12: INTERPERSONAL

COMMUNICATION IN
MEDIATED CONTEXTS

Jason S. Wrench, Narissra M. Punyanunt-

Carter & Katherine S. Thweatt
SUNY New Paltz & SUNY Oswego
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

12: Interpersonal Communication in Mediated Contexts

In today’s world, we all spend a lot of time on various devices designed to make our lives easier. From smartphones to social
media, we are all in constant contact with family, friends, coworkers, etc. Since the earliest days of communication technologies,
we have always used these technologies to interact with one another. This chapter will examine how technology mediates our
interpersonal relationships.
12.1: Technology and Communication
12.2: The CMC Process
12.3: Taking the Self Online
12.4: Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication
12.5: Chapter Wrap-Up

Thumbnail: Chris Montgomery (https://unsplash.com/photos/smgTvepind4)

This page titled 12: Interpersonal Communication in Mediated Contexts is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed,
and/or curated by Jason S. Wrench, Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter & Katherine S. Thweatt (OpenSUNY) via source content that was edited to the
style and standards of the LibreTexts platform.

1
12.1: Technology and Communication
 Learning Outcomes
1. Explain the history of computer-mediated communication.
2. Recognize some of the important figures in the creation of the Internet, the World Wide Web, and computer-mediated
communication.

Since the Internet’s creation in 1969, public access to the Internet and the creation of the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1991, and
the proliferation of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) through the late 1990s, the technology that shapes your life today and will
shape your life tomorrow is still relatively new. Here are some relatively recent landmarks in social media sites, technology, and
apps: LinkedIn (2003), iTunes (2003), Facebook (2004), YouTube (2005), Twitter (2006), iPhone (2007), Drop Box (2008), Google
Docs (2009), Kickstarter (2010), Google+ (2011), Google Glass (2012), Oculus Rift (2013), and iWatch (2014). As you can
imagine, just limiting this list is hard. Some of these products you’re probably very familiar with while others may be altogether
new to you.

From Math to Punch Cards

Before we get started, it’s essential to understand the evolution of what we call computer-mediated communication or CMC.
Although in recent years some scholars have adopted the broader term “communication and technology,” we don’t think this is
necessary, because a computer of some kind is always at the center of these communicative interactions.
So, our first question should be, what is a computer. In its earliest use, “computers” referred to people who performed massive
numbers of calculations by hand or using a tool like an abacus (Figure 12.1.1a) or slide rule (Figure 12.1.1b). As you can imagine,
this process wasn’t exactly efficient and took a lot of human resources. The 2016 movie Hidden Figures relates the true story of a
group of African American computers who created the calculations to land the first Astronaut on the Moon.1

Figure 12.1.1a : Abbacus

Figure 12.1.1b: Slide Ruler

The first mechanical ancestor of the computer we have today was created in 1801 by a Frenchman named Joseph Marie Jacquard,
who created a loom that used punched wooden cards to weave fabric (Figure 12.1.2). The idea of “punch cards” would be the basis
of many generations of computers up to the 1960s. Of course, the punch cards went from being wood cards to cardboard or
cardstock over the course of their history. Some of the earliest statistical research in the field of communication was conducted
using punchcards. As you can imagine, between 1801 and the 1960s, many people worked to advance early computer technology.
Many wonderful books can introduce you to the full history of how we came to the modern personal computer.2

12.1.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66616
 Figure 12.1.2 : Jacquard Loom
The 1970s saw the start of the explosion of the personal computer (e.g., the release of the Apple II line in 1977). In 1981, IBM
released the IBM PC, also known as the Acorn, which ran on Microsoft DOS, which was followed up by Apple’s Lisa in 1983,
which had a graphic user interface. From that point until now, Microsoft and Apple (Macintosh) have cornered the market on
personal computers.

Getting Computers to Interact

One thing that we have seen is that with each new computer development is new technologies emerging that have helped us
communicate and interact. One significant development in 1969 changed the direction of human communication forever. Starting
in 1965, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were able to get two computers to “talk” to each other. Of course,
it’s one thing to get two computers side-by-side to talk to each other, but could they get computers at a distance to talk to each other
(in a manner similar to how people use telephones to communicate at a distance)?
Researchers at both UCLA and Stanford, with grant funding from the U.S. Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (ARPA), set out to get computers at a distance to talk to each other. In 1969, UCLA student Charley Kline attempted the
first computer-to-computer communication over a distance from his terminal in Los Angeles to a terminal at Stanford using a
computer network. Although it had been possible for remote computers to interact with one another, scientists had to have separate
computers for each remote computer they were connecting with. The 1969 breakthrough, was the creation of a system that could
allow all computers to use a single network to interact.3 The first message to be sent was to be a simple one, “login.” The letter “l”
was sent, then the letter “o,” and then the system crashed. So, the first message ever sent over what would become the Internet was
“lo.” An hour later, Kline got the system up and running again, and the full word “login” was sent.
In the earliest years of the Internet, most people didn’t know it existed. The Internet was primarily a tool for the Department of
Defense to allow researchers at multiple sites across the country to work on defense projects. It was called the Advanced Research
Projects Agency Network (ARPANET). In 1973, the University College of London (England) and the Royal Radar Establishment
(Norway) connected to ARPANET, and the term “Internet” was born. A year later, in 1974, a commercialized version of
ARPANET called Telenet became the first Internet service provider (ISP).

Allowing People to Communicate

The early Internet was not exactly designed for your average user, so it took quite a bit of skill and “know how” to use the Internet
and find information. Of course, while the Internet was developing, so was its capability for allowing people to communicate and
interact with one another. In 1971, Ray Tomlinson was working on two programs that could be used over ARPANET: SNDMSG
and READMAIL. From his lab at MIT, Tomlison sent a message from one computer to another computer sitting right next to it,

12.1.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66616
sending the message through ARPANET and creating the first electronic email. Tomlison also forever changed our lives by
introducing the “@” symbol as the separator the Internet uses when sending and receiving messages.
In addition to email, another breakthrough in computer-mediated communication was the development of Internet forums or
message/bulletin boards, which are online discussion sites where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.
Steve Walker created an early message board for ARPANET. The primary message list for professionals was MsgGroup. The
number one message board that was not business related was SF-Lovers, a science fiction list. As you can see, from the earliest
days of the Internet, people were using the Internet as a tool to communicate and interact with people who had similar interests.
One early realization about email and message boards was that people relied solely on text to interpret messages, which lacked
nonverbal cues to aid in interpretation. On September 19, 1982, Scott Fahlman, a research professor of computer science at
Carnegie Mellon, came up with an idea. You see, at Carnegie Mellon in the early 1980s (like most research universities at the
time), they had their own bulletin board system (BBS), which discussed everything from campus politics to science fiction. As
Fahlman noted, “Given the nature of the community, a good many of the posts were humorous, or at least attempted humor.” But
“The problem was that if someone made a sarcastic remark, a few readers would fail to get the joke and each of them would post a
lengthy diatribe in response.”4 After giving some thought to the problem, he posted the message seen in Figure 12.1.3. Thus, the
emoticon (emotion icon) was born. An emoticon is a series of characters which is designed to help readers interpret a writer’s
intended tone or the feelings the writer intended to convey. Over the years, many different emoticons were created like the smiley
and sad faces, lol (laughing out loud), ROFL (rolling on the floor laughing), :-O (surprise), :-* (kiss), :-P (sticking your tongue out),
:-/ (quizzical), :-X (sealed lips), 0:-) (angel), *\0/* (cheerleader), and so many others. As we’ve discussed previously in this text, so
much of how we understand each other is based on our nonverbal behaviors, so these emoticons were an attempt to bring a lost part
of the human communicative experience to a text-based communicative experience.

Figure 12.1.3 : Emoticon Email

Asynchronous Communication
Some technologies are what we call asynchronous, a mediated form of communication in which the sender and receiver are not
concurrently engaged in communication. When Person A sends a message, Person B does not need to be on the computer at the
same time to receive the message. There could be a delay of hours or even days before that message is received and Person B
responds. In this case, asynchronous messages are akin to letter writing.
We still engage in a wide range of asynchronous CMC. Some common forms of asynchronous communication today include email,
texting, social media posts, and classroom discussion boards. Think about your own CMC behavior. What asynchronous methods
for CMC do you engage in daily?

Synchronous Communication
Let’s switch gears for a bit and talk about the history of synchronous communication on the Internet. As the Internet grew and
speed and infrastructure became more established, synchronous CMC was developed, a mediated form of communication in which
the sender and receiver are concurrently engaged in communication. When Person A sends a message, Person B is receiving that
message in real time, like they would in a face-to-face (FtF) interaction.

12.1.3 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66616
The first synchronous mode of communication was the chatroom. In 1988, Jarkko “WiZ” Oikarinen wrote the code for the first
Internet Relay Chat (IRC) client and server at the University of Oulu, Finland. IRC was initially started as a system to replace an
existing BBS, but WiZ realized that he had something completely different. With IRC, individuals from around the world could
login using an IRC Chat Client (software on their computer), which would allow them to access a server elsewhere in the world to
interact with people in real time (Figure 12.1.4). The invention of IRC led to the proliferation of chatrooms throughout the 1980s
and 90s.

Figure 12.1.4 : Internet Relay Chat

New technology was also developed through the European organization Groupe Speciale Mobile (GSM). The goal of the GSM was
to create protocols for second-generation global cellphone networks. One of the protocols that was created was the Short
Messaging Service (SMS). The concept was developed in 1985 by Friedhelm Hillebrand and Bernard Ghillebaert, but the first
SMS message wouldn’t be sent until 1992. SMS originated from the radio telegraphy in radio memo pagers using standardized
phone protocols, and was later defined as part of the Global System for Mobile Communications series of standards in 1985. The
“short” part of SMS refers to the maximum length of the messages that could be sent at the time: 160 characters (letters, numbers,
or symbols in the Latin alphabet). If you haven’t figured it out yet, the system created by Hillebrand and Ghillebaert is the system
most of you use every day to send text messages. Although texting can be either asynchronous or synchronous, historically it was
one of the earliest technologies to facilitate real-time (synchronous) online communication.

