Early research and development in social technologies was framed primarily in terms of alternative forms of communication. In order to understand some of the challenges of computer-mediated communication (CMC), it helps to think of human behavior in a broader, historical perspective. Human social behaviors evolved in the context of a much different environment than what we experience today. Historically, people lived in smaller villages and rarely traveled, so communication occurred primarily face-to-face with known others. In a world where many still find the telephone awkward and uncomfortable, we are still figuring out how to interact with each other in computer mediated situations. When considering the design of communication systems, it is important to have an understanding of the differences between technology-mediated communication and face to face communication: why are they different, how is one better, and how is one worse. What do we need to account for due to disadvantages of technologies, and how can leverage advantages of technology.

Web 2.0 course notes:

• User Goals:
  •  
    • Communicate, collaborate, socialize
    • At a distance
    • Over time

• Communication is mediated through technology
  • Vary in degree of
  • Medial richness
  • Interactivity
• CMC and computer-mediated cooperative work (CSCW)
  • Early Research

Impact of Communication Modality on Performance

• • • Focused on effect of communication modality on performance (task completion, decision making, negotiation)
    • Generally found:

• Studies of Online Social Behavior

Impact of Communication Modality on Prosocial Behaviors

• • More recent research:
    • Focused on effect of communication modality on trust, cooperation, bad behavior
    • Generally found:

• Studies of Social Influence

Impact of Communication Modality on Social Influence

• • Very recent research:
    • Focused on effect of communication modality on conformity, persuasion
    • Generally found, more media rich = more conformity
• WHY?
• Problem Space
  • CMC has reduced nonverbal communication
    • Nonverbal communication
      • Facial expressions, nods, gaze, gestures, presence, attire, paraverbal cues
    • Nonverbal communication indicates
      • Affect/attitude
      • Direction of attention
      • Back channel feedback
      • Availability
      • Personality/Identity/demographics
    • Reduced nonverbal communication negatively impact
      • Maintenance of conversational norms: turn taking, initiation, transitions
      • Person perception
      • Social presence – the extent to which a person has the subjective sense of the other person’s goals/attitudes/motives
• • CMC has reduced shared environmental context
    • Shared environmental context
      • Objects, location, Activity/events
    • Shared environmental context
      • Coordination of conversational content
      • Achieving joint attention
    • Lack of shared environmental context negative impact
      • Common ground: shared understanding, feeling of being “on the same page”
      • Ability to collaborate
• • CMC has reduced social context
    • Social context
      • Persistent identity in shared group of people
      • Place where people “go”
      • Awareness of group/network activities, presence
    • Social context
      • Serendipitous, informal communication
      • Development of reputations, accountability, community
    • Lack of social context negatively impact
      • quantity of social behavior
      • quality of social behavior
• Social Presence Theory
• How successfully media convey sense of others being physically present (also, Media Richness Theory)
• Face-to-face as benchmark
• Increase social presence with
  • Verbal
  • Non-verbal, body language
  • Context
• Impacts sense of emotion, intimacy, immediacy
• Importance of Social Presence
• Common ground
  • Achieving shared understanding
• Turn-taking
• Infer meaning from context
• Activating pro-social norms
  • Lack of social presence, increased aggression, decreased trust
• Common Ground Theory
• Coordinating both content and process
• Achieving shared understanding
  • Mutual knowledge, beliefs, assumptions
• Grounding behaviors
  • Help to achieve common ground
  • Impacted by communication medium and task
  • Examples:
    • Gazes, nodding, pointing, facial expression
    • Checking, repeating, rephrasing
• Media opportunities
• Co-presence, same place, same time
• Visibility
• Audibility
• Cotemporality (as sending, other is also receiving)
• Simultaneity (can send and receive at same time)
• Sequentiality (messages in sequence)
• Reviewability
• Revisability
• Media Opportunities by Media Type
• Social Information Processing Theory
• People seek to develop relationships
• Need to acquire information, and test theories, to develop impression about another person
• Impression formation through CMC slower, but possible if given enough time
• Expectation of future interaction activates impression seeking behavors:

**makes people more friendly, seeking info from others, etc.

• IN CSCW
• (also GDSS)(computer supported cooperative work and group decision support systems)
• CMC can be good, or bad, depending on your goals
• Reduced Interpersonal affect
• Increased task focus
  • emphasizing content, minimizing social influences
• Reduced group solidarity
• More equal participation
  • Can have multiple synchronous participation
  • Shy people less inhibited
• More criticism from lower-status individuals
• Less likely to have leader emerge
• Takes more time to make a decision (need 4 or 5 times more time to have same # of exchanges), but
• Less influence in group decision-making by leaders

• Hyperpersonal CMC
• Online interactions become hyperpersonal
  • Idealized perception
  • In absence of prior information, over generalize from what information the do have
  • Tendency towards overly positive impressions
    • In-group identity (same group, must be good)
    • Wishful thinking
  • Disinhibition from low social presence, more self-disclosure
  • Behavioral confirmation
• Optimized self-presentation

• Communication Technologies in a social context
• Real time face to face not always preferred
• Why select a medium?
  • Over time, over location, over many people
  • Attention demands
    • Central, no multitasking
    • Vs. peripheral, enabling multitasking
  • Interruptivity
  • Social context
    • Main channel
    • vs. backchannel
  • Persistent
    • E.g. save phone # on cell phone
  • Always available (cell phone)
  • Conflict harder face to face

[edit] Email

• Still the Killer App
• Time based notification with read/unread flag
• Sometimes threaded (GMail)
• Most sharing (URLs, files, pictures) in context of email

Email is still the Killer App

Email as Habitat

• People use throughout day
• Major means of non face to face
• Main means of document exchange
• Co opted to do lists, contact management
• Meeting event coordination
• RSS sometimes integrated
• Common to have email “personas”: work email, home email, junk email

GMail Threaded Message

Any communication application *not* intregrated with e-mail missing important opportunity for user attention

[edit] Recommended Reading

Walther, J. B. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23 (1996), 3-43.

Ducheneuaut, N and Bellotti V. Email as Habitat.

Smith, M. and Fiore, A. (2001) Visualization Components for Persistent Conversations. In Proceedings of CHI 2001, Seattle.

Cummings, J.N., Kraut, R., and Kiesler, S. Do we visit, call, or email? Media matter in close relationships. In Proc. CHI 2001, ACM Press (2001), 161-162.

Preece, J. Online Communities. Chapter 5: Research Speaks to Practice: Interpersonal Communication.