Walther, J.B., Loh, T., and Granka (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, 24,1, p36-65
Summary from Hancock et al,( 2007), p 929
‘users were asked to express affinity or disaffinity towards a partner in either a face-to-face or a computer mediated envionment. The data suggested that affinity was expressed equally effectively in both communication conditions. Consitent with predictions from SIP theory, verbal cues carried a larger proportion of the relational information in the CMC condition than in the face-to-face-conidtion…… for example users offered praise and self-disclosures and avoided disagreements and insults’
‘Relational’ Concepts
Affinity is a basic construct of social interaction – p38 ‘ how people express liking’ ‘It has a conceptual overlap with fundamental terms such as involvement, immediacy, attentiveness and the affectively orientated dimensions of communication competence ( Coker & Burgoon, 1987)’
Immediacy – p41 ‘ conceptually it is a composite of involvement, affection and warmth, which is conceived as reflecting the emotional attitude of one individual towards another person’ Non verbally – proximity, smiling, eye contact, postural lean
How do concepts of affinity and immediacy relate?
A possible explanation is provided by ‘equilibrium theory ( Argyle & Dean (1965). – p 41 ‘ that communicators dynamically adapt levels of gaze, physical proximity, and other behaviours indicative of intimacy to normative levels based on culture and need for affiliation. In dyadic interaction, elevations or reductions of these base levels by one communicator through one channel (e.g., proxemic distance reduction) may be compensated for by the other interactant through an alternative channel’( e.g. reduced gaze) ( KRO or alternatively mimicry in near equilibrium states?)
Review of two opposing positions about the effect that a lack of paralanguage might have.
1. Less sociable, relational, understandable and/or effective communication. A view that NVB is critical for the communication of interpersonal identity and affect.
2. P37 ‘ people adapt to the medium by imbuing verbal messages with, and/or by interpreting from contextual and stylistic cues, information about participants’ characteristics, attitudes, and emotions. ‘ eg instead of head nod I quite agree. SIP is a formalisation of this view namely that
communicators adapt to whatever cue systems they have at their disposal , (in CMC these are usually text and chromatics) to communicate the affective information that is usually exchanged non verbally in FTF settings.
empirical evidence in support of SIP has depended on specifying antecedent conditions and then exploring distal outcomes. ie the question has been whether relational and impression forming outcomes occur rather than how they occur.
Therefore the present study has looked at processes . It is also base on the following assessment of previous research on identification p57 ‘Although social identification ( Spears and Lea, 1994) and hyperpersonal ( Walther, 1996) are predicated to prompt affinity and its behaviors in CMC, this research shows little motivation or identity issues need to be salient for communicators to adapt their relational behaviours across channels
Objectives
Concern relations ( affinity) amongst communicators.
1. To test the fundamental claim of SIP, that CMC users employ verbal communication behaviours to achieve a comparable level of relational communication as that which is achieved by FTF communicators who use multiple verbal and non verbal cues. i.e. whether the proportion of variance in the experience of affinity attributable to verbal behaviour in CMC is equivalent to that proportion of FTF affinity that is achieved by verbal and non verbal behaviour. A whether question.
2. To explore what specific cues CMC and FTF communicators employ in the expression of interpersonal affinity. A what question.
Cues
P38-39 reviews the literature including studies that provide what could be considered as contesting views of CMC as a limited medium for personal relationships.
Support for SIP
Utz(200) p40 ‘use of emoticons and affective scripts by online game players was a significant predictor of relationship development – 14% of the variance in users frequency of friendly and romantic relationships online.
Tidwell & Walther(2002) use of self disclosure and personal question asking – compared with F to F CMC devoted a greater proportion of their conversations to disclosures and questions and personal questions were more intimate. Ie uncertainty reduction cues.
