THEORIES AND CONCEPTS (as promised)

If I make a mistake or you have something to add please comment!!!!!

- this is also just a summary of the HYP (hypotheses), for detail in theory see ppts

Social Presence Theory (Short, Williams, & Christie - 1976)

HYP: CMC will lead to decreased social presence and impoverished impression formation

- DISPROVED

- related to: Reduced Social Cues and Cues Filtered Out (CFO Perspective)

HYP: Lack of cues in CMC should lead to neutral, negative, undeveloped impressions.

-DISPROVED (example: online dating)

Social Information Processing (SIP)- Walther (1993)

HYP: impression formation will develop more slowly in CMC

- could explain previous "chilly" impressions in CMC

- also relates to motives of communicators (Gibbs, Ellison, Heino article)-- motives direct communicators to form impressions about others based on the relatively limited nonverbal and physical cues available via CMC

SUPPORTED

Hyperpersonal Model (Walther, 1996)

due to...

1. over-attribution processes

2. developmental aspect (from SIP)

3. selective self-presentation (channel)

4. re-allocation of cognitive resources (channel)

5. behavioral confirmation (feedback loop)

...HYP 1: breadth: rate a CMC partner on fewer characteristics (see #2)

   HYP 2: intensity: ratings of a CMC partner more intense/ exaggerated

Hancock and Dunham results (2001): compares CMC vs FtF in breadth and intensity: 

-breadth of impressions decreased in CMC

-intensity, the main effect of CMC was greater than FtF

(SUPPORTED the Hyperpersonal Model!)

Fundamental Attribution Error: when we form impressions on other people based on their traits. (dispositional attribution vs situational attribution)

Self- Presentation: how we manage information we present to others: can never really present ALL of self.

Goffman (1959) and Jung (1953): distinguished between an inner self and an outer self (later, notion of "possible selves was introduced: ideal, ought, actual, and true).

Self Presentational Tactics:

self descriptions: describing oneself in ways that convey a desired impression (direct)

attitude expressions: expressing attributes that connote that one possesses certain attributes (indirect)

nonverbal behavior: facial expressions, gestures, body positions, and movement

social associations: publicly associating oneself with particular others (could be company, group, etc)

Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984)

- predicts the technology people are going to use for certain types of communication:

-equivocality = ambiguous 

richness = a lot of cues (FtF) = availability of feedback, message personalization, language variety.

leanness = less cues (email) = no instant feedback (asynchronous)

- it is flawed because it expects people to be efficient/thoughtful/strategic when making decisions (they're not), its also outdated because it doesn't just matter what technology is best, skill/ability of using technology also matters, and some people are better at writing, others at speaking.

HYP: increased equivocality requires a rich medium (for task efficiency), decreased equivocality only requires a lean medium.

DISPROVED (in deception)

O'Sullivan (2000):

 takes those flaws into account: Impression Management Model:

- combination of factors, people make complicated decisions for choosing medium, not a simple formula:

locus: message is about self or other

valence: positive/ negative message

HYP 1: when valence expected to be negative, people will always prefer mediated interaction (unpleasant, people want to disassociate)

HYP 2: when locus expected to be self, prefer mediated interaction (norm of modesty)

HYP 3: when valence expected to be negative, and locus to be self, prefer mediated communication in more than any other condition. 

(all SUPPORTED, but self-report technique, which is not the most reliable)

Social Distance Theory:

HYP: since lying is uncomfortable, the more distance you have from social cues, the more you lie (lie least in FtF)

DISPROVED 

Feature Based Approach (Hancock, Thom-Santelli, & Ritchie, 2004):

-groundbreaking:

we lie the most in 1. phone, 2. FtF, 2. IM (tied), and 4. Email

- based on synchronous (good for lying, spontaneous, and no motives), recordless, and distributed (same space vs far away)

Self- Verification Theory: 

- people want to be liked/loved for who they are (fits in with Honesty aspect of Self-Presentation Goals)

Self-Enhancement Theory:

- people are motivated to appear attractive and honest

Evolutionary Approach:

examples: women prefer taller men because it is an evolutionary indicator of high status

   - men prefer younger women because women can only reproduce up to a certain age

Truth bias: 

-giving people the benefit of the doubt-- innate trust, no reason to be suspicious in first encounters (also evolutionary)

Faulty cues:

- people associate fidgeting, and eye contact with deception, when it is really a portrayal of nervousness.

Social Penetration Theory (Taylor and Ahman, 1987)

- people have layers (like an onion...), the innermost layer is the core attitude and beliefs of a person, outer layer is the most visible (physical appearance), harder and harder to penetrate layers, the more you find out the more you like (positive)

Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger and Calabrese, 1975)

- we are uncomfortable with uncertainty, and are motivated to find out more

CFO Perspective Revised:

Factors:

1. Physical attractiveness: order reversed online, people "get to know" first, and then if they will at all, they see picture: this might work better because once people have stuff in common and get along, then they look past physical appearance (impression already formed)

2. Proximity:

- familiarity breeds attraction (Zajonc, 1980)

familiarity flows from the INTERSECTION FREQUENCY: how often you run into a person

3. Common ground (Clark, 1996)

- attracted to people with shared common ground

Law of Attraction: there is a proportion of shared attitudes, beliefs, etc-- leads to attraction. 

4. Disinhibition effects

- role of increased self-disclosure in an online relationship

McKenna's Relationship Facilitation Factors (2007):

1. Identifiability: 

anonymous --> more comfortable to self-disclose --> relationship development  "stranger on the train effect" (never going to see them again)

identifiable --> (blogs, facebook, google, etc) --> self-disclosure was still high -- we know we have an audience but we don't see it "stranger in the crowd effect"

In BOTH cases, self-disclosure INCREASED

Visual Anonymity (Joinson, 2001):

Visual anonymity --> increased private self-awareness (focus on self is increased) --> self disclosure 

Visual anonymity --> decreased public self-awareness (increased awareness of how others view oneself) --> self-disclosure

2. Removal of gating features

3. Interactional control

4. connecting to similar others

5. getting the goods