SOCIAL PRESENCE: WHAT IS IT? HOW DO WE MEASURE IT?

SOCIAL PRESENCE: WHAT IS IT? HOW DO WE MEASURE IT?
by
Patrick Ryan Lowenthal
B.A., Georgia State University, 1997
M.A., University of Colorado Boulder, 1999
M.A., University of Colorado Denver, 2003
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado Denver in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Educational Leadership and Innovation
2012

UMI Number: 3506428
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3506428
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

ii
This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by
Patrick Ryan Lowenthal
has been approved for the
Educational Leadership and Innovation
by
Joanna C. Dunlap, Chair
Joanna C. Dunlap, Advisor
Rodney Muth
Ellen Stevens
Patti Shank
Date

iii
Lowenthal, Patrick Ryan (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
Social Presence: What is it? How do we measure it?
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Joanna C. Dunlap
Social presence theory is a central concept in online learning. Hundreds of studies have
investigated social presence and online learning. However, despite the continued interest
in social presence and online learning, many questions remain about the nature and
development of social presence. Part of this might be due to the fact that the majority of
past research has focused on students' perceptions of social presence rather than on how
students actually establish their social presence in online learning environments. Using
the Community of Inquiry Framework, this study explores how social presence manifests
in a fully asynchronous online course in order to help instructional designers and faculty
understand how to intentionally design opportunities for students to establish and
maintain their social presence. This study employs a mixed-methods approach using
word count, content analysis, and constant-comparison analysis to examine threaded
discussions in a totally online graduate education course. The results of this study suggest
that social presence is more complicated than previously imagined and that situational
variables such as group size, instructional task, and previous relationships might
influence how social presence is established and maintained in threaded discussions in a
fully online course.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Joanna C. Dunlap

iv
DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to the ladies of my life. First, I dedicate this to my mother. I
would not be the person I am today if it was not for her. Second, I dedicate this to my
wife, Alison, for (among other things) her unfaltering support and patience while I was
avoiding completing this thesis. I could not have completed this without her love and
support. Third, I dedicate this to my daughters, Jordan and Ashlyn. I hope they
understand one day why Daddy spent so much time on the computer. And over time I
hope they see me spend less time on the computer and more time with them. Last but not
least, I dedicate this to the two greatest dogs in the world, Beezer and Nikita. They both
supported me in their own way throughout this process over the years, and I miss them
dearly now that they are gone.
.

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I want to thank my advisor, Joanna C. Dunlap, for her guidance, support, and
patience over the years. Joni taught me how to be a scholar and has been a great
colleague and friend. I look forward to continuing our relationship for years to come. I
also want to thank Ellen Stevens for never giving up on me and always asking those
tough questions over the years. I want to thank Rodney Muth for his unending support. I
took my first EDLI course with Rod, I published my first article with Rod, and I finished
my dissertation with Rod. I would also like to thank Marcia Muth for teaching me to be a
writer when that was the last thing I thought I would ever become. And finally I would
like to thank Patti Shank for her continued professional support over the years.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES ............................................................................................................... xi
TABLES .............................................................................................................. xiii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1
Background ..................................................................................................3
Social Presence Theory ....................................................................3
The Evolution of Social Presence Theory .......................................5
Limitation of Previous Studies.....................................................................6
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................9
Conceptual Framework ..............................................................................10
Goal of the Study .......................................................................................14
Overview of Methods ................................................................................16
Sample ............................................................................................16
Data Analysis .................................................................................16
Reliability and Validity ..................................................................18
Significance of Study .................................................................................18
Limitations .................................................................................................19
Chapter Summary ......................................................................................19
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................21

A Brief History of Social Presence Theory ...............................................21
Theoretical Foundations of Social Presence Theory .....................21
Intimacy .............................................................................22
Immediacy ..........................................................................22
Influential and Related Research on Social Presence ....................23
Competing Theories of Social Presence Theory ........................................26
Cuelessness ....................................................................................26
Media Richness ..............................................................................27
Social Information Processing .......................................................28
Defining Social Presence ...........................................................................31
Measuring Social Presence ........................................................................33
Gunawardena’s Social Presence Scale ...........................................34
Rourke et al.’s Social Presence Indicators .....................................35
Tu and The Social Presence and Privacy Questionnaire ...............37
Research on Social Presence ......................................................................40
Social Presence and Student Satisfaction ......................................40
Social Presence and Interaction .....................................................44
Social Presence and Student Learning ...........................................47
Establishing and Maintaining Social Presence ..........................................53
Some Gaps in the Literature ......................................................................57
Chapter Summary ......................................................................................60
vii

3. METHOD .........................................................................................................61
Research Question .....................................................................................61
Research Design .........................................................................................61
Sample ........................................................................................................62
Sampling Scheme ...........................................................................62
Sampling Design ............................................................................65
Data Collection ..........................................................................................67
Data Analysis .............................................................................................67
Word Count ....................................................................................68
Content Analysis ............................................................................69
Constant Comparison Analysis ......................................................77
Reliability and Validity ..............................................................................79
Reliability .......................................................................................79
Validity ..........................................................................................80
Chapter Summary ......................................................................................81
4. RESULTS .........................................................................................................82
Word Count ................................................................................................82
Content Analysis ........................................................................................87
Stage One: Social Presence Categories and Indicators Across All
Threaded Discussions ....................................................................89
viii

Stage Two: Social Presence Categories and Indicators by Threaded
Discussion ......................................................................................94
ix
Stage Three: Social Presence Categories and Indicators by
Students ........................................................................................101
Constant Comparison Analysis ................................................................106
Chapter Summary ....................................................................................111
5. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................112
Key Findings ............................................................................................112
Group Size ...................................................................................114
Instructional Task .........................................................................116
Past Relationships ........................................................................119
One Size Does Not Fit All ...........................................................120
Limitations of Studying Social Presence .................................................121
Situational Variables of CMC ......................................................122
Unit of Analysis ...........................................................................126
Problems with the Social Presence Indicators and Treating Them
Equally .........................................................................................128
Problems with Measuring the Community of Inquiry .................130
Limitations of the Study...........................................................................132
Concluding Thoughts and Implications ...................................................133

x
APPENDIX
A. APPENDIX A .................................................................................................136
B. APPENDIX B .................................................................................................142
C. APPENDIX C .................................................................................................146
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................150

xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.1 Community of Inquiry Framework ........................................................................11
1.2 Visual Depiction of Initial Conceptual Framework of Social Presence Developed
by Rourke et al., 2001a ..........................................................................................14
2.1 Communication Media and Information Richness Diagram .................................28
2.2 Timeline of Competing Theories of Social Presence Preceding the Development
of the Community of Inquiry Framework ..............................................................30
2.3 Continuum of Definitions of Social Presence ........................................................33
3.1 Steps Followed to Complete Constant Comparison Analysis of Online
Discussions ............................................................................................................78
4.1 Word Cloud of Word Count Results Without the Discussions Headings .............84
4.2 Frequency of Possible Social Presence Indicators Across the Three Major
and Most Frequented Threaded Discussions .........................................................85
4.3 Stages of Disaggregation of Content Analysis Used to Explore Use of Social
Presence Indicators in a Fully Online Asynchronous Course ................................88
4.4 A Visual Depiction of the Frequency of Each of the Three Social Presence
Categories ..............................................................................................................90
4.5 Frequency of Social Presence Indicators Across All Threaded
Discussions ............................................................................................................92
4.6 Social Presence Indicators Separated by Category ................................................93
4.7 Visual Depiction of the Average Social Presence Indicators Group by Category in
Closed Threaded Discussions ................................................................................97

xii
4.8 Ranking of Social Presence Indicators Used By the Three Students with the
Highest Overall Social Presence Per Post Average .............................................104
4.9 Disaggregation of Three Students with Highest Social Presence per Post
Average ................................................................................................................106

xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.1 Categories and indicators of social presence ...............................................................12
1.2 Alignment of research questions to data analysis ........................................................18
2.1 Phases of social presence research ...............................................................................30
2.2 Example of social presence indicators ...................................................................36
2.3 Social presence dimension of the Community of Inquiry Questionnaire ..............39
2.4 Strategies to establish and develop social presence ...............................................53
2.5 Strategies to establish and maintain social presence ..............................................55
3.1 Online descriptions ................................................................................................64
3.2 Threaded discussions raw data ...............................................................................66
3.3 Overview of data analysis ......................................................................................68
3.4 Original social presence categories and example indicators ..................................70
3.5 Rourke et al.’s categories and indicators of social presence ..................................71
3.6 Evolution of the indicators of social presence .......................................................72
3.7 Swan and Hughes et al. combined list of categories and indicators of
social presence .......................................................................................................73
3.8 Coding sheet used for content analysis ..................................................................75
4.1 Top 20 words used across all threaded discussions ...............................................83
4.2 Top 20 words across project groups ......................................................................86
4.3 Top 20 words across pairs ......................................................................................86
4.4 Top 20 words across reading groups .....................................................................87
4.5 Social presence frequency across all forums .........................................................91

