The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: A review
Derks, D., Fischer, A.H., and Bos, A. (2008)
Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol 24, Issue 3, 766-785.
Method
Reviewed Psychoinfo, Medline Google scholar & professional network.
Key terms; emoticons, flaming, unihibited behaviour, anonymity, emotion and mood in combination with CMC, F2F, social sharing, internet, onlinbe, self disclosure, anonymity, gender differences, display rules, mimicry and anonymity.
Studies with a social interaction setting; restricted to text based CMC.
Romantic relationships and non English language papers were excluded
Definition of emotion communication:
the recognition , expression and sharing of emotions or moods between two or more individuals. Explicit emotion communication involves references to discrete emotions through verbal labels ( I am very angry) appraisals ( this is scary) and tendencies to act ( I would like to hit you) or emblems ( emoticons). Implicit emotional communication includes the emotional style of the message, as can be inferred from the degree of personal involvement, self disclosure, language use, etc.
Comparing FtoF and CMC for emotions, sociality the most important aspect to consider.
First
Literature review in terms of social presence
1. The difference is the impact of context on social presence (sociality).( Short, Williams & Christie, 1976).
2. Manstead (in press) proposes 2 dimensions; the physical and the social.
The physical means there is no bodily contact and no visibility.
The lack of visibility links to the social to contribute to a reduced relational salience.
Furthermore the other person may be unknown and together with reduced salience it increases anonymity of the situation . i.e. visibility and knowing the person are additive when it comes to the social presence equation.
Derks et al : What does this mean for emotional experience?
- bodily contact - probably more relevant to intimate relationships
- visibility -implications for the decoding and recognition of others' emotions, also the expression of one's own emotion is less visible
3. interaction between social norms & social presence ( Potmes, Spears etc)
No social cues at the outset, SIDE sees this as significant for increasing ingroup identity ( ? therefore salience of the situation) but social cues tend to 'leak out' .
KRO what is the implication of this - ? need to view from a developmental perspective.
Three points of focus for the literature review and as far as possible compared f-to-f and CMC
- Emotion talk as part of content
- expression of emotion
- recognition of emotion ( but little research)
1. Emotion as part of content
f-to-f
need to talk about emotions - social sharing- a general manifestation of f-to-f ( Christophe & Rime, 1997) , the more intense the feeling the more inclined to talk about the event.
once exposed to social sharing it is then common to share with a third person i.e. non anonymity of source
'in a met-analytic review, Collins & Miller (1994) found that people who engage in intimate disclosures tend to be liked more than those who disclose less' i.e. sharing emotions is a useful tool. Disclosing emotions 'healthy and good for well being'
CMC
use of MSN (KRO and & ? facebook)
online dating
CMC mediated therapies
studies of self disclosure
(Savicki (1991), Savicki & Kelly (2000), Herring. Men ignore socio-emotional, they are more task orientated and less satisfied with the medium. Women in female only groups self disclose and attempt to reduce tension . I statements & directly addressing group members more likely More likely to thank, appreciate and apologise and be upset by violations of politeness. Men ignore socio-emotional, more task orientated and less satisfied with the medium.)
2. Expression of emotion
F-to-f
studies into the effect of co-presence
Fridlund compared
a) f-to-f
b) imaginary present
c) alone
There was more smiling in conditions a) and b) than c). More likely to cry when alone.
display rules and the identity of interactants
Hess, Fischer . power relations and the activation of different display rules. Social position prescribes what emotions to display.
relationships - friendships accentuate facial expression i.e. relationships as a mediator of expression. (KRO anonymity and stranger may operate together in CMC)
gender - some evidence for gender differences in display rules
CMC ( almost total focus on flaming!)
Siegel et al (1986) compared groups engaged on identical tasks. Flaming was more common in CMC. No difference between synchronous and asynchronous CMC.
3. recognition of emotion
lack of visibility therefore no NVC.
Function of NVC in f-to-f
- reduce ambiguity
- tone down or intensify emotional expression ( Lee & Wagner)
- animate and/or clarify interaction
- elicit mimicry - particularly important for establishing positive relationships
Comparing f-to-f and CMC
Sasaki & Ohbuchi (1999)
compared interaction via CMC and f-to-f ( vocal)
The task was to interact with a confederate in two hypothetical conflict situations in which confederate had to accept an unreasonable request. Didn't see each other in either situation. Confederates voice manipulated to produce either a positive or a negative tone. P's asked to rate emotions and intentions of the confederate. Emotions equally intense for each ' in vocal condition, however, angry emotions and perceived negative intents prompted aggressive responses, whilst such effects were absent in CMC' , p8.
Consider whether lack of NVC in CMC can lead to either over estimation or underestimation of emotional state and therefore inappropriate reactions or judgements of others.
CMC
emoticons
like NVC can serve to accentuate, emphasise, clarify.
Derks et al (2007) manipulated the social context of chat ( task or socio-emotional) and valence ( positive or negative) . Ps could respond with text, emoticon or a combination. Social contexts tended to attract emoticons. Positive emotions in contexts with positive valence negative emoticons in contexts with negative valence.
BUT
when task orientated Ps used the least number of emoticons p9 ' individuals have to be more accurate, they have more explaining to do, and if possible, they are required to present alternatives.
AND
use of emoticons is deliberate ( voluntary)
Authors concludes that absence of NVC is taken over. p10. individuals more explicitly describe or label their emotions in CMC compared to F2F. There is no research in which this is directly compared, however.
Authors claim that MIMICRY cannot be achieved in CMC KRO but presentational style may be a way.
Questions
Is emotional embodiment reduced in CMC?
Is emotional reaction easier to control in CMC?
Is spontaneity reduced ( i.e. asynchronous -time to reflect)
