Social Information Processing Theory Of Joseph Walther Presented by Hannah Scheffler

Definition and Author “parties who meet online can develop relationships just as close as those formed face-to-face—though it takes longer” (A-2) “relationships grow only to the extent that parties first gain information about each other and use that information to form interpersonal impressions of who they are” (139) Joseph Walther professor at Michigan State University Walther received Woolbert Award from the National Communication Association in 2002 for SIP theory published in 1992

Claim and Basis SIP based on computer-mediated communication (CMC) “text-based messages, which filter out most non-verbal cues” Related to social penetration theory (ch. 9) and uncertainty reduction theory (ch. 10) SIP claims that “CMC users can get to know each other and develop a mutual affinity by using the medium’s available cues to manage their relational development” (144) Affinity—how people express liking Example: A Cinderella Story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DImMnb3YSbA

Contrast to SIP Cues filtered out (CFO) opposite approach to CMC Claims that CMC’s “lack of non-verbal cues [is] a fatal flaw for using the medium for relationship development” (139) SIP claims that CMC users can equal the communication of FTF Relationships can develop based on linguistic content alone Takes 4x longer

Factors of Internet Intimacy Anticipated future interaction—likelihood of future interaction motivates CMC users to develop relationships Chronemic cues—CMC users can check time messages are sent Can indicate various things for different relationships

Hyperpersonal Perspective “CMC relationships are often more intimate tha[n] those developed when partners are physically together” (144) Possible contributors: Selective self-perception Lack of attribution Asynchronous channel Example: You’ve Got Mail

Critique SIP says CMC relationships develop at slower rate than FTF, studies show same or faster Walther points out SIP does not consider differences in affiliation drive Theory does not account for people to take CMC to FTF

Let Me Count the Ways: The Interchange of Verbal and Nonverbal Cues in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Affinity Joseph B. Walther, Tracy Loh, Laura Granka Journal of Language and Social Psychology, vol. 24, no. 1, March 2005 Tests SIP theory assumption CMC users able to express affinity same as those FTF Hypotheses: One-“Immediacy and affection are affected more by communicators’ social motivations than by computer-mediated or face-to-face channels” (42). Two-”Greater proportions of the variance in immediacy and affection are attributable to verbal behavior in CMC than to verbal behavior in FTF” (42).

Results: Importance Hypothesis One supported Motivation to express affinity varied according to intended emotional expression and not because of communication method Hypothesis Two supported for immediacy CMC users gain more affect for verbal behavior than FTF FTF rely more on nonverbal cues Importance Missing cues differentiate CMC from FTF Affinity issues may be readily translatable from one cue system to another

An Analysis of Socioemotional and Task Communication in Online Multiplayer Video Games Jorge Peña, Jeffrey T. Hancock Communication Research, vol. 33, no. 1, February 2006 Tests SIP and CFO in recreational CMC Example: Star Wars Jedi Knight II Jedi Outcast http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hNIVHSmsYU Hypotheses: 1b-”Online video game participants will produce more socioemotional than task communication” (97). 2b-”Online video game participants will produce more positive socioemotional than negative socioemotional communication” (97). 3-”More experienced online video game participants will express more socioemotional communication than less experienced participants” (98). 4-”More experienced online video game participants will use CMC conventions more frequently than less experienced participants” (98).

Results: Hypothesis 1b supported (SIP theory) “participants produced significantly more socioemotional than task communication” (101) Hypothesis 2b supported (SIP theory) “participants produced a significantly larger proportion of positive socioemotional than negative socioemotional communication” (101) Hypothesis 3 not supported No more or less socioemotional communication between more experienced and less experienced participants Hypothesis 4 supported More experienced, more use of specialized conventions (i.e. emoticons, emotes, abbreviations)

Importance Expanded understanding of recreational CMC usage SIP theory predictions proven, CFO not In relation to SIP, experience is key factor in message encoding By proving SIP assumptions in online gaming, suggests SIP can be generalized across many forms of mediated communication

‘I’ve never clicked this much with anyone in my life’: trust and hyperpersonal communication in online friendships Samantha Henderson, Michael Gilding New Media & Society, vol. 6, no. 4, 2004 Explore the element of trust in CMC Hypothesis: Trust is not as likely to occur online as face-to-face due to the anonymity

Results: CMC users more likely to elaborate on subject of self-discloser that FTF (i.e. more likely to be hyperpersonal) Problems for trust online: Limited cues Lack of accountability Scope for deceit and betrayal Advantages for trust online: Limited cues ‘fast-tracked’ self-disclosure Asynchronous communication Lack of accountability created opportunities Importance Know limitations and opportunities for relationship development in CMC

Exam Question One of the critiques of SIP theory is that it does not address how to go about taking CMC to FTF; how could this issue be addressed?