4.6 Social presence indicators ranking from highest to lowest frequency ...................92
4.7 Open vs. closed threaded discussions ....................................................................95
xiv
4.8 Average social presence indicators per post across open and closed threaded
discussions .............................................................................................................96
4.9 Average social presence indicators across closed threaded discussions ................97
4.10 Ranking of average social presence indicators across closed threaded discussions98
4.11 Average social presence indicator per threaded discussion .................................100
4.12 Student’s use of social presence categories .........................................................102
4.13 Groups of codes resulting from the constant comparison analysis of reading
Group E ................................................................................................................108
4.14 Groups of codes resulting from the constant comparison analysis of
Pair 9 ....................................................................................................................110
5.1 Teaching presence categories and indicators .......................................................113
5.2 Instructor vs. student postings in small discussions.............................................117
5.3 Measuring social presence in a Community of Inquiry .......................................131

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
I can remember when I started teaching online. I was a full believer in online
education. I had been teaching face-to-face courses and even taken a few courses online
myself. I was excited to teach online. At the same time, I was scared. I was scared that
somehow my personality, my classroom presence, my empathy, my ability to connect
with my students—all things that I attributed to my success teaching face-to-face—would
not translate to an online environment.
I regularly meet faculty now who have similar fears. They fear that what they do
in the classroom cannot translate to an online environment. Fears like these, though, are
not restricted to faculty. I meet people all the time who make claims like, “I just can’t
learn that way” or “I need to talk to people face-to-face” or “online learning is just not for
me.” For some time, people have had the choice to avoid learning online if it was not
their preferred way to learn. But the growth of online education (see Allen & Seaman,
2006, 2010), legislative trends that require students to learn online (Walters, 2011;
Watson, 2006), and the blurring of boundaries between fully online and traditional face-to-
face courses (Woo, McNeill, Preston, Green, & Phillips, 2008), suggest that in the near
future faculty and students will no longer have the choice to avoid online education.
Based on my research and experience, I contend that one’s success learning
online—specifically in formal online education settings—begins and ends with one’s
ability to communicate effectively online. In my experience, students who struggle
communicating online (whether within a Learning Management System or using email)
struggle learning online in formal online educational settings. Communicating online is

2
simply different from communicating face-to-face (Suler, 2004). I am interested in these
differences and how people—specifically faculty and students—take advantage of these
differences in formal education settings. In other words, I am interested in how faculty
and students leverage the strengths and minimize the limitations of a computer-mediated
communication (CMC) medium when teaching and learning online.
A supposed limitation of CMC and online education in general is that it is
difficult to establish one’s presence as a “real” person and “connect” with others—
generally called social presence (Kear, 2010). One reason people struggle learning online,
I posit, is related to this concept of social presence or the lack there of. For instance,
isolation and loneliness—which are in part due to a lack of presence—are often cited as
reasons why students do not persist online (Ali & Leeds, 2010; Ludwig-Hardman &
Dunlap, 2003).
I have set forth to investigate the big question of how people establish their
presence online by examining how people present themselves as real people in formal
online education environments (which predominantly rely on asynchronous CMC).
Ultimately, my hope is that my research can help others learn how to establish their social
presence in formal online education environments. In the following pages of this chapter,
I provide a formal rationale for and overview of this study by beginning with some
background literature on social presence, addressing limitations of previous research,
presenting my conceptual framework, and finally providing an overview of the
methodology used for this study.

3
Background
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers began to study the effects of
computer-mediated communication (CMC) (Daft & Lengel, 1984, 1986; Rutter, 1984,
1987; Walther, 1996). Some concluded that CMC was inherently antisocial and
impersonal (Walther, 1996; Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994). While Hiltz and Turoff
(1993), two early key researchers of CMC, acknowledged that interpersonal relationships
might be fostered through CMC, early research suggested—and convinced others—that
CMC was better at task-oriented communication than interpersonal communication
(Walther & Parks, 2002). To make sense of findings like these, CMC researchers turned
to theories like Cuelessness Theory (Rutter, 1984, 1987), Media Richness Theory (Daft
& Lengel, 1984, 1986; Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987), Social Information Processing
Theory (Walther, 1996; Walther & Parks, 2002) and Social Presence Theory (Short,
Williams, & Christie, 1976). Overtime, social presence theory appealed to more
researchers of online learning (as is evidenced in the growing body of research on social
presence and online learning). And today, social presence theory is the most often
referenced theory explaining the social nature of CMC in online educational
environments (Lowenthal, 2010).
Social Presence Theory
Short, Williams, and Christie (1976) originally developed the theory of social
presence to explain the effect telecommunications media have on communication. They
defined social presence as the degree of salience (i.e., quality or state of being there)
between two communicators using a communication medium. They posited that
communication media differ in their degree of social presence and that these differences

4
play an important role in how people interact. They conceptualized social presence
primarily as a quality of a communication medium that can determine the way that people
interact and communicate. From their perspective, people perceive some media as having
a higher degree of social presence (e.g., video) and other media as having a lower degree
of social presence (e.g., audio) and still other media having even a lower degree of social
presence (e.g., text). More importantly, Short et al. believed that a medium with a high
degree of social presence is seen as being sociable, warm, and personal, whereas a
medium with a low degree of social presence is seen as less personal. While people might
want a less intimate or immediate communication medium from time to time (see
Williams, 1975), formal education is a very social process that involves high
interpersonal involvement. Past research, for example, has specifically stressed the
importance of contact and cooperation between faculty and students (Chickering &
Gamson, 1987). Thus, early on social presence theory appeared to have direct
implications for educators in online environments.
In the late eighties and early nineties, relying on this theory, researchers began
concluding that CMC was inherently impersonal because the nonverbal and relational
cues (common in face-to-face communication) are filtered out of CMC (Walther & Parks,
2002). Later though in the mid-nineties, researchers began to notice, even though CMC
lacks nonverbal and relational cues, that it can still be very social and interpersonal
(Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997) and at times even hyperpersonal
(Walther, 1996). Further, as researchers (Gunawardena, 1995; Tu, 2000) began
examining the sociability of online education, they started questioning the degree to
which the attributes of a communication medium—in this case the cues filtered out of

5
CMC systems—determine how people socially interact (Danchak, Walther, & Swan,
2001; Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Tu,
2000).
The Evolution of Social Presence Theory
Researchers of online learning (e.g., Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle,
1997; Tu, 2000) began questioning the theory of social presence developed by Short et al.
(1976). These researchers argued, based on their experience and research, that
participants in online asynchronous discussions, using text alone, are able to project their
personalities into online discussions and create social presence. They found that online
learners are able to present themselves as being “real” as well as “connect” with others
when communicating in online learning environments by doing such things as using
emoticons, telling stories, and even using humor (Rourke et al., 2001a; Swan, 2003).
Thus, a user’s personal perceptions of social presence—which are influenced over time
and with experience using a communication medium—and the behaviors one learns to
use to make up for the cues that are filtered out matter just as much, if not more, than a
medium’s supposed capabilities. This new line of research sparked a renewed interest in
the sociability of online learning, social presence, and CMC as evidenced in the increased
amount of literature focused on social presence.
Given the research stream, social presence is now a central concept in online
learning. For instance, social presence has been listed as a key component in theoretical
frameworks for distance education (Akyol & Garrison, 2009; Benbunan-Fich, Hiltz, &
Harasim, 2005; Vrasidas & Glass, 2002). Researchers have shown—to varying degrees—
a relationship between social presence and student satisfaction (Gunawardena, 1995;

Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Hostetter & Busch, 2006; Richardson & Swan, 2003; So &
6
Brush, 2008), social presence and the development of a community of learners (Rourke,
Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001a; Rovai, 2002; Ryman, Hardham, Richardson, &
Ross, 2009), and social presence and perceived learning (Caspi & Blau, 2008;
Richardson & Swan, 2003). Just as earlier researchers of CMC (Kiesler, 1986; Kiesler,
Siegel, McGuire, 1984) used social presence theory to explain why CMC was inherently
impersonal, later researchers (Gunawardena, 1995; Tu, 2000) reconceptualized social
presence theory—focusing less on the medium and more on how people adapted to the
medium—to explain how CMC in online learning environments can be very personal and
social.
Limitations of Previous Studies
Despite the intuitive appeal and overall popularity of social presence theory,
research on social presence still suffers from a few problems. Early studies of social
presence and CMC had contradictory findings (see Walther et al., 1994). For instance,
studies conducted in laboratory settings tend to support cues-filtered-out perspectives that
suggested that CMC was inherently anti-social (Connolly, Jessup, & Valacich, 1990;
Hiemstra, 1982), whereas studies conducted in the field often did not (Walther, 1992;
Walther et al., 1994; Weedman, 1991). Walther et al. (1994) explain that contradictory
findings like these are likely due to the abbreviated time periods and unrealistic
experimental settings researchers used to study CMC.
In much the same way, later research on the sociability of online learning, social
presence, and CMC suffers from a number of limitations. First, researchers of social
presence cannot agree upon a single definition of social presence (Biocca & Harms,