The World Wide Web

Our last major invention that indeed was groundbreaking came about in 1990. Tim Berners-Lee, a scientist working for Conseil
Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (CERN), had an idea to help capture information from the people who worked at CERN.
The typical length of time someone spent conducting research at CERN was only two years, so that meant a lot of new people
coming and going without a way to capture what was being done. As Berners-Lee noted, “The actual observed working structure of
the organisation is a multiply connected ‘Web’ whose interconnections evolve with time.”5 Furthermore, “The technical details of

12.1.4 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66616
past projects are sometimes lost forever, or only recovered after a detective investigation in an emergency. Often, the information
has been recorded, it just cannot be found.”6 You see, Berners-Lee realized that so much information is learned on the job and then
leaves with the people as they leave the job. Berners-Lee proposed a new system for keeping electronic information. After getting
some initial positive feedback, Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau wrote a management report explaining hypertext:
HyperText is a way to link and access information of various kinds as a Web of nodes in which the user can browse at will. It
provides a single user interface to large classes of information (reports, notes, data-bases, computer documentation and on
line help). We propose a simple scheme incorporating servers already available at CERN... A program which provides access
to the hypertext world we call a browser...7
CERN was not really concerned with the Internet as its primary scope and emphasis, so CERN and Berners-Lee agreed to release
the source code for the World Wide Web (WWW) to the world in April 1993. In 1994, Berners-Lee left CERN and took a job at
MIT where he created the International World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to develop common standards for communication on
the WWW. W3C still exists today, and the WWW celebrated its 30th birthday on March 10, 2019. The 5th variation of the
hypertext markup language (HTML) created by the W3C is currently in use. You’re probably using HTML5 daily and don’t even
realize it. As the W3C notes, “HTML5 contains powerful capabilities for Web-based applications with more powerful interaction,
video support, graphics, more styling effects, and a full set of APIs. HTML5 adapts to any device, whether desktop, mobile, tablet,
or television.”8

 Key Takeaways
Starting with the invention of the Internet in 1969, computer-mediated communication has evolved over the years as
technology has advanced.
Many important figures have helped create computer-mediated communication as we know it today. Some of the key
players include Ray Tomlinson (inventor of email), Scott Fahlman (creator of emoticons/emojis), Jarkko “WiZ” Oikarinen
(inventor of chatrooms), Friedhelm Hillebrand and Bernard Ghillebaert (creators of text messaging), and Tim Berners-Lee
(inventor of the World Wide Web). These are just a handful of the many women and men who had a part in the
development of computer-mediated communication.

 Exercises
When you look back at your own life, which computer-mediated technologies do you remember interacting with? Think
back to your earliest experiences with CMC. How as your own CMC behavior and use of technology evolved over time.
Check out the World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) website (www. w3.org/) and see what projects they’re working on
today. Why is the W3C still relevant today?

This page titled 12.1: Technology and Communication is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Jason S. Wrench, Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter & Katherine S. Thweatt (OpenSUNY) via source content that was edited to the style and
standards of the LibreTexts platform.

12.1.5 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66616
12.2: The CMC Process
 Learning Outcomes
1. Differentiate between synchronous and asynchronous communication.
2. Explain the role of nonverbal cues in computer-mediated communication.
3. Describe the various rules and norms associated with computer-mediated communication and their importance to
netiquette.
4. Examine the human communication factors related to computer-mediated communication.
5. Discuss the process and importance of forming impressions online.

As interpersonal communication scholars, our interest in CMC is less about the technologies that people are using and more about
how people are using technology to interact with one another. So instead of focusing on how one goes about coding new software,
interpersonal communication scholars focus on how new technologies and software help facilitate interpersonal communication.
For example, Pat and Sam are playing the latest Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (e.g., Word of Warcraft, Fortnite).
In Figure 12.2.1 we have two people playing a video game over the together but from different locations. Through a technology
called VoIP, Sam and Pat can play video games at the same time while talking to each other through the use of headsets.

Figure 12.2.1 : Video Game Play

Synchronous and Asynchronous Communication

In this section, we’re going to delve more deeply into the areas of synchronous and asynchronous communication. In Figure 12.2.2,
Sam and Pat are in some kind of underworld, fiery landscape. Pat is playing a witch character, and Sam is playing a vampire
character. The two can coordinate their movements to accomplish in-game tasks because they can talk freely to one another while
playing the game in real time. As previously discussed, this type of CMC is synchronous communication, or communication that
happens in real time. Conversely, asynchronous communication is the exchange of messages with a time lag. In other words, in
asynchronous communication, people can communicate on their own schedules as time permits instead of in real time. For
example, Figure 12.2.2 shows a conversation between two college students. In this case, two college students are using SMS,
commonly called texting) to interact with each other. The conversation starts at 2:25 PM. The first person initiates the conversation,
but doesn’t get a response until 3:05 PM. The third turn in the interaction then doesn’t happen until 5:40 PM. In this exchange, the
two people interacting can send responses at their convenience, which is one of the main reasons people often rely on asynchronous
communication. Other common forms of asynchronous communication include emails, instant messaging, online discussions,
etc….

12.2.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66617
 Figure 12.2.2 : Asynchronous Communication via SMS (Text Messaging)
Now, is it possible for people to use the same SMS technology to interact synchronously? Of course. One of our coauthors
remembers two students on a trip who were sitting next to each other and texting backand-forth because they didn’t want their
conversation to be overheard by others in the van. Their interaction was clearly mediated, and in real time, so it would be
considered synchronous communication.

Nonverbal Cues
One issue related to CMC is nonverbal communication. Historically, most of the media people have used to interact with one
another have been asynchronous and text-based, making it difficult to fully ascertain the meaning behind a string of words. Mary J.
Culnan and M. Lynne Markus believe that the functions nonverbal behaviors meet in interpersonal interactions simply go unmet in
CMC.9 If so, interpersonal communication must always be inherently impersonal when it’s conducted using computer-mediated
technologies. This perspective has three underlying assumptions:
1. Communication mediated by technology filters out communicative cues found in FtF interaction,
2. Different media filter out or transmit different cues, and
3. Substituting technology-mediated for FtF communication will result in predictable changes in intrapersonal and interpersonal
variables.10
Let’s breakdown these assumptions. First, CMC interactions “filter out” communicative cues found in FtF interactions. For
example, if you’re on the telephone with someone, you can’t make eye contact or see their gestures, facial expressions, etc.… If
you’re reading an email, you have no nonverbal information to help you interpret the message because there is none. In these
examples, the nonverbal cues have been “filtered out” by the media being used. We will revisit this information later in this chapter
when we look at a range of theories related to CMC.

12.2.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66617
Unfortunately, even if we don’t have the nonverbals to help us interpret a message, we interpret the message using our perception
of how the sender intended us to understand this message, which is often wrong. How many times have you seen an incorrectly
read text or email start a conflict? Of course, one of the first attempts to recover some sense of nonverbal meaning was the
emoticon that we discussed earlier in this chapter.

CMC Rules and Norms

As with any type of communication, some rules and norms govern how people communicate with one another. For example,
Twitter has an extensive Terms of Service policy that covers a wide range of communication rules. For our purposes here, let’s
examine their rules related to hate speech:
Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race,
ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.
We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories.
Hateful imagery and display names: You may not use hateful images or symbols in your profile image or profile header. You
also may not use your username, display name, or profile bio to engage in abusive behavior, such as targeted harassment or
expressing hate towards a person, group, or protected category.11
This statement is an obvious example of a rule that exists on the Twitter platform. Of course, some have argued that these rules are
pretty flexible at times, given the type of hateful political speech that is often Tweeted by different political figures.
In addition to clearly spelled out rules that govern how people communicate via different technologies, there are also norms. A
norm, in this context, is an accepted standard for how one communicates and interacts with others in the CMC environment. For
example, one norm by TYPING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, which is considered yelling, people can get frustrated. There’s
actually not a consensus on when the use of all caps as a form of yelling first came to be. We do know that newspapers in the 1880s
often used all capital letters to emphasize headlines (basically have them jump off the page). At some point in the early 1980s,
using all caps as a form of yelling became quite the norm, which was noted in a message post by Dave Decot in 1984 (Figure 12.
2.3).12
In this example, you see three different attempts to create possible systems for emphasizing words. The first is the use of all capital
letters for making words seem “louder,” which, as already mentioned, eventually became known as yelling.

Figure 12.2.3 : The Creation of YELLING

Netiquette
Over the years, numerous norms have developed to help individuals communicate in the CMC context. They’re so common that we
have a term for them, netiquette. Netiquette is the set of professional and social rules and norms that are considered acceptable and
polite when interacting with another person(s) through mediating technologies. Let’s breakdown this definition.

