mediated immediacy

Patrick B. O’Sullivan, Stephen K. Hunt, Lance R. Lippert (2004)

Mediated Immediacy, A Language of Affiliation in a technological Age

Journal of Language and Social Psychology,23,464-490

Mediated immediacy

proposed as a p468 ‘way to better understand the communicative practices that convey affiliation and foster relationships via communication technologies’

defined as p471 ‘ communicative clues in mediated channels that can shape perceptions of psychological closeness between interactants. Stated another way, immediacy cues can be seen as a language of affiliation’

Authors, alongside Walther, Loh & Granta began to focus on this area. This paper reviews idea of CMC as a relational space from a historical perspective ( 3 stages) before describing how immediacy may enhance learning and determining how to identify it for CMC.

Some notes

Draws attention to the difference between novice and expert users of mediated communication and comments on how expertise develops.

Based on instructional learning through a tutor mediated website . No collaborative learning but still relevant.

CMC from efficiency to affiliation ( 3 stages)

1. Only effective for information exchange
2. Then , could be effective for personal relationships
3. Now attention on p465‘understanding the communication practices that contribute to effective CMC use in social and personal relationships’

Above roughly based on four underlying themes in the research literature namely , novice versus expert users, co-presence, conventional non-verbals, frequent interaction

Stage 1 p466 ‘when compared to face-to-face CMC was considered inferior in conveying elements of interaction considered essential for developing and maintaining relationships, which depended heavily on non-verbal communication and co-presence ( e.g. Lea & Spears, 1995) ie “conventional wisdom was that CMC was ineffective and inappropriate for anything other than clear, unequivocal information exchange’

Stage 2 Lea & Spears, 1995 can be identified as watershed paper between stage 1 and stage 2. new area of study p466 ‘ that bridged traditional interpersonal communication scholarship, with its focus on verbal and non-verbal communication in face-to-face dyads (often in relationships) and scholarship on communication technologies ( including early work in organizational CMC). P466-467 ‘ documentation of widespread and successful relationships based on CMC suggested that elements long considered essential for anything labelled a relationship (co-presence, conventional non-verbals, frequent interaction) may not be as indispensable as scholars had assumed’

Stage 3 As technologies gained new capabilities ( authors include font colour an other presentational affordances here as well as the ability to attach a photo etc. P468 ‘ the artefacts of the channels themselves were appropriated as expressive devices, and are applied to interpersonal purposes, in ways that become a language in and of themselves’. At the same time as users move from novice to expert they can choose to eshew the affordances of certain channels when they are perceived as not contributing to a personal relational goal is they gradually become skilled choosers and users of channels.

i.e. Ideas about the importance of media richness changed and the focus moved from the technological ( as the channel for interaction) to a more comprehensive understanding of mediated communication’ In trun this led to a view that users could be guided on tactical use ( KRO however it di not address the voluntary)

Immediacy

Face-to-face

P469 ‘ immediacy refers to communicative behaviours that reduce physical or psychological distance and foster affiliation ( Mehrabian, 1971). Mehrabian (1971) linked immediacy to an approach-avoidance construct – the proposition that people generally approach things that they like and avoid things that they dislike or that induce fear. Scholars have identified a range of nonverbal and verbal behaviours that communicate immediacy (Anderson & Anderson, 1982; Barringer & McCroskey, 2000; Gorham, 1988; Mehrabian, 1971). Immediacy includes non linguistic approach behaviours, signals of availability for communication, and communication of interpersonal closeness.

Non-verbal immediacy behaviours include reducing physical distance, displaying relaxed postures, and movements, using gestures, smiling, using vocal variety, and engaging in eye contact during interactions.

Verbal immediacy behaviours include using personal examples, asking questions, using humour, addressing others by name, and using inclusive pronouns ( we vs I)

That ‘most people would tend to be positive about someone who smiles, is expressive, appears relaxed, addressed them by name, asks them questions, and discloses personal anecdotes’ seems a reasonable assumption.

Immediacy and learning

P469 “Research on immediacy in instructional settings consistently has found a positive and robust relationship between frequency of immediacy behaviour and a range of desired educational outcomes ( Chrisophel, 1990).

Range of measures and references are at the bottom of page 469

Explanatory models

• 4 step model: teacher immediacy is related to arousal, which is related to attention, which is related to memory, which is related to cognitive learning (Kelley & Gorham (1988)
• motivational. Teacher immediacy firstly directly affects students’ state motivation, which then positively affects their learning. ( Christophel, 1990)
• affective learning model – immediacy’s influence on cognitive learning is mediated by affective learning ( Rodriguez, Plax, & Kearney, 1996)

‘despite differences in the models, the literature indicates that immediacy plays an important role in student arousal, affect, motivation and learning (LaRose & Whitten, 2000).

Mediated Immediacy

P470 ‘The implicit assumption that immediacy only occurs face-to-face ignores the important and increasingly pervasive role of technologically mediated communication (O’Sullivan et al, 2001).