7
2002; Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003; Rettie, 2003; Lane, 2011; Tu, 2002b). Instead,
researchers continue to redefine social presence (Lowenthal, 2010; Picciano, 2002).
Second, the majority of research conducted on social presence has various
conceptual or methodological limitations. For example, Gunawardena (1995;
Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997), one of the foundational and most often cited researchers
on social presence, primarily investigated learners’ feelings toward CMC as a medium of
communication (e.g., asking students the degree to the which they agree to statements
like “CMC is an excellent medium for social interaction”) rather than specifically asking
about how people adapted the medium for social purposes. Other researchers studied
social presence in hybrid courses (e.g., Hughes et al., 2007; Shea & Bidjerano, 2010; So
& Brush, 2008), online courses that had face-to-face meetings at the beginning of the
course (e.g., Tu, 2001; Wise et al., 2004), or non-traditional learning environments (e.g.,
6-week. self-paced, faculty-directed courses consisting of a single student) (e.g., Wise,
Chang, Duffy, & Del Valle, 2004). Each of these contexts would inevitably influence
how one establishes his or her own social presence as well as how one perceived the
social presence of others, but researchers (e.g., Richardson & Swan, 2003; Swan & Shih,
2005) have not explicitly acknowledged how these differences influence social presence.
In addition, most researchers studying social presence (e.g., Arbaugh &
Benbunan-fich, 2006; Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Fung, 2010; Gunawardena, 1995; Tu
2002a; Richardson & Swan, 2003) have used similar data-analysis techniques. The
majority of research has relied either on content analysis or on self-report data (obtained
through a questionnaire). Relying solely on one type of analysis can lead researchers to
make interpretive errors about the underlying phenomenon they are studying (Leech &

8
Onwuegbuzie, 2007). Studies of social presence might benefit from employing multiple
or mixed methods (see Lowenthal & Leech, 2009).
Third, foundational research on social presence is dated (Gunawardena, 1995;
Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Rourke et al, 2001a; Tu, 2001, 2002a, 2002b). The
majority of the foundational research on social presence is over five to ten years old, and
during the past five years alone CMC and online learning have grown exponentially.
CMC is no longer a fringe activity used by a select group of users (Smith, 2010); rather,
CMC, issues of the digital divide aside, is commonplace. As people use the Internet and
email to communicate with others more each day, it is logical to assume that they become
more adept at communicating, becoming literate with this medium. This is not simply a
case of supposed “digital natives” (i.e., those who have grown up with technology) using
CMC differently than “digital immigrants” (i.e., those who are new to technology)
(Brown, 2002; Prensky, 2001). Rather, it is an issue of how people learn to use any
communication medium better over time: The cell phone is a perfect example with
millions of users worldwide, from the slums of India to the penthouses of New York
City—nearly everybody seems to have a cell phone these days.
The increased amount of time spent online has led online users of all ages and all
generations to adjust their perceptions, expectations, and day-to-day use of CMC. Just as
research in the early 1990s (e.g., Gunawardena, 1995; Walther, 1992, 1994, 1996) began
to call into question CMC research in the 1980s (i.e., Kiesler, 1986; Kiesler, Siegel,
McGuire, 1984; Rutter, 1984, 1987), additional research on social presence might begin
to question research conducted in the late 1990s and early 2000s (e.g., Gunawardena &
Zittle, 1997; Rourke et al, 2001a; Tu, 2000). Researchers need to continue to study social

9
presence, and at times even replicate previous studies (unfortunately rarely done), in
order to ensure that current assumptions about social presence are still correct across
various contexts.
Finally, and most important, some research on social presence contradicts other
research (see Lowenthal, 2010). For instance, some researchers have found that social-presence
behaviors used by online learners decrease over time (Rourke, Anderson,
Garrison, & Archer, 2001a), while others have found that social presence behaviors do
not decrease over time (Stacey, 2002). In addition, Picciano (2002) found a relationship
between social presence and student learning, while Wise et al. (2004) did not. For all of
these reasons, additional research on social presence in online learning environments is
needed—and especially in asynchronous learning environments, the dominant form of
online education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2008)—to help clarify what
social presence is and its role in online learning.
Statement of the Problem
Despite the continued interest in social presence and CMC, many questions
remain about the nature and development of social presence (Lowenthal & Dunlap, 2011;
Swan & Shih, 2005; Rourke & Kanuka, 2009). In addition, some of what researchers and
practitioners think they do know is questionable due to the limitations of past research.
The majority of research on social presence (e.g., Gunawardena, 1995; Na Ubon &
Kimble, 2003; Picciano, 2002; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Rourke & Anderson, 2002b;
Russo & Campbell, 2004; Tu, 2002b; Wheeler, 2005; So & Brush, 2008) has focused on
faculty and students perceptions of social presence. Fewer studies by comparison (e.g.,
Hughes, Ventura, & Dando, 2007; Lomicka & Lord, 2007; Rourke et al., 2001a; Swan,

10
2002, 2003a) have actually studied observable indicators of social presence in online
discussions.
While it is important to understand perceptions of social presence, it is also
important to study what students do and say online (Kramer, Oh, & Fussell, 2006).
However, not enough studies do just this and the few studies that have done this have
failed to describe adequately how social presence manifests itself in asynchronous online
courses. Researchers (e.g., Hughes et al., 2007; Rourke et al., 2001a) have typically
sampled only one part of a course and analyzed it with only one type of analysis,
typically content analysis. As a result, I posit that both researchers and practitioners may
have a very limited understanding of social presence.
Given these reasons, I set forth to conduct a mixed methods exploratory study of
social presence. I chose to do this in hopes of learning more about the observable
indicators of social presence in online course discussions.
Conceptual Framework
Many researchers (Arbaugh, 2007; Delfino, & Manca, 2007; Lomicka & Lord,
2007; Nippard & Murphy, 2007; Rourke & Anderson, 2002a, 2002b; Swan et al., 2008)
have argued for some time that the community of inquiry (CoI) framework is the most
popular framework to study social presence. The CoI framework is a comprehensive
guide (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000) for research on the practice of online
learning (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007). Garrison et al. (2000) argued that meaningful
learning takes place in a CoI, comprised of teachers and students, through the interaction
of three core elements: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence (see
Figure 1.1).

11
Cognitive presence, the first element in the model, is “the extent to which the
participants in. . . a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through
sustained communication” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89). Social presence, the second
element in the model, is the “ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project
their personal characteristics into the community, thereby presenting themselves to other
participants as ‘real people’” (p. 89). Finally, teaching presence, the third element in the
model, is the ability of a teacher or teachers to support and enhance social and cognitive
presence through instructional management, building understanding, and direct
instruction.
Educational
Experience
Teaching
Presence
Social
Presence
Figure 1.1. Community of inquiry framework
Cognitive
Presence
Garrison et al. (2000) initially developed three categories of social presence (i.e.,
Emotional Expression, Open Communication, and Group Cohesion). They later
developed specific indicators of social presence (e.g., use of humor, continuing a thread,
or the use of vocatives) (Rourke et al., 2001a) to help identify observable instances of
social presence in CMC (see Table 1.1). They later renamed these categories (e.g.,

12
Emotional Expression was renamed Affective Responses) and tested the validity of the
categories and indicators of social presence (Rourke et al., 2001a). Swan (2003)
expanded the indicators even further, and then Hughes et al. (2007) later (though
apparently unaware of Swan’s work) made some changes to Rourke et al.’s indicators as
well. Despite the renaming of the categories and some minor changes to the social
presence indicators (which are discussed in more detail in Chapters 2 and 3), Garrison et
al.’s (2000) original categories and the later complete list of indicators (Rourke et al.,
2001) of social presence have—for the most part—remained unchanged (see Table 1.1).
Table 1.1 Categories and Indicators of Social Presence
Category Indicators Definition of Indicators
Affective
Expression of
Responses
emotions
(originally
“Emotional
Expression”)
Conventional expressions of emotion, or
unconventional expressions of emotion,
includes repetitious punctuation,
conspicuous capitalization, emoticons
Use of Humor Teasing, cajoling, irony, understatements,
sarcasm
Self-Disclosure Presents details of life outside of class, or
expresses vulnerability
Interactive
Responses
(originally
“Open
Communication”)
Continuing a Thread Using reply feature of software, rather than
starting a new thread
Quoting from Other
Messages
Using software features to quote others
entire message or cutting and pasting
sections of others’ messages
Referring explicitly
to other messages
Direct references to contents of others’ posts
Asking questions Students ask questions of other students or
the moderator
Complimenting,
expressing
appreciation
Complimenting others or contents of others’
messages
Expressing
agreement
Expressing agreement with others or content
of others’ messages

