Computer Mediated Communication

Yuhua (Jake) Liang, Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA

Joseph B Walther, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) involves sending messages through computer networks such as the Internet.
Research on the social impacts of text-based CMC began with a cues-filtered-out perspective, highlighting the loss of social
information due to the absence of face-to-face, nonverbal cues. More recent theories focus on how message senders exploit
the CMC medium in order to create messages and relationships actively. A sender-receiver-message-channel-feedback model
of communication reveals how CMC affects social dynamics.

Communication technologies have potentially altered the other forms of communication remains useful and necessary
way human beings share information with one another. The in order to understand how technology affects communi-
ability to communicate by sending and receiving text infor- cation processes. Even though CMC now hosts more
mation has been more readily available in recent history. multimodal channels in terms of photos, videos, and
Just as the Pony Express, the telegraph and the telephone immersive graphical environments, text-based communica-
enabled individuals to communicate across great distance, tion remains as a mainstay of how individuals exchange
new communication technologies have again reinvented messages. Research developed on the basis of older text-
the available means of communication. Electronic based forms of CMC should continue to apply. As we
communication technologies utilizing computers have refa- develop an understanding of how CMC can affect commu-
miliarized our society with text-driven means of connecting nicators we can posit new questions as newer communica-
with each other. Yet, despite the changes associated with tion technologies such as Web 2.0 continue to expand the
historical text-based interpersonal media such as mail and range of CMC. With that in mind, this article reviews several
phone, the rapid speed and other unique affordances of the theoretical perspectives on CMC by focusing on the effects
Internet has sparked considerable interest in how computer- of CMC on those who use it, following the perspective of
mediated communication (CMC) differs from traditional a basic communication model.
communication.
The earliest research on CMC focused on the effects of new
technology related to task performance outcomes. In the 1980s CMC: A Communication Perspective
and 1990s, CMC consisted of electronic email and computer
conferencing, chats, and electronic bulletin board systems A basic model of communication aids in identifying the impact
hosting online forums. Research addressed the effects of those of CMC, the central components of which include senders,
text-based communication systems not only on tasks, but also receivers, messages, feedback, and communication channel
how the social dynamics and effects of the technology on users (see for review Walther, 1996). Senders initiate the exchange of
affected tasks or group performance. Today, with a greater information by articulating intentions into information to be
variety of social media and expanded roles for their applica- conveyed to others. The message contains the information
tion, communication technology now plays an integral role in symbols representing the information to be exchanged. Senders
how people interact with one another across myriad types of deliver messages by using a communication channel, the vehicle
social relationships. that carries the message. Such vehicles include face-to-face
Communication technologies available today have communication, telephone, teleconference, Facebook posts,
increased the frequency, ubiquity, and impact of CMC. Indi- and electronic chats, among others. Receivers interpret the
viduals often work and interact with others via computers on message and often provide a return message in the form of
a daily basis. People may access CMC through their mobile feedback. This feedback reverses the role of the senders and
devices as well as computers. More complex and crowd-based receivers as the cycle continues iteratively until the termination
systems exist today to provide new means of digital collabo- of the communication event.
ration and online sharing. Social media technologies, such as In addition to the capabilities of the CMC channel, CMC
Facebook and Twitter, provide highly accessible means of CMC also occurs across different contexts. For example, Facebook’s
by relating the content to the people we know. In addition to social context alters how users may interpret and construct
new enablement and accessibility, communication patterns messages relative to email or other systems. When a Facebook
today blend the use of offline and online channels across most user posts a status update, members of this person’s social
of our personal and professional relationships (Ramirez and network may read the message in light of past interactions
Zhang, 2007). with that user. On the other hand, messages exchanged on
Despite the mass proliferation and integration of CMC a company or organization’s office chat system likely result in
into our lives today, the delineation between CMC and a different interpretive framework. Employees may experience

