": -Perceived match between online self-presentation and offline reality -The more a system offers fabrication, the more a receiver must assess warrant -"the warranting value of information about a person (is) derived from the receiver's perception about the extent to which the content of that information is immune to manipulation by the person to whom it refers."

Gender-Switching Online (Parks & Roberts 1998)

-Where: 7 MMORPGs -Who: 233 randomly solicited characters -How: Interview & Questionnaire Results: -Frequency: 40% had switched at some point -No male/female difference -No personality differences Among the 60% who never switched: -no desire (42%) -no benefit (7%) -dishonest (24%) -doubt success (20%) Among the 40% who ever switched: -Role-play (34%) -Curious (19%) -Fun (17%) -Fantasy (10%) -Instrumental/ Avoid Harassment (8%)

Four Empirical Studies

3) Kotlyar & Ariely, 2013 (Effect of nonverbal cues on relationship formation) -Abstract: Members of dating website interacted through one of four randomly assigned versions of a text chat, where each version featured an increasing number of nonverbal communication cues -Results suggest that restoring nonverbal cues through use of avatars can help improve online interaction and relationship formation -Chat versions that featured more nonverbal cues associated with more favorable perceptions, greater exchange of information, and stronger desire to pursue a relationship -Men and women reacted differently to certain types of nonverbal cues Four communication conditions in Kotlyar & Arielly: -Simple chat (Text input window) -Static Avatar Chat (Close proximity, direct gaze) -Responsive Avatar Chat (subtle head and body movements, eye blinks) -Active Avatar Chat (indicate romantic interest) -Results: With women, more nonverbal cues, more likely to want relationship with men -More nonverbal cues, men most attracted to static avatar chat, less attracted to responsive avatar chat

Four Empirical Studies

4) Kramer, Guillory, & Hancock (2014) (Massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks.) -Emotional contagion: transfer of mood and emotion through mere exposure -happiness, depression FtF interaction with someone can affect one's mood via: -Shared experience -Interaction itself Role of nonverbal communication: Premises: -Facebook's user agreement allows Facebook to do anything with/to users' content; Facebook often experiments with algorithms without notice. (Newsfeed posts contain emotion words) Experiment in Facebook: -Run all newsfeed messages that an individual might see through Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) computer program to detect positive or negative emotion words -Tweak algorithm to adjust message presentation based on emotional content Negative emotion test: -Algorithm reduced likelihood of positive emotion words 10% - 90% Positive emotion test: -Reduce likelihood of negative emotion words 10% - 90% Results: Subjects' own posts declined in total words used -When positive posts were reduced, 3.3% -When negative posts were reduced, 0.3% Subjects' own posts changed emotion word use: -If positive posts were reduced, subjects' pos words were lesser and neg words were greater (than control group) -If negative posts were reduced, subjects' pos words were greater and neg words were lesser (than control) Significance: -Emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions

Reading: Online Dating and Mobile Apps (Rochadiat, A. M. P., Tong, S. T., & Corriero, E.)

Abstract and Keywords: -Examine how individuals use mobile communication technology in the relational initiation phase: (1) goals and motivations of mobile app use (2) impression formation and self-presentation on mobile apps (3) mate selection and decision-making during relational initiation (4) messaging and interaction. Application Design: Affordances, Characteristics, and Features: -Definition of affordances accounts for the actual relationship between individuals and their perceptions of the environment -Features refer to the technological properties of the object facilitating certain action possibilities. -Identifying and describing five key features and affordances of mobile media: -(i.e., portability/mobility, availability, locatability, multimediality, and haptic feedback) Portability/Mobility: -Mobility or portability of mobile devices allows users to integrate device usage in a variety of social contexts in their everyday lives Availability: -The increased availability of mobile dating apps enables the possibility of making direct and frequent interactions Locatability: -Immediacy of communication as location provides users with information about the specific vicinity -Compared to Web-based online dating, MDAs are viewed as accelerating the pace of physical meetups Multimediality: -Reliance on multiple modes gives users greater flexibility with regard to self-presentation, impression formation, and interaction. -Daters can exchange interpersonal information quickly and easily and verify others' identities through a variety of channels. Haptic Feedback: -Pertains to gestures of mobile devices such as pinching, dragging, scrolling, clicking, swiping, thumbing, and touching -One's physical engagement with the mobile device affects how he or she interprets information, which

Reading: Hyperpersonal Model (Walther, J. B., & Whitty, M. T.)