 Research Spotlight

In a 2019 study conducted by Jale Ataşalar and Aikaterini Michou, the researchers set out to examine how
mindfulness related to problematic Internet use (i.e., Internet addiction). This study was conducted in
Ankara, Turkey, and examined 165 Turkish early adolescents (mean age was 13).
To measure mindfulness, the researchers revised the Mindful Attention Awareness

12.2.3 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66617
 Scale created by Kirk Brown and Richard Ryan.13 The revised scale was used to measure the degree to which individuals
engaged in mindful behaviors while online.
Overall, the researchers found that people who were mindful online were less likely to report engaging in problematic Internet
use.
Ataşalar, J., & Michou, A. (2019). Coping and mindfulness: Mediators between need satisfaction and generalized problematic
Internet use. Journal of Media Psychology, 31(2), 110–115. doi. org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000230

Contexts
First, our definition of netiquette emphasizes that different contexts can create different netiquette needs. Specifically, how one
communicates professionally and how one communicates socially are often quite different. For example, you may find it entirely
appropriate to say, “What’s up?!” at the beginning of an email to a friend, but you would not find it appropriate to start an email to
your boss in this same fashion. Furthermore, it may be entirely appropriate to downplay or disregard spelling errors or grammatical
problems in a text you send to a friend, but it is completely inappropriate to have those same errors and problems in a text sent to a
professional-client or coworker. One of the biggest challenges many employers have with young employees who are fresh out of
college is that they don’t know how to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate communicative behavior in differing
contexts.
This lack of professionalism is also a problem commonly discussed by college and university faculty and staff. Think about the last
email you sent to one of your professors? Was this email professional? Did you remember to sign your name? You’d be amazed at
the lack of professionalism many college and university faculty and staff see in the emails sent by your peers. Here are some
general guidelines for sending professional emails:
Include a concise, direct subject line.
Do not mark something as “urgent” unless it really is.
Begin with a proper greeting (Dear Mr. X, Professor Y:, etc.)
Double-check your grammar.
Correct any spelling mistakes.
Include only essential information. Be concise.
State your intention clearly and directly.
Make sure your message is logically organized.
Be polite and ensure your tone is appropriate.
Avoid all CAPS or all lowercase letters.
Avoid “textspeak” (e.g., plz, lol)
If you want the recipient to do something, make the desired action very clear.
End with a polite closing (using “please” and “thank you”).
Do not send an email if you’re angry or upset.
Edit and proofread before hitting “send.”
Use “Reply All” selectively (very selectively.

Rules and Norms

Second, our definition of netiquette combines both rules and norms. Part of being a competent communicator in a CMC
environment is knowing what the rules are and respecting them. For example, if you know that Twitter’s rules ban hate speech,
then engaging in hate speech using the Twitter platform shows a disregard for the rules and would not be considered appropriate
behavior. In essence, hate speech is anti-netiquette. We also do not want to ignore the fact that in different CMC contexts, different
norms often develop. For example, maybe you’re taking an online course and you’re required to engage in weekly discussions. One
common norm in an online class is to check the previously replies to a post before posting your reply. If you don’t, then you are
jumping into a conversation that’s already occurred and throwing your two-cents in without knowing what’s happening.

Acceptable and Polite CMC Behavior

Third, netiquette attempts to govern what is both acceptable and polite. Yelling via a text message may be acceptable to some of
your friends, but is it polite given that typing in all caps is generally seen as yelling? Being polite shows others respect and
demonstrates socially appropriate behaviors.

12.2.4 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66617
  Mindfulness Activity

If you’ve spent any time online recently, you may have noticed that it can definitely feel like a cesspool.
There are many trolls, making the Internet a place where civil interactions are hard to come by. Mitch Abblett came up with
five specific guidelines for interacting with others online:
1. Be kind and compassionately courteous with all posts and comments.
2. No hate speech, bullying, derogatory or biased comments regarding self, others in the community, or others in general.
3. No Promotions or Spam.
4. Do not give mental health advice.
5. Respect everyone’s privacy and be thoughtful in the nature and depth of your sharing.14
Think about your interactions with others in the online world. Have you ever communicated with others without considering
whether your own intentions and attitude are appropriate?

Online Interaction
Fourth, our definition involves interacting with others. This interaction can be one-on-one, or this interaction can be one-to-many.
The first category, one-on-one, is more in the wheelhouse of interpersonal communication. Examples include sending a text to one
person, sending an email to one person, talking to one person via Skype or Zoom, etc. The second category, one-to-many, requires
its own set of rules and norms. Some examples of common one-to-many CMC could include engaging in a group chat via texting,
“replying all” to an email received, being interviewed by a committee via Skype, etc. Notice that our examples for one-to-many
involve the same technologies used for one-on-one communication.

Range of Mediating
Technologies Lastly, netiquette can vary based on the different types of mediating technologies. For example, it may be considered
entirely appropriate for you to scream, yell, and curse when your playing with your best friend on Fortnite, but it wouldn’t be
appropriate to use the same communicative behaviors when engaging in a video conference over Skype. Both technologies use
VoIP, but the platforms and the contexts are very different, so they call for different types of communicative behaviors. Some
differences will exist in netiquette based on whether you’re in an entirely text-based medium (e.g., email, texting) or one where
people can see you (e.g., Skype, WebEx, Zoom). Ultimately, engaging in netiquette requires you to learn what is considered
acceptable and polite behavior across a range of different technologies.

Communication Factors
Communication factors are an essential part of understanding how computer-mediated communication impacts interpersonal
relationships. In this section, we’re going to examine two specific communication factors that have been researched in a variety of
CMC contexts: communication apprehension and impression formation.

Communication Apprehension
Most of the research examining CA and CMC started at the beginning of the 21st Century. Until 1996 when America Online (AOL)
provided unlimited access to the Internet for a low monthly fee, most people did not have access to the Internet because of the cost.
It wasn’t until the public became more actively involved in interacting through technology that communication scholars became
interested in communication traits related to CMC. One early study conducted by Scott W. Campbell and Michael R. Neer
investigated whether an individual’s level of communication apprehension (CA) could predict how they felt about CMC.15 In the
study, the authors predicted that an individual’s level of CA could predict whether the individuals believed that CMC was an
effective medium for interpersonal communication; however, the researchers did not find a significant relationship. Furthermore,
the researchers found that there wasn’t a significant relationship between CA and people’s satisfaction with their CMC experiences.
Here’s how the researchers attempted to make sense of these findings:

12.2.5 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66617
 One plausible interpretation is that high apprehensives simply do not view CMC positively or negatively. Yet, they recognize
that it reduces the threat posed to them in FtF settings. An equally plausible explanation is that high apprehensives do not
regard CMC as an interpersonal obstacle to overcome because it is not FtF, but a substitute that fails to challenge or override
their apprehension level.16
Jason S. Wrench and Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter furthered the inquiry into CA and CMC by exploring how people reacted to
different types of CMC. Specifically, Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter were interested in examining email CA, online chatting CA,
and instant messaging CA. You can see the measures that Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter created for this study in Table 12.2.1. It’s
important to emphasize that the technologies listed in Table 12.2.1 here were the technologies most commonly used by the public
when this study was conducted in the mid-2000s.
Table 12.2.1 Computer-Mediated Communication Apprehension (CMCA)

12.2.6 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66617
In addition to CMCA, Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter were also interested in an individual’s skill levels with CMC. CMC skill was
defined as three distinct concepts: computer efficacy (individuals’ confidence in using a computer), Internet efficacy (individuals’
confidence in using the Internet), and CMC competence. Brian H. Spitzberg believed that CMC competence consisted of three
important factors: 1) people must be motivated to interact with others competently, 2) people must possess specialized knowledge
and technical know-how, and 3) people must learn the rules and norms for communicating in the CMC context.17 Wrench and
Punyanunt-Carter found that CMCA was negatively related to computer efficacy, Internet efficacy, and CMC competence.
In a subsequent study by Daniel Hunt, David Atkin, and Archana Krishnan, the researchers set out to examine CMCA and
Facebook interactions, using a revised version of the Wrench and PunyanuntCarter CMCA scales to measure Facebook CA.18 The
study showed that CMCA decreased one’s motivation to use Facebook as a tool for interpersonal communication. These findings
were similar to those of Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter, J. J. De La Cruz, and Jason S. Wrench, who examined CMCA on the social
media app Snapchat.19 In this study, the researchers examined CMCA with regards to satisfying a combination of both functional
and entertainment needs. Functional needs were defined as needs that drive an individual to accomplish something (e.g., feel less
lonely, solve a problem, meet new people, decision making). Entertainment needs were defined as needs that allow an individual to
keep her/him/themselves occupied (e.g., because it’s fun, because it’s convenient, communicate easily). In this study, Punyanunt-
Carter, De La Cruz, and Wrench found that individuals with high levels of Snapchat CA were more likely to use Snapchat for
functional purposes than for entertainment purposes.
In a second study conducted by Punyanunt-Carter, De La Cruz, and Wrench, the researchers set out to examine social media CA in
relation to introversion, social media use, and social media addiction.20 In this study, the researchers found that social media CA
was positively related to introversion, which is in line with previous research examining CA and introversion. Furthermore,
introversion was negatively related to social media use, but social media CA was not related to social media use. Lastly, both social
media CA and introversion were negatively related to social media addiction. Overall, this shows that individuals with social media
CA are just not as likely to use social media, so they’re less likely to become addicted to it.

12.2.7 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66617
So, what does all of this tell us? From our analysis of CA and CMC, we’ve come to understand that people with high levels of CA
tend to function better in a CMC environment than in a FtF one, they’re still less likely to engage in CMC as compared to those
people with low levels of CMCA. People with low levels of CMCA just see CMC as another platform for communication.

