Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- social_information_processing [2015/05/18 10:16] – hkimscil
+++ social_information_processing [2022/06/15 14:14] (current) – hkimscil
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-참조. [[http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/42241_14.pdf|Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication and Interpersonal Relations]] (({{:class:mt:42241_14.pdf|PDF download here}})). \\
+참조. [[http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/42241_14.pdf|Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication and Interpersonal Relations]] (({{c:mt:42241_14.pdf|PDF download here}})). \\
 Also refer to [[http://www.slideshare.net/jemaimaraeporter/walthers-social-information-processing-theory|this slide]]
 __Social Information Processing__ \\
 해당 이론이 등장하기 전에 활발하게 연구되던 경향에 대한 비판에서 시작되었다. 연구의 경향은 [[Lack of Social Cues]], [[Social Presence]] Theory, [[Media Richness]] 등과 같이 불렸는데, 이 연구들이 공통적으로 갖는 특징은 "메시지를 전달하는 능력"이 매체 자신에 내재한다는 가정을 한다는 점이다. 이에 반해, SIP은 매체가 무엇을 전달하는가는 사용자가 매체를 사용하면서 발현된다고 주장한다. 초기 월더가 드는 개인간 상호 관계 발전과 관련된 일례는 CMC 또한 F2F 만큼의 "효과"를 볼 수 있는데, CMC가 매체가 갖는 단점이 극복되기 위해서 좀 더 많은 시간이 필요하다는 것이다. CMC에서 어렵다고 생각되는 nonverbal cue는 :-) :-/ 등과 같은 수단의 생성과 발전을 불러왔으며, 이 신호들의 사용으로 인해 CMC의 성격은 변화한다는 것이다.
+이 이론적 접근의 요점은
+  * //Need for social bonding is the same// in CMC as it is in FtF communication (communication imperative)
+  * People can //compensate// for loss of non-verbal cues in CMC.
+  * Relational and contextual factors can enhance interpersonal nature of CMC (Thurlow 51)
+  * Media use results from negotiation between features of medium and social conditions (Wood and Smith 97)
+  * Wood, Andrew F. and Matthew J. Smith. Online Communication: Linking Technology, Identity, and Culture. Second Edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005. Chapter 4, “Relating Online” (78-100) {{:Online Communication Linking Technology Identity and Cult 2005.pdf|PDF}}
+    * <WRAP box>Those strangers, who had no arms to put around my shoulders, no eyes to weep with mine, nevertheless saw me through. As neighbors do. —John Perry Barlow </WRAP>
+    * <WRAP box>One night, while checking my email, an advertisement bar for Match.com caught my attention. I went to the site and signed up for a free trial membership. I never expected to meet the person I'd spend the rest of my life with. Maurice was busy restoring his recently purchased home and, as a result, had no time to meet quality singles using more "traditional" methods. The bar/club scene was not his style. There was something about Maurice's profile that caught my attention. Something about him seemed familiar. We exchanged a few emails then had a telephone conversation to set a date to meet. Our first date was phenomenal. After eating at a Thai restaurant, we walked around the little town where I lived and then down to the beach. We sat on the beach and talked for hours. We casually dated for five months until one fateful trip to New Orleans to celebrate Halloween, my favorite holiday. It was during this trip we realized how compatible we really were. We have been inseparable ever since. Maurice proposed one evening in December 2001 on the Marin Headlands, overlooking the San Francisco city lights and the illuminated Golden Gate Bridge with the stars twinkling above. It couldn't have been more perfect or more romantic. (Match.com, 2003)
+</WRAP>
+Table. Three Perspectives on Relating Online
+^ Perspective  ^ Claim  ^ Relationships  ^
+| Impersonal     | The lack of cues limits \\ the quality of interaction. | Relationships are unlikely to \\ emerge in CMC.  |
+| Interpersonal  | Learned behaviors can help \\ compensate for the lack of cues  | Relationships can emerge \\ in CMC  |
+| Hyperpersonal  | The lack of nonverbal \\ discriminators actually helps \\ some find their voice  | For some, the ability to relate \\ is more substantial in CMC |
 __Hyperpersonal Model__ \\
@@ Line 21: / Line 41: @@
 __Viral marketing__: Or “creating a process where interested people can market to each other”, is used to influence the adoption and use of products and services. Viral marketing occurs largely through CMC interpersonal influence, most commonly through online social networks. Social information-processing theory views the social network as “an important source of information and cues for behavior and action for individuals”. Compared to interpersonal communication through a face-to-face social network, the social information processing theory argues the CMC interpersonal communication of viral marketing achieves greater influence due to many factors, including: the ability to influence a large number of individuals (for example, through multiple email recipients), minimal effort to influence (in terms of reach and ease of information sharing), the ability for synchronous, as well as asynchronous communication and the ability to adopt influence strategies based on real-time feedback ((Subramani, Mani R.; Rajagopalan, Balaji (1 December 2003). "Knowledge-sharing and influence in online social networks via viral marketing". Communications of the ACM 46 (12): 300. doi:10.1145/953460.953514)).