504 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.95090-6
 Computer Mediated Communication 505

more reluctance in sharing social activities outside of the the quality of information due to the lack of nonverbal cues to
workplace on company websites as opposed to their friends express socioemotional content.
and family via Facebook. Media richness theory focused on how organizations can
New communication technologies challenge existing theo- utilize different types of communication channels to deal with
retical perspectives. Early views of CMC focused on comparing decision-making contexts. Daft and Lengel (1984) attempted
the ability of the communication channel to those in face- to provide a model for how different communication
to-face communication and/or other forms of CMC. Theoret- channels (e.g., memos, letters, chats, telephone conversations,
ical developments that followed offered a different view of and face-to-face interactions) rank in their abilities to
CMC. Instead of focusing on the limiting constraints of the reduce the equivocality managers experience during decision
communication channel, these developments focused on how making. Equivocality refers to the ambiguity that arises from
users can adapt to CMC to convey messages. We begin with an the presence of multiple, possibly conflicting interpretations.
overview of the earlier theoretical view of CMC based on For example, a decision regarding whether a new policy
channel characteristics. should be adopted should evoke high equivocality. Such
a context involves discussions among various managers and
different interpretations regarding the consequences of the
Cues-Filtered-Out Theories policy implementation.
These researchers contended that the ability of the
Culnan and Markus (1987) first described a class of CMC communication channel to manage equivocality depended on
theories as adopting a cues-filtered-out approach. The major information richness, which is comprised of (1) feedback speed
contention in these theories maintains that CMC constraints or the rapidity of feedback, (2) multiple cues or the number of
the symbol systems that are available in the communication cues supported by the communication system, (3) language
process, and thereby limits the meaning that users are able to variety or the range of meaning that can be conveyed with
exchange. Because CMC is primarily text-based, it lacks language, and (4) personal focus or the ability of the
nonverbal cues. These theories assumed a relationship between communication to convey personal feelings and emotions
the restricted cues that the channels offered and a commensu- (Daft et al., 1987). According to the media richness view, face-
rate restriction in senders’ abilities to convey certain kinds of to-face communication would rank as the richest channel
messages. There was less focus on the senders and receivers in whereas other forms of mediated communication would be
terms of their potential adaptation of messages to alternative leaner (Daft et al., 1987). Face-to-face communication
channels. Several particular theories typify the cues-filtered-out contains fast feedback, the greatest number of cues, the use of
perspective. natural language, and the ability to adapt to individuals. On
the other hand, CMC, such as chats and emails, would rank
lower due to the lack of some richness criteria. It is regarded
Social Presence Theory
as a leaner group of channels.
The first theory applied to CMC that reflected a cues-filtered-out Media richness theory argued that the best communication
perspective is social presence theory. Short et al. (1976) performance occurs as a function of matching the equivocality
conceptualized that various communication systems differ in of the communication task to the richness of the communi-
the availability of cue systems. Short et al. also claimed that the cation channel. Specifically, high equivocality would require
decrease of cues corresponded to a decrease in social presence high information richness, and vice versa. For instance,
between communicators. Although the theory originally managers attempting to make a policy decision require
focused on telecommunication systems, it was applied to CMC discussion and interpretation among multiple perspectives,
in the 1980s and 1990s. thus face-to-face communication would be ideal. Alternatively,
The restriction of cue systems was suggested to impact the sharing accounting information or other objective data does
degree of social information a system could convey. Therefore, not elicit a high degree of equivocality, meaning that a lean
information about individuals’ character and personality, and channel such as email would actually be more ideal in this
their interpersonal warmth and ease would be unlikely to be context.
exchanged effectively without nonverbal cues, from a social
presence perspective. Empirical Findings
Both social presence theory and media richness theory provide
a fairly intuitive understanding of CMC. The simplicity of
Media Richness Theory
treating different CMC categorically based on the absence of
Social information differs from more instrumental forms of nonverbal cues is transparent and simple. Perhaps due to such
information, for which certain other cues-filtered-out theories, an appeal, numerous investigations followed a cues-filtered-
media richness theory in particular (Daft and Lengel, 1984, out approach in both organizational and interpersonal
1986), suggest that “leaner” media (without nonverbal cues) contexts. However, the empirical support has been generally
may be more efficient. For instance, CMC may suffice when one mixed.
person needs to tell another person the date for an event. On Social presence theory has received numerous critiques and
the other hand, if an individual wished to get to know another challenges for the oversimplification explanation of CMC in
person’s character or personality – characteristics which a social context (Lea and Spears, 1992; Walther, 1992). In
nonverbal cues might more efficiently convey – social presence short, these critiques centered on challenging the assumptions
and media richness theories suggest that CMC would denude and artifacts present in social presence work. Media richness
506 Computer Mediated Communication