Online Impression Formation

In the 21st Century, so much of what we do involves interacting with people online. How we present ourselves to others through
our online persona (impression formation) is very important. How we communicate via social media and how professional our
online persona is can be a determining factor in getting a job.
It’s important to understand that in today’s world, anything you put online can be found by someone else. According to the 2018
CareerBuilder.com social recruiting survey, a survey of more than 1,000 hiring managers, 70% admit to screening potential
employees using social media, and 66% use search engines to look up potential employees.21 In fact, having an online persona can
be very beneficial. Forty-seven percent of hiring managers admit to not calling a potential employee when the employee does not
have an online presence. You may be wondering what employers are looking for when they check out potential employees online.
The main things employers look for are information to support someone’s qualifications (58%), whether or not an individual has a
professional online persona (50%), to see what others say about the potential candidate (34%), and information that could lead a
hiring manager to decide not to hire someone (22%).22 According to CareerBuilder.com, here are the common reasons someone
doesn’t get a job because of her/his/their online presence:
Job candidate posted provocative or inappropriate photographs, videos or information: 40 percent
Job candidate posted information about their alcohol of drug use: 36 percent
Job candidate made discriminatory comments related to race, gender, religion, etc.: 31 percent
Job candidate was linked to criminal behavior: 30 percent • Job candidate lied about qualifications: 27 percent
Job candidate had poor communication skills: 27 percent
Job candidate bad-mouthed their previous company or fellow employee: 25 percent
Job candidate’s screen name was unprofessional: 22 percent
Job candidate shared confidential information from previous employers: 20 percent
Job candidate lied about an absence: 16 percent
Job candidate posted too frequently: 12 percent23
As you can see, many organizations believe that what you put online says a lot about you as a person, so they are checking the
Internet for information. If what you have online is inappropriate, it may prevent you from getting hired, but fortunately, what you
have online can also help get you hired. The same CareerBuilder.com study found that 57% of hiring managers have found
information about a candidate online that has solidified their decision to hire that person. Here is a list of what hiring managers
found that made them want to hire someone:
Job candidate’s background information supported their professional qualifications for the job: 37 percent
Job candidate was creative: 34 percent
Job candidate’s site conveyed a professional image: 33 percent
Job candidate was well-rounded, showed a wide range of interests: 31 percent
Got a good feel for the job candidate’s personality, could see a good fit within the company culture: 31 percent
Job candidate had great communications skills: 28 percent
Job candidate received awards and accolades: 26 percent
Other people posted great references about the job candidate: 23 percent
Job candidate had interacted with company’s social media accounts: 22 percent
Job candidate posted compelling video or other content: 21 percent
Job candidate had a large number of followers or subscribers: 18 percent24
As you can see, having an online presence is important in the 21st Century. Some people make the mistake of having no social
media presence, which can backfire. In today’s social media society, having no online presence can look very strange to hiring
managers. You should consider your social media presence as an extension of your resume. At the very least, you should have a
profile on LinkedIn, the social networking site most commonly used by corporate recruiters.25

12.2.8 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66617
  Research Spotlight
Mikaela Pitcan, Alice E. Marwick, and Danah Boyd set out to explore how young people of low
socioeconomic status handled issues of privacy and presentation in social media. The researchers
interviewed 28 young adults who considered themselves to be upwardly mobile. The researchers found
two general themes through their interviews: respectability tactics and judgments of female sexuality.
First, the researchers found that the participants “self-censored in a manner they described as presenting a
‘neutral’ or ‘vanilla’ face, catering to the respectability norms of the most powerful potential viewers—
often potential employers or highstatus community members—rather than peers.”26 The participants realized that having a
social media presence was important, but they also knew that others could judge their social media use, so they were
cognitively aware of what they posted. Furthermore, the participants were cognizant that their social media use today could be
read by others in the future, so they had to consider a long-term perspective when it came to appropriateness online.
Second, there was a pattern of judging females’ use of social media in sexually explicit ways. When it came to respectably
presenting one’s self online, women were judged more harshly for their inclusion of sexually themed posts.
Pitcan, M., Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2018). Performing a vanilla self: Respectability politics, social class, and the digital
world. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23(3), 163-179. doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmy008

Co-Present Interactions and Mediated Communication

For this discussion, we need to focus on the idea of co-present interactions, in which people are physically occupying the same
space while interacting with one another. Historically, most interpersonal communication has involved co-present interactions, but
with the advent of a range of communication technologies, people no longer have to be co-present to interact. On the flip side, there
are many people who are co-present but use technology as a way of avoiding FtF interactions with those around them. One of our
professor friends recently remarked, “when I started my career, I always had to tell students to quiet down at the beginning of class.
Now, they’re already quiet because they’re all looking at their cellphones ignoring those around them.”
Now we often have to encourage collocated social interactions, and we wonder how we can get people sitting next to each other to
talk to one another. Thomas Olsson, Pradthana Jarusriboonchai, Paweł Woźniak, Susanna Paasovaara, Kaisa Väänänen, and Andrés
Lucero argue that there are two basic communication problems facing people today, “(1) the use of current technology disrupting
ongoing social situations, and (2) lack of social interaction in collocated situations where it would be desirable.”27 When people
don’t interact with one another, they tend to become more socially isolated and lonely, which can lead to a feeling of
disengagement with those around them.
How many times have you seen people eating out together yet spending the entire time on their smartphones? Many people believe
that this type of multitasking actually enhances productivity, but research tends to disagree with this notion. One study actually
demonstrated that when people are confronted with constant distractions like phones ringing or email alerts chiming on a
smartphone, people lose an average of 10 IQ points due to these distractions.28 This drop in IQ is equivalent to missing an entire
night of sleep. Furthermore, those generations that have grown up with technology are more likely to engage in multitasking
behavior.29 In a 2014 study conducted by Jonathan Bowman and Roger Pace, the researchers tested the impact of cell phone usage
vs. FtF conversations while performing a complex cognitive task.30 Not surprisingly, individuals who interacted via cell phones
were less adept at performing the task than those engaged in FtF interactions. Furthermore, individuals involved in the FtF
interactions were more satisfied with their interactions than their peers using a cellphone. The authors of the article also found that,
“People think they are effectively communicating their message while dual-tasking even though they are not.”31
So how can technology benefit social interactions? In the Olsson et al. study, the researchers examined several different studies that
were designed to help foster collocated social interactions.32 Table 12.2.2 from the Olsson et al. illustrates the basic findings from
their study.
Table 12.2.2 Mapping the social design objectives and design approaches interpreted from the papers to abstract enhancement categories
(Roles of Technology)
Role of Technology Social Design Objectives Design Approaches

Enable (previous work beyond which the reviewed literature explores)

12.2.9 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66617
 Role of Technology Social Design Objectives Design Approaches

Facilitating ongoing social situations Shared digital workspace

Enriching means of social interaction Open space for shared activity
Facilitate
Supporting sense of community Topic suggestions
Breaking ice in new encounters Disclosing information about others

Open space for shared activity

Increasing awareness
Matchmaking
Revealing common ground
Invite Self-expression
Avoiding cocooning in social silos
Topic suggestions
Engaging people in collective activity
Open space for shared activity

Encouraging, incentivizing or triggering

Encourage Introducing constraints
people to interact

In Table 12.2.2 you are introduced to four different ways that technology can help facilitate collocated social interaction. You are
also presented with the design objectives for each of these different ways to encourage collocated social interaction along with
specific design approaches that technology creators can use to help foster collocated social interaction. Let’s look at each of these
in turn.

Enabling
First, “enabling interaction refers to the role of a technological artifact making it possible or allowing for social interaction to take
place.”33 The goal of enabling is to set up situations where collocated social interaction is possible. As such, there’s less
information about specific design objectives and approaches even though most of the research in the area of helping people interact
has historically focused on enabling.

Facilitating
Second, “facilitating interaction refers to making it easier to converse, collaborate or otherwise socially interact, or to support
desirable feelings, equality or suitable interaction dynamics while doing so.”34 The goal of facilitating collocated social interactions
is to help ease tension and encourage people to interact while minimizing possible negative experiences people may face. One of
the ways to achieve facilitating is to have an open space for a shared activity. For example, an online college or university may
have coffee shop nights or alumni events in various cities. The alumni events don’t necessarily have specific agendas, but the goal
is to provide a space where people can meet and interact.

Inviting
Third, “inviting interaction is about the role of informing people of the available proximal social possibilities, which can motivate
to spontaneously engage in new encounters.”35 In this case, the focus is on providing people the ability to invite social interaction
or respond to invitations to engage in social interaction. One of the best examples of this type of use of technology to help facilitate
collocated social interaction is https://www.meetup.com/. Meetup provides a range of different activities and groups people can join
that then meet up in the real-world. For example, in the next 24 hours, there is a Swing Dance Cruise, Writer’s Group, and
Meditation Workshop I could go to just in my local area.

Encouraging
Lastly, “encouraging interaction is about incentivizing or persuading people to start interacting or maintaining ongoing
interaction.”36 In the case of encouraging, it’s not just about providing opportunities, but also using technology to help nudge
people into collocated social interaction. For example, an application could require students in an online class who live near each
other to get together to study or work on a course project together. You may notice that the common design approach here is
introducing constraints. This means that people are required to meet up and engage in collocated social interaction to accomplish a
task because neither can do it on their own. Video games have been using a version of this for years. In many social video games, a
single player will not have all of the abilities, skills, weapons, etc. to accomplish a specific goal on their own. They must work with
other players to accomplish a task. The only difference here is that the tasks are being completed in a FtF context instead of a
mediated context.

12.2.10 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66617
  Key Takeaways
Synchronous communication is communication that happens in real time, whereas asynchronous communication has a time
lag between the exchange of messages.
Nonverbal behaviors are not inherent in many forms of computer-mediated communication. With text-based messages
(email, texts, IRC, etc.), there are no nonverbal cues to attend to at all. In other mediated forms (e.g., Skype, Facetime,
Zoom), we can see the other person, but it’s still not the same as an interaction in a FtF context.
Netiquette is the set of professional and social rules and norms for acceptable and polite behaviors when interacting with
another person(s) through mediating technologies.
A number of human communication variables have been examined within the CMC context: communication apprehension,
communication competence, etc.

