CMC vs. FTF
Walther believes that relationships grow only to the
extent that parties first gain information about each
other and use that information to form interpersonal
impressions of who they are.
4
CMC vs. FTF
Walther acknowledges that nonverbal cues are filtered
out of CMC but highlights two features of CMC that
provide a foundation for SIP theory:
6
Verbal Cues of Affinity Replace
Nonverbal Cues
SIPTheory suggests verbal and nonverbal cues can be
used interchangeably.
8
Experimental Support
Walther conducted an experiment between 28 pairs of
students who didn’t know each other, half communicated
face to face and half via CMC.
9
Extended Time - The Crucial Variable
Walther is convinced that the length of time that CMC
users have to send their messages is the key factor that
determines whether their messages can achieve the
same level of intimacy as FTF communication.
10
Extended Time- The Crucial Variable
Online users can make up for the rate difference by
sending messages more often.
11
Extended Time - The Crucial Variable
Anticipated future interaction
12
Hyperpersonal Perspective
Senders self-select what they reveal, receivers create a
perfect image, and the channel lets users express
themselves the way they want.
Creates a hyperpersonal relationship.
16
Walther’s Critique
“A weakness apparent in the social information
processing perspective is that it has not allowed for
differences in the affiliation drive”
17
Pros of SIP Theory
Communicate at anytime
Can develop same level of intimacy
Place independent
Cons of SIP Theory
Takes longer
Impersonal
Miscommunication
Conclusion
The social information processing theory predicts that,
provided CMC users have extended time to develop an
interpersonal relationship, it will result in the same or
more amount of intimacy as a FTF relationship.
20