-<quote>[[wp>Social_information_processing_(theory)]]</quote>
+<cite>[[wp>Social_information_processing_(theory)]]</cite>
 </blockquote>
+====== Excerpt ======
+Social information processing theory((Encyclopedia of Communication Theory))
+<WRAP indent>Encyclopedia of Communication Theory
+Stephen W. Littlejohn - University of New Mexico, USA, University of New Mexico
+Karen A. Foss - University of New Mexico, USA, University of New Mexico, USA</WRAP>
+<WRAP col2>
+The social information processing theory (SIP) explains how communicators who meet through text-based computer-mediated communication (CMC) develop interpersonal impressions and relationships. Introduced in 1992 by Joseph Walther, SIP provides an explanation for how aspects of the communication process interact with technological features of media to foster the development of affinity and attraction in online  environments. Since then, the theory has been utilized to explain online impression- and relationship-formation processes across a variety of social and task contexts including international workgroups, dating sites, and social networking venues.
+Similar to social penetration theory and uncertainty reduction theory, SIP explains relationship development. However, SIP employs verbal and temporal cues as central influences on relationship formation. The theory uses both sets of cues as parameters under which communication and technology may combine to produce impersonal, interpersonal, or hyperpersonal relationships. Recent developments in testing SIP have identified factors that provide motivation for SIP processes.
+Prior to its introduction in the early 1990s, the predominantly held view was that relationship formation via CMC formats was not possible because they provided only one channel for interaction? text (or verbal). This supposed deficiency, particularly when compared to the multitude of channels inherent in face-to-face (FtF) interaction, led to the creation of several similar theoretical positions espousing its negative effects on messages and interpersonal relations. Termed collectively as the cues-filtered-out perspectives, the positions assumed the presence of nonverbal cues was a necessary condition in order to form positive impressions of and warm relationships with others online; restricting access to said cues?as text-based formats do? was thought to be an inherent drawback of CMC, thereby making such tools less useful for pursuing social goals. Thus, early perspectives assumed a deterministic link between the number of nonverbal cues made available by a medium and the type of communication it produced: Fewer cues equaled less affiliative and warm communication. SIP offered an alternative perspective.
+Verbal Cues
+SIP does not dispute that computer-mediated tools restrict the number of nonverbal cues available to communicators?text-based formats such as e-mail and instant messaging rely on typed messages rather than on visual and/or audio ones. The theory holds that these typed messages are equivalent to the verbal channel in FtF. SIP does, however, dispute the claim that this makes computer-mediated tools less useful for interpersonal impression and relationship formation. Unlike the earlier cuesfiltered-out perspectives, SIP proposes that communicators adapt to any limitations imposed upon them by a medium. Communicators use verbal cues to convey social information and relational messages that would be readily available visually or through other channels capable of conveying more nonverbal information (e.g., FtF or telephone). As a result, social information about, for example, communicators’ physical appearance and sense of humor must be expressed in writing online. Relational messages of affiliation and attraction conveyed via multiple nonverbal channels in person may be translated into verbal forms. In this sense, communicators may adapt to having fewer channels available by expressing themselves in writing.