 Exercises
Think about the asynchronous and synchronous computer-mediated communication technologies you use regularly. Are
nonverbal behaviors filtered in or out? How does this impact your ability to understand the other person?
Have you ever violated netiquette while interacting with other people? What happened? How did other people react?
Take a few minutes to Google yourself and see what information is easily available about you on the Internet. You may
need to try a couple of variations of your name and even add your hometown if your name is very common. If you find
information about yourself, how could a potential employer react to that information? Do you need to clean up your
Internet profile? Why?

This page titled 12.2: The CMC Process is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason S.
Wrench, Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter & Katherine S. Thweatt (OpenSUNY) via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the
LibreTexts platform.

12.2.11 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66617
12.3: Taking the Self Online
 Learning Outcomes
1. Explain Erik Erikson’s conceptualization of identity.
2. Describe how Erving Goffman’s theory can help us explain online identities.
3. Discuss the three types of online identities described by Andrew F. Wood and Matthew J. Smith

In Chapter 3, we discussed the world of intrapersonal communication. At the beginning of Chapter 3 chapter, we had you describe
yourself by answering the question, “Who am I?” 20 different times. Look back at that list. Now, think about yourself in the CMC
context. Are you the same person in a FtF interaction as you are in a CMC interaction? Maybe, but maybe not. For example, maybe
you’re a very shy person in FtF interactions, and likewise you have problems talking with complete strangers online. However,
maybe you’re a very quiet person in FtF interactions, but when you’re playing World of Warcraft, you suddenly become very loud
and boisterous. One of the beautiful things about CMC for many people is that they can be almost anyone or anything they want to
be online. In this section, we’re going to examine some specific factors related to one’s online self: identity, personality traits,
communication traits, privacy, anonymity, and trust.

Erik Erikson
Many social psychologists over the years have attempted to define and conceptualize what is meant by the term “identity.” One of
the more prominent contributors to this endeavor was Erik Erikson. Erikson believed that an individual’s identity was developed
through a series of stages of psychosocial development that occur from infancy to adulthood. At each of the different stages, an
individual faces various crises that will influence her/his/their identity positively or negatively. Each crisis pits the psychological
needs of the individual against the larger needs of society, which is why these crises are psychosocial in nature. You can see these
stages, the crises that occur, the basic virtues associated with the crises, and the central question that is asked at each stage in Figure
12.3.1.37

Figure 12.3.1 : Erikson’s Stages of Identity Development

Our question then, is how does technology impact an individual’s identity development? To answer this question, we need to
understand Erikson’s concept of “pseudospeciation,” or the tendency of humans to try to differentiate themselves from other
humans.38 Basically, we create in-groups (groups to which we belong) and out-groups (groups to which we do not belong). As
Erikson explained, humans have a need “to feel that they are of some special kind (tribe or nation, class or caste, family,
occupation, or type), whose insignia they will wear with vanity and conviction, and defend (along with the economic claims they
have staked out for their kind) against the foreign, the inimical, the not-so-human kinds.”39 This need to differentiate ourselves
from others is especially prominent in those individuals who are under 18 years of age.40
Millennials came of age during the influx of new technologies associated with Web 2.0. Subsequent generations have grown up
with technology from birth. Ever seen a baby using an iPad? It happens. Erikson died the same year as the first major Web browser,
Netscape, came on the market. Obviously, he did not have anything to say about the influx of technology and identity formation

12.3.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66618
specifically. However, he had seen the invention of other technologies and how they had impacted identity formation, specifically
movies:
“interspersed with close-ups of violence and sexual possession and all this without making the slightest demand on
intelligence, imagination, or effort. I am pointing here to a widespread imbalance in adolescent experience because I think it
explains new kinds of adolescent outbursts and points to new necessities of mastery.”41
Avi Kay believes that today’s social media and other technologies are even more impactful than movies were in Erikson’s day:
An argument can certainly be made that the immediacy, pervasiveness, and intensity of the ideas and images afforded by the
advent of movies pale compared to those of the Internet and social media. As such, reactions to those ideas and images via
the Internet can only be expected to provoke even greater passions than those Erikson observed among the youth of his
generation.42
Kay specifically discusses how the Internet is being used as a tool to radicalize young people in Islamic countries, and the same is
also true of many young people in the United States who are radicalized through the Internet into hate groups here. The Internet is a
fantastic tool, but the types of information that it can expose an adolescent to during their formative years can send them on a
prosocial or antisocial path. Thankfully, there is hope. As Erikson said, “There is no reason to insist that a technological world, as
such, need weaken inner resources of adaptation, which may, in fact, be replenished by the goodwill and ingenuity of a
communicating species.”43 Although many forces try to sway adolescents towards anti-social behavior and ideologies, technology
isn’t inherently bad for identity formation. Technology can also be used to help forge positive identities.

Your Online Identity

We just discussed how an individual’s identity could be shaped by her/his/their interaction with technology, but what about the
identity we display when we’re online. In the earliest days of the Internet, it was common for people to be completely anonymous
on the Internet (more on this shortly). For our purposes, it’s important to realize that people often present themselves differently in
CMC contexts. For example, someone chatting with a complete stranger on Tinder but completely differently when texting with
her/his/their mother.

Erving Goffman and Identity

Erving Goffman, in his book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, was the first to note that when interacting with others,
people tend to guide or control the presentation of themselves to the other person.44 As people, we can alter how we look (to a
degree), how we behave, and how we communicate, and all of these will impact the perception that someone builds of us during an
interaction. And while we’re attempting to create an impression of ourselves, the other person is also attempting to create a
perception of who you are as a person.
In an ideal world, we hope how we’re presenting ourselves will be how the other person interprets this self-presentation, but it
doesn’t always work out that way. Goffman coined the term dramaturgical analysis to describe this type of interactive sensemaking
because he saw the faces people put on when interacting with others as similar to the roles actors play onstage. In this respect,
Goffman used the term “front stage” to the types of behavior we exhibit when we know others are watching us (e.g., an
interpersonal interaction). “Backstage” then is the behavior we engage in when we have no audience present, so we are free from
the rules and norms of interaction that govern our day-to-day interactions with others. Basically, when we are alone, we can let our
hair down and relax by getting out of the character we perform on stage. At the same time, we also prepare for future interactions
on stage while we’re backstage. For example, maybe a woman will practice a pick up line she plans on using in a bar after work, or
a man will rehearse what he’s going to say when he meets his boyfriend’s parents at dinner that night.
Erving Goffman died in 1982 well before the birth of the WWW and the Internet as most of us know it today, so he didn’t write
about the issue of online identities. Syed Murtaza Alfarid Hussain applied Goffman’s dramaturgical approach to Facebook.45
Alfarid Hussain argues that Facebook can be seen as part of the “front stage” for interaction where we perform our identities. As
such, Facebook “provides the opportunity for individuals to use props such as user profile information, photo
posting/sharing/tagging, status updates, ‘Like’ and ‘Unlike’ others posts, comments or wall posts, profile image/cover page image,
online befriending, group/community membership, weblinks and security and privacy settings.”46 If you’re like us, maybe you sat
in front of your smartphone, tablet computer, laptop, or desktop computer and wanted to share a meme, but realized that many
people you’re friends with on Facebook wouldn’t find the meme humorous, so you didn’t share the meme. When you do this, you
are negotiating your identity on stage. You are determining and influencing how others will view you through the types of posts
you make, the shares you make, and even the likes you give to others’ posts.

12.3.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66618
In a study examining identity in blogging and the online 3D multiverse SecondLife, Liam Bullingham and Ana C. Vasconcelos
found that most people who blog and those who participated on SecondLife (in their study) “were keen to re-create their offline self
online. This was achieved by creating a blogging voice that is true to the offline one, and by publishing personal details about the
offline self online, or designing the avatar to resemble the offline self in SL, and in disclosing offline identity in SL.”47 In
“Goffman-speak,” people online attempt to mimic their onstage performances across different mediums. Now clearly, not everyone
who blogs and hangs out in SecondLife will do this, but the majority of the individuals in Bullingham and Vasconcelos’ study did.
The authors noted differences between bloggers and SL users. Specifically, SL users have:
more obvious options to deviate from the offline self and adopt personae in terms of the appearance of the 3D avatar. In
blogging, it is perhaps expected that persona adoption does not occur, unless a detachment from the offline self is obvious,
such as in the case of pseudonymous blogging. Also, the nature of interaction is different, with blogging resembling more
closely platform performances and the SL environment offering more opportunities for contacts and encounters.48

Types of Online Identities

Unlike traditional FtF interactions, online interactions can blur identities as people act in ways impossible in FtF interaction.
Andrew F. Wood and Matthew J. Smith discussed three different ways that people express their identities online: anonymous,
pseudonymous, and real life (Figure 12.3.2).49

Figure 12.3.2 : Types of Online Identities

Anonymous Identity
First, people in a CMC context can behave in a way that is completely anonymous. In this case, people in CMC interactions can
communicate in a manner that conceals their actual identity. Now, it may be possible for some people to figure out who an
anonymous person is (e.g., the NSA, the CIA), but if someone wants to maintain her or his anonymity, it’s usually possible to do
so. Think about how many fake Facebook, Twitter, Tinder, and Grindr accounts exist. Some exist to try to persuade you to go to a
website (often for illicit purposes like hacking your computer), while others may be “catfishing” for the fun of it.
Catfishing is a deceptive activity perpetrated by Internet predators when they fabricate online identities on social networking sites
to lure unsuspecting victims into an emotional/romantic relationship. In the 2010 documentary Catfish, we are introduced to Yaniv
“Nev” Schulman, a New York-based photographer, who starts an online relationship with an 8-year-old prodigy named Abby via
Facebook. Over the course of nine months, the two exchange more than 1,500 messages, and Abby’s family (mother, father, and
sister) also become friends with Nev on Facebook. Throughout the documentary, Nev and his brother Ariel (who is also the
documentarian) start noticing inconsistencies in various stories that are being told. Music that was allegedly created by Abby is
found to be taken from YouTube. Ariel convinces Nev to continue the relationship knowing that there are inconsistencies and lies
just to see how it will all play out. The success of Catfish spawned a television show by the same name on MTV.