theory has also been challenged in from multiple angles. First, and be less likely to follow any recommendations advocated
the original study did not directly test the theoretical proposi- by those members.
tion laid out by its authors. The empirical support used The SIDE model’s parsimonious explanation of visually
to substantiate the theory’s formulation involved asking anonymous CMC led to a wide following. The theory has even
managers what communication channel they would select in been applied to understand the effect of CMC in interpersonal
a number of communication contexts that differed in equivo- contexts: In the case of visually anonymous romantic partners
cality. Daft et al. (1987) found a positive correlation between who may have met online, SIDE offers an interesting inter-
how well the managers selected the communication channel pretation for their relational development. An application of
and the manager’s actual performance evaluations. This corre- the SIDE suggests that romantic communication and attraction
lation did not test the theoretical proposition that using various toward partners result due to the social identification they feel
communication channels resulted in the best decision-making toward salient group identities. According to SIDE, the attrac-
outcome, given situations that vary in equivocality. Dennis and tion does not develop out of interpersonal processes but group
Kinney (1998) experimentally tested media richness theory identification processes alone (Lea and Spears, 1995).
and failed to find supporting evidence. These researchers Taken together, the cues-filtered out approaches to CMC
found that richness led to differences in the time that it provide a limited understanding of how people communicate.
would take to complete a task. However, richness did not The primary assumption that text-based communication
affect decision quality. In short, the critiques and can only convey a certain quantity or form of meaning
contradictory evidence limit the viability of the cues-filtered- ignores any possibilities of relational development or
out approach to understanding CMC. transformative properties using CMC. In the case of SIDE, the
Despite the critiques and problems associated with cues- prediction that social identification with group members
filtered-out approaches, this view of CMC continues to would lead to adherence to group behavior also assumed that
perpetuate in recent studies of new media (see for review visual anonymity and text-based communication restrict or
Walther, 2011). Adopting a cues-filtered-out approach often discourage users from conveying personal and interpersonal
hinders the advances possible in the study of CMC. Fortu- information. The next few of theoretical perspectives focus
nately, alternative theoretical views focus on how CMC inte- more on the interpersonal capabilities of CMC. In particular,
grates factors beyond those in the communication channel these perspectives emphasize communicators’ ability to
alone. utilize CMC in such a way as to provide meaning, to detect
and foster personal impressions, and develop relational
communication that approximates, or even exceeds, the
Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects
level of relational regard that is typical in face-to-face
The social identity model of deindividuation effects, or SIDE communication.
model (Lea and Spears, 1992), shares some similarities with
the other cues-filter-out theories. Specifically, SIDE also
assumes that the absence of nonverbal cues limits the Theories of Interpersonal Adaptation
transmission of interpersonal information online. However,
unlike other cues-filtered-out approaches, the SIDE offers A fundamental difference between cues-filtered-out approaches
a mechanism for online communication based on visual and theories described below can be understood from the
anonymity and social identification. Visual anonymity occurs communication model. Cues-filtered-out approaches focus on
when communicators utilize text-based communication the channel primarily, with the exception of SIDE which also
where no visual information about each other is available. focuses on receivers’ social identification. Instead, the theoret-
Under such a condition, communicators deindividuate and ical frameworks of interpersonal adaptation and exploitation
lose a sense of self-awareness. If they identify themselves with of media posit an understanding of CMC through all compo-
a salient social group, they will likely follow the behaviors of nents of the communication model, raising in prominence the
that social group. role of the sender and the sender’s active creation of messages
The following scenario exemplifies a scenario for how SIDE and channels. This approach to understanding CMC paints
may function in CMC. Assume that a college student reads and a picture of how communicators can take advantage of all
writes responses on a political forum. If the forum is text-based, communication elements to share meaning.
the student should remain visually anonymous to others on
the forum, as well as others to the student. The student is
Social Information Processing Theory
able to garner information about others on the forum and
realizes that some of the forum participants are also students The social information processing (SIP) theory (Walther, 1992)
at the same university. If the student identifies with the in- assumes that individuals aim to develop interpersonal
group of students from the same university, he or she impressions and relations with others. It proposes that when
should orient toward the behavior of those from the same the communication channel limits the cues available to
institution (e.g., evaluate them as more attractive, follow the communicators, as is the case using text-based CMC,
recommendations advocated). On the other hand, if the individuals will utilize the available cues in that channel to
student realizes that some of the other contributors on share their desired meaning. In particular, communicators
the same forum are from a rival institution, he or she may primarily utilize the content of the written language (e.g., the
regard these people as out-group members. The student is choice and style of words) to encode and decode information
likely to evaluate these out-group members as less attractive from others.
 Computer Mediated Communication 507

