Theorizing the Future of Computer-Mediated Communication: The Changing Role of Self-Presentation, Audience, and Interaction
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•3,474 views
1. Computer-mediated communication theories have not evolved as quickly as the technologies they aim to explain. 2. Older theories focused on asynchronous and reduced-cue environments, but modern communication occurs across synchronous, visual, and networked platforms. 3. Understanding one's audience, both known and unknown, and how people selectively present themselves online, are now critical to developing updated theories of computer-mediated communication.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Theorizing the Future of Computer-Mediated Communication: The Changing Role of Self-Presentation, Audience, and Interaction
Similar to Theorizing the Future of Computer-Mediated Communication: The Changing Role of Self-Presentation, Audience, and Interaction (20)
More from Jessica Vitak
More from Jessica Vitak (13)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Theorizing the Future of Computer-Mediated Communication: The Changing Role of Self-Presentation, Audience, and Interaction
- 1. Theorizing the Future of Computer-Mediated Communication: The Changing Role of Self-Presentation, Audience, and Interaction Jessica Vitak | @jvitak Michigan State University Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 2. Let’s take a walk through CMC’s past… 1. Computer-mediated communication is not a new phenomenon. 2. Theories of CMC have evolved with the technology. 3. BUT this evolution cannot keep pace with technological developments. 2 Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 3. CMC is as old as the Internet 3 Usenet (1979) Best-known and widely researched online discussion forum. Newsgroups for every topic imaginable. See Baym (1998) & Donath (1999) for examples of research using Usenet. Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 4. CMC is as old as the Internet 4 The WELL (1985) Became widely known through Howard Rheingold’s book, “The Virtual Community” Strong geographic component. Highlighted the modality-switching capabilities of the Internet. Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 5. CMC is as old as the Internet 5 AOL connected millions of people to the Internet and served as both an ISP and as a homebase for establishing an online identity. AOL Chat Rooms enabled large-group pseuodonymous, synchronous interactions. AIM (1996) enabled synchronous one-to-one interactions. Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 6. 6
- 7. CMC is as old as the Internet 7 Online dating sites serve a very specific purpose: finding someone to date (casually or seriously) Modality switching. Static profiles asynchronous communication synchronouscommunication face-to-face meetings. See Ellison, Gibbs & Heino’s (2006) research for more. Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 8. CMC is as old as the Internet 8 Boyd and Ellison (2007) define SNSs as “web-based services that allow individuals to: (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system; (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.” Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 9. Let’s take a walk through CMC’s past… 1. Computer-mediated communication is not a new phenomenon. 2. Theories of CMC have evolved with the technology. 3. BUT this evolution cannot keep pace with technological developments. 9 Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 10. Theories of CMC 10 Cues-filtered-out approach (Culnan & Markus, 1987) Dominant in 1980s and into the 1990s CMC is impersonal; less social/personal; leaner than in-person interactions "CMC, because of its lack of audio or video cues, will be perceived as impersonal and lacking in normative reinforcement, so there will be less socioemotional content exchanged" (Rice & Love, 1987). < Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 11. Theories of CMC 11 Social Information Processing (SIP) Theory (Walther, 1992) Direct response to cues filtered out approach. Relationships can and do form online, albeit at a slower rate than in face-to-face environments. = Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 12. Theories of CMC 12 Hyperpersonal Model (Walther, 1996) Sometimes, the unique affordances of CMC allow individuals to develop develop relationships that are “more socially desirable than we tend to experience in parallel FtFinteraction” (p. 17). Role of sender, receiver, channel, and feedback. > Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 13. Theories of CMC 13 Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE; Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995 ) In deindividuated/depersonalized settings, individual identity is submerged into the group identity. We identify with the “in group” and disassociate with the “outgroup.” ✔ Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 14. Let’s take a walk through CMC’s past… 1. Computer-mediated communication is not a new phenomenon. 2. Theories of CMC have evolved with the technology. 3. BUT this evolution cannot keep pace with technological developments. 14 Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 15. Evolution of CMC 15 CMC’s early features: Asynchronous Examples: Email, discussion forums Benefits: Allows user to carefully compose and edit messages prior to sending. Drawbacks: limited/no real-time interactions slowed down processes (2) Reduced-cues environment Examples: any text-only online interaction Benefits: selective self-presentation, identity play Drawbacks: No visual cues misinterpretations of messages, deception Theories of CMC are based off of these properties. Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 16. Evolution of CMC 16 CMC in 2011 is: (1) Highly interactive (2) Highly visual (3) Synchronous, near synchronous, and asynchronous communication (4) Interactions are with FRIENDS, not strangers Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 17. The Problem 17 CMC has changed… BUT the theories that attempt to predict, explain, and control it have not. Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 18. Enter my research… 18 https://www.msu.edu/~nellison/TOIL
- 19. Enter my research… 19 What do we study? The relationship between Facebook use and social capital: We have found that various measures of Facebook use, including FBI (Ellison et al., 2007), actual friends on the site (Ellison et al., in press), connection strategies (Ellison et al., in press), and engagement in reciprocal communication (Vitak et al., 2011) predict perceptions of social capital. But this only tells part of the story. Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 20. Enter my research… 20 Problems with this research: Atheoretical? Does not account for two inter-related and critical components of SNS use: -- Audience -- Self-Presentation (a la disclosures) Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 21. What’s audience got to do with it? 21 danahboyd (2008) identified three dynamics that differentiate networked publics from traditional publics: invisible audiences context collapse blurring of public and private Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 22. Selective Self-Presentation via CMC 22 Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical approach: … a performer tends to conceal or underplay those activities, facts, and motives which are incompatible with an idealized version of himself… a performer often engenders in his audience the belief that he is related to them in a more ideal way than is always the case (p. 48). Hyperpersonal Model (Walther, 1996): senders engage in selective self-presentations // receivers idealize the sender // behavioral confirmation through feedback So how do we selectively self-present on SNSs? Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 24. Who are they?
