UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM MA COMMUNICATION STUDIES KCS 601: THEORIES OF COMMUNICATION   Group 7 Assignment A First look at Communication Theory by Em Griffin. CHAPTER 11-Social Information Processing theory (SIP) By Joseph Walther Presented by Habon Abdillahi Laban N. Njoroge Warioba Ndegwa Joseph Ngugi M. Kabugo Samson Gituku Presented to: Dr J. Thuo

INTRODUCTION GRIFFIN EM (2012) defines Communication as the relational process of creating and interpreting messages that elicit a response. A theory is an integrated system of concepts. This system of concepts seeks to describe the link between various ideas in forming a phenomenon. Therefore, a communication theory would primarily detail the relationship between parts of communication from the message generated by a sender, the channel used, the receiver and how a feedback is triggered and relayed.

INTRODUCTION Cont. Scholars who studied new electronic media have offered a variety of theories to explain the differences between Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) and face to face communication. They include, The social presence theory- It suggests that text-based messages deprive of the sense that other people are jointly involved in the interaction. The Media richness theory- It classifies each communication medium according to the complexity of the messages it can handle efficiently.   A third theory concentrates of lack of social context cues in online communication.

Background In the 1990s, Computer mediated Communication was best viewed for purposes like Information processing  News dissemination  Distance conferencing However, in 1992, Joseph Walther, a Communication professor Now at Michigan state university published the Social Information Processing Theory (SIP) that countered the above conventional wisdom.

Background Cont. He labeled the theory Social information processing theory because he believes relationships grow only to the extent that parties first gain information about each other and use that information to form impressions. I.e. Interpersonal Impression Relationship Information → formation → development. He focuses on the personal information available through CMC and its effect on the composite mental image of the other.thi s is normally the first link in the chain.  He acknowledges that non verbal cues are filtered out of the interpersonal information sent and received via CMC but he doesn’t think that this loss is fatal.

Arguments about SIP 1. CMC verses Face to Face (SIP verses GULP) SIP acronym suggests a liquid analogy to consumption of information in a communication process. Walther points two features of CMC that provide a rationale to this theory (SIP) Verbal cues: CMC users can create fully formed impressions of others based solely on linguistic context of messages.   Extended time: though the exchange of information is slower via CMC than face to face over time the relationship formed are not weaker or more fragile. 2. Verbal Cues of affinity replace non verbal cues He argues that verbal cues of affinity replace nonverbal cues for the simple reason that, humans crave affiliation just as much online as they do in face to face interactions but with the absence of non verbal cues (which typically signifies affinity) users must rely on text only messages. He argues that verbal and nonverbal cues can be used interchangeably. 3. Extended time: A crucial Variable in CMC The length of time (Extended time) that the CMC users have to send messages is the key determinant of whether their message can achieve a comparable level of intimacy as face to face interactions.

Arguments about SIP Cont. Message spoken in person take at least four times as long as to say via CMC. This differential may explain why CMC is perceived as impersonal and task oriented.   Since CMC conveys messages more slowly, Walther advises users to send messages more often. Anticipated future interactions and cues may also contribute to intimacy on the internet. Anticipated future interactions: People will trade more relational messages if they think they may meet again and this anticipated future interaction motivates them to develop the relationship. Chronemic cues or non-verbal indicators of how people perceive, use or respond to issues of time is the only nonverbal cue not filtered out of CMC.

Arguments about SIP Cont. 4. Hyper personal perspective: Closer through CMC than in person. He uses the hyper personal perspective to label relationships that are more intimate than the romances or friendships would be if partners would be physically together. He classifies four types of media effects that occur precisely because CMC users aren’t proximal. Sender: selective self presentation   Through selective self presentation, people who meet online have an opportunity to make and sustain and overwhelmingly positive impression As a relationship develops, they can edit the breadth and depth of their self disclosed to conform to the cyber image they wish to project.  

Arguments about SIP Cont. Receiver: over attribution of similarity Attribution is a perceptual process where we observe peoples actions and try to figure out what they are really like.  In the absence of other cues, we are likely to over attribute the information we have and create an idealized image of the sender. This identification is referred to as SIDE- social-identity –deindividuation where:   Users meet around a common interest In the absence of contrasting cues they develop an exaggerated sense of similarity and group solidarity.

Arguments about SIP Cont. Channel: communicating on your own time  He refers to CMC as asynchronous channel of communication meaning that the parties can use it non- simultaneously.  A benefit is the ability to plan, contemplate and edit one’s comments more than is possible in spontaneous, simultaneous talk. Feedback: self-fulfilling prophecy Self fulfilling prophecy is the tendency for a person’s expectations of others to evoke a response from them that confirms what was anticipated.  Self fulfilling prophecy is triggered when the hyper positive image is intentionally or in inadvertently fed back to the other person, creating a CMC equivalent of the looking - glass self.

Arguments about SIP Cont. 5. Warranting Value of information: What to trust? He says social networking sites are now popular means of CMC, but are distinct because now there is inclusion of photos, videos, a personal profile, network connections (e.g. follow or retweet a tweep, share an FB status or comment)and the ability to add information to other’s profile. Information is believed if it has a warranting value. (Does their online profile match their offline characteristics?) Low warrant of information can be easily manipulated by owner and may not be trustworthy.  High warrant of information is less easily changed and is more trust worthy—picked from network mates. Social networking sites allow interpersonal information to come from both self and others.

CONCLUSION The Social Information Processing (SIP) theory can be argued to hold for CMC based interaction. With improved technology there is likelihood for parties to gain more information about each other as they communicate. The “extended time” spell is thus broken. However the channel can be misused by parties as seen in the social media argument with parties misrepresenting facts about themselves. While such an argument would be questioning the reliability of information passed through such media, it goes beyond the communication process into the morality/truth of the content. Prima facie, social media (e.g. facebook) is effective in forming perceptions. Whether correct or wrong is a whole concept altogether. References: Griffin EM. (2012). A FIRST LOOK AT COMMUNICATION THEORY (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.