Abstract: -Substitution of language for nonverbal cues create socially desirable relationships online. -Reflects on state of internet diffusion and research traditions in the 1990s -Explores ways model's principles extend into contemporary multimodal social media -Illustrates evolutionary applicability of model through cases of deceptive online romances (Online romance scams) Understandings of social media require consideration of: -Human drives, social interaction, and code systems Hyperpersonal Model: -Focused on how CMC users perform themselves, and how partners reciprocally collude Explication: -Communicators use whatever communicative code systems are available to encode and decode socioemotional messages -Conveying affect, attitude, personality, and identity -From multi-modal, multi-cue expressions into more limited modalities which, rather than dampen socioemotional exchange -(Lead to more affectionate, intimate, and intense relationships than typically occur in parallel FtF encounters) Four components —senders, receivers, channel, and feedback -Recievers "compensate for minimal cues by 'filling in the gaps' with positive interpretations" -Message senders engage in selective self-presentation. -Channel focuses on mechanical and temporal qualities to further message optimization. -Feedback component through expectancy confirmation processes. -Confirmatory feedback changes self-perceptions in line with their performance, more so when feedback comes from friends than from strangers Multi-modal: -any platform communicators may use involves variety of symbols and communication code systems -Including language, photos, graphics, voice, and/or video. Multi-mediated: -partners use a variety of communication platforms within their respective relationships Warranting theory: -confron

Reading: Grounding Theory (Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., & Siegel, J.)

Abstract: -Visual information in maintaining task awareness and achieving mutual understanding in conversation. -Present two experiments that vary amount and quality of visual information available to participants during a collaborative bicycle repair task. -Effects on performance and on conversational strategies Visual information plays at least two interrelated roles: 1) Helps people maintain up-to-date mental models or situational awareness of the state of the task and others' activities. -Help plan what to say or do next and to coordinate 2) Help people communicate about task -By aiding conversational grounding, or development of mutual understanding -Assumption: usefulness of video system for remote collaborative work depends on extent video configuration makes same visual cues -Bicycle repair task, falls within general class of "mentoring" collaborative physical tasks -One person directly manipulates objects with guidance who have greater expertise about the task For helpers to provide useful assistance, must determine: -What help is needed, when to provide the help -Assistance must be coordinated with worker's utterances and with his or her actions and the current state of the task. 1) Challenge for helper to identify what worker is attending to: -To determine whether an object is part of joint focus of attention. 2) Make sure that the worker understands a prior utterance before continuing the conversation. -With phrases like, "I see" or "okay" 3) Finally, helper needs to comply with Gricean norms -For example, informativeness and concise -Using deictic references (e.g., "that groove") along with pointing. Situation Awareness: -To determine what help is needed and when to provide it -What collaborators doing, status of task, and environment Helpers can use awareness of state

Reading: Impression Formation (Epley & Kruger)

Abstract: -E-mail is an inherently more limited mode of communication than is voice because of its relative lack of paralinguistic and non-verbal cues -Three experiments demonstrated that racial stereotypes and bogus expectancies influence people's impressions of a target more strongly over e-mail than voice interactions -Occurred despite experimental design that ensured word-for-word content was constant across the two mediums. -Effect was due, at least in part, to the greater ambiguity of e-mail versus voice communication (Study 3). . Paralinguistic cues such as: -Gesture, pronunciation, vocal expression, fluency, and tone Two reasons to question prediction: 1) Ambiguous information tends to be construed in a manner consistent with the hypothesis -Providing additional information about a person might increase one's reliance on stereotypes and expectancies -People might be more, rather than less, likely to rely on stereotypes and expectancies when communicating with their voice versus e-mail. 2) People are reluctant to rely solely on stereotypes and expectancies because of their perceived invalidity and inequity -Suggest individuals more likely to be influenced by expectancies and stereotypes when communicate voice than via e-mail. -All else equal, people may be more likely to utilize stereotypes and expectancies in voice versus e-mail (But all else, we offer, is not equal.) -Voice ought to be less susceptible to the biasing influence of expectancies and stereotypes Three experiments to test these hypotheses: -In each, participants' expectations about a person whom they were to ''interview'' over e-mail or phone were experimentally manipulated. Experiment 1: -Target was either intelligent or unintelligent Experiments 2 and 3: (outgoing or shy.) -Predicted that preconceived notions about