In addition to CMC adaptation from a sender’s stand- Channel

point, SIP supposes that the CMC channel alters the rate of Not only can senders selectively self-present, their ability to do
social information exchange compared to face-to-face so is enhanced by the communication channel. Several aspects
communication. In other words, to develop to the same level of CMC facilitate message construction. For instance, in the
of relationship, communicators who use CMC would require case of asynchronous CMC, both the sender and the receiver
more time than those in face-to-face communication. This can utilize time to construct the message and feedback.
rate difference originates from the diminished information Unlike face-to-face communication where the feedback
available in text-based CMC as opposed to face-to-face between communicators is more immediate, a CMC sender
communication. Even as senders encode messages by and a CMC receiver have time to write the message, edit that
adapting to the cues and meaning available in CMC, the message, or even delete and rewrite the message. The use of
communication takes more time to accrue the same meaning time and editing leads to more positive and affectionate
as those in face-to-face communication. However, it is messages (see for review Walther, 2011).
important to note that the rate difference does not equate to
a superiority or inferiority of CMC when compared to the Feedback
face-to-face counterpart. Instead, social information simply According to the former three components of the hyper-
needs more time to accumulate and render effects on personal model, the sender may selectively self-present to
relationships in CMC. garner positive impressions, the receiver may idealize the
sender, while both the sender and the receiver may capitalize
on the CMC channel to construct favorable messages. Based
The Hyperpersonal Model of CMC
on these enhancements, the feedback system created between
The hyperpersonal model of CMC (Walther, 1996) takes a step the sender and the receiver should contribute to a continuous
beyond SIP theory. Specifically, the hyperpersonal model elevation of positive impression as they communicate with
contends that CMC may aid in the development of interper- each other. In other words, the feedback system in CMC
sonal relationships that even surpass those in face-to-face should enhance the interpersonal dynamics at play and
communication. Such a process entails a series of theoretical intensify the effects iteratively over time.
propositions that relate to (1) how receivers may process A synthesis of all four hyperpersonal components illustrates
CMC information, (2) how senders may encode messages, a communication dynamic where the positive impressions of
(3) characteristics of the communication channel, and (4) the CMC communicators intensify over time. The model points
feedback. These propositions coalesce to describe a CMC the possibility where such intensification may exceed those
process that involves all components of the communication experienced in face-to-face communication. Both SIP theory
model. and the hyperpersonal model challenge the limited views
provided by the cues-filtered-out approaches to CMC.
Receiver Effects Moreover, the theories of adaptation of exploitation of media
A receiver may experience exaggerated perceptions of the paint CMC as an interactional landscape where users adapt
message sender in CMC. Since a receiver does not have the and appropriate all available means in the communication
cues present in face-to-face communication, the receiver has to process to reach affinity goals. Although the domain of
fill the void by creating impressions regarding the sender. these theories resides primarily in the interpersonal
When initial cues lead to positive first impression, context, the theories’ application and interpretation suggest
impression development may then involve idealization, that communication should be understood from the
where the receiver bestows characteristics about the sender communicator’s standpoint rather than the technology or the
preferentially. This articulation originated from the notion of channel.
social identification to group identity in SIDE theory. Newer
accounts of the hyperpersonal model suggests that individual
stereotypes, not just those based on common social Online Information Evaluation
categories, may also activate heightened receiver impressions
Warranting
(Walther, 2006).
In addition to cyclical communication processes posited by
Sender Effects theories of interpersonal adaptation and exploitation of media,
With a text-based CMC in mind, communicators can selectively some recent theoretical concepts examine how individuals
present aspects of themselves online. As a result, they can may make sense of information they receive online. Online
manage which aspects of themselves to present to others, communication may involve the information individuals
with an underlying goal to create a favorable impression in disclose to each other. Individuals often evaluate the validity of
the other communication partner. Of course, individuals can information about another person online, also known as
choose to disclose negative personal information; however, warranting (Walther and Parks, 2002). The communication
the lack of nonverbal cues in CMC actually minimizes the technology today provides quick access to information. Online
nonverbal behavior that might damage positive interpersonal users also have access to a lot of information about others. For
impressions (e.g., poor eye contact, body postures) in face- example, online users may share a lot of personal information
to-face communication. As a result, CMC senders can more on their online dating profiles including interests, religious
easily select aspect of themselves to present to their partners views, hobbies, among others. The warranting idea suggests
to elicit favorable responses. that information presented online may lead to a suspicion of
508 Computer Mediated Communication