12.3.3 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66618
From this one story, we can easily see the problems that can arise from anonymity on the Internet. Often behavior that would be
deemed completely inappropriate in a FtF encounter suddenly becomes appropriate because it’s deemed “less real” by some. One
of the major problems with online anonymity has been cyberbullying. Teenagers today can post horrible things about one another
online without any worry that the messages will be linked back to them directly. Unlike FtF bullying victims who leave the
bullying behind when they leave school, teens facing cyberbullying cannot even find peace at home because the Internet follows
them everywhere. In 2013 12-year-old Rebecca Ann Sedwick committed suicide after being the perpetual victim of cyberbullying
through social media apps on her phone. Some of the messages found on her phone after her suicide included, “Why are you still
alive?” and “You haven’t killed yourself yet? Go jump off a building.” Rebecca suffered this barrage of bullying for over a year and
by around 15 different girls in her school. Sadly, Rebecca’s tale is one that is all too familiar in today’s world. Nine percent of
middle-school students reported being victims of cyberbullying, and there is a relationship between victimization and suicidal
ideation.50
It’s also important to understand that cyberbullying isn’t just a phenomenon that happens with children. A 2009 survey of
Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union members, found that 34% of respondents faced FtF bullying, and 10.7% faced
cyberbullying. All of the individuals who were targets of cyberbullying were also bullied FtF.51
Many people prefer anonymity when interacting with others online, and there can be legitimate reasons to engage in online
interactions with others. For example, when one of our authors was coming out as LGBTQIA+, our coauthor regularly talked with
people online as they melded the new LGBTQIA+ identity with their Southern and Christian identities. Having the ability to talk
anonymously with others allowed our coauthor to gradually come out by forming anonymous relationships with others dealing with
the same issues.

Pseudonymous Identity
The second category of interaction is pseudonymous. Wood and Smith used the term pseudonymous because of the prefix
“pseudonym”: “Pseudonym comes from the Latin words for ‘false’ and ‘name,’ and it provides an audience with the ability to
attribute statements and actions to a common source [emphasis in original].”52 Whereas an anonym allows someone to be
completely anonymous, a pseudonym “allows one to contribute to the fashioning of one’s own image.”53
Using pseudonyms is hardly something new. Famed mystery author Agatha Christi wrote over 66 detective novels, but still
published six romance novels using the pseudonym Mary Westmacott. Bestselling science fiction author Michael Crichton (of
Jurassic Park fame), wrote under three different pseudonyms (John Lange, Jeffery Hudson, and Michael Douglas) when he was in
medical school. Even J. K. Rowling (of Harry Potter fame) used the pseudonym Robert Galbraith to write her follow-up novel to
the series, The Cuckoo’s Calling (2013). Rowling didn’t want the media hype or inflated reader expectations while writing her
follow-up novel. Unfortunately for Rowling, the secret didn’t stay hidden very long.
There are many famous people who use pseudonyms in their social media: @TheTweetOfGod (comedy writer and Daily Show
producer, David Javerbaum), @pewdiepie (online personality and producer Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg), @baddiewinkle
(Octogenarian fashionista and online personality Helen Van Winkle), @doctor.mike (family practitioner and internet celebrity Dr.
Mike Varshavski), and more. Some of these people used parts of their real names, and others used fully pseudonymous names. All
of them have enormous Internet followings and have used their pseudonyms to build profitable brands. So, why do people use a
pseudonym?
The veneer of the Internet allows us to determine how much of an identity we wish to front in online presentations. These
images can range from a vague silhouette to a detailed snapshot. Whatever the degree of identity presented, however, it
appears that control and empowerment are benefits for users of these communication technologies.”54
Some people even adopt a pseudonym because their online actions may not be “on-brand” for their day-job or because they don’t
want to be fully exposed online.

Real Life Identity

Lastly, some people have their real-life identities displayed online. You can find JasonSWrench on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat,
Twitter, LinkedIn, etc…. Our coauthor made the decision to have his social networking site behavior very public from the
beginning. Part of the reason was that when he first joined Facebook in 2007, he was required to use his professional school email
address that ended with. edu. In the early days, only people with.edu email addresses could join Facebook. Jason also realizes that
this behavior is a part of his professional persona, so he doesn’t put anything on one of these sites he wouldn’t want other
professionals (or even you) to see and read. When it comes to people in the public eye, most of them use some variation of their

12.3.4 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66618
real names to enhance their brands. That’s not to say that many of these same people don’t have multiple online accounts, some of
which may be completely anonymous or even pseudonymous.

 Key Takeaways
Erikson believed that an individual’s identity is developed through a series of stages of psychosocial development that
occur from infancy to adulthood. At each stage, we face a different set of crises that pits an individual’s psychological
needs versus the larger societal needs. Part of this development is impacted by the introduction of new technologies, which
can be both good for society and problematic.
Erving Goffman in his book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, uses the term “front stage” to describe the types of
behavior we exhibit when we know others are watching us (e.g., an interpersonal interaction), and he uses the term
“backstage” to refer to behavior we engage in when we have no audience present, so we are free from the rules and norms
of interaction that govern our day-to-day interactions with others.
Andrew F. Wood and Matthew J. Smith discussed three specific types of online identities that people can formulate:
anonymous (the person behind a message is completely unknown), pseudonymous (someone uses a pseudonym, but people
often know who the real person behind the message is), and real life (when our online and FtF identities are the same).

 Exercises
Of the two theoretical approaches to identity (Erikson and Goffman), which do you think is the better tool for explaining
how your online identity and offline identity were formed? Why?
When it comes to your online CMC behavior, do you have an anonymous, pseudonymous, and real-life identity? How are
these similar? How are they different?

This page titled 12.3: Taking the Self Online is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason S.
Wrench, Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter & Katherine S. Thweatt (OpenSUNY) via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the
LibreTexts platform.

12.3.5 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66618
12.4: Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication
 Learning Outcomes
1. Describe uses and gratifications theory and how it helps us understand CMC behavior.
2. Describe social presence theory and how it helps us understand CMC behavior.
3. Describe media richness theory and how it helps us understand CMC behavior.
4. Describe social information processing theory and how it helps us understand CMC behavior.

Most of the early work in computer-mediated communication from a theoretical perspective was conducted using mediated-
communication theories that have been developed to discuss the differences between print, radio, and television, and applying them
to the Internet. As such, we don’t see the proliferation of theories. In this section, we are going to explore four theories and their
implications for CMC.

Uses and Gratifications Theory

The first major theory used to explain CMC is the uses and gratifications theory. Uses and gratifications theory was originally
devised in the mid-1970s to explain why people use the types of mass media they do.55 The basic premise of the theory is that people choose various
media because they get something out of that media, or it makes them happy in some way. From this perspective, people choose
various media because they have specific goals that they want to fulfill. Zizi Papacharissi and Alan Rubin were the first scholars to
apply the uses and gratifications theory to how people use the Internet.56 They found five basic reasons people were using the
Internet: interpersonal utility (allows people to interact with others), pass time (helps people kill time), information seeking (people
look for specific information they want or need), convenience (it’s faster than FtF or even a phone call), and entertainment (people
enjoy using the Internet). In this first study, the researchers found that people who used the Internet for interpersonal utility were
less satisfied with life and more anxious in FtF communication interactions when compared to those who did not. Please remember
that this study was conducted in 2000, so times are quite different now, so the finding from the Papacharissi and Rubin may be
different if conducted today.
In a 2008 follow-up study, the picture of Internet socializing was quite different, so it’s not surprising that the results were
indicative of changes in public consumption.57 The researchers found when people try to substitute FtF interpersonal interactions
for CMC interactions, they do not find their CMC interactions as rewarding. Conversely, when people supplement their FtF
interpersonal interactions with CMC interactions, they are fulfilled by those CMC interactions.