Language During Gender Performances Herring & Martinson, 2004:

Analyzed records from "Turing Game" -(text-based, real-time gender performance game) -Select a nickname; introduce yourself; converse with "judges" -M --> M, F --> F, M --> F, F -->M -Researchers also coded linguistic markers FEMALE -Hedges (just, sort of, a bit, quite,...) -Qualifiers (maybe, possibly, probably,...) -Possibility Modals (could, might, may,...) -Questions -Politeness (thanks, apologies, please,...) -Personal pronouns (we, you, us, they) -Emoticons -Clausal mitigation ("this sounds dumb, but...") MALE -Boosters (Of course, obviously, really,...) -Universal quantifiers (all, always, never,...) -Obligation modals (must, have to, ...) -Profanity and crassness (Including sexual references) -Face threats (Commands, challenges, insults) -Longer messages

#2 Social Information processing Theory (Walther, 1992)

Assumptions: -People engage in interpersonal uncertainty reduction and relational development regardless of medium Exploit any available cues: -Decode cues -Encode cues -Media capacity affects rate of (task and social) information exchange Assertions: -Social information processing is slower in CMC -Takes more time and exchanges -Eventually equivalent impressions and relations as FtF SIP Central Arguments: 1) Social Information: -Nonverbal --> verbal and textual -Receiving -Sending 2) Time to accrue/construct impressions and develop relations

Reading: SIDE Theory (Walther, J., & Carr, C.)

Consequence of lack of immediate individuating cues: -More heightened focus on cultural and social categories and groups to which other users seem to belong. -Focusing on users' social identities, rather than individual characteristics, provides users a path of least effort Two factors: -Interpersonal cues are more effortful to discern -Social identifications frequently suffice SIDE Model of CMC: -Use of CMC, with physical absence and visual anonymity produces deindividuation and depersonalization Depersonalization: -not being able to discern that other people are uniquely different from one another Deindividuation: -State in which a person does not approach things as with a sense of his or her own uniqueness. -Social attraction may be subject to systematic biases -CMC groups experiencing higher social identification expected to reflect group norms more strongly -Ex) When a fellow group member mistyped, it was good. When it was just another person mistyping, it was not. Arousing Social identification: -SIDE research arouse social identification using inductions from the "minimal groups" -Being in different locations, alone, was sufficient to trigger in-group/out-group categorizations Arousing Deindividuation or Individuation: -Without pictures, SIDE expects participants to think and act based on immersion in a salient social group -Static, preinteraction information used to instill personal identification, or deindividuation and depersonalization -Conversational actions reinforce group identification and transmit social influence Inconsistencies and Revisions: -SIDE effects most pronounced when salient out-group and in-group -Only with respect to gender have effects of a priori social categories clearly driven dynamic social identification effects -Found CMC group members identify

Reading: Online Deception (Whitty, M. T., & Young, G)