The present study will focus on the process of SIP rather than the antecedent conditions and distal outcomes as has been the case in previous research. Although p57 ‘social identification /deindividuation theory ( Spears and Lea, 1994) and hyperpersonal (Walther, 1996) are predicated to prompt affinity and its behaviours in CMC , the research described below shows that little motivation or identity issues need to be salient for communicators to adapt their relational behaviours effectively across channels’.
Informing this current research
Paralanguage in FTF associated with affialiative behaviour and affilaitive experience
Used results from Cocker & Burgoon(1987) who assessed 59 vocalic, kinesic and proxemic cues aggregated through factor analyis into 21 cue composites or individual cues
Identifying the verbal cues has proved much more challenging due to page 45 ‘ NVC are implicitly seen as the natural or’sole’ carriers of relational information, subtle verbal variations that also carry relational information have been neglected ‘
Authors suggest basing there study of verbal immediacy in FTF and CMC on the following four bodies of work
1. Validation or invalidation ( based on Watzlawick, et al, (1967)
Confirmation for validation and reinforcing a sense of worth.
Discomfirming – indifferent response, impervious, denying. P46 ‘ Each of these categories includes further detailed maneuvers ( e.g. impersonal language, monologue, irrelevant response, responses that are minimally related to the topic in hand)
2. Liking and Face and disagreement or agreement during discussion (Scheerhorn (1991,1992)
From lesser to greater liking are –aggravated disagreement, direct disagreement, indirect disagreement, indirect and modest viability, praise and indirect disagreement, praise and provisional agreement, implicit and direct agreement, and strong agreement
3. Jablin (1978) provided 5 forms of agreement, disagreement each having both content and relational connotations’
Confirmation (+ feedback and positive relational
Disagreement (- negative feedback with positive relational)accedence ( positive content, negative relational)
Repudiation ( negative content, negative relational)
Disconfirmation ( irrelevant content and irrelevant relational)
Concluded p 47 ‘ Given the focus on discussion of attitudes and decisions in so much past CMC and FTF affinity research, the assessment of relational aspects of verbal agreement and disagreement messages seemed to be a promising approach for the study of affinity online and offline’
4 Patterns of reciprocation and accommodation
Agreement, disagreement, open, closed and rhetorical questions as well as several types of answers
Research questions
· What combination of verbal and nonverbal cues convey affinity FTF?
· What verbal cues express affinity in CMC?
Method
56 undergrads in dyads, one as confederate, the other as naïve. Half assigned to FTF context, half to CMC..
Dyads asked to discuss scenarios capable of generating multiple perspectives in response to social and moral dilemmas.
Confederates instructed to express either affinity or disaffinity after 1 min of interaction – no specific instructions as to how to do this. Prompted to invoke assigned role based on instructions in the papers already reviewed immediacy ( Coker & Burgoon, 1987 and liking ( Scheerhorn)
FTF 10 mins, CMC 40 mins.
Afterwards –
confederate asked to state in their own words what the manipulation had been. 100% consistency
Naïve asked to rate confederate for
Immediacy ( Anderson, 1979)
Affection ( Burgoon and Hale, 1988)
Coding
Done by confederates ( although not for their own dyad)
122 codes ( kinesics, vocalics ( with content filtered out) & two sets of verbal indicators
Results
The motivation to express affinity was more robust than medium effects , with interpersonal affect varying entirely due to the intended emotional expression and not due to the communication medium.
Vocalic
Immediacy … pleasantness & pausing during speech
Affection …. Pleasantness, sharpness, condescension & timbre
Kinesics
Immediact … smiling, body relaxation(-), directness of gaze,
Affection …. Smiling, direct facial orientation, looking around the room(-), random head movement, gaze
FTF Verbal
Immediacy …. Insults(-) , offering personal information
Affection – no significant associations
CMC Verbal
Immediacy … explicit positive statements of affection, changing the subject, indirect disagreement, praise plus novel proposition(-)
Affection …. Explicit positive statements of affection, changing the subject