Bottom p 470 for references to date including Walther, Loh & Granka in press)

Led to 3 studies looking specifically at immediacy

Study 1 investigating the forms of mediated immediacy, Sullivan et al (2001)

RQ: ‘what forms can immediacy cues take in mediated communication channels?’

Participants: 24 relatively experienced uni students 18-24 into 3 focus groups

Text based communication

Web based & multi-media communication

Mass media

Each focus group provided with a widely used conventional definition of immediacy and then asked to describe what communication practices ( if any) convey immediacy via their target focus

Cyclic process of coding & concensus by the researchers led to 2 emergent macrocategories that encompassed all microcategories

1. Approachability ( you can approach me)
2. Regard for others ( I am approaching you)

Approachability and micro categories

1. Self-disclosure Intentionally revealing personal information that allows others to feel that they know source

e.g. referring to experiences outside official role, photos portraying experiences outside official role

2. Expressiveness Varying emphasis, intensity, vividness, tone of message

e.g. using vocal inflection using punctuation using colors

3. Accessibility Being accessible for communication

•e.g. indicating availability, providing contact information, setting time aside for contacts

4. Informality Portraying informality and casualness

e.g. informal postures/settings in images, use of slang, colloquialisms

5. Similarity Displaying personality qualities/ personal history shared by receiver

e.g. revealing interests, experiences, opinions, backgrounds, and so on, that match receivers’

6. Familiarity Providing for repeated contacts over time

e.g. frequent encounters and/or interactions

7. Humor Using humor

eg sharing jokes, playful interactions

8. Attractiveness Displaying characteristics perceived as appealing

eg presenting attractive appearance displaying appealing personality

9. Expertise Displaying competence and skill related to source’s role

e.g. demonstrating knowledge

Regard and micro categories

1. Personalness Conveying that source views receivers as individualise.

e.g using synchronous, richer channels remembering, using names incorporating knowledge of person in interactions

2. Engagement Indicating attentiveness and practicing responsiveness to receivers

e.g. returning phone messages/e-mails listening to/reading carefully messages inviting future interaction

3. Helpfulness Assisting receivers’ efforts to pursue needs and goals

e.g. clearly designed Web site to aid navigation, providing needed into on outgoing messages

4. Politeness Following etiquette, courtesies, and other communication procedural norms

e.g. word choices practicing common courtesies in interactions

There is no assumption that either the macro or the micro categories are independent of each other.

Study 2 appliying the categories identified by study 1 to look at anxiety, uncertainty, attitudes to course and instructor

Uses Anxiety-Uncertainty Management theory ( Gudykurst, 1988, 1995), an intercultural communication theory, as the theoretical framework for the study. The assumption being that p474 ‘ students encountering a new course, new instructor and the relatively new use of communication technology for instruction would experience anxiety and uncertainty similar to those encountering individuals in an unfamiliar culture’

Participants: 95 undergraduates randomly assigned to one of two websites ( Matched for content, links and instructor with one having high immediacy and the other low immediacy)

High immediacy: colour, graphics, photo, language incorporated first and second person pronouns, informed friendly language. Links to instructor and personal homepage’

Hypotheses:

Mediated immediacy cues which convey the instructors approachability and regard will be

H1 negatively related to anxiety ( NS)

H2 negatively related to uncertainty(Sig)

H3 positively related to attitudes (Sig)

H4 positively related to the instructor (Sig).

Web site with multiple immediacy cues produced lower uncertainty and higher motivation for the course and more positive attitudes toward the course and instructor i.e results consistent with findings from face to face ( Christophel, 1990). These results are consistent with a view that immediacy cues can be conveyed effectively via mediated channels and that mediated immediacy can shape the perceptions of the communicator.

Study 3 Linguistic & non linguistic text based immediacy cues – how do they impact.

Text based immediacy cues identified in study 1 can be organised into

1. Those dealing with language

2. Those dealing with visual presentation ( non linguistic) setting for the language.

Used 4 hypothetical websites ( linguistic immediacy high/low, visual presentation high/low) in a 2x2 design.

170 participants randomly assigned to one condition. Each explored the assigned website for 15-20 minutes then filled out an instrument designed to measure stuudents’ appraisal of immediacy. Dependent variable was the motivation to take the course.

Results

Main effect	Web site immediacy	Motivation to take the course	Instructor appraisal
Presentational immediacy	√	√
Linguistic immediacy	√		√

Interestingly, based on this study ( which does not involve anything collaborative) linguistic immediacy does not have any influence on motivation to take the course

Conclusion

P485

‘these research studies have begun to identify specific forms of mediated immediacy as well as illuminating their role in shaping receivers attitudes and perceptions of the source’

p486 ‘immediacy cues ( mediated and f-f) could be viewed as the relational portion of a message.

Findings suggest that ‘the long standing linkage of message content to verbal communication and relational messages to non-verbal communication should be re-examined , which might prompt new insights into the intertwined roles of verbal and non verbal communication’