Defining Deception: -"Message knowingly transmitted by a sender to foster a false belief or conclusion by the received" -Deception can be disruptive for a society Deception in Cyberspace: -Online, individuals can potentially deceive a greater number of people' -Main reason deception more prevalent online is because online communications and representations of the self are not physically connected to a person. -Digital deception: intentionally control of information in a technologically mediated message to create a false belief in the receiver of the message Utz argued three types of deception: -Category deception (gender-switching) -Attractiveness deception -Identity concealment Hancock argued two types of digital deception: Identity -Creation of false identity or affiliation -Easier to perform and get away with in cyberspace Message-based deception -Based within content of communication between two or more people Identity-Based Deception: -Cyberspace offers more opportunities to manage identities and anonymity (or at least visual anonymity) than the "real" world -May foster identity-based deception -In online text-only, deceivers felt greater anxiety than non deceivers -However, in avatar-based environment there was no significant difference experienced by deceivers and truth tellers Munchausen By Internet: -Interesting example of identity-based deception -Internet increased frequency of occurrence of Munchausen syndrome -Munchausen by Internet: describe an individual seeking attention by playing out a series of dramatic near-chronic illnesses and recoveries on the Internet -Motivations for these behaviors may be to play with identity -Ability to garner sympathy and intimacy from group members -Being able to achieve physical intimacy with group members offline Message-based De

Hyperpersonal Research Example

Hyperpersonal Effects of Photo vs. Text in Long-Term and Short-Term CMC (Walther, Slovacek, & Tidwell, 2001): Theories: -Social Presence vs. Hyperpersonal effect due to timing Independent variables: -Physical Image (Photo) vs. Text-based (No Photo) -Long-term vs. Short-term groups Dependent variables: -affection, social attraction, physical attraction Correlate: -amount of impression management (self-report) Research Design: -2 x 2 Experiment, at end of semester, -England/American Groups -Long term, short term -Photo, no photo Results: -Effects on Physical Attraction rating -Short interaction: photo good -Long interaction: photo bad -Less attraction because the idealized version goes away When No Photo: -Impression management short-term photo good with perceived physical attraction With Photo: -Impression management long-term photo bad with perceived physical attraction

Toma, Hancock, & Ellison 2008: Deception in Online Dating Profiles

Hyperpersonal model: -Selective self-presentation -Channel exploitation, asynchronous interaction -Applied to online dating profiles -Romantic goal + Technology affordances -Deceptive self-presentation Methods: -Recruit online daters (Match.com, YahooPersonals, etc.) to NYC lab -Reviewed dating profile -Rated accuracy -Weigh, measure, check driver's license Results: -For both men and women, physical appearance accuracy predicted overall profile accuracy -Women lie about being thinner, men don't -Men lie about being taller, women don't

Virtual Groups

Problems in Virtual Groups: CMC (Rate and Time) affect task and social information exchange -Task: Use of decision heuristics instead of discussion and deliberation -Social: Relational positivity and trust Relationships and Trust in Virtual Groups: -Weisband & Atwater: Trust in CMC vs. FtF Groups -Liking and trust correlated with frequent task contributions in CMC -Liking and trust uncorrelated with conversation behavior in FtF

Reading: Online Dating (Markowitz, D. M., Hancock, J. T., & Tong)

Investigate profile stage: -Evaluate how people use photos and text from online identity -Enhance their appearance Examine matching stage: -Decision-making period when daters indicate romantic interest in partner based on profile information -Identify how matching process occurs and whom daters tend to match with Discuss discovery phase: -Occurs after profile matching but before FtF interaction when mediated conversation influences if people will meet in person -Identity relationship and psychological dynamics that occur during discovery period -Examine how they affect possibility of FtF meeting The Profile Stage: -Profile serves as one's romantic identity to others in network -Most profiles are largely genuine because gross inconsistencies between profile and offline version of self likely result in unfavorable in-person meeting -Men often overstate height (by less than one inch) -Women tend to understate their weight (by eight pounds) -Women more likely to alter photographs than men -Data consistent with gendered ideals -Women believe thin and appearing young is more attractive to men -Men believe being tall is more attractive to women -People make small embellishments to meet societal standards of gender ideals -Obvious deceptions likely intolerable -Smaller misrepresentations may be self-enhancing enough to make person appear attractive and interesting -Online daters also enhance self-presented identities in text portions of profile -Deceptions associated with fewer self-references (e.g. I, me, my) -And fewer negative emotion (e.g. hate, dislike) -Liars use fewer self-references than truth-tellers to psychologically distance deception from speaker -Negative emotion often amplified in deceptive speech -Liars give off anxiety or distress cues in language patterns -Deceptions i

