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

The Changing Role of Self-Presentation, Audience, and Interaction

Theorizing the Future of Computer-Mediated Communication:

Jessica Vitak | @jvitakMichigan State University

Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011

Let’s take a walk through CMC’s past…

1. Computer-mediated communication is not a new phenomenon.2. Theories of CMC have evolved with the technology.

3. BUT this evolution cannot keep pace with technological developments.

Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011

2

CMC is as old as the Internet

3

Usenet (1979)

Best-known and widely researched online discussion forum.

Newsgroups for every topic imaginable.

See Baym (1998) & Donath (1999) for examples of research using Usenet.



4

The WELL (1985)

Became widely known through Howard Rheingold’s book, “The Virtual Community”

Strong geographic component.

Highlighted the modality-switching capabilities of the Internet.



5

AOL connected millions of people to the Internet and served as both an ISP and as a homebase for establishing an online identity.

AOL Chat Rooms enabled large-group pseuodonymous, synchronous interactions.

AIM (1996) enabled synchronous one-to-one interactions.


6


7

Online dating sites serve a very specific purpose: finding someone to date (casually or seriously)

Modality switching.

Static profiles asynchronous communication synchronous communication face-to-face meetings.

See Ellison, Gibbs & Heino’s (2006) research for more.



8

Boyd and Ellison (2007) define SNSs as “web-based services that allow individuals to:

(1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system; (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and

(3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.”



1. Computer-mediated communication is not a new phenomenon.

2. Theories of CMC have evolved with the technology.


9


Theories of CMC

10

Cues-filtered-out approach (Culnan & Markus, 1987)

Dominant in 1980s and into the 1990s

CMC is impersonal; less social/personal; leaner than in-person interactions

"CMC, because of its lack of audio or video cues, will be perceived as impersonal and lacking in normative reinforcement, so there will be less socioemotional content exchanged" (Rice & Love, 1987).<


Theories of CMC

11

Social Information Processing (SIP) Theory (Walther, 1992)

Direct response to cues filtered out approach.

Relationships can and do form online, albeit at a slower rate than in face-to-face environments. =


Theories of CMC

12

Hyperpersonal Model (Walther, 1996) Sometimes, the unique affordances of CMC allow individuals to develop develop relationships that are “more socially desirable than we tend to experience in parallel FtF interaction” (p. 17).

Role of sender, receiver, channel, and feedback. >


Theories of CMC

13

Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE; Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995 )

In deindividuated/depersonalized settings, individual identity is submerged into the group identity.

We identify with the “in group” and disassociate with the “outgroup.”

✔Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011




14

1. Computer-mediated communication is not a new phenomenon.

2. Theories of CMC have evolved with the technology.

Evolution of CMC

15

CMC’s early features:

(1)AsynchronousExamples: Email, discussion forumsBenefits: Allows user to carefully compose and edit messages prior to sending.Drawbacks: limited/no real-time interactions slowed down processes

(2) Reduced-cues environmentExamples: any text-only online interactionBenefits: selective self-presentation, identity playDrawbacks: No visual cues misinterpretations of

messages, deceptionTheories of CMC are based off of these

properties.Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011

Evolution of CMC

16

CMC in 2011 is:

(1) Highly interactive

(2) Highly visual

(3) Synchronous, near synchronous, and asynchronous communication

(4) Interactions are with FRIENDS, not strangers


The Problem

17

CMC has changed…

BUT

the theories that attempt to predict, explain, and control it have

not.


Enter my research…

18

https://www.msu.edu/~nellison/TOIL







19

What do we study?

The relationship between Facebook use and social capital:

We have found that various measures of Facebook use, including FBI (Ellison et al., 2007), actual friends on the site (Ellison et al., in press), connection strategies (Ellison et al., in press), and engagement in reciprocal communication (Vitak et al., 2011) predict perceptions of social capital.

But this only tells part of the story.



20

Problems with this research:

(1) Atheoretical?