- 25. Who is highlighted?Status updates
- 26. 24 Communication Channels on SNSs Public: Status Updates, Comments, Likes, Posting Photos, Sharing Links Private: Messages, Chat, Filtering Posts with privacy settings Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 27. Blurring of Public and Private 25 Marwick and boyd (2011): “We may understand that the Twitter or Facebook audience is potentially limitless, but we often act as if it were bounded.” But Facebook is just my friends! Technical features enable sharing of “private” information far beyond your articulated network. Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 28. Blurring of Public and Private 26
- 29. Blurring of Public and Private 27 Canadian woman on medical leave dropped from insurance for not looking depressed in Facebook photos (story)
- 30. Blurring of Public and Private 28 Eagles employee fired over status update (story)
- 31. But what does it all mean? 29
- 34. 32
- 35. 33 Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 38. Can we adapt existing social science theories explaining offline interaction?Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 41. People seek to maximize rewards while minimizing costs.Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 43. Main concepts: cost, benefit, outcome, comparison level, satisfaction, and dependenceJessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 45. establishment of plans and strategies for interacting with others
- 46. development and maintenance of self-identityJessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
- 47. 39 Thanks! Twitter: Email: @jvitakvitakjes@msu.edu Website: http://vitak.wordpress.com Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011
Editor's Notes
- Usenet created in 1979 by some Duke students : users post messages to newsgroups; no central server rather it is distributed across a large number of more localized servers.Baym studied a soap opera form, focused on norms guiding site useDonath focused broadly on identity and deception online (signaling theory), used Usenet as the example.
- Started in San Fran in 1985.See Rheingold’s website for links to early meetups.
- Commercials tell us 1 in 5 relationships begin on an online dating website.
- Some interesting points: Ellison et al. found that people are not really using SNSs to develop new relationships but to reconnect and maintain existing relationships. One exception to this could be when it comes to SNGs (our research).Donath & boyd (2004) suggest that displaying a connection with another user signals one’s willingness to risk their reputation. Mutual connections help place an individual within a larger network and can help establish common ground.
- Rooted in social presence theory andmedia richness
- CFO effects are limited to a narrow range of experiences, specifically zero-history, one-shot interactions.
- message features—including the ability to edit messages before sending, minimize cue leakage, and reallocate cognitive resources—allow individuals to more thoroughly engage in selective self-presentation
- Note that this is a bit of an oversimplification of what is going on but at a high level holds true.For example, researchers have expanded on the hyperpersonal model to include visual cues and synchronous communication, but all of these theories are about impression formation rather than relationship maintenance and impression management.
- Some would argue that while we apply the social capital framework, it is not a theory. Others argue that social capital is recursive, that it includes everything and therefore it includes nothing.
- Talk about these inter-relatedly
- Sites like Lamebook and Failbooking aggregate pictures and updates that may have been marked as “private” but were copied by a friend and submitted to the site.
- http://gawker.com/#!321802/your-privacy-is-an-illusion/bank-intern-busted-by-facebookKevin Colvin, an intern at Anglo Irish Bank's North American arm got into trouble after he got caught in a lie on Facebook.
- Talk about social capital research, how we see this relationship as a weighing of risks and benefits. Could bring in lowest-common-denominator approach, but point to problems inherent in that.
- Talk about social capital research, how we see this relationship as a weighing of risks and benefits. Could bring in lowest-common-denominator approach, but point to problems inherent in that.
- Talk about social capital research, how we see this relationship as a weighing of risks and benefits. Could bring in lowest-common-denominator approach, but point to problems inherent in that.
- Inputs: time, effort, loyalty, hard work, commitment, ability, flexibility, toleranceOutcomes: Sense of achievement, praise, recognition, reputation, social support
- Outcome = benefits – costsSatisfaction = outcome – comparison levelDependence = outcome – comparison level of alternativesCritique: human interaction isn’t always rational