13
Table 1.1 (con’t.)
Cohesive
Responses
(originally
“Group
Cohesion”)
Vocatives Addressing or referring to participants by
name
Addresses or refers
to the group using
inclusive pronouns
Addresses the group as we, us, our, group
Phatics / Salutations Communication that serves a purely social
function; greetings, closures
Note. From “Assessing Social Presence in Asynchronous Text-based Computer
Conferencing,” by L. Rourke, D. R. Garrison, and W. Archer, 2001a, in Journal of
Distance Education, 14.
Garrison, though, pointed out in 2008 that these indicators have not been revisited since
their initial development and that they might need to be revised (Arbaugh et al., 2008)—
which in many ways is a possible outcome of this study.
Rourke et al. (2001a) were the first to test and validate the indicators of social
presence. However, Garrison et al. (2000) and later Rourke et al. (2001a) did not clearly
identify the relationship between the indicators of social presence. In other words, they
left researchers wondering whether certain categories or indicators of social presence are
better examples than others. When faced with the need to calculate a social presence
score—from the frequency of indicators found in the coded transcripts of CMC—they
decided to treat all indicators equally and simply sum the frequencies of all 12 indicators
(Rourke et al., 2001a). This appeared to have been more of a pragmatic decision rather
than a theoretical or empirical decision to find a way to create a social presence score
from the indicators in order to quantify and compare transcripts of CMC. Rourke et al.,
2001a though openly admitted their uncertainty about weighting all 12 indicators equally.
Despite this admitted uncertainty, researchers have followed the same process in

14
developing a social presence score, though Hughes et al. (2007) was openly critical of
this practice.
Following the work of researchers like Rourke et al. (2001a), I conceptualize
social presence as an additive process in which all categories and indicators of social
presence are of equal importance (see Figure 1.2). However, like Hughes et al. (2007), I
am skeptical of this conceptualization and hope that among other things my research will
(by using multiple forms of analysis) help support or challenge the assumed additive
nature of Rourke et al.’s conceptualization of social presence.
Cohesive
• Vocatives
Interactive
• Continuing a
Thread
+ + =
Affective
Responses
• Expression
of emotions
• Use of
Humor
• Self‐
Disclosure
• Use of
Inclusive
Pronouns
• Phatics /
Salutations
• Quoting from
Other Messages
• Referring
Explicitly to
Other Messages
• Asking
Questions
• Complimenting
/ Expressing
Appreciation
Social
Presence
Figure 1.2. Visual depiction of initial conceptual framework of social presence
developed by Rourke et al., 2000a.
Goal of the Study
The goal of this study is to understand better how social presence manifests in
threaded discussions in asynchronous online courses. However, all CMC is not the same
(Herring, 2007). While researchers can generalize about CMC at some level, they should

15
recognize the situated and changing nature of social presence. Given this and to
accomplish the goal of this study, I study social presence in an intentional, socially
situated, specific context. Thus, the goal of this study is to explore the phenomenon
known as social presence by investigating how it manifests during online discourse in an
asynchronous online graduate education course.
The following research question guides this exploratory study: How does social
presence manifest in an asynchronous, online graduate-education course? This specific
question was chosen because the majority of research on social presence has either relied
solely on self-report data of faculty and student perceptions of social presence or has been
confined to a monomethod approach—usually using content analysis—to analyze a few
weeks of online threaded discussions. Both of these approaches fail to explore and
describe how social presence manifests in threaded discussions over the length of a
course. In other words, what are faculty and students actually doing to establish their
social presence? The focus of this study, given this research question, is on developing a
rich description of social presence by using multiple types of data analysis in order to
help faculty and students have better experiences in online courses and to enable course
designers to develop better online courses.
Overview of Methods
In the following paragraphs, I briefly describe the methods used for this study. I
specifically focus on the sample, data analysis, reliability, and validity. Each of these
topics is addressed in greater detail in Chapter 3.

16
Sample
A single, completely online graduate course in education was purposefully and
conveniently sampled for this study. Thus, a non-random (non-probability) criterion
sampling scheme was used in this study (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007). A section of
EDLI 7210 Educational Policy Making in a Democratic Society—which was taught
online in the spring of 2007—was identified as an appropriate sample for this study. The
course was a graduate-level online course in the School of Education and Human
Development at the University of Colorado Denver delivered via eCollege. All of the
threaded discussions in the eCollege course shell for this course were used for this study.
The population of the course primarily consisted of graduate students completing
coursework for an Educational Specialist (EdS) degree or a PhD. Many of the EdS
students were also seeking their principal license. Nineteen graduate students were
enrolled in the course.
Data Analysis
The majority of research on social presence has relied primarily on self-report
survey data (e.g., Gunawardena, 1995; Richardson & Swan, 2003). While self-report
survey measures are useful and have their place in educational research, as Kramer, Oh,
and Fussell (2006) point out, they “are retroactive and insensitive to changes in presence
over the course of an interaction [or semester]” (p. 1). In this study, rather than focus on
students’ perceptions of presence (which I have done in other studies such as Lowenthal
& Dunlap, 2011; Lowenthal, Lowenthal, & White, 2009), I focused instead on what was
“said” in the online threaded discussions.

17
I used a mixed-methods exploratory methodology (Miles & Huberman, 1994;
Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005b) that employed both quantitative and qualitative methods
to conduct this study. In order to explore social presence in a specific situated
asynchronous learning environment in great detail, I analyzed the online threaded
discussions (now archived in the discussion forums) using word count, content analysis,
and constant comparison analysis (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007).
More specifically, multiple forms of data analysis were used to address the
research question— How does social presence manifest in a graduate education
asynchronous online course? (see Table 1.2 above for an illustration of this). First, I
analyzed all of the discussions with word count (in conjunction with basic descriptive
statistics of each forum) to identify which threaded discussion had a higher frequency of
words and posts as well as which one’s had a higher number of social presence indicators
(types of words). Second, I used content analysis to analyze every threaded discussion,
using a modified version of the social presence indicators developed by Garrison et al.
(2000) and later modified by Swan (2003) and Hughes et al. (2007). Based on the results
of the word count and content analysis, I then selected two discussion threads—one with
a high number of social presence indicators and one with a low number of social presence
indicators—to analyze in more depth with a grounded theory constant comparison
analysis technique.

18
Table 1.2 Alignment of Research Questions to Data Analysis
Research Question Data Analysis Type of Data
How does social presence
manifest in a graduate
education asynchronous
online course?
• Word Count
(Quantitative)
• Content Analysis
(Quantitative)
• Constant Comparative
Analysis
(Qualitative)
• All course discussions
• All course discussions
• One discussion threads
with high social
presence & one with
low social presence
Reliability and Validity
Reliability and validity are key considerations for any researcher. The most
common method used to calculate interrater reliability is a percent agreement statistic
(Rourke et al., 2001b). Two researchers (me and another researcher) coded the threaded
discussions using content analysis. A percent agreement statistic was calculated using
Holsti’s (1969) coefficient of reliability. A large component of establishing validity—
which is often described as trustworthiness in qualitative literature—is developing a
sound theoretical framework (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, Koole, & Kappelman, 2006). I
have established the validity of this study by working from Garrison et al.’s CoI
framework. Further, the coding schemes I used for this study also came directly from the
literature (Hughes et al., 2007; Rourke et al., 2001a; Swan, 2003).
Significance of the Study
Learning is a very human and social activity (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009b).
Online learning environments, though, can feel isolating and impersonal. Given this,
educators must find ways to make formal online learning environments more personal

19
and less isolating not only to help students persist but also to increase engagement and
satisfaction. To accomplish this, educators have focused on establishing social presence
in online courses (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009b).
The significance or educational value of this research lies in its ability to help
researchers better identify and study instances of social presence as well as to help faculty
who teach online better understand how they can identify and establish social presence by
using specific indicators of social presence. Further, the results of this study can help
instructional designers design and develop online courses that utilize specific
instructional approaches to help students establish their social presence online.
Limitations
All studies suffer from some type of limitation. Perhaps the most obvious
limitation is the time that has passed between when the course was offered and when I
analyzed the data. Related to this limitation is my inability to check with students
(whether through specific interviews or member checking) to verify whether or not what
I found in the course discussions is actually what they intended. However, one of the
main reasons to focus on the language students use is because students rarely clarify what
they mean by a posting; rather, other students simply do their best to make sense of what
they read. In other words, in my experience very little member checking occurs in a
typical online discussion so this limitation might actually end up being a very realistic
component to this study.
Chapter Summary
Researchers have been studying social presence in online learning environments
for a number of years now (Lowenthal, 2009). However, research on social presence to

20
date suffers from a host of problems—ranging from inconsistent and contradictory
findings to strange sampling decisions. Part of the problem might be the methodological
decisions made by researchers. Instead of using a monomethod approach like the
majority of past research, I employed a mixed-methods approach to studying social
presence, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate the complex
nature of social presence. In addition, this study specifically focused on how social
presence manifests during threaded discussions in asynchronous online courses.
In Chapter 2, I present a review of the literature. In Chapter 3, I go over the
methods used for this study. In Chapters 4 and 5 I present the results, discuss the
findings, and provide recommendations for faculty and instructional designers as well as
for future research on social presence.