Social Presence Theory

The second major theory that has been used to help explain CMC is social presence theory. Social presence theory was created by
John Short, Ederyn Williams, and Bruce Christie.58 Presence is a psychological state of mind and how we relate to technology.
When we are truly present, we forget that we are actually using technology. Presence is “at the heart of humans’ desire to use media
to move beyond the limits of body and the sensory channels.”59 Often the term “presence” when used in this contact refers to the
physical world and how technology mimics the physical world. For example, when you put on a virtual reality helmet, how does
your mind and body react? People who experience high levels of presence in a virtual reality simulation will experience real
physiological effects. In one study, Dino Krupić, Barbara Žuro, and Philip Corr examined whether a virtual environment could
stimulate fear responses in individuals who have a fear of heights.60
In this study, individuals wore a virtual helmet and “walked the plank” To measure fear response, participants wore a moodmetric
ring which measures electrodermal activity, which is a physiological indication of stress responses. Can VR be used to create
physiological stress responses? Yes. We should also mention that the study also examined whether mindfulness practices could help
decrease stress responses in VR settings, which it did.
Social presence then is “the degree to which we as individuals perceive another as a real person and any interaction between the
two of us as a relationship.”61 Our perceptions of social presence are largely based on the degree to which we have the ability to
interpret nonverbal cues from the people we are interacting with.
When it comes to CMC, various technologies will elicit varying degrees of perceptions of presence from people. For example,
reading information on a website probably is not going to make you forget that you are reading text on a screen. On the other hand,
if you’re engaging in a conversation with your best friend via text messaging, you may forget about the technology and just view

12.4.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66619
the interaction as a common one you have with your friend. In essence, people can vary in how they perceive social presence. One
of our coauthors regularly has students in a CMC course spend time in a couple of virtual worlds like SecondLife and World of
Warcraft. SecondLife is a virtual world where people can create avatar and interact in a 3D simulated environment. However, it’s
not a game – it’s a 3D virtual world. There is no point system and there is no winning or beating the system. Instead, it’s a place for
people to socialize and interact. On the other hand, World of Warcraft (WOW) is first and foremost a game. Although there are
definitely highly interactive components involved in WOW and people make lifelong friends in WOW, WOW is a virtual world
that has a specific end result focused on winning.
These different worlds have different purposes, but people can feel highly present in either or both. When students who are not
familiar with these virtual worlds enter them, they often have a hard time understanding how people can spend hours upon hours
interacting with others within these virtual worlds. The students view this as a “strange” experience and experience no social
presence at all. Conversely, people who “live” in these virtual worlds regularly experience high levels of social presence. We do
know that those individuals who report higher levels of social presence tend to have more rewarding online interpersonal
interactions and are more likely to perceive themselves as competent communicators within these mediated environments.62

Media Richness Theory

The third major theory that has been applied to CMC is media richness theory. Media richness theory was first proposed by Richard
L. Daft and Robert H. Lengel.63 Richness is defined as “the potential information carrying capacity of data.”64 In Lengel’s doctoral
dissertation, he proposed that media varied in richness depending on how much information is provided through the
communication.65 For example, in print media, all we have is text. As such, we don’t have nonverbal behaviors of the author to
help us interpret the words we are reading. With FtF communication, on the other hand, we have the full realm of nonverbal
behaviors that we can attend to in an effort to understand the sender’s message. As such, Lengel argued that media escalates in
richness in the following order: computer output, formal memos, personal memos, telephone conversations, and FtF interactions.
You’ll notice that this analysis of media was originally designed to help individuals understand the media choices organizational
members have in the workplace.
So, where does this leave us with CMC? Well, from the basic premise of media richness theory, we can ascertain that the richer the
media, the less ambiguous a message is for a receiver.66

Social Information Processing Theory

Up to this point, the first three theories we examined that have been used to explain why people use CMC have all been theories
originally designed to examine media before the proliferation of CMC. The first truly unique theory designed to look at CMC from
a communication perspective came from Joseph Walther’s social information processing theory, in 1992.67 As someone with a
background in communication, Walther realized that our impressions of those we interact with and our interpersonal interactions
with them change over time, yet the previous three theories applied to CMC didn’t take into account how interpersonal
relationships evolve as the interactants spend more time getting to know one another. For example, both media richness theory and
social presence theory focus on the nonverbal aspects of CMC and assume that because of the lack of nonverbal cues in CMC,
people will inherently find it inherently less rich and/or less present when compared to FtF interactions. Walther argues that the
filtering out of nonverbal cues doesn’t hinder an individual’s ability to form an impression of someone over time in a CMC context.
Walther asserts that over time, relationships formed in a CMC context can develop like those that are FtF. He does admit that these
relationships will take more time to develop, but the relationships can reach the same end states as relationships formed FtF.
Walther later expanded his ideas of social information processing to include a new concept he dubbed hyperpersonal interactions.68
Hyperpersonal interactions are those that go above and beyond those possible in traditional FtF interactions. For example, many
people who belong to online selfhelp groups discuss feelings and ideas that they would never dream of discussing with people in an
FtF interaction unless that person was their therapist. Furthermore, during CMC interactions an individual can refine their message
in a manner that is impossible to do during an FtF interaction, which help them present a specific face to an interactant. I’m sure
we’ve all written a text, Facebook post, or email and then decided to delete what we’d just written rather than post or send it
because it was not in our best interest to put it out in the world. In CMC interactions, we have this ability to fine-tune our messages
before transmitting, whereas in FtF messages, we don’t have the ability to sit and ponder our responses writing and rewriting them
until we’re ready to orally communicate during a FtF interaction. Furthermore, in FtF interactions, there is an expectation that the
interaction keeps moving at a steady pace without the ability to edit one’s ideas; whereas, with CMC we can take time to fine-tune
our messages in a way that is impossible during an FtF interaction. All of this helps an individual create the public face that they
want to be known by.

12.4.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66619
  Key Takeaways
Uses and gratifications theory helps explain why people use the types of mass media they do. Papacharissi and Rubin found
that there were five reasons why people use the Internet: interpersonal utility (allows people to interact with others), pass
time (helps people kill time), information seeking (enables people to locate specific information they want or need),
convenience (it’s faster than FtF or even a phone call), and entertainment (people enjoy using the Internet).
Social presence theory helps us understand whether or not individuals using CMC technologies perceive the people they are
interacting with as “real.” Our perceptions of social presence are largely based on the degree to which we can interpret
nonverbal cues from the people we are interacting with.
Media richness theory helps us understand CMC behavior by examining the capacity that a type of media has for
transmitting data. As media becomes richer and has more nonverbal content, the easier it is for a receiver to interpret the
message accurately, which can, in turn, lead to more successful social interactions online.
Social information processing (SIP theory helps researchers understand the development of interpersonal relationships in
CMC contexts. SIP argues that overtime relationships formed in a CMC context can develop like those relationships that
develop FtF.

 Exercises
Uses and gratifications theory is one of the oldest theories in media, and continues to be one of the most commonly studied.
For this exercise, find a research study conducted in the previous five years that examines gratifications theory as related to
CMC. Look for the outcomes from that specific study and report them back to your class.
Compare and contrast social presence theory, media richness theory, and social information processing theory and their
explanation of the importance of nonverbal communication in CMC relationships.
If you’ve experienced a hyperpersonal relationship online, think about that relationship as you answer the following
questions. If you have not had a hyperpersonal relationship online, then talk with someone who has and answer the
following questions.
How did this hyperpersonal relationship develop?
What was different about this relationship when compared to FtF relationships?
Do you still have this relationship today? Why or why not?

This page titled 12.4: Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed,
and/or curated by Jason S. Wrench, Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter & Katherine S. Thweatt (OpenSUNY) via source content that was edited to the
style and standards of the LibreTexts platform.

12.4.3 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66619
12.5: Chapter Wrap-Up
This chapter explored many of the ways that modern communication technologies help us interact with each other. Whether we’re
talking over a headset to someone through our gaming console or texting our roommate, we use these technologies to communicate
with people all the time. The first part of this chapter explored the history of computer-mediated communication, which was
followed by a discussion of the process of computer-mediated communication. We then discussed identity formation in virtual
environments. We ended the chapter by looking at four of the most commonly discussed theories related to computer-mediated
communication. Hopefully, you realize that this chapter barely scratches the surface when it comes to how people are using
technology to create and enhance their interpersonal relationships.

End of Chapter

 Key Terms
Anonymous CMC Identities
ARPANET
Asynchronous Communication
Catfishing
Co-Present Interactions
Emoticons
Hyperpersonal
Impression Formation
Message/Bulletin Boards
Netiquette
Pseudonymity CMC Identity
Real-life CMC Identity
Richness
Social Presence
Synchronous Communication
Uses and Gratifications Theory

Real World Case Study

Jenny wasn’t meeting any potential boyfriends living in Denver. As a 28-year-old woman, she’s found meeting people more and
more difficult. She’s not really into the bar scene, so meeting people in that environment is pretty much out. One day a friend of
hers at work tells her about a new smartphone app called Fndr. The app allows people to see how many people are also looking for
dates within a geographic location.
She decides to download the app and see what all of the fuss is about. She creates a profile, uploads a professional picture, and
decides to take a chance. Immediately, she sees a screen filled with men all looking for relationships. There is Chad, who is 1.5
miles away. There is Andrew, who is 678 feet from her. Then there was Bobby, who was less than 100 feet from her. That’s very
creepy, Jenny thinks to herself. She looks at Bobby’s profile, which shows a picture of a bare-chested male torso. God, he’s ripped!
She looks at another photo that shows his back flexed. That’s when she notices his eagle tattoo on the bottom center of his back. Oh
my god! That’s Martha’s Husband!!!
1. If you were Jenny, how would you respond to finding someone’s husband on a social media site for people looking for
relationships?
2. Do you think Jenny should confront Martha’s husband through Fndr?
3. Do you think computer-mediated communication has made infidelity in the 21st Century easier?