+Receivers use the verbal context of typed messages to infer social information about senders. The type of language used, nature of emoticons employed, presence-absence of typographic errors, and even the username of the sender, for example, may influence the nature of impression formed. Thus, because communicators must rely on typed messages as their primary channel, the verbal cues they contain are potent influences on ensuing interpersonal impressions and relations.
+Temporal Cues
+SIP also holds that temporal constraints, or the length of time communicators have to exchange messages, are a central influence on the type of relationship they form. Logically, if a communicator has only one channel to use for communication in CMC and (as noted above) multiple in FtF, it follows that it would take longer to achieve the same goals when employing the prior. Early studies that resulted in the cues-filtered-out perspectives did not recognize this. Instead, in comparisons between CMC and FtF, they limited the amount of time communicators had to interact, resulting in claims that CMC was better suited for work-oriented interaction.
+SIP predicts that when communicators are allowed only a limited amount of time to exchange messages, impersonal relationships?or those lacking much intimacy or affiliation?are expected to result. For example, messages exchanged by communicators in workgroups would focus on addressing whatever task goals are at hand, with few if any messages directed at addressing social goals. Because  typing a message takes longer than does speaking the same words, the number of messages exchanged through CMC, relative to FtF, will be smaller. As a result, available time gets dedicated to task completion and not to relationship development.
+When communicators are allowed to exchange messages without any temporal constraints, the theory predicts interpersonal relationships?or those that show a level of development comparable to one developed by FtF?will result. For example, communicators in workgroups can dedicate more messages to getting to know their partners and to sharing social information while still addressing their task.
+Under certain circumstances, the lack of temporal constraints may lead to relationships that exceed the affiliation and intimacy levels typically achieved in person. These hyperpersonal relationships are the result of (a) senders selectively presenting themselves to create a positive impression, (b) receivers interpreting messages in a biased manner that overattributes positive characteristics, (c) mediated channels allowing for greater control over message creation (e.g., e-mail), and (d) feedback that produces a self-fulfilling prophecy of positivity.
+Motivation
+In its original form, SIP assumed that communicators would be as motivated to form relationships online as they are in person. Tests of the theory have identified factors that heighten this drive: anticipated future interaction and skepticism.
+Anticipated future interaction refers to the prospect that communicators who meet online will continue to have contact into the future. Communicators who expect contact with their partner in the future are more likely to exchange more messages and develop a relationship than those who do not. Skepticism refers to a communicator’s attitude towards the use of CMC for friendship formation. Communicators who are less skeptical report forming more friendships online than those who report higher levels.
+ -- Artemio Ramirez
+See also Computer-Mediated Communication; Nonverbal Communication Theories; Relational Development; Social Penetration Theory; Uncertainty Reduction Theory
+Further Readings Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computermediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
+Walther, J. B. (1993). Impression development in computer-mediated interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 381-398.
+Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 473-501.
+Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
+Walther, J. B. (2006). Nonverbal dynamics in computermediated communication, or : ( and the net : ( ?s with you, : ) and you : ) alone. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), Handbook of nonverbal communication (3rd ed., pp. 461-479). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
+Walther, J. B., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (2005). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 24, 36-65.
+Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp, & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
+</WRAP>
 ====== Qs ======
@@ Line 29: / Line 106: @@
   ? __Q 2:__
   : 뉴미디어로 인해 사회적인 정보처리가 이전의 CMC 매체와 많이 다르게 되었다고 한다(([[wp>Social_information_processing_(theory)#New_technologies]])). 그렇다면 이런 매체에서 친밀성, 진정성, 설득력, 등등이 높아지게 되는데에는 무엇이 필요할까?
+{{tag>"theory" "communication technology" "technological effects" "social information processing" "walther"}}