21
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the following chapter, I synthesize past research on social presence in general
and specifically research on the community of inquiry (CoI) framework to provide a
foundation and some background for my study. I begin by addressing the history of
social presence theory. After that, I address some early competing theories of social
presence and some differences in how researchers define and measure social presence. I
then conclude this chapter by synthesizing some of the research conducted on the
community of inquiry in general and social presence in particular and addressing some
gaps in the literature.
A Brief History of Social Presence Theory
As mentioned in Chapter 1, Short, Williams, and Christie (1976) developed the
initial theory of social presence in their book, The Social Psychology of
Telecommunications. While this book often serves as the foundational text to understand
the initial theory of social presence, it is important to look at the foundations of this
theory as well as later research conducted by Short et al. to understand how the theory of
social presence has evolved over the years.
Theoretical Foundations of Social Presence Theory
The collective work of Short et al. (1976) that is presented in The Social
Psychology of Telecommunications as well the work Short, Williams, and Christie (e.g.,
Short, 1974; Christie & Kingan, 1977; Williams, 1975; Wilson & Williams, 1977)
conducted individually or with other colleagues before and after their seminal text was
influenced by the social psychology concepts of intimacy and immediacy. Short et al.

openly acknowledge that their concept of social presence is related to these two concepts.
22
Thus, each of these concepts is discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.
Intimacy. Argyle and Dean (1965) were the first to use the concept of intimacy to
explain communication behavior. They developed a theory of intimacy and equilibrium
to explain how people communicating with each other will adjust their behavior to
maintain a sense of equilibrium. They explain that
aspects of intimacy are governed by both approach and avoidance forces, and are
kept in a condition of equilibrium for any two people…if this equilibrium is
disturbed along one of its constituent dimensions, e.g., by increasing physical
proximity, there will be compensatory changes along the other dimensions. (p.
304)
According to Argle (1969), people establish intimacy in a number of ways when
communicating, such as proximity, eye contact, smiling, and personal topics of
conversation. Short et al. (1976) argue that the social presence of a communication
medium also effects intimacy and therefore should be added to this list of ways that
people establish intimacy.
Immediacy. Wiener and Mehrabian (1968) developed the concept of immediacy.
They conceptualized immediacy as the psychological distance people put between
themselves and others when communicating. While Wiener and Mehrabian (1968) were
initially focused on speech communication, Mehrabian (1972) later distinguished
between three types of immediacy: verbal, nonverbal, and technological immediacy.
Verbal immediacy describes how people use their choice of words to reduce or increase
psychological distance between them and others. For example, the use of the words “let
us” or “we” can create more immediacy between two people than simply using “you” or
“I.”

23
People also convey immediacy nonverbally through their dress, facial
expressions, or physical proximity (Mehrabian, 1972). Finally, technological immediacy
suggests that a medium of communication can convey immediacy. According to
Mehrabian (1972), communicating face-to-face is more immediate than communicating
with video; further, communicating with a video is more immediate than communicating
by phone.
While immediacy in general, and technological immediacy in particular, is similar
to social presence, Short et al. (1976) argue that important differences exist. For instance,
Short et al. argue that “for any given medium of communication (e.g., telephone) and
situation (e.g., long-distance call), immediacy may vary even when social presence does
not” (p. 73).
While Short et al. (1976) claim that important differences are found between
immediacy and social presence, the distinction is not very clear. Further, they spend only
a few paragraphs addressing the similarities and differences between social presence,
intimacy, and immediacy. Not surprisingly, subsequent researchers often fail to
differentiate clearly between intimacy, immediacy and social presence; in fact,
researchers often appear to use the terms immediacy and social presence synonymously
(e.g., Gunawardena, 1995).
Influential and Related Research on Social Presence
Short et al. (1976) were all part of the Communications Studies Group at
University College in London. The Communications Studies Group consisted of an
estimated 30 people who conducted a number of experiments in the early 1970s on
communication media (Pye & Williams, 1978). Interestingly, The Social Psychology of

24
Telecommunications appears to be the only joint publication by these three researchers.
However, each of them published, as individuals or with other colleagues, a number of
other studies on the effects of communication media (e.g., Short, 1974; Christie &
Holloway, 1975; Christie & Kingan, 1977; Williams, 1975; Williams, 1977; Wilson &
Williams, 1977). The majority of this research focused on comparing people’s attitudes
toward different communication media (e.g., face-to-face, audio, video). The following
paragraphs briefly summarize a few key findings from this early research that later
influenced the development of and people’s understandings of social presence theory.
The majority of this early research focused on the assumed importance of the
visual channel of communication. Given the importance placed on the visual channel in
previous literature, Short et al. (1976) and colleagues not surprisingly found that the
visual channel of communication was an advantage of a communication medium and
therefore highly important (Christie, 1974; Short, 1974; Williams, 1975). Christie (1974)
reports from one study that
visual media were judged more useful for complex group discussions, private
conversations and non-private dyadic conversations. Thus, the presence of visual
channel appears to be perceived as an important advantage of a communications
medium. (p. 367)
Additional research (Christie, 1974; Christie & Kingan, 1977; Williams, 1975),
though, began to show that the importance of a communication medium depended largely
on the task at hand. In fact, according to Christie (1974), “it is clearly misleading to
conceptualize different media as lying along a single dimension of acceptability or
usefulness. Their perceived usefulness varies according to the application considered” (p.
368). Williams (1975) argued that people might want a less intimate or immediate
communication medium for certain tasks. For instance, Williams (1975) suggests “that

25
with tasks of very high intimacy—perhaps very embarrassing, personal or conflictual
ones—the least immediate medium, the telephone, would lead to more favorable
evaluations than either of the more immediate media” (p. 128). Further, their research
showed that tasks that are low on interpersonal involvement but still cooperative in nature
can easily be accomplished by audio or video conferencing (Williams, 1978a); however,
tasks that require more interpersonal involvement “are sensitive to the substitution of
telecommunications for face-to-face interaction” (p. 127).
Other than the suggestions made by Williams (1978a), very little was written in
these early articles about the role of the visual channel for instructional tasks. However,
Williams (1978a) argued that “tele-education seems especially promising since
educational activities are primarily for cooperative problem-solving and the transmission
of information—activities which have been shown to be almost unaffected by the
medium of communication used” (p. 129). Williams (1978a) went on to point out that our
knowledge about the role of mediated communication is far from complete—as was our
understanding of how people learned in the late 1970s.
Later research conducted by Christie and Kingan (1977), showed, among other
things, that while visual cues are helpful, they are not necessary for people to
communicate effectively. In fact, physical presence (i.e., being close to someone
physically) may be even more important for two people communicating than visual cues
(i.e., seeing another person) (Williams, 1978b). Results like these began to call for a
more complex explanation for the role of visual cues in the communication process.
Williams (1978b) suggested that the answers might be found in the theory of social
presence.

26
Competing Theories of Social Presence
The theory of social presence developed by Short et al. was only one of a number
of theories used to explain the influence a communication medium can have on
communication. The three most popular competing theories of social presence—
especially during the 1980s—were Cuelessness Theory developed by Rutter (1984,
1987), Media Richness Theory developed by Daft and Lengel (1984, 1986; Daft, Lengel,
& Trevino, 1987), and Social Information Processing Theory developed by Walther
(1996; Walther & Parks, 2002). The first two theories (like Social Presence Theory) have
been described as deficit models because they focus on the cues that are filtered out and
idealize face-to-face communication as the gold standard (Thurlow, Lengel, & Tomic,
2004), whereas the third theory focuses not only on what is filtered out but what is gained
through CMC. Each of these theories are addressed briefly in the following sections to
illustrate the zeitgeist of the 1980s and early 1990s when researchers of online learning
reinvented the theory of social presence developed by Short et al.
Cuelessness
Working from a similar theoretical framework, Rutter (1984, 1987; Rutter,
Pennington, Dewey, & Swain, 1984; Kemp & Rutter, 1986) developed what he called the
Cuelessness Model. Rutter was concerned with the over emphasis placed on the
importance of eye-contact when two people were communicating. As a result, he and his
colleagues (1984) set forth to challenge the intimacy model developed by Argyle and
Dean (1965) and later Argyle and Cook (1976). Rutter and his colleagues argued that
previous research had focused too much on looking and eye-gaze and not enough on the
mutual gazing back and forth. Like Williams before, Rutter et al. (1986) found that what

27
mattered was visual access to the entire person rather than simply access to another’s
eyes. They argued that it was the combined social cues—from vision and other senses—
that mattered.
The Cuelessness Model essentially claims that the fewer social cues, the greater
the psychological distance between two communicators (Rutter et al., 1986). Further, the
greater the psychological distance, the more communication turns to task-oriented
depersonalized content (Kemp & Rutter, 1986; Rutter, 1984; Rutter et al., 1986). In fact,
Rutter and colleagues (Rutter, 1989) found that the number of social cues (i.e., both
visual and physical presence cues) decreased when comparing how people communicated
in certain situations (e.g., closed-circuit television, curtain, and audio).
Media Richness
Another competing theory that emerged during the 1980s is the theory of Media
Richness. Media Richness Theory was developed by Daft and Lengel (1984, 1986).
Whereas Rutter and colleagues were aware of the work of Short et al., Daft and Lengel
never seem to explicitly acknowledge the work of Short et al. Daft and Lengel (1984)
were focused primarily on the information processing behaviors in organizations.
Therefore, they were interested in a concept called information richness:
Richness is defined as the potential information-carrying capacity of data. If the
communication of an item of data, such as a wink, provides substantial new
understanding, it would be considered rich. If the datum provides little
understanding, it would be low in richness. (p. 196)
They posited that a communication medium can determine the richness of information
(Daft & Lengel, 1986). They argued that face-to-face communication had the highest
richness and numeric communication (e.g., spreadsheet with numbers) the lowest; see
Figure 2.1 for a complete list of media richness by media.