Reading: Virtual Groups (Walther)

Issues include: -Impression formation and group development -Task-oriented and socioemotional communication, and trust -Challenges groups face to incorporate unique information that different members contribute to decision-making and problem solving discussions -Implications for "flashmobs" are considered. Groups and CMC: High quality decisions by groups facing complex, ambiguous situations often require: -Multiple perspectives -Expression of contrary viewpoints -Evaluation of multiple alternatives Research on CMC as effective sub for FtF meetings: -"Flash mobs" and large protest groups coordinate themselves spontaneously (Enabled by digital communication technology.) Group Formation and Impression Development: -First meet, members form initial impressions based nonverbal and content of self-disclosures -Fairly stereotypical, and tend to develop into different degrees of attraction among members. Forms of attraction that vary in relationships: -Physical attraction, or how good-looking people find one another to be -Social attraction, or how much individuals desire friendly relations between them -Task attraction, or how reliable and dependable someone appears; potential contributions to the group's task SIDE Model: -Absence of visual cues about one another promotes a feeling of depersonalization Another approach: -Combination of not sensing inter-individual differences, and sensing over-arching similarity to one another lead online group members to form exceptionally strong attraction to the group -In CMC groups, the more frequently a group member participated (by sending messages), the more the others liked the member. -In FtF groups, there was no significant relationship between participation frequency and liking. Social information processing (SIP): -When nonverbal cues are una

Reading: Impression Formation (Tong, S. T., Van Der Heide, B.)

Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on Facebook: -Experiment examined relationship between number of friends a Facebook profile featured -And observers' ratings of attractiveness and extraversion. -Curvilinear effect of sociometric popularity and social attractiveness emerged -As did quartic relationship between friend count and perceived extraversion. -Results suggest overabundance of friend connections raises doubts about Facebook users' popularity and desirability. -Dedicated to forming and managing impressions, relational maintenance, and relationship-seeking Contains information provided: -Not only by creator, but by creator's friends -And computational programs embedded in systems themselves. Online Impression Formation and Social Networking Sites: Self, friend, and system as source: -Facebook provides means for a user to post information about the self. Another source of information from other social network members: -An individual's friends can leave messages on one's profile. -Computer system itself leaves information on one's profile -Forming impressions from self-selected statements in CMC is understood from a SIP theory perspective -Brunswik Lens describes how observers associate nonbehavioral clues that reside in environment that belongs to a social actor to infer that actor's personality -''Behavioral residues,'' may be intentional or unintentional -May originate with target or with others -May be displayed in physical or virtual space Statements made by profile owner's friends: -Significant impact on observers' ratings of social attractiveness and credibility of profile owner. -Postings suggesting excessive drinking and philandering prompted reversal -Physical attractiveness of profile owner's friends directly affected observers' ratings of physical at

C.Media Richness Theory

Popularity: -Intuitive ("rich" vs. "lean") -Business school mindset -Often cited Basic Proposition: -Efficiency of communication is a function of the richness of a medium and the equivocality of a message -Optimal match between medium and message equivocality -Tasks and messages vary in equivocality -Media vary in richness Terms: -Equivocality: The degree to which a message may have multiple interpretations -(i.e., be difficult to understand within a specific time interval) Media Richness includes greater or lesser: -Multiple cues systems -Immediacy of feedback -Natural language -Message personalization Richness Hierarchy: -Face-to-face, Telephone, Letter, E-mail, Memo, Data printout Optimal Match: High to low equivocal -> -Face to face -Telephone -Letter -Email -Memo -Data printout -Mis-match Critique of Media Richness Theory: -Problems with classification of digital media -Pre-digital channels were uniform across richness dimensions Face-to-Face (high in everything): -Multiple cue systems -Immediacy of feedback -Natural language -Message personalization Company-wide memo (low on everything) -(Very lean) Digital Media, e.g., email: -Multiple cue systems (low) -Immediacy of feedback (if online at same time) -Natural language (middle) -Message personalization (sometimes no)

