Social Information Processing Theory

1. Social Information Processing Theory Of Joseph Walther Presented by Hannah Scheffler

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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).

9. Results: • 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

10. 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).

11. 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)

12. 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

13. ‘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

14. 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

15. 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?