28
Information Medium Information Richness
Face-to-Face Highest
Telephone High
Written, Personal
(bulletins, documents)
Moderate
Written, Formal (bulletins,
documents)
Low
Numeric Formal
(computer output)
Lowest
Figure 2.1. Communication media and information richness diagram
Note. From “Information Richness: A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and
Organizational Design,” by R. L. Daft and R. H. Lengel, 1984, in L. L. Cummings & B.
M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (191-233). Homewood, IL: JAI.
Social Information Processing
The last of the three competing models is the Social Information Processing
model developed by Walther (1992, 1994, 1996). Walther developed his model in
response to the previous so-called “deficit” theories. Whereas previous researchers were
interested in media effects across various communication media, Walther focused
primarily on CMC. He criticized previous research, like that addressed earlier in this
chapter, for a number of reasons. First, the majority of the early research was conducted
in experimental settings that did not mirror how people communicate with different
media in real life (1992). Second, these early studies and researchers assumed that the
absence of visual cues led to an absence of sociability. Third, they assumed that task-oriented
communication lacked relational and social communication. Finally, they failed
to acknowledge that just as cues are filtered out, other cues are filtered into CMC and

therefore CMC has some affordances that face-to-face communication does not (Walther,
29
1996; Walther & Parks, 2002).
Walther (1992) argued that Humans’ social nature is the same in CMC and face-to-
face environments. Given enough time, he believed that people will find ways to
compensate for any cues that are filtered out in CMC. The social information processing
model essentially posits that given enough time, CMC can be very personal and even
hyperpersonal (Walther, 1992, 1996). Previous research tended to put time restrictions on
how people communicated that Walther believed diminished the possibility of
interpersonal and relational communication. Walther’s research on the other hand
suggested that
• Previous interaction between communicators influenced how people
communicated online;
• The possibility of future interaction influenced the degree to which people
socially interacted online;
• The way users used emoticons influenced interpersonal communication
online.
These competing theories help illustrate the way that thinking about a medium’s
effect on communication—especially interpersonal and social communication—change
over time. The research that began with the work of Gunawardena (1995; Gunawardena
& Zittle, 1997)—which I refer to as the third phase of social presence research (see Table
2.1 and Figure 2.2)—was influenced by previous research and theories, especially that of
Walther. Rather than conceptualizing social presence as Short et al. did, Gunawardena
and those that followed her (like Garrison et al., 2000, whose work serves as the

30
conceptual framework for this study) began reconceptualizing social presence theory—
focusing more on how people appropriate technology rather than simply on what a
technology allows us to do. In fact, the work of Garrison et al. and the CoI really
represent a fourth phase of research on social presence (see Table 2.1 and Figure 2.2).
Table 2.1 Phases of Social Presence Research
Phase Period Key Figures Focus of Research
Phase 1
1970s Short et al. Focused on
Telecommunications
Phase 2 1980s-early1990s Rutter
Daft & Lengel
Kiesler
Walther
Focused on CMC
Phase 3 1990 - 1999 Gunawardena
Rourke et al.
Tu
Focused on Online
Learning
Phase 4 2000s - Present Garrison et al.
Karen Swan
Peter Shea
Focused on Social
Presence’s Role in
establishing a community
of inquiry in Online
Learning
Figure 2.2. Timeline of competing theories of social presence preceding the
development of the community of inquiry framework.

31
Defining Social Presence
Given the evolution of social presence theory, it is probably not surprising that
there is not a clear, agreed upon, definition of social presence (Rettie, 2003; Tu, 2002b).
In fact, nearly everyone who writes about social presence seems to define it just a little
differently.
Presence is a key theoretical construct used in a variety of disciplines besides
communication and online learning—most notably virtual reality (see Biocca, 1997). In
fact, Lombard and Ditton (1997) identified six interrelated but distinct ways that people
understand “presence”: (a) presence as social richness, (b) presence as realism, (c)
presence as transportation, (d) presence as immersion, (e) presence as social actor within
medium, and (f) presence as medium as social actor. They even attempted to create one
all encompassing definition of presence. According to Lombard and Ditto, the following
definition takes into consideration all six ways presence is understood; presence is “the
perceptual illusion of nonmediation” (presence explicated section). To date, though, their
all encompassing definition has not been widely adopted by others. Biocca, Harms, and
Burgoon (2003) also recognized the different ways researchers across different fields
define presence. They attempted to create an all-encompassing definition of social
presence as well; they defined social presence as simply a “‘sense of being with another’”
(p. 456) whether that other is human or artificial.
Despite attempts by Lombard and Ditto (1997) and Biocca et al. (2003) to
develop some conceptual clarity when it comes to discussions of presence in general or
social presence in particular, researchers of social presence and CMC in educational
environments continue to redefine social presence (Picciano, 2002). Gunawardena (1995)

defined social presence as “the degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in
32
mediated communication” (p. 151). Garrison et al. (2000), on the other hand, originally
defined social presence “as the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project
themselves socially and emotionally, as ‘real’ people (i.e., their full personality), through
the medium of communication being used” (p. 94). Tu and McIsaac (2002) define social
presence as “the degree of feeling, perception, and reaction of being connected by CMC
to another intellectual entity through a text-based encounter” (p. 140). Finally, Picciano
(2002) defines social presence as “a student’s sense of being in and belonging in a course
and the ability to interact with other students and an instructor” (p. 22).
The differences in how researchers define social presence might seem minor but
they are important (see Ice, Gibson, Boston, & Becher, 2011). For instance, Rourke et al.
(2001) focus on students (or instructors) ability to project themselves as “real” whereas
Picciano focuses more on students’ sense of belonging to a community. Issues of
definition are important because the way researchers define social presence influences
how they measure social presence and the conclusions they draw.
Definitions of social presence, at least for researchers of social presence and
online learning, tend to fall on a continuum (see Figure 2.3). At one end of the
continuum, researchers tend to conceptualize social presence as the degree to which a
person is perceived as being “real” and being “there.” These definitions tend to focus on
whether someone is able to project himself or herself as being “real” in an online
environment and whether others perceived this person as being there and being real. In
fact, Williams (1978a) defined social presence in this way when he defined social

presence as “the feeling of contact obtained. . .” across various communication media (p.
33
127).
At the other end of the continuum, researchers tend to go beyond whether
someone is perceived as being “present”—that is, simply “there” or “real”—instead
focusing on whether there is an interpersonal emotional connection between
communicators. It is important to note, though, that on this end of the continuum, there
tends to be an assumption that the interpersonal and emotional connection that
communicators establish when there is social presence is a positive connection. Finally,
like most continuums, the majority of researchers find themselves somewhere in the
middle—placing some emphasis on an emotional connection—rather than on the ends of
the continuums.
Sense that someone is real
Sense that someone is there (present)
Sense that someone is real
Sense that someone is there (present)
No focus on emotion
Figure 2.3. Continuum of Definitions of Social Presence
Measuring Social Presence
Emotional Connection
After all the theorizing, researchers need to be able to identify, measure, and test
their theories about social presence. As researchers began to conceptualize social
presence differently, rather than use techniques developed and utilized by past
researchers—perhaps because of Walther’s critique of these techniques—they began to
look for new ways to study social presence. Gunawardena (1995), Rourke et al. (2001),
and Tu (2002b) have been three foundational researchers in developing ways to study

34
social presence. But just like in the mid-1970s—when researchers either studied social
presence by observing user behavior or examining users attitudes (Christie, 1974)—
researchers in the third and fourth wave of social presence research have tended to focus
either on studying users’ attitudes or their behaviors online. For instance, Gunawardena
and Tu focused primarily on studying users’ attitudes whereas Rourke et al. focused on
studying users’ behaviors (though it is important to note that while Garrison early on
focused on studying users’ behaviors with his colleagues Rourke et al., he later turned to
studying students attitudes). Regardless of their focus, the work of each of these
researchers has heavily influenced most of the studies on social presence and CMC
during the past ten years. In the following paragraphs, I will address how each of these
researchers studied social presence.
Gunawardena’s Social Presence Scales
Gunawardena (1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997) conducted some of the earliest
studies on social presence and CMC in an education setting. In her first article,
Gunawardena (1995) reported on two different studies she conducted in the early 1990s.
In the first study, she measured users’ perceptions of CMC using a survey. She had
students rank 17 bi-polar scales on a 5-point likert-type scale (from negative to positive).
For instance, she asked students whether CMC was more socialable or unsocialable or
more warm or cold (see Table A1 in Appendix A for the complete list). The bi-polar
scales she used focus on users’ perceptions of the medium more than the degree to which
users perceive others as “real” or “there.”

