The Internet, as Barghand and McKenna (2004, p. 574) note, ‘is fast becoming a natural backgroundpartof everyday life.’Baym et al. (2004) the type of relationship exhibited far greater influence on interaction quality than the medium employed for the interaction. Duck, Rutt, Hurst, and Strejc (1991) propose that relationships are maintainedthrough not only strategic behavior but also, and potentially moreimportantly, routine interaction.‘rhetorical vision,’ or impression of the relationship and the type of futurethat can be expected for it (Duck, 1988). From this perspective, routineinteraction creates, defines, reflects, and recreates the manner in whichpartners view their relationship through its mere occurrence. Parks and Floyd (1996, p. 94) note, ‘the ultimatesocial impact of cyberspace will not flow from its exotic capabilities, butrather from the fact that people are putting it to ordinary, even mundane,social uses’. Because routine interactions embody relational maintenanceFrom their introduction, computer-mediatedtools have been lauded for their ability to bridge distances between individuals(Stafford, 2005).
Relationship Lost perspective=CMC lacks many aspects of traditional communication, such as physical presence, social, nonverbal, and contextual cues. “Greater use of the internet is associated with declines in participants’ communication with family members in the household, declines in the size of their social circle, and increases in their depression and loneliness.” (Kraut et al., 1998: according by Thurlow, Lengel and Tomic, 2004)Allegation of asociality. CMC is bad communication because the quality ofcommunication is reduced as a result of the technological restraints of the internet.Allegation of antisociality. CMC is bad communication because it has a negativeimpact on offline communication and offline relationships.The Social Presence Model- Social presence refers to the level of interpersonal contact and feelings of intimacyexperienced in communication. What the Social Presence model proposes is that having fewer visual cues leads to low social presence which, in turn, leads to more task-focused and less relationship-focused communication.Social context cues Model-absence of all nonverbal cues (e.g. gestures, facialexpressions, tone of voice, appearance)and identity markers (e.g. status, occupational role,age and gender). The absence of visual and paralinguistic cues in technologically mediatedcommunication means that ‘psychological distance’ is increased, which leads to moreimpersonal communication. The Media richness model-people prefer to use the ‘richest’ communication medium to enable the most efficient means of understanding each other. The more complex the communication task, the richer the medium that is needed. In these terms, a personal or intimate message will always require a ‘rich’ medium like the telephone – or, better still, FtF communication. It incorporatesthe medium capacity (richness—presented as objective characteristics of the medium) and the nature of the task (uncertainty/equivocality). Richer communicationformats=FtF or videoconferencing, are better suited for communicatingambiguous information.Leaner formats = e-mail or IM, are better suited for routine communication or that whichinvolves unambiguous information.
Walther then emphasizes that, because people need to manage uncertainty and develop relationships, they will adapt the textual cues to meet their needs when faced with a channel that does not carry visual and aural cues. As a conclusion, it is not that CMC cannot convey relational messages, but that it needs more time.Three factors are presented in social information-processing theory that influences interpersonal relationships within CMC. 1.People are naturally motivated to build an affiliation with others (relational motivators or communication imperative). 2.CMC usersdevelop the skills to decode textual cues to form interpersonal impressions (use of emoticons, such as :-) to indicate a smile). 3.CMC users develop/adapt strategies for attaining psychological-level knowledge within this new environment (self-disclosure, deception detection function without nonverbal cues)Based on these three factors, individuals are able to form impressions, gain interpersonal knowledge, and develop relationships solely through textual interaction. Communication Imperative “ - we’re born to communicate and are driven to maximize our communication satisfaction and interaction”. So it’s not just a matter of what technology affords or permits us todo, but of how we appropriate the technology and make it do what we want it to do!Impression management model –holds that channel preferences arestrongly influenced by impression-management concerns (O’Sullivan, 1996,2000). The results revealed that when desired impressionswere threatened, especially one’s own, participants preferred communicationformats that conveyed fewer, rather than more, social cues. Hyperpersonal communication model: What he meant bythis was that CMC can actually be more friendly, social and intimate than face-to-facecommunication – in his own words, it ‘surpasses normal interpersonal levels’. However, in CMC, therange of uncertainty reduction strategies is often confined to interactive strategies,such as directquestioning and self-disclosure. Although these direct strategies may beregarded impolite in face-to-face settings, in CMC they may be more accepted and, asa result, more frequently used (Tidwell & Walther, 2002).
First category of studies focuses on the uses and functions of online communication technologies for adolescents and adults. According to them IM are predominantly used for the maintenance of existing social relationships, both among adolescents (Boneva et al., 2006; Grinter & Palen, 2002; Gross, 2004). Second category of studies has focused primarily on detecting differences in the quality of online friendships and offline friendships. Quality of online friendships usually improves significantly over time (Chan & Cheng, 2004). Adolescents and adults who have many offline friends also seem to create online friendships more easily (Kobayashi et al., 2000; Matei & Ball-Rokeach, 2001).Third category of studies, aims to investigate the consequences of different types of Internet use for the quantity and/or quality of existing friendships or other social relationships. Some report negative effects, some report no effects, but most of them report about the positive effects
Instant MessagingIM distinguishes itself from other text-based communication by users’ predominantmessaging with known others in real time (Grinter & Palen, 2002).Like the phone, IM isbased on a dyadic “call” model, so a sender must know the intended recipient’s IM accountbut still the call may or may not be “answered” (Nardi, Whittaker, & Bradner, 2000).instant messaging (or IM), isa near-synchronous written medium, which provides geographically distributedrelational partners the opportunity to engage in ‘real-time’ interaction.The widespread popularity of IM likely represent the extension of everyday‘talk’ into a new forum, rather than a replacement of more conventionalforms of interaction and relational maintenance (Baym, 2002).Instant messaging offers two functions unique to computer-mediated communication (CMC): the ability to know who is connected to the shared space between or among friends, and the ability to conduct a text-based conversation in real time.Second, whereas chat is more often used to form relationships, IM is typically used to maintain relationships (Grinter & Palen, 2004).