(2) Does not account for two inter-related and

critical components of SNS use:-- Audience-- Self-Presentation (a la disclosures)


What’s audience got to do with it?

21

danah boyd (2008) identified three dynamics that differentiate networked publics from traditional publics:

(1) invisible audiences(2) context collapse(3) blurring of public and

private


Selective Self-Presentation via CMC

22

Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical approach:

… a performer tends to conceal or underplay those activities, facts, and motives which are incompatible with an idealized version of himself… a performer often engenders in his audience the belief that he is related to them in a more ideal way than is always the case (p. 48).

Hyperpersonal Model (Walther, 1996): senders engage in selective self-presentations // receivers idealize the sender // behavioral confirmation through feedback

So how do we selectively self-present on SNSs?


23

Selective Self-Presentation in our SNS Profiles1. Profile Picture2. Highlighted

Pictures3. Friends

• How many?• Who are they?• Who is

highlighted?4. Status updates

24Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011

Communication Channels on SNSs

Public: Status Updates, Comments, Likes, Posting Photos, Sharing Links Private: Messages, Chat, Filtering Posts with privacy settings

Blurring of Public and Private

25

Marwick and boyd (2011):

“We may understand that the Twitter or Facebook audience is potentially limitless, but we often act as if it were bounded.”

But Facebook is just my friends!

Technical features enable sharing of “private” information far beyond your articulated network.Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April

9, 2011


26


27

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

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/depressed-woman-appears-happy-on-facebook-trouble-ensues/


28Eagles employee fired over status update (story)

http://articles.philly.com/2009-03-09/sports/24984311_1_leonard-bonacci-brian-dawkins-lincoln-financial-field

But what does it all mean?

29


30

Older theories focus on reduced cues, asynchronous communication.

These theories also focus on relationship formation, not maintenance.

Social Information ProcessingHyperpersonal

SIDE

1.We cannot rely on older theories of CMC to explain current user experiences.



31

2. One’s audience—both known and unknown

—is critical. But can you ever really know

who your entire audience is?

1.We cannot rely on older theories of CMC to explain current user experiences. Older theories focus on reduced

cues, asynchronous communication.


32

33Jessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011


34

2. One’s audience—both known and unknown—is critical.

But can you ever really know who your entire audience is?

1.We cannot rely on older theories of CMC to explain current user experiences. Older theories focus on reduced cues,

asynchronous communication.

3. While scary things can and do happen, online communication is full of benefits for those who choose to engage.


Looking forward

35

How can we theoretically explain the communication and relationship building that occurs online?

Don’t treat online and offline as separate entities.

We don’t necessarily need to build new theories from scratch • Can we expand on existing theories of CMC to

include new technological features?

• Can we adapt existing social science theories explaining offline interaction?


Looking forward: Where to start?

36

Equity Theory (Adams, 1965)• Distribution of resources in a dyadic

relationship• Compares ratios of contributions and benefits

of each member of a relationship.

MY INPUT = YOUR INPUT _

MY OUTCOMES YOUR OUTCOMES

• When these ratios are unequal, individuals feel distress and seek to restore equity

• People seek to maximize rewards while minimizing costs.



37

Social Exchange Theory (review: Emerson, 1976)

• Relationship development process consists of a series of cost-benefit analyses

• Main concepts: cost, benefit, outcome, comparison level, satisfaction, and dependence



38

Altman’s (1975) theory of privacy—selective control of access to the self, involving:

1. A dynamic, dialectic process2. An optimization process3. A multi-mechanism process

Functions of privacy:• management of social interaction• establishment of plans and strategies

for interacting with others• development and maintenance of self-

identityJessica Vitak | Theorizing the Web | April 9, 2011

39

Thanks!

Twitter: Email:@jvitak [email protected]

Website:http://vitak.wordpress.com


http://www.twitter.com/jvitak

http://www.twitter.com/jvitak

mailto:[email protected]

http://vitak.wordpress.com/

Technology

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