35
Gunawardena (1995) reports in the same article about a second study in which she
qualitatively analyzed some data; however, she does not elaborate on what data she
analyzed or how she analyzed the data that she reported.
In a later article, Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) reported on additional data
collected from an earlier sample. However, with this study, Gunawardena and Zittle
created an instrument they called the Social Presence Scale (see Appendix A). The Social
Presence Scale was similar to the previous scale used by Gunawardena, but instead of
responding to bi-polar scales, students were asked to rank 14 questions on a scale of 1 to
5. For instance, one question asked students to rank on a scale of 1 to 5 to what degree
they agree or disagree that CMC is an excellent medium for social interaction. The Social
Presence Scale was tested for internal consistency (Alpha = .88) and appears to
investigate the construct of social presence more directly than the previous scale.
Rourke et al.’s Social Presence Indicators
Unlike Gunawardena who measured social presence through a self-report
questionnaire, Rourke et al. (2001) sought to measure social presence through analyzing
online discussions. As touched on in Chapter 1, Rourke et al. identified three different
categories of social presence: affective responses, interactive responses, and cohesive
responses. They then developed twelve indicators that researchers could use to analyze
transcripts of CMC (primarily through content analysis). An example of these indictors
can be seen in Table 2.2 (see Appendix A for the complete list of indicators). Rourke et
al. developed these categories and indicators based on their previous work (Garrison,
Anderson, & Archer, 2000; Rourke, et al., 2001a), other literature in the field, and finally
their experience reading online transcripts.

36
Table 2.2 Example of Social Presence Indicators
Category Indicators Definition of Indicators
Affective
Responses
Expression of
emotions
Conventional expressions of emotion, or
unconventional expressions of emotion,
includes repetitious punctuation,
conspicuous capitalization, emoticons
Use of Humor Teasing, cajoling, irony, understatements,
sarcasm
Self-Disclosure Presents details of life outside of class, or
expresses vulnerability
Rourke et al. (2001a) tested and measured the “efficacy and reliability” of their
categories and indicators by using them with participants in two graduate education
online courses. One single week from each course was identified, and all of the
discussion postings for those two weeks were analyzed. The first course had more than
twice the number of postings and words as the second course; as a result, in order to
compare the two, Rourke et al. (2001a) summed the raw number of instances and divided
by the total number of words and then multiplied it by 1000 to come up with a social
presence density score. They had high interrater reliability.
Rourke et al. (2001a), though, cautioned readers about generalizing their results
because their main purpose was to “develop and test the efficacy of a tool for analyzing
the social presence component of educational computer conferences” (Discussion
section) rather than to draw conclusions specifically about the samples in question. They
also acknowledged that they were still unclear whether all 12 indicators should be
weighted equally, as well as whether or not there was an optimal level of social presence.
In fact, Garrison mentioned in a round table presentation at the 2008 annual meeting of

the American Educational Research Association (AERA) that these indicators might need
37
to be revisited to ensure that they do not need to be revised (Arbaugh et al., 2008)
Tu and The Social Presence and Privacy Questionnaire
Tu (2002b) criticized early research on social presence (e.g., Short et al., 1976,
and even Gunawardena’s 1995 study) in which researchers adopted the same semantic
differential technique that simply had people respond to a bi-polar scale. Tu argued that
this technique is not adequate to measure one’s perception of social presence when it
comes to CMC. He also argued that the questionnaire used by Gunawardena and Zittle
(1997) failed to take into consideration different variables cited in the research (e.g.,
recipients, topics, privacy, task, social relationships, communication styles). As a result,
Tu (2002b) developed “The Social Presence and Privacy Questionnaire (SPPQ).”1 Tu
developed the SPQQ by using parts of Steinfield’s (1986) CMC attitude instrument and
Witmer’s (1997) work on privacy.
Tu used a panel of five qualified content experts to test the content validity of the
instrument. However, he did not elaborate on what made these content experts
“qualified.” He then used 310 inservice and preservice teachers to test the construct
validity. Five factors emerged from the factor analysis: social context, online
communication, interactivity, system privacy, and feelings of privacy; these five factors
accounted for 82.33% of the variance with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from .74 to
.85. Tu acknowledged that online privacy had a weak correlation and therefore might not
need to be included as a dimension of social presence. However, he continued to use
1 In a different article, Tu (2002a) refers to the SPPQ as the CMC Questionnaire;
however, he tends to refer to it more often as the SPPQ and therefore SPPQ will be used
to refer to this instrument.

online privacy as a dimension of social presence in later studies (Tu & Corry, 2004; Tu &
38
McIsaac, 2002). Despite the strengths of his survey, Tu and McIsaac (2002) later
determined as the result of a mixed method study, using the SPPQ and a dramaturgy
participant observation qualitative approach, “there were more variables that contribute to
social presence” (p. 140) than previously thought. Therefore, Tu and McIsaac concluded
that social presence was more complicated than past research suggested. Appendix A
outlines the new variables identified by Tu and McIsaac. Specifically, they found that the
social context played a larger role than previously thought.
Among other things, the preceding literature illustrates what other researchers
have pointed out—that there is still little agreement on how to measure social presence
(Lin, 2004; Stein & Wanstreet, 2003). Just as Tu criticized how Gunawardena measured
social presence, others have criticized and modified Tu’s work (Henninger &
Viswanathan, 2004). Also, while social presence has been presented as a perceptual
construct, Hostetter and Busch (2006) point out that relying solely on questionnaires (i.e.,
self-report data) can cause problems because “respondents may be providing socially
desirable answers” (p. 9). Further, Kramer, Oh, and Fussell (2006) point out that self-report
data “are retroactive and insensitive to changes in presence over the course of an
interaction [or semester]” (p. 1). But at the same time, even the scale created by Rourke
et al. (2001a) has been modified by Swan (2003) and later by Hughes, Ventura, and
Dando (2007) for use in their own research.
During the past few years, researchers have focused less on studying social
presence by itself—opting instead to study social presence as one aspect of a CoI. As a
result and likely due to the difficulty of coding large samples, these researchers have

39
focused almost predominantly on studying students attitudes toward the CoI as a whole
and each of the components of the CoI (i.e., social presence, teaching presence, and
cognitive presence). In 2008, a group of researchers came together to develop an
instrument to study the community of inquiry, called the Community of Inquiry
Questionnaire (see Arbaugh et al., 2008; Swan et al., 2008). Table 2.3 lists the part of the
Community of Inquiry Questionnaire used to assess students’ perceptions of social
presence in a CoI (see Appendix A for the entire instrument).
Table 2.3 Social Presence Dimension of the Community of Inquiry Questionnaire
Affective expression
14. Getting to know other course participants gave me a sense of belonging in the
course.
15. I was able to form distinct impressions of some course participants.
16. Online or web-based communication is an excellent medium for social
interaction.
Open communication
17. I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium.
18. I felt comfortable participating in the course discussions.
19. I felt comfortable interacting with other course participants.
Group cohesion
20. I felt comfortable disagreeing with other course participants while still
maintaining a sense of trust.
21. I felt that my point of view was acknowledged by other course participants.
22. Online discussions help me to develop a sense of collaboration
Over five years ago and before the work of Arbaugh et al., Russo and Benson
(2005) argued that researchers need “a multifaceted presence instrument, one that
examines presence more than single items and addresses the construct more by evaluating
specific behaviors rather than a global effect” (p. 60). And while Arbaugh et al. (2008)
hope that the Community of Inquiry Questionnaire is a step in that direction, as a whole

40
their survey and the research in which it is used for the most part focuses on looking at
the CoI as a whole rather than at its parts (e.g., social presence).
In the end, though, the instrument that researchers use largely influences what
they find. Therefore, any study of social presence should at least acknowledge how its
methodology has been influenced by these early pioneers. Despite the varied
methodologies employed and some contradictions, some trends emerge when looking at
the research on social presence. The following section focuses first on the results of
some research on social presence and then on some recent research focused on social
presence in a CoI.
Research on Social Presence
Despite the differences previously noted, researchers have identified a number of
pedagogical implications—in most cases, benefits—of social presence. In the following
sections, the literature on social presence is summarized and synthesized around three
main themes: (a) social presence and student satisfaction, (b) social presence and
interaction, and (c) social presence and student learning.
Social Presence and Student Satisfaction
Over the years, a number of researchers have shown that there is a consistent
relationship between social presence and student satisfaction (Gunawardena, 1995;
Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Hostetter & Busch, 2006; Richardson & Swan, 2003; So &
Brush, 2008). While their conceptualization and methodology differ at times, most
researchers agree that social presence is a predictor of student satisfaction in CMC
environments, which in turn is a key component of online learning. More specifically, in
online learning environments student satisfaction has been connected to student