-People regardless of their age use Skupe in their everyday communication.-Approximately 3 years are active users.-Their skype network is consisted of mainly friends, family and relatives, co-workers. Always people that they met offline and know them personally.Some of them are stimulated to use skype as a tool for business communication and some of them are restricted of doing that.They have the same account for private and business contacts.The use of Skype differ regarding of the age, sex, context. Young people use in full the capacities of SkypeThe validate Skype talks as same as the F2F talks.They prefer chat because of several reasons: multitasking, control over the communication situations, disclosure of nonverbal cues (impression management model). They use audio and video calls only when they are obliged by their job or are talking with a romantic partner or member of the family. They use a lot of positive emoticons in their chat communicationThey communicate intensively online with people that have intensive F2F communication, or people that are very geographicaly distant from them. The elder begin to use Skype in order to communicate with people that have not seen them for a long time, or with their children.They perceive Skype as friendly, free, fast and easy manageable. The present a variation of using Skype status. Invisible status is often used when working, or do not want to be disturbed. Through statuses they show their aspect of availability. They usually feel obliged to respond immediately when someone contacts them. They feel that they initiate talks with a purpose and as a everyday routine of “keep in touch” and getting social appreciation and support. While at someone the culture of online communication is developed, other do not appreciate the Skype cues (status) when approaching themYoung people demand immediate feedback.Young people do not find multucommunicating difficult of without focus.Conferences are used mostly in the business environments or when talking with friends. Skype is helping them maintain their relationships, and they do not think that it takes them the time that they would spend on F2F communication. Skype makes people get closer!
When a technology grabs hold and diffuses as rapidly as the internet, it isreasonable to be concerned about its impact. However, understanding theseimpacts requires demystifying the internet. Rather than studying ‘TheInternet’, we need to differentiate between multiple aspects of this complexand pervasive technology and to distinguish the internet clearly from otherstrategies for accomplishing the same cultural goals. We need to understandthat users may be influenced by the technologies’ affordances, but they alsoappropriate technologies to serve their needs. ! We need to explore different populations of users as well as different kinds of internet uses. Before wehave built a strong foundation for such studies, any pronouncements about he internet’s dangers or salvations should be treated with skepticism.
How Skype Is Re Shaping Interpersonal Communication - Radmila Zivanovic @ Glocal: Inside Social Media
Interpersonal media/Social media tools<br />Internet as a natural background part of everyday life<br />Bridging distances between people<br />Social impact of cyberspace by practicing ordinary, even mundane, social uses.<br />aSynchronous to Synchronous<br />
Perspectives of interpersonal online communication<br />Lost Perspective<br />The Social Presence Model<br />(Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) <br />Social context cues Model<br />(Sproull & Kiesler, 1986, 1991) <br />The Media Richness Model<br />(Daft and Lengel, 1984)<br />
The Liberation Perspective<br />The Social Information Processing Model <br />(Walther ,1992) <br />The Hyperpersonal communication model<br /> (Walther (1996) <br />Perspectives of interpersonal online communication<br />
Studies in interpersonal online communication(according to Valkenburgand Peter, 2009)<br />First category of studies focuses on the uses and functions of online communication technologies for adolescents and adults. <br />Second category of studies has focused primarily on detecting differences in the quality of online friendships and offline friendships.<br />Third category of studies,aims to investigate the consequences of different types of Internet use for the quantity and/or quality of existing friendships or other social relationships.<br />
InstantMessaging<br />Near-synchronous written medium<br /> Connection on distance<br /> Real-time interaction<br /> Creating shared spaces<br /> Extension of everyday “talk”<br /> Maintaining relationships<br /> Inexpensive<br />
Skype<br />Radmila: No need to explain <br /> I’ll skype you!<br />
Skyping My community<br />Recipe:<br />10 Representative people of my Skype community<br />10 “Small Talk” interviews about their Skype communication<br />10 Skype chat records to reflect upon<br />Several “A-ha”s<br />
The taste? Hmmm…<br />People regardless of their age use Skype in their everyday communication.<br />They are approximately 3,5 years active users.<br />Their Skype network is consisted of mainly friends, family and relatives, co-workers, people that they have met offline and know them personally.<br />Some of them are stimulated to use Skype as a tool for business communication and some of them are restricted of doing that.<br />They have the same account for private and business contacts…<br />
“It’s always a risky business making simplistic explanations of, or generalizations about, complex social phenomena like communication – especially those which neglect the significance of human relationships.”<br />(Thurlow, Lengel and Tomic, 2004)<br />
Thank you <br />RadmilaZivanovic<br />firstname.lastname@example.org<br />Skype ID: radmilalj<br />