possible distortions through selective self-presentation, such has controls over message that he or she composes. The
as the sender effect specified by the hyperpersonal model. proprietor may edit that message (e.g., deleting a Facebook
For example, information on dating websites may show post). The message may include videos, text, and/or pictures.
both distorted physical (weight/height) and psychological Furthermore, these forms of messages may operate in combi-
(hobbies) characteristics. The warranting concept argues that nation. A Facebook picture may accompany the written post in
such type of distortion is less likely to occur when two text. Examples of proprietor content include YouTube videos,
communicators have access to each other’s social network. Amazon.com reviews, Facebook profiles, among others.
Specifically, when one communication partner’s social circle
is available, one partner can hold the other responsible for User-Generated Content
the content of the self-disclosure and verify that content. User-generated content (UGC) relates to the messages that
Based on warranting, information that is more likely to relate other users contribute. This content does not originate from the
to a communication partner’s social network is less likely to proprietor, but instead, from those who compose content in
be seen as distorted. Warranting is useful in predicting how response to the proprietor content. UGC differentiates Web 2.0
communicators may judge the social information provided from traditional websites. Unlike traditional websites (e.g.,
by others online. a webpage that does not allow users to write comments), Web
2.0 displays UGC alongside the proprietor content. Examples
of UGC include comments responding to a Facebook post,
Participatory Websites
comments on product reviews (comments written in response
The CMC available today has dramatically changed from the to an online news article).
early text-based forms. Most online communication occurs via
websites that feature some social information from other users. Aggregated User Representations
These types of participatory websites, known as Web 2.0, Web 2.0 systems also allow users to leave evaluations of
complicate the theoretical concepts for understanding the others’ content. These evaluations may relate to proprietor
underlying communication dynamics at play. Moreover, content, as well as UGC. Web 2.0 systems often encourage
these social websites juxtapose messages from various users to rate or vote on the content produced by others. Then,
sources. An original author of some Web content may receive the system aggregates the ratings for others to view. The
comments and evaluation from other users regarding that aggregated ratings take the form of some statistics or figures.
content. From a communication perspective, information Examples of these representations include the number of
regarding the sender, receiver, message, feedback, and context stars, total votes, usefulness votes, helpfulness ratios, among
may blend together in a single webpage. The additional user- others. To delineate among the different types of user repre-
generated content may serve to modify how other readers sentations, there are deliberate and incidental aggregate user
may evaluate the content advocated by the original author, representations.
the original author as a source, others who comment on the Deliberate aggregate user representations include responses
source, as well as the content of the comments advocated by generated from directly requesting those responses from users.
others. For instance, after displaying an opinion from a user, the Web
This following example illustrates the complexity of 2.0 system may solicit readers to rate if that opinion was useful
understanding Web 2.0. Suppose that a product reviewer posts or not useful (e.g., 1 to 5 stars). An example of deliberate
a positive product review on Amazon.com. Assuming that the representation may include ratings of review helpfulness.
review was meant to advocate to other readers for purchasing Amazon.com displays the accumulated ratings of helpfulness
a particular product, other readers may compose comments on in the form of a ratio (e.g., 40 out of 41 people found the
the review. If other readers write positive comments regarding review helpful).
the review, then those who read the original review and cor- In contrast, incidental aggregate user representations
responding comments may regard the product as positive include information captured by Web 2.0 systems. In partic-
overall. However, if the review received negative comments that ular, these representations do not reflect behaviors that users
do not support what the review advocates, readers of the would like to express, but instead, they are computed by the
reviews and the comments that follow have to make sense of Web 2.0 system and displayed with other information. Exam-
both positive and negative information. To complicate matter ples of these representations include the number of Facebook
even more, Amazon.com reviewers and commenters may be friends, number of views on a YouTube video, the timestamp of
rated in terms of how helpful they are. These types of infor- a particular comment or review, among others. These repre-
mation juxtapose against one another as the reader may review sentations offer a unique persuasive quality in that online
them on a single website. users have no control over them. As a result, they may serve to
Walther and Jang (2012) offered a conceptual foundation aid certain aspects of self-presentations from a warranting
for defining the various sources available on Web 2.0 sites. They perspective.
proposed four elements including proprietor content, user-
generated content, deliberate aggregate user representations,
Participatory Websites and Juxtaposition among Sources
and incidental aggregate user representations.
Participatory websites create unique theoretical challenges
Proprietor Content for CMC. Although the theoretical terms expressed previ-
Proprietor content relates to the message composed by the ously aid in defining the various conceptual components
primary author or the proprietor of a webpage. The proprietor involved in Web 2.0, they do not offer a set of theoretical
 Computer Mediated Communication 509