41
persistence (Levy, 2007; Willging & Johnson, 2004). Levy (2007) has shown that
student satisfaction “is a major factor in students’ decision to complete or drop” online
courses (p. 198). Therefore, given the importance of student satisfaction, the following
section highlights a few of the main studies on social presence and student satisfaction.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, a number of researchers began investigating social
presence and computer-mediated communication (CMC) (e.g., Walther, 2002, 2004).
However, Gunawardena (1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997) is perhaps the earliest, most
frequently cited, and foundational researcher of social presence and learning
environments using CMC. Gunawardena conducted two studies with Globaled
conference participants (Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). The studies
consisted of graduate students from different universities who attended the Spring 1992
and Fall 1993 Globaled computer conferences via a listserv.2 The participants in the
studies filled out questionnaires after they completed the conferences.
Gunawardena (1995) reported that, contrary to popular opinion, CMC could be
perceived as a social medium and that social presence could be cultivated. Further, she
stated that,
although CMC is described as a medium that is low in nonverbal cues and social
context cues, participants in conferences create social presence by projecting their
identities and building online communities. In order to encourage interaction and
collaborative learning, it is important that moderators of computer conferences
promote the creation of conducive learning environments. (p. 163)
Gunawardena and Zittle (1997), working from data collected from participants in the Fall
1993 conference, later reported that social presence was a strong predictor of student
2 It is important to highlight that the majority of the students in these studies completed
the online learning experience (i.e., the Globaled conference) as a component of a face-to-
face course; further, they took part in the conference via a listserv rather than a course
management system like Blackboard, WebCT, or eCollege.

satisfaction with computer conferences. They also found that students who felt a stronger
sense of social presence enhanced their socio-emotional expression (e.g., through the use
42
of emoticons) whereas those with a low sense of social presence did not. Gunawardena
and Zittle concluded that social presence (and as a result student satisfaction) depends on
what instructors and students do rather than simply the characteristic of a CMC medium.
Despite shortcomings of their research (e.g., small sample size, sample selection, course
format) as well as the fact that they caution readers not to generalize their results, the
work of Gunawardena (1995) and Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) is regularly cited—and
generalized—as foundational research on social presence and CMC.
Research conducted by Richardson and Swan (2003) is arguably less foundational
than the work of Gunawardena and Zittle but methodologically more sound. Richardson
and Swan (2003) conducted a study to investigate the relationship between students’
perception of social presence, perceived learning, and satisfaction with their instruction.
Their study consisted of 97 participants taking online courses at Empire State College, a
site purposefully chosen because of its nontraditional online program. Almost half of the
students in the sample stated that it was their first online course. Richardson and Swan
developed a survey based on Gunawardena and Zittle’s (1997) survey and used a
multiple regression to analyze the data collected from the survey.
Richardson and Swan (2003) found three things from their study. First, they found
that students with higher perceived social presence scores perceived they learned more
than students with lower scores, thus indicating that there is “a relationship between
students’ perceived social presence and students’ perceived learning” (p. 77). Second,
they found a link between student satisfaction with their instructor and perceived

43
learning—which researchers have been finding in face-to-face settings for years. Third,
they found that students with high social presence scores “were highly satisfied with their
instructor” (p. 73). However, it is important to note that they did not find a relationship
between age or amount of college experience and social presence. Further, they
concluded that online learners found the social presence of faculty and students to be an
integral aspect of an online course.
Other researchers (Hostetter & Busch, 2006; Russo & Benson, 2005; So & Brush,
2008) have found a relationship between social presence and student satisfaction in
online learning environments as well. In fact, student satisfaction is the most consistent
finding across all studies of social presence and CMC.
However, like most findings on social presence, there always seems to be at least
one study that contradicts the findings of others. For instance, Joo, Lim, & Kim (2011)
recently sought to investigate the structural relationships between perceived level of
presence, perceived usefulness and ease of online tools, and learner satisfaction and
persistence at a South Korean online university (p. 1654). They administered two
different surveys resulting in 709 responses. While they found teaching presence had a
significant effect on both social presence and cognitive presence (which suggests how a
course is designed and facilitated effects social presence), they also found that contrary to
previous studies, social presence was not a significant predictor of satisfaction. Further
research though is needed to see if this study is an outlier or if perhaps students’
perceptions of social presence and its relationship to satisfaction is changing.
While student satisfaction does not equal student learning, it is a necessary
component of a successful learning environment. Further, online learning has a history of

44
having a higher dropout rate than face-to-face courses (Levy, 2007) as well as being
characterized as involving more work than traditional face-to-face courses. Thus, it is
imperative for online instructors to recognize the important role student satisfaction can
play in online learning environments. If students are not satisfied, they will presumably
not log-on to their online course and therefore will not successfully complete their online
course or learn the required material. Another important component to student learning
online is interaction. The following section will address the relationship between
interaction and social presence.
Social Presence and Interaction
Interaction is a key component of any learning environment (Dunlap, Sobel, &
Sands, 2007). Interaction and online learning has specifically received a great deal of
attention over the years (Anderson, 2006; Anderson & Garrison, 1998; McIsaac, Blocher,
Mahes, & Vrasidas, 1999; Moore, 1989; Moore & Kearsely, 2005; Vrasidas & Glass,
2002; Wagner, 1994). Interaction has been defined in a number of ways. According to
Wagner (1994), interaction is simply “reciprocal events that require at least two objects
and two actions. Interactions occur when these objects and events mutually influence one
another” (p. 8). Interaction—that is, reciprocal events—can occur in many different
forms in an online environment.
Moore (1989) was the first to identify three main types of interaction in distance
education: (a) learner-to-content interaction, (b) learner-to-instructor interaction, (c) and
learner-to-learner interaction. Later researchers identified additional types of interaction
found in online learning environments: (a) teacher-to-teacher, (b) teacher-to-content, (c)
content-to-content, (d) learner-to-technology, and (e) teacher-to-technology (Anderson,

45
2003, 2006; Anderson & Kuskis, 2007; Shank, 2004). Each of these is an important
component of any online learning environment. Furthermore, each of these types of
interaction can influence social presence. However, learner-to-instructor and learner-to-learner
interaction are the most germane; of the two, learner-to-learner interaction has
received the most attention.
Researchers have shown that learner-to-learner interaction is a critical component
in online learning (Richardson & Swan, 2003). Learner-to-learner interaction is
motivating and stimulating for students (Moore & Kearsley, 2005). Further, social
presence is directly related to learner-to-learner interaction (Tu, 2000). Students are
perceived as being there as a result of their online interactions with their peers; if they do
not interact with their peers and instructors, they are not perceived as being there or
connecting with their peers or instructors. Therefore, in this section, I will summarize a
few key studies about social presence and interaction.
Tu and McIsaac (2002) conducted a mixed methods study with 43 graduate
students in an online course. They found that social presence influences online
interaction. More specifically, they found that social presence is necessary for social
interaction. However, they also found that the quantity or frequency of participation
online did not directly relate to social presence. That is, interacting more did not
necessarily increase one’s social presence. Finally, they found that group size in
synchronous discussions influenced how much students interacted with others online.
As a result of their study, Tu and McIsaac (2002) argued that students need to
establish trust “before attaining a higher level of social presence” (p. 142). They also
found that informality helped increase social presence. But most importantly, they

46
concluded that it is not the quantity but the quality of interactions online that make the
difference.
Like Tu and McIsaac, Swan and Shih (2005) also discovered some interesting
relationships between social presence and interaction. The participants in their study
came from four online graduate educational technology courses; 51 students completed
an online questionnaire [based on Richardson and Swan’s (2003) previous survey that
was based on the instrument developed by Gunawardena and Zittle]. After the survey was
completed, the 5 students with the highest and the 5 students with the lowest social
presence scores were identified, their postings were analyzed, and then they were
interviewed. Content analysis was used to explore the discussion postings using the
indicators developed by Rourke et al. (2001a).
Like Tu and McIsaac (2002), Swan and Shih found that students who interacted
more in the discussion forums were not necessarily perceived as having the most social
presence; rather, students who were more socially orientated, even if they interacted less
than others, were perceived as having greater social presence. Swan and Shih argued that
this supports the idea that perceived presence is not directly linked to how much one
participates online. Further, they found that students perceiving the most social presence
of others were also the ones who successfully projected their own presence into the
discussions. Swan and Shih concluded that students projected their presence online “by
sharing something of themselves with their classmates, by viewing their class as a
community, and by acknowledging and building on the responses of others” (p. 124),
rather than simply posting more than others. Therefore, this research suggests that the
quality of online postings matters more than the quantity when it comes to social

SOCIAL PRESENCE: WHAT IS IT? HOW DO WE MEASURE IT?

SOCIAL PRESENCE: WHAT IS IT? HOW DO WE MEASURE IT?

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to SOCIAL PRESENCE: WHAT IS IT? HOW DO WE MEASURE IT?

Similar to SOCIAL PRESENCE: WHAT IS IT? HOW DO WE MEASURE IT? (20)

More from Patrick Lowenthal

More from Patrick Lowenthal (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

SOCIAL PRESENCE: WHAT IS IT? HOW DO WE MEASURE IT?