#3 Social Identification/Deindividuation (SIDE) Model (Lea & Spears, 1992):

Premise: -Social Identification/Self Categorization theory -People relate self to others based on common (or opposing) group memberships -Group identities or individuality can be salient (not both) Deindividuation Effects: -Certain conditions promote loss of self-awareness -Crowd behavior, etc. -Visual anonymity -Uniforms, hoods -CMC (no individuating NV cues) -You are anonymous to others -Others are anonymous to you SIDE Model: -If no individuating (nonverbal) cues, -If groups (vs. individual) identify salient, THEN relate on the basis of group membership -Over attributions of ingroup similarity -Conformity to ingroup norms and positive evaluation of others' normative behavior -"social attraction" -Communication affirming/reinforcing shared identity

Communication

Profile: -Photos -Categorical information (feed search criteria by other users) Narrative self-description and what's sought: -Cliché -Men more than women edit photos Selection from profiles within category matches: -Profile indicates modicum of physical attractiveness -Similar interests and values -Similar age and education -Interactive communication between selection and dating decision Variety of interactive systems: -Internal email* -Real-time chat* -Videoconferencing -Avatars -Canned phrases (Wink, Say "No Thanks" which reduces face-threat, vulnerability, personal rejection) Shondienst & Dang-Xuan, 2011: Successful first messages, LIWC analysis -Less "I" -Less leisure words ("movie") -Less negative emotion words -More "you" -More social process words ("relationship", "help") Response rates to first messages: -Men: 26% -Women: 16%

Reading: Social Presence and Media Richness Theories (CFO) (Baym, N. K.)

Reduced social cues: -Social presence: how interactants perceive one another, not feature of medium -But perception of social presence attributed to nonverbal cues enabled or disabled by mediation -Expected groups completing tasks that involved maintaining personal relationships require media that conveyed more social cues -Least social presence of all in audio recordings Media richness theory: Medium's richness as its information-carrying capacity based on four criteria: 1) Speed of feedback 2) Ability to communicate multiple cues 3) Use of natural language rather than numbers 4) Ability to readily convey feelings and emotions -Expectation was that tasks high in uncertainty such as resolving personal issues, would work better in rich media -While unequivocal tasks like telling someone you're running late would be best served by lean media Cues Filtered Out: -Assume that mediated communication is lean and therefore impedes people's ability to handle interpersonal dimensions of interaction Reduced cues affected social qualities of communication: 1) Mediation make it more difficult to maintain conversational alignment and mutual understanding 2) Interactants would gain greater anonymity -On other hand, anonymity expected to result in redistribution of social power -Participation more evenly distributed across group members -Take longer to reach decision, complete task, or achieve consensus -Expect lack of social cues to result in contexts without social norms to guide behavior -Expected to lead to less social and emotional communication -Meaner to one another than we would ever be in person Flaming: -messages that include swearing, insults, name calling, negative affect, and typographic energy -Flaming is behavior that cues filtered out approached predict -Lack of social pre

Findings

Screen names: -Participants chose screen names consistent with intended gender Stereotypical content: -Participants chose topics stereotypically associated with genders -Linguistic markers In Male games: -RL Males: M style, F style -RL Females: F style, M style In Female games: -RL Females: F style, M style -RL Males: F style, M style Conclusions: -Stereotyped content is somewhat useful -Underlying (unconscious?) language is influential -Harder to tell fake females? Or males?

Reading: Social Information Processing Theory and Hyperpersonal (Ledbetter, A.)