propositions regarding the relationships among the concepts. Bibliography

From a communication perspective, the model elements of
the sender, receiver, message, context, and feedback also offer Culnan, M.J., Markus, M.L., 1987. Information technologies. In: Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L.,
little explanatory utility as these components mix to serve Roberts, K.H., Porter, L.W. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication:
An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 420–443.
multiple roles in Web 2.0. For instance, a message proprietor
Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., 1984. Information richness: a new approach to managerial
may respond to UGC and create a conversation between behavior and organization design. In: Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Research
a proprietor and a commenter. At the same time, other users in Organizational Behavior, vol. 6. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 191–233.
contribute to this dynamic through rating both the propri- Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., 1986. Organizational information requirements, media rich-
etor content and/or the UGC. When the Web 2.0 system ness and structural design. Management Science 32, 554–571.
Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., Trevino, L.K., 1987. Message equivocality, media selection,
displays all these contents simultaneously, how do other and manager performance: implications for information systems. Management
readers process that information and continue in the Information Systems Quarterly 11, 355–368.
participatory process by adding or rating the existing Dennis, A.R., Kinney, S.T., 1998. Testing media richness theory in the new media: the
content? What if more than one commenter is involved? This effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research 9,
256–274.
question typifies the theoretical challenge in the study of
Lea, M., Spears, R., 1992. Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated
CMC as new technology enable online communicators to communication. Journal of Organizational Computing 2, 321–341.
interact at such a convergent level across multiple informa- Lea, M., Spears, R., 1995. Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over
tion sources and ratings. computer networks. In: Wood, J.T., Duck, S. (Eds.), Understudied Relationships:
Off the Beaten Track. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 197–233.
Ramirez Jr., A., Zhang, S., 2007. When online meets offline: the effect of modality
switching on relational communication. Communication Monographs 74, 287–310.
Summary and Future Direction Short, J., Williams, E., Christie, B., 1976. The Social Psychology of Telecommuni-
cations. Wiley, London.
The current review began with an explanation of the commu- Walther, J.B., 1992. Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction:
a relational perceptive. Communication Research 19, 52–90.
nication perspective and elements in the communication
Walther, J.B., 1996. Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal,
model. With this perspective in mind, we reviewed a few of the and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research 23, 3–43.
theories involved in understanding CMC. The cues-filtered-out Walther, J.B., 2006. Nonverbal dynamics in computer-mediated communication or (and
approaches assumed CMC’s lack of nonverbal cues limited the net :(‘s with you:) and you :) alone. In: Manusov, V., Patterson, M.L. (Eds.),
communication. On the other hand, theories of interpersonal Handbook of Nonverbal Communication. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 461–479.
Walther, J.B., 2011. Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal
adaption and exploitation of media posit a more interactive relations. In: Knapp, M.L., Daly, J.A. (Eds.), The Handbook of Interpersonal
process that may match and/or exceed face to face. Finally, the Communication, fourth ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 443–479.
conceptual framework for understanding participatory web- Walther, J.B., Jang, J., 2012. Communication processes in participatory websites.
sites provides a glimpse of the complexity and challenge of Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18, 2–15. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01592.x.
theory development. As research incrementally increases our
Walther, J.B., Parks, M.R., 2002. Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: computer-
understanding of CMC, technology is also on the forefront of mediated communication and relationships. In: Knapp, M.L., Daly, J.A. (Eds.),
altering the landscape of digital interaction. Web 2.0 site The Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, third ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks,
continue to modify both interface as well as the type of infor- CA, pp. 529–563.
mation available to users. Walther, J.B., Van Der Heide, B., Ramirez Jr., A., Burgoon, J.K., Pena, J., 2015. Inter-
personal and hyperpersonal aspects of computer-mediated communication. In:
Sundar, S.S. (Ed.), The Handbook of Psychology and Communication Technology.
See also: Audiences, Media; Information Society; Social Media. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, England.