Computer-Mediated Communication Online Communities and the Symbolic Construction of Community 1 February 2012

Mailing List: i216@ischool.berkeley.edu https://calmail.berkeley.edu/manage/list /listinfo/i216@ischool.berkeley.edu 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Final project schedule We will facilitate in-class group discussion of project ideas. A project description/report will be due halfway through the semester (e.g., mid-March) Final Projects will be presented and due as the single deliverable for the course. 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

More Final Project Examples! Glitter: Live-tweeting during Glee broadcasts (e.g., how does the act of communicating through twitter affect the ‘community’ aspect of watching TV by oneself?) Did some interviews, collected some tweets and analyzed them. Yelpful: re-thinking the review system to account for trustworthiness, reputation, and especially the concept of a “local expert” or a type of personalized concierge. 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

A few examples of project types: Design, prototype or build a novel CMC system Experiment using a CMC system Analyze or visualize interaction in a CMC system Research a specific CMC system or domain of systems and collect empirical data (interviews, small survey, etc). Importantly, everyone should: (1) build on a strong theoretical foundation (2) use this foundation to justify the solution 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Final Project Ideas Wiki: http://cmc2012.pbworks.com user: cmc2012@tresolini.org pass: smallestbear 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Wrap up from last week: self-presentation and deception 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication “The problem with 'The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life' and the use of it in the discussion of CMC and identity, is that his dramaturgical metaphors are manifested in analogue examples and not intended for being use online. This is evident when talking about backstage - at home with no physical presence of people – and this is most often where we are when commutating with other people online” -Morten “I wonder if sociologists like Goffman who write about basic human functions or interactions ever take a step back and wonder, as I often do, what exactly the value is that is being added. Do they question it?” -Monica 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Results — Hancock et al. % of interactions involving a lie 37% 27% 21% 14% Instant Message FtF Phone Email 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Deception as an aspect of “Media Richness” Media ‘richness’ is only a singular dimension that may mask the complexity of choice, behavior and inference of purpose. We will spend more time on media richness soon– but this is a good introduction to the core discussion of CMC technologies and how they interact with social behaviors and norms. Image: Time Barrow Dissertation Research, http://blog.timebarrow.com/2009/09/media-richness-theory/ 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication Other Dimensions: Synchronicity Recordability Distribution of Speaker/Listener Synchronous implies more lies…why? Recordable implies less lies Distribution (co-presence) may reduce *some* types of deception 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Feature-based approach Media features FtF Phone IM Email Synchronous X X* Recordless Distributed (not copresent) Lying predictions Feature-based 2 1 3 Media Richness 4 Social Distance Hancock: Single dimension (richness, social distance) is too reductionistic, and we need to consider specific features of media. * Usually 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Predictions based on features The more recordable the medium (paper-trail), the less likely people are to lie. The more synchronous and distributed (but not recordable), the more lying will occur: Phone most FtF IM Email least Others? Research suggests that deception in general is a fundamental and frequent part of everyday human communication, both in interpersonal settings as well as in work and organizational contexts (Camden, Motley & Wilson, 1984; DePaulo et al., 1996; Hancock et al., 2004a, 2004b; Lippard, 1988; Metts, 1989). Some research suggests that people tell an average of one to two lies a day (DePaulo et al., 1996; Hancock et al., 2004a, 2004b), and these daily lies range from the trivial, such as a false opinion about someone’s appearance, to the more serious matters, such as deception in business and legal negotiations, power and politics and workplace issues. Indeed, as noted above, some have argued that deception is one of the most pervasive social phenomena of our age (Miller & Stiff, 1993). CONTENT OF LIES Another Hancock et al. diary study: More lies about feelings in synchronous interaction (because feelings are more likely to come up) More lies about explanations in asynchronous media (more time to plan and construct) More lies about actions on the telephone (where people can’t see what you’re doing) No difference across media in lies about facts (might have expected more in recordless media) 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication “It was surprising to me that a diary study about the mediums of deception found that participants lied most frequently on the phone. I would've thought that lying in emails, chat, or other forms of indirect communication where the two people can neither hear nor see each other is much more common than on the phone or face-to-face” - Wei “I don't agree that deception in person is as straightforward as he claims. While there are visual cues, body language and the ability to infer from your interaction, being able to judge deception F2F can be just as complex if there is no prior relationship or history with the other person” - Kristine 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication Detecting deception Most people are no better than chance Some markers: Higher pitch Microexpressions Certain body movements Use of language may differ “Motivation impairment effect” Source: www.humintell.com Most people (even trained professionals, like police officers) detect deception at no better than a chance rate Some reliable markers of lying: Illustrative and other body movements, higher pitch, microexpressions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXm6YbXxSYk  These are hard to detect online, esp. in text In asynchronous, text-based interaction: Liars used more words, were more expressive and informal, and made more typos (Zhou et al. 2004). Similar in synchronous IM interaction: More words and fewer self-references Those lied to also IMed differently, even when they didn’t realize the deceit: Shorter sentences, more questions. People highly motivated to lie may be easier to detect (i.e., trying harder may give you away) — “motivation impairment effect” MEDIUM AND DETECTING DECEPTION No consistent findings about whether certain media make it easier or harder to detect deception In some studies, it’s easier in richer media; in others, in leaner media or no difference. However, the motivation impairment effect may be lessened in CMC — less is “given off”: Hancock et al. (2005): Motivated liars detected more often than unmotivated ones in FtF, but less often in CMC. Motivated CMC liars least detected of all. 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication Community 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

