Theorizing the Future of Computer-Mediated Communication: The Changing Role of Self-Presentation, Audience, and Interaction

Theorizing the Future of Computer-Mediated Communication:
The Changing Role of Self-Presentation, Audience, and Interaction
Jessica Vitak | @jvitak
Michigan State University
Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011

Let’s take a walk through CMC’s past…
1. Computer-mediated communication is not a new phenomenon.
2. Theories of CMC have evolved with the technology.
3. BUT this evolution cannot keep pace with technological developments.
2
Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011

CMC is as old as the Internet
3
Usenet (1979)
Best-known and widely researched online discussion forum.
Newsgroups for every topic imaginable.
See Baym (1998) & Donath (1999) for examples of research using Usenet.

4
The WELL (1985)
Became widely known through Howard Rheingold’s book, “The Virtual Community”
Strong geographic component.
Highlighted the modality-switching capabilities of the Internet.

5
AOL connected millions of people to the Internet and served as both an ISP and as a homebase for establishing an online identity.
AOL Chat Rooms enabled large-group pseuodonymous, synchronous interactions.
AIM (1996) enabled synchronous one-to-one interactions.

7
Online dating sites serve a very specific purpose: finding someone to date (casually or seriously)
Modality switching.
Static profiles  asynchronous communication  synchronouscommunication  face-to-face meetings.
See Ellison, Gibbs & Heino’s (2006) research for more.

8
Boyd and Ellison (2007) define SNSs as “web-based services that allow individuals to:
(1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system;
(2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and
(3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.”

9

Theories of CMC
10
Cues-filtered-out approach (Culnan & Markus, 1987)
Dominant in 1980s and into the 1990s
CMC is impersonal; less social/personal; leaner than in-person interactions
"CMC, because of its lack of audio or video cues, will be perceived as impersonal and lacking in normative reinforcement, so there will be less socioemotional content exchanged" (Rice & Love, 1987).
<

Theories of CMC
11
Social Information Processing (SIP) Theory (Walther, 1992)
Direct response to cues filtered out approach.
Relationships can and do form online, albeit at a slower rate than in face-to-face environments.
=

Theories of CMC
12
Hyperpersonal Model (Walther, 1996)
Sometimes, the unique affordances of CMC allow individuals to develop develop relationships that are “more socially desirable than we tend to experience in parallel FtFinteraction” (p. 17).
Role of sender, receiver, channel, and feedback.
>

Theories of CMC
13
Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE; Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995 )
In deindividuated/depersonalized settings, individual identity is submerged into the group identity.
We identify with the “in group” and disassociate with the “outgroup.”
✔

14

Evolution of CMC
15
CMC’s early features:
Asynchronous
Examples: Email, discussion forums
Benefits: Allows user to carefully compose and edit messages prior to sending.
Drawbacks: limited/no real-time interactions  slowed down processes
(2) Reduced-cues environment
Examples: any text-only online interaction
Benefits: selective self-presentation, identity play
Drawbacks: No visual cues misinterpretations of messages, deception
Theories of CMC are based off of these properties.

Evolution of CMC
16
CMC in 2011 is:
(1) Highly interactive
(2) Highly visual
(3) Synchronous, near synchronous, and asynchronous communication
(4) Interactions are with FRIENDS, not strangers

The Problem
17
CMC has changed…
BUT
the theories that attempt to predict, explain, and control it have not.

Enter my research…
18
https://www.msu.edu/~nellison/TOIL

19
What do we study?
The relationship between Facebook use and social capital:
We have found that various measures of Facebook use, including FBI (Ellison et al., 2007), actual friends on the site (Ellison et al., in press), connection strategies (Ellison et al., in press), and engagement in reciprocal communication (Vitak et al., 2011) predict perceptions of social capital.
But this only tells part of the story.

20
Problems with this research:
Atheoretical?
Does not account for two inter-related and
critical components of SNS use:
-- Audience
-- Self-Presentation (a la disclosures)

What’s audience got to do with it?
21
danahboyd (2008) identified three dynamics that differentiate networked publics from traditional publics:
invisible audiences
context collapse
blurring of public and private

Selective Self-Presentation via CMC
22
Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical approach:
… a performer tends to conceal or underplay those activities, facts, and motives which are incompatible with an idealized version of himself… a performer often engenders in his audience the belief that he is related to them in a more ideal way than is always the case (p. 48).
Hyperpersonal Model (Walther, 1996): senders engage in selective self-presentations // receivers idealize the sender // behavioral confirmation through feedback
So how do we selectively self-present on SNSs?

23
Selective Self-Presentation in our SNS Profiles
Profile Picture
Highlighted Pictures
Friends
How many?
Who are they?
Who is highlighted?
Status updates

24
Communication Channels on SNSs
Public: Status Updates, Comments, Likes, Posting Photos, Sharing Links
Private: Messages, Chat, Filtering Posts with privacy settings

Blurring of Public and Private
25
Marwick and boyd (2011):
“We may understand that the Twitter or Facebook audience is potentially limitless, but we often act as if it were bounded.”
But Facebook is just my friends!
Technical features enable sharing of “private” information far beyond your articulated network.

26

27
Canadian woman on medical leave dropped from insurance for not looking depressed in Facebook photos (story)

28
Eagles employee fired over status update (story)

But what does it all mean?
29

30
We cannot rely on older theories of CMC to explain current user experiences.
 Older theories focus on reduced cues, asynchronous
communication.
These theories also focus on relationship formation, not maintenance.
Social Information Processing
Hyperpersonal
SIDE

31
Older theories focus on reduced cues, asynchronous communication.
One’s audience—both known and unknown
—is critical.
But can you ever really know who your entire audience is?

33

34
Older theories focus on reduced cues, asynchronous communication.
2. One’s audience—both known and unknown—is
critical.
But can you ever really know who your entire audience is?
3. While scary things can and do happen, online
communication is full of benefits for those
who choose to engage.

Looking forward
35
How can we theoretically explain the communication and relationship building that occurs online?
Don’t treat online and offline as separate entities.
We don’t necessarily need to build new theories from scratch 
Can we expand on existing theories of CMC to include new technological features?
Can we adapt existing social science theories explaining offline interaction?

Looking forward: Where to start?
36
Equity Theory (Adams, 1965)
Distribution of resources in a dyadic relationship
Compares ratios of contributions and benefits of each member of a relationship.
MY INPUT = YOUR INPUT _
MY OUTCOMES YOUR OUTCOMES
When these ratios are unequal, individuals feel distress and seek to restore equity
People seek to maximize rewards while minimizing costs.

37
Social Exchange Theory (review: Emerson, 1976)
Relationship development process consists of a series of cost-benefit analyses
Main concepts: cost, benefit, outcome, comparison level, satisfaction, and dependence

38
Altman’s (1975) theory of privacy—selective control of access to the self, involving:
A dynamic, dialectic process
An optimization process
A multi-mechanism process
Functions of privacy:
management of social interaction
establishment of plans and strategies for interacting with others
development and maintenance of self-identity

39
Thanks!
Twitter: Email:
@jvitakvitakjes@msu.edu
Website:
http://vitak.wordpress.com

Theorizing the Future of Computer-Mediated Communication: The Changing Role of Self-Presentation, Audience, and Interaction

by Jessica Vitak on Oct 17, 2011

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Theorizing the Future of Computer-Mediated Communication: The Changing Role of Self-Presentation, Audience, and Interaction Presentation Transcript