Social Information Processing Theory: -People can build interpersonal relationships despite the limitations imposed by mediated channels Hyperpersonal model: Sometimes, mediated communication is even more satisfying than communicating face-to-face. Online Versus Face-to-Face: -Mediated channels, could form a friendship that would be as close as if we lived in the same city? Yes -SIP pushes against uncertainty reduction theory, which focuses on information learned about another person -Ex) If I am to have an interpersonal impression of Michelle, need to know how she responds to me as a unique individual. Chain of events that occurs regardless of the medium: -Info through direct communication, form interpersonal impression, and relationship grows Cues filtered out: -People would become more self-absorbed and less inhibited, leading to flaming/ norms not clear Flaming: -Doesn't think loss of nonverbal cues is necessarily fatal -People can build interpersonal relationships despite the limitations imposed by mediated channels. 1) Verbal cues can effectively compensate 2) Online communicators need extended time to produce the same amount of impression as FtF communicators Verbal Cues of Affinity Replace Nonverbal Cues: -Nonverbal cues become less powerful when don't conflict with verbal message or when conveying facts -Walther believes we can replace nonverbal cues with verbal messages that convey the same meaning -Human need for affiliation overcomes the limited nature of the medium -Steady stream of short messages for social information Experimental Support for a Counterintuitive Idea: -Ex) Teen texters and soldiers abroad suggest that people can express affinity just as well through text as when FTF -Humans able to use text-only channels to convey a level of relational warmth that can equa

Reading: Impression Formation Pt 2 (Lane, B. L.)

Still Too Much of a Good Thing?: -Found number of Facebook friends influenced impressions of social attractiveness and extraversion -But not physical attractiveness, of profile owner. -Current study replicates original study -Testing for differences when Facebook profile owner has 102, 302, 502, 702, or 902 friends. -Results indicated no significant effect of number of Facebook friends and impressions of social attractiveness or physical attractiveness. -However, indicate significant differences in impressions of extraversion. -Warranting theory is applied to aid in interpretation -Explore whether cues that influenced users' impressions in original Web site design have changed Warranting theory: -Understand how individuals judge whether online information is reliable and valid and how those judgments influence impressions -Ex) Number of Facebook friends considered aggregated information, over which users have limited control -Excessive amount of Facebook friends perceived to manipulate aggregated data -Original hypotheses remain unchanged Key Changes in the Current Replication -Recruiting participants from MTurk provides more diverse and representative sample of Facebook users. -Study deviates in covariates in analysis 1) First is difference between participants' own number of Facebook friends and number of profile they viewed. -Anchoring bias notes individuals tend to evaluate information in relation to their existing beliefs, past experiences, and/or social norms 2) Facebook use measured by Facebook Intensity scale -Intense Facebook users could have different perspective on a "normal" number of Facebook friends Covariate: -six-item FBI scale and score of difference between the number of Facebook friends and Facebook friends of profile. Results: To test H1a: -Results indicated

Electronic Propinquity Theory

Theory of Electronic Propinquity (Korzenny, 1978): -(FtF, Video, Audio) -Propinquity = psychological closeness via media -"electronic proximity, or electronic nearness, or electronic presence." -Affects satisfaction and effectiveness Due to several factors: + Bandwidth (amt of information/cue systems) + Mutual directionality (interactivity) (One way or two-way) - Information complexity (task difficulty) + Communication skills - Communication rules (social or technical) - Perceived choices among channels (the smaller the number of choices, the more propinquity)

Impression Formation

What can you tell about someone FTF? How? How quickly?: -Cultural categories (& stereotypes) -Social categories (institutional & social roles, status; social identity; stereotypes) -Individual characteristics -Interpersonal characteristics -What can you tell about someone online? How? How quickly?

Reading: Zoom Burnout

Why Zoom Meeting Can Exhaust Us: -We are experiencing nonverbal overload -Behavior ordinarily reserved for close relationships suddenly become the way we interact with casual acquaintances, coworkers and even strangers. -Each person stares right at you from screen for entire meeting. -People are forced to pay attention, but it is also draining Consequences of this "constant gaze:" -Using virtual classrooms with one teacher and two students -Students paid more attention to teachers. -But learners very uncomfortable getting stared at entire lesson. Another thing about real meetings: -We can control our personal space. -Brain attentive to faces, when see large ones, interpret as being close. -But if move too far back, colleagues might think disengaged. -We can adapt by changing way we conduct videoconferences. -Stream video only for the person talking, camera feeds turned off. -Play around with settings to find right balance for meeting. -Set up external webcam instead of laptop camera.