“Classic” Conception of Community (The Chicago School) “Organic Solidarity” “Mechanical Solidarity” Mechanical really just means a society founded upon likeness, unable to deal with dissimilarity Organic is when differences are integrated– we are special snowflakes and we all do our part in separate, but multifunctioning ‘systems’ 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

The ‘Myths’ of Community Simplicity and F2F “…the anatomy of social life at the micro-level is more intricate, and no less revealing, than among … the macro-level” Egalitarianism “…community generates multitudinous means of making evaluative distinctions among its members, means of differentiating among them…” Inevitable Conformity “suggests that the outward spread of cultural influences from the centre will make communities … less like their former selves…[this assumes that] people are somehow passive in relation to culture: they receive it, transmit it, but do not create it.” http://itawambahistory.blogspot.com/ 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication Community Boundaries 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication ingroup other, outgroup other, outgroup 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication Symbols and Community Joy mentioned the expression of lesbian culture in online dating sites. What symbols might delimit that community? 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Symbols versus Emblems, Signs 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cohen on symbolic words Justice, goodness, patriotism, duty, love, peace, life, purity, gender… “Their range of meanings can be glossed over in a commonly accepted symbol — precisely because it allows its adherents to attach their own meanings to it. They share the symbol, but do not necessarily share its meanings.” p. 16 Freedom & Democracy — ‘hurrah’ words as opposed to ‘boo’ words Dirt -> ugh! -> scrub! : What are other words for dirt that have the same objective or instrumental meaning but a different attitude? I believe in God: Two Catholics may say this to each other and, because they share the vocabulary imagine that they ‘understand’ each other. Such an assumption would often be unjustified: the words ‘God’ and ‘believe’ may mean rather different things to each of them. Similarly, they may share the same symbolic forms for the expression of belief — the Mass, genuflection, wearing a crucifix — and yet each be expressing quite different things. I love you / *I* love *you*! — Monica gave an example in her review of someone who seemed to have a stringent definition of love that differed from his friends’. 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication from 37signals.com

Symbolic meaning (and variation) within communities “Patriotism” 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication “ Symbols are effective because they are imprecise. … They are, therefore, ideal media through which people can speak a ‘common’ language, behave in apparently similar ways, participate in the ‘same’ rituals, pray to the ‘same’ gods, wear similar clothes, and so forth, without subordinating themselves to a tyranny of orthodoxy. Individuality and commonality are thus reconcilable. ” 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Community Boundaries and Symbols “Symbols do not so much express meaning as give us the capacity to make meaning.” 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Community Boundaries and Symbols Public face (symbolically simple) Private face (symbolically complex) “ ” 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication Cohen on subjectivity “But not all boundaries, and not all the components of any boundary, are so objectively apparent. They may be thought of, rather, as existing in the minds of their beholders. This being so, the boundary may be perceived in rather different terms, not only by people on opposite sides of it, but also by people on the same side.” — Cohen 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Some questions to consider Examples of communities in CMC and the use of symbols? How does a community define its boundaries? If there have been times when those boundaries were violated, how did members respond? 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication Symbolic variation within CMC communities http://xkcd.com/802/ 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Community Boundaries Online: Facebook Newsfeed Fiasco of ‘06 “The point is, you're always presenting the identity you want to present - you never have to worry about the identity you used to present … This morning, millions of students were shown that they can't actually rewrite history. Everything they do, all of the groups they join and interests they state or friends they make - it is all being recorded.” (Fred Stutzman) What about Timeline? 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Brief History and What Makes an Online Community Anyway?

