Computer-Mediated Communication Media Richness

Experimentation vs. Observation What’s the key difference? Assignment of treatment (or condition) Consider the effect of smoking: How would you study it experimentally? How would you study it observationally? Assignment: maybe random, maybe deliberate, but controlled by the experimenter. What is a “manipulation check”? 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Validity in Experiments Internal Validity External Validity 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore Media Richness 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore Rich — Immediacy of feedback — Multiplicity of cues — Use of natural language — Personal focus (ability to adapt message to circumstances or nature of the receiver) 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore Lean — Immediacy of feedback — Multiplicity of cues — Use of natural language — Personal focus (ability to adapt message to circumstances or nature of the receiver) 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore Some types of cues Non-verbal Verbal Beyond FTF? Social presence — the sense that one is communicating with a real person. Tends to be reduced without verbal (aural) and non-verbal cues. What kinds of cues are available in common forms of CMC? Media with fewer cues are less friendly, more impersonal, more task-focused. But as we saw in the Walther et al. paper, even with fewer cues, social affinity can develop. And what is best for tasks is entirely unclear. Textual Production cost to encode meaning equivalent to FTF in text 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore Feedback Type Acknowledgment — understanding (+/–) Repair — correction or clarification Proxy — completion Immediacy — more immediate = richer Concurrent:  synchronous nods, mm-hmms a.k.a. backchannel Sequential:  brief interjection What kinds of feedback are available in common forms of CMC? 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore A plausible ranking? Richer Face-to-face Synchronous video Synchronous audio / asynch. video Synchronous text / asynch. audio Richer media have greater “capacity to facilitate the formation of shared meaning within a given time interval.” (Dennis and Kinney) Asynchronous text Leaner 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore Copresence: A and B share the same physical environment; Visibility: A and B are visible to each other; Audibility: A and B communicate by speaking; Cotemporality: B receives at roughly the same time as A produces (synchronous); Simultaneity: A and B can send and receive at once and simultaneously (e.g., Unix talk, as opposed to IM where you have to hit return); Sequentiality: A’s and B’s turns cannot get out of sequence; Reviewability: B can review A’s messages (like persistence); Revisability: A can revise messages for B (i.e., time to compose). — Clark & Brennan (1991) 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Media choice vs. media use Types of tasks “Uncertain” — missing information “Equivocal” — ambiguous interpretations “Best” medium for an (un)equivocal task What do managers choose? What yields the best performance? P.S.: What is “best performance”? Original theory was about media USE/PERFORMANCE, but most of the early empirical investigations were about media CHOICE. Dennis & Kinney operationalize “performance” as decision quality, consensus, time, and satisfaction. Walther uses interpersonal affinity and affection. 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Dennis & Kinney hypotheses H1a: Performance improves as multiplicity of cues increases … H1b: … more for more equivocal tasks. H2a: Performance improves as immediacy of feedback increases … H2b: … more for more equivocal tasks. 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Mean decision time (D&K) High cues (AV) Low cues (Text) Task Immed. Delayed Low equiv. 12.21 17.00 26.29 31.53 High equiv. 13.14 14.35 18.71 23.71 * High-equivocality task: rank-order five students seeking admission to undergrad business program. (Admissions officers agree: only top two are in clear order.) * Low-equivocality task: SAT-type problems. Incomplete information requires sharing. * These tasks were intended to be similar in complexity but different in equivocality. * Decision quality, consensus change, satisfaction did not vary with medium. Consensus change was higher in the high equivocality task. 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Dennis & Kinney’s findings Decision time Decreased with greater multiplicity of cues Decreased with greater immediacy of feedback Increased with CMC (vs. AV) more for low equivocality task than for high equivocality task Consensus change More change with high equivocality task than low 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Social presence, SIDE, and SIP Social presence: Sense of communicating with a real person Social Identity Deindividuation Effects Also: Social Information Processing Adaptation to the medium Salience of small cues What about time? SIDE: visual anonymity yields “deindividuation,” gives greater salience to group identity, if available. This could lead to greater social attraction (ingroup, stereotyping). 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore The role of time Affiliation: a slower process in leaner media? Expected future interactions —  commitment over time Connection to repeater PD games — Axelrod’s “shadow of the future” 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Hyperpersonal communication Receivers overattribute from limited cues Assume similarity based on group affiliation Senders maintain tight control over cues Selective self-presentation — Little “given off” in text CMC Bottom line: Exceptionally favorable perception in the face of limited information Filling in the blanks optimistically. “How senders select, receivers magnify, channels promote, and feedback increases enhanced and selective communication behaviors in CMC. Online communicators may exploit the capabilities of text-based, nonvisual interaction to form levels of affinity that would be unexpected in parallel offline interactions.” 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore “ The sensorial parsimony of plain text tends to entice users into engaging their imaginations to fill in missing details while, comparatively speaking, the richness of stimuli in fancy [systems] has an opposite tendency, pushing users’ imaginations into a more passive role. — Curtis (1992) ” 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore Long-term, no photos Social affinity Long-term, photos Short-term, photos Supported for intimacy/affection and social attractiveness, but not physical attractiveness. Short-term, no photos 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Farnham & Riegelsberger 2004 Text profiles Photo profiles Count People preferred profiles LESS when photos were present. Wanted to play less, expected the conversation to be less enjoyable, and expected a less satisfying game. All significant p < 0.01. What’s the deal here? Photos allow us to be more selective, but at the same time they narrow the pool of possibilities. Gaming partner preference (1 = Do not want to play) 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore

Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore “ The study of CMC effects is not best served by blanket statements about technology main effects on social, psychological, and interpersonal processes, nor by proclamations that online relationships are less rewarding than FTF ones. Rather, qualities of CMC are … more often the product of interesting and predictable interactions of several mutual influences than main effects of media. — Walther et al. (2001) ” 4/17/2019 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore