flaming O'Sullivan & Flanagin

Patrick B. O’Sullivan & Andrew J. Flanagin (2003)

Reconceptualizing ‘flaming’ and other problematic messages

New media & society

Copyright © 2003 SAGE Publications

London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi

Vol5(1):67–00 [1461–4448(200305)5:1,67–00;030908]

Note: Remember to marry up the page numbers with the published articles if using direct quotes for the thesis.

Conceptualises flaming as a more extreme example of problematic interactions. P2 ‘ there is not a clear and consistent operational definition of flaming’

Introductory thoughts

From the perspective of communication.

P2. ‘ambiguity surrounding communicative behaviour that is perceieved as aggressive and hostile can result in a wide range of problems, possibly with substantial negative social and relational consequences. For example, interpersonal conflict may result from discrepant views of what constitutes antisocial behaviour.’

From the perspective of channel

ie is it unique to computer mediated communication? as might be concluded from the focus on filtered out cues etc theories ( link to Joinson notes). P2 ‘limiting the notion of flaminf behaviour to CMC suggests that interactions via computer-based communication are so distinctive from the rest of human communication that they have no linkage to other social phenomena. Furthermore, doing so neglects an accumulated body of knowledge on the nature of human interaction beyond mediated channels’ eg Mortensen (1997,p2) ‘ the subject of human understanding is after all by definition and of necessity, partial, incomplete and error prone’

Key point for thesis

Both lay press and academic scholarship conceptualise flaming as p3 ‘ an intentional act, premeditated insults’

Critique of current perspectives of flaming

(i) definitional ambiguity

definitions can be roughly classified as follows

• direct criticism or blunt disclosure ( but can be presented for caring reasons for example with the intent to strengthen the relationship)
• messages containing hostile language or profanity (but the view of the receiver may not match the intentions of the sender or take into account the communication skills of the sender)
• messages that are provocative or non conforming

(ii) reliance on message content

p4

‘ a corollary assumption ( point 1) is that message characteristics are in fact recognized by the interactants and can be reliably identified by an observer external to the situation’

‘ a third party’s interpretation , however, might be very different from that of the interactants ( Mortensen, 1997; Ogden & Richards, 1956) due to a lack of access to the wide array of contextual factors that are key to the interactants message interpretation: It is precisely this context that interactants draw upon to achieve some degree of shared understanding through the communication process’

related to this

‘many researchers have tended to ignore the influence of local group norms ……… i.e. outside of the social network, where different interactional norms dominate, the exact same language would likely hold for different, and more negative meanings, for both sender and receiever’

(iii) value judgements of flaming behaviour

p6

‘flaming is traditionally conceptualized as negative, anti-social and undesirable’

‘considering too early the issue of “what ought to happen” can intefere with a clear assessment of “what is happening” and can cause one to lose sight of the functions that such messages might serve’ note: compare value judgements of deception with flaming.

‘just as there may be anti-social motivations for hostile messages, there may be a number of pro-social motivations and outcomes associated with aggressive and hostile messages …… a criticism could be used to establish the senders’ credibility by demonstrating a willingness to offer critical comment and not just bland, agreeable feedback’

(iv) channels of flaming

‘ when experienced face to face we recognize such messages as displays of hostility, anger, impatience, or candidness instead of labeling them as flaming’ – KRO overarching view – what happens when this statement is unpicked?

P7

‘the focus of our framework is on individuals’ intentions and interpretations based on various levels of norms ….. interpretations that can be shaped by but not determined by channel characteristics’

‘channels that convey fewer cues to guide interpretation may contribute to higher incidences of misunderstanding’

note to get

‘the importance of individuals’ perceptions and choices that they may make as they select and use various channels for a particular interactional goal ( O’Sullivan 2000)

The Framework: An interactional-Normative Framework of Problematic Interactions

Aim of the framework

P7 ‘ a framework that provides more precision in determining what is flaming behaviour, based on recognizing variations in norms and expectations among individuals’

Some refs from communication literature

Putman & Paconowsky (1983) not enough attention has been focused on this relational aspect of meaning construction due to a traditionally ‘ functionalist’ view of communication processes’

( Cromer, Chen & Perace, 1998)

‘note that the communication process requires a complex co-ordination of efforts among interactants to determine message meanings’

Interactional norms

P8 ‘norms can be identified at a

• Cultural
• Local
• Group
• Relational

Level’

‘emerge over time’

get Brown & Levinson (1987) ‘classic analysis of politeness which examines in depth universal norms of language use to manage face in social discourse’

p9

at a relational level ‘ one of the central processes of early relationship development is learning and negotiating expected behaviours to increase one’s ability to predict others’ behaviours’

norm violation

‘one may violate norms to attract attention, to display opposition, or demonstrate independence’ i.e. violation is used as a resource. ‘ in pursuit of their interactional and relational goals’

‘norm violation cane be entirely unintentional’ – eg newcomers

‘socialisation ( or trial and error) is the means by which norm sets can become more accurately aligned’

The role of normative expectations in flaming

Cultural, local & relational norms may coexist as in DZX (KRO – also communicative style must play a part, related to norms bit also different)

Framework construction

Relational nature of communication

+

multi-level norms acting to guide interactants’ message formation and interpretation

+

consequences of norm violation and expectations

leads to

interactional norm cube to contextualise communication as it implicates flaming behaviours.

Using sender, receiver, and third party ( KRO what is the effect of the third part in the communication process other than researcher, mediator( legal , learning etc) – should it be considered on the same level) for combined appraisals

Suggests that only the combination where sender intends, receiver and third part interpret a violation is a true flame. However there are other types of problematic communications as described by each row of the table

P12

‘each of the 8 problematic interactions has distinctive consequences for personal, relational, and organizational outcomes of interactions’

p13

‘process of norm alignment overtime, various parties might learn to be more effective in their message construction and interpretation which may result in increased communicative competence’

‘what requires further examination is how norms regarding the interactional channels that we use can also contribute to problematic interactions’

Links to Joinson

This framework fits OK wilth Joinsons views on strategic choice and also deliberate choice to remain anonymous.

Table 1: Message Interpretation from Multiple Perspectives

Sender's Perspective	Recipient's Perspective	Third Party Perspective	Fig 1 Octant	Comments and Examples
Appropriate	Appropriate	Appropriate	A	Clearly constructed messages in accordance with widely-held, well-understood communication norms held by all parties
Appropriate	Appropriate	Transgression	B	Clearly constructed and well-understood messages within specific local or relational norms of interactants, yet violates norms of third party Examples might be sarcasm, joking, verbal "play"
Appropriate	Transgression	Appropriate	C	Sender's message viewed as inappropriate by receiver, perhaps due to misalignment of shared cultural, local, or relational norms, but is consistent with third party's norms Receiver misinterpretation or misalignment of norm set
Appropriate	Transgression	Transgression	D	Sender's message perceived to be inappropriate as judged by norms held by both recipient and outsider Instance could be due to sender's insensitivity to existing norms relevant for relationship and social system
Transgression	Appropriate	Appropriate	E	Sender's intent is to violate norms (to "flame") , but no one else views the message as a violation. Instance could be due to lack of understanding of relational or social system norms, too high a degree of subtlety, or communication incompetency A "failed flame"
Transgression	Appropriate	Transgression	F	Sender's intent is to violate norms but receiver does not perceive message as violation, even though a violation is apparent to third party. Instance could be due to receiver's misalignment of norm sets with others in social system or misinterpretation of message. A "missed flame"
Transgression	Transgression	Appropriate	G	Sender intent is to violate norms and receiver perceives that norms were violated but a violation is not apparent to "outsider" due to lack of shared local or relational norms with interactants Sender could carefully construct a message using relational knowledge to "flame" another but the message looks innocuous to an outsider so there are no consequences from social system. Could be called an "inside flame"
Transgression	Transgression	Transgression	H	Sender's intent is to violate norms, receiver and third party perceive the message as a violation. A true "flame"


 ‘