The Beginnings of Online Community… The first large-scale online communities were Usenet discussion groups and forums Developed around 1979 No official structure 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication Many levels of community, explicit in this hierarchy: the “usenet” community, the alt.binaries community, the alt.binaries.sounds.mp3 community, the rec.arts community, etc. https://www.msu.edu/~atf/images/treemap_all.gif 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

What aspects define a community? Common practices? Network ties? Symbols? Poster to post ratio? Affect-laden relationships? How can we reconcile these different definitions of community? 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Social networks and online community “Community emerges where the cumulative impact of interactions among individuals adds value above the level of pairwise interactions.” — Caroline Haythornthwaite Responding to notions of Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (Society) -- Tonnies 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

The network perspective People (nodes) Ties (edges) Sebastian: “One thing I struggle with a lot when I read about modeling domains as graphs is whether there's an adequate way to represent macro- and micro- phenomena, and their possible interaction, within the same graph structure. So, for example, if both a person and a business entity can be 'actors', what data structure is adequate to model the relationship between businesses that are constituted by persons? Under what conditions can we say that personal ties add up to a business tie? Etc.” 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Ties in a social network (as modeled in SN analysis) Directed or undirected Simplex or multiplex Valued or unvalued 7 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Network approach to community Examines interconnections to discover where groups exist rather than determining a priori that a group exists based on external criteria. But is this a community? Or “an alliance, a collaborative work group, a collective, a cohort”? 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Social networks and Social Capital Accumulate capital Social capital Knowledge capital Communion … all achieved through network ties? 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

The power of social capital and the structure of social networks 1 + 1 = 2 Fully connected network: N people, N(N-1)/2 ties Connections grow at a much faster rate (quadratic vs. linear) 1 + 1 > 2? 2 + 2 > 4? Bridge 6 + 6 > 12? 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Anonymity and Behavior in Online Groups and Communities Photo Attribution: http://mimanifesto.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/anonymous1.jpg 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Anonymity, Pseudonymity, and Identity Remember: Almost everything is a conventional signal online. Giving vs. giving off — time, complete channel control. 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication Shyness and Anonymity Minimizes status effects and status cues – can encourage more egalitarian dynamic, contributions from lower-status people. (More about status later in semester) 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Aggressiveness and Anonymity 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Group Dynamics and Anonymity Influence Influence due to anonymous communication; depersonalization *absence* of personal accountability leads to higher group identity…influence of the group norms At the same time, anonymity reduces status and power differences (pro’s and con’s?) Leadership: should be person with prototypical group behavior, but anonymity may interact with this in important ways Leadership Status Power 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication Finding Community There is a community for everyone… 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication A million different services, but its hard to call them all “communities”. Still, there may be aspects of community as well as group dynamics that are relevant to the formation and dissolution of community. Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication 2/1/12

Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication Online communities are neither built nor do they just emerge, they evolve organically and change over time. Developers cannot control online community development but they can influence it. Jenny Preece 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication

For next Wednesday… Remember to write your reviews! Privacy and information control Mayer-Schonberger, V. (2009) "Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age". Princeton University Press. (In reader.) Boyd, D., and Hargittai, E. Facebook Privacy Settings: Who Cares?. In First Monday 15(8). Cheshire, C., Antin, J. and Churchill, E. (2010) Behaviors, Adverse Events and Dispositions: An Empirical Study of Online Discretion and Information Control. In Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(7). Remember to write your reviews! 2/1/12 Cheshire & Fiore — Computer-Mediated Communication