End of Chapter Quiz

1. What is the term for principles for behavior and communication that are appropriate and effective in workplace settings called?
a. professionalism
b. communication competence
c. communication intelligence

12.5.1 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66620
 d. etiquette
e. formality
2. Rob just received an email from one of his employees. The email is all in lowercase with zero punctuation. Rob only knows
when a new sentence is reached when a capital letter rises out of nowhere. Rob’s employee has violated what?
a. CMC norms
b. CMC rules
c. netiquette
d. nonverbal cues
e. presence
3. Max writes fan fiction that he publishes on WattPad under the name M.L. Patterson. He has a pretty large following of readers.
He’s recently realized that most of his readers assume that he’s a female based on the use of his initials instead of his first name.
What type of identity does Max’s WattPad presence most represent?
a. anonymous
b. pseudonymous
c. real life
d. non-identifiable
e. identifiable
4. Dae-Jae is a computer designer in Korea. He works in the training department of a large multinational automobile company.
He’s been tasked with creating a new virtual training program for salespeople around the world. One of his biggest concerns is
ensuring that the game he designs for this training is able to immerse people in as a realistic anenvironment as possible. Dae-Jae
really wants learners to feel like they are interacting with a real customer. Which theory of mediated communication best
describes what Dae-Jae is concerned with?
a. media richness theory
b. social presence theory
c. medium is the message
d. social information processing theory
e. uses and gratifications theory
5. Alima is hanging out with her best friend at a local diner. She’s chit-chatting with her best friend, but both of them are also
constantly texting other people. What type of interaction does this example most clearly illustrate?
a. co-present
b. dual-processing
c. effective
d. communicatively competent
e. rewarding

References
1 Holland, B. (2018, August 22). Human computers: The women of NASA. The History Channel. https://
www.history.com/news/human-computers-women-at-nasa
2 Campbell-Kelly, Aspray, W., Ensbenger, N., & Yost, J. R. (2014). Computer: A history of the information machine (3rd ed.).
Westview Press. Frauenfelder, M. (2013). The computer: an illustrated history from its origins to the present day. Carlton.
Garfinkle, S. L., & Grunspan, R. H. (2018). The computer book: From the abacus to artificial intelligence, 250 milestones in the
history of computer science. Sterling.
3 Raz, G. (2019, October 29). ‘Lo’ and behold: A communication revolution. National Public Radio. https://
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114280698
4 Happy 25th, Emoticon. (2007, Summer). Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved from www.cmu.
edu/homepage/beyond/2007/summer/happy-25th-emoticon.shtml; para. 5.
5 Berners-Lee, T. (1990, May). Information management: A proposal. Retrieved from http://cds.cern.ch/ record/369245/files/dd-
89-001.pdf; pg. 3.
6 Ibid.; pg. 3.

12.5.2 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66620
7 Berners-Lee, T., & Cailliau, R. (1990, November 12). WorldWideWeb: A proposal for a HyperText project. Retrieved from
http://cds.cern.ch/record/2639699/fi...l_Nov-1990.pdf
8 What is HTML5? (2013, December 12). Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/html/wiki/FAQs
9 Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putman, K. H. Roberts, and L. W. Porter
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420-443). Sage.
10 Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putman, K. H. Roberts, and L. W. Porter
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420-443). Sage; pg. 423.
11 Twitter. (n.d.). Hateful conduct policy. Retrieved from: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/ hateful-conduct-policy
12 Decot, D. (1984, March 13). ***Asterisks***. Retrieved from: https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21...I/E2mClWj2GV8J
13 Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 822–848. doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.84.4.822
14 Abblett, M. (2019, September 3). 5 rules for sharing genuinely and safely online: No matter what kind of social community you
find yourself in, it is important to abide by a few specific guidelines for safe sharing. Mindful. https://www.mindful.org/5-rules-
for-...safely-online/
15 Campbell, S. W., & Neer, M. R. (2001). The relationship of communication apprehension and interaction involvement to
perceptions of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research Reports, 18(4), 391–398.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090109384820
16 Ibid.; pgs. 396-397.
17 Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer mediated communication (CMC)
competence. Journal of Computer–Mediated Communication, 11(2), 629–666. doi. org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x
18 Hunt, D., Atkin, D., & Krishnan, A. (2012). The influence of computer-mediated communication apprehension on motives for
Facebook use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(2), 187–202. https://doi.org /10.1080/08838151.2012.678717
19 Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., De La Cruz, J. J., & Wrench, J. S. (2017). Investigating the relationships among college students’
satisfaction, addiction, needs, communication apprehension, motives, and uses & gratifications with Snapchat. Computers in
Human Behavior, 75, 870–875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.034
20 Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., Cruz, J. J. D. L., & Wrench, J. S. (2018). Analyzing college students’ social media communication
apprehension. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 21(8), 511–515. doi. org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0098
21 CareerBuilder.com. (2018, August 9). More than half of employers have found content on social media that caused them NOT
to hire a candidate, according to recent CareerBuilder survey [Press Release]. Retrieved from:
http://press.careerbuilder.com/2018-...Builder-Survey
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.; para. 6.
24 Ibid.; para. 7.
25 obVite (2013). 2013 social recruiting survey results. San Mateo, CA: Author.
26 Pitcan, M., Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, d. (2018). Performing a vanilla self: Respectability politics, social class, and the digital
world. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23(3), 163-179. doi. org/10.1093/jcmc/zmy008; pg. 170.
27 Olsson, T., Jarusriboonchai, P., Woźniak, P., Paasovaara, S., Väänänen, K., & Lucero, A. (2019, February 14). Technologies for
enhancing collocated social interaction: Review of design solutions and approaches. Computer Supported Cooperative Work.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-019-09345-0; pg. 2
28 Hewlett-Packard (2005). Abuse of technology can reduce UK workers’ intelligence. Small & Medium Business press release,
April 22. Retrieved July 11, 2014, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/6910385/Ab...s-intelligence
29 Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., Rosena, L. D., Benitez, S., & Chang, J. (2009). Multitasking across generations: Multitasking
choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of Americans. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 483-489.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.012

12.5.3 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66620
30 Bowman, J. M., & Pace, R. C. (2014). Dual-tasking effects on outcomes of mobile communication technologies.
Communication Research Reports, 31(2), 221-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2014.907149
31 Ibid.; pg. 228.
32 Olsson, T., Jarusriboonchai, P., Woźniak, P., Paasovaara, S., Väänänen, K., & Lucero, A. (2019, February 14). Technologies for
enhancing collocated social interaction: Review of design solutions and approaches. Computer Supported Cooperative Work.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-019-09345-0
33 Ibid.; pg. 39
34 Ibid.; pg. 39
35 Ibid.; pg. 40
36 Ibid.; pg. 40
37 Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W. W. Norton & Company.
38 Erikson, E. (1985). Pseudospeciation in the nuclear age. Political Psychology, 6(2), 213–217. doi. org/10.2307/3790901
39 Erikson, E. H. (1962). Reality and actuality an address. Journal of The American Psychoanalytic Association, 10(3), 451-474.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000306516201000301
40 Erikson, E. H. (1988). Youth: Fidelity and diversity. Daedalus, 117(3), 1–24.
41 Ibid.; pg. 11.
42 Kay, A. (2018). Erikson Online: Identity and pseudospeciation in the Internet age. Identity: An International Journal of Theory
and Research, 18(4), 264-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2018.1523732; pg. 269.
43 Erikson, E. (1964). Insight and responsibility. Norton; pg. 103-104.
44 Goffman, E, (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
45 Alfarid Hussain, S. M. (2015). Presentation of self among social media users in Assam: Appropriating Goffman to Facebook
users’ engagement with online communities. Global Media Journal: Indian Edition, 6(1&2), 1–14. https://tinyurl.com/sbbll8a
46 Alfarid Hussain, S. M. (2015). Presentation of self among social media users in Assam: Appropriating Goffman to Facebook
users’ engagement with online communities. Global Media Journal: Indian Edition, 6(1&2), 1–14. https://tinyurl.com/sbbll8a; pg.
3.
47 Bullingham, L., & Vasconcelos, A. C. (2013). “The presentation of self in the online world:” Goffman and the study of online
identities. Journal of Information Science, 39(1), 101–112. doi. org/10.1177/0165551512470051; pg. 110.
48 Ibid.; pg. 110.
49 Wood, A. F., & Smith, M. J. (2005). Online communication: Linking technology, identity, & culture (2nd ed.). Routledge.
50 Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14, 206-221.
51 Privitera, C. (2009). Cyberbullying: The new face of workplace bullying? Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 395-400.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0025
52 Wood, A. F., & Smith, M. J. (2005). Online communication: Linking technology, identity, & culture (2nd ed.). Routledge; pg.
64.
53 Ibid.; pg. 66.
54 Ibid.; pgs. 66-67.
55 Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler, & E.
Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19-32).: Sage.
56 Papacharissi, Z. & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 175–
196. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_2
57 Pornsakulvanich, V., Haridakis, P., & Rubin, A. M. (2008). The influence of dispositions and Internet motivation on online
communication satisfaction and relationship closeness. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2292–2310.

12.5.4 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66620
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.11.003
58 Short, J. A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley.
59 Lee, K.-M., & Nass, C. (2005). Social-psychological origins of feelings of presence: Creating social presence with machine-
generated voices. Media Psychology, 7(1), 31-45. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0701_2
60 Krupić, D., Žuro, B., & Corr, P. J. (in press). Anxiety and threat magnification in subjective and physiological responses of fear
of heights induced by virtual reality. Personality and Individual Differences. doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109720
61 Wood, A. F., & Smith, M. J. (2005). Online communication: Linking technology, identity, & culture (2nd ed.). Routledge; pg.
72.
62 Wrench, J. S., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2007). The relationship between computer-mediated-communication competence,
apprehension, self-efficacy, perceived confidence, and social presence. Southern Journal of Communication, 72(4), 355-378.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940701667696
63 Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1983, May). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization
design (Report no. TR-ONR-DG-02). Office of Naval Research.
64 Ibid.; pg. 7.
65 Lengel, R. H. (1983). Managerial information process and communication-media source selection behavior [Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation]. Texas A&M University.
66 D’Ambra, J. D., Rice, R. E., & O’Conner, M. (1998). Computer-mediated communication and media preference: An
investigation of the dimensionality of perceived task equivocality and media richness. Behaviour and Information Technology,
17(3), 164-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/014492998119535
67 Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication
Research, 19(1), 52–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003
68 Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction.
Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001

End of Chapter Quiz Answer Key

1. A
2. A
3. B
4. B
5. A

12.5.5 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66620
This page titled 12.5: Chapter Wrap-Up is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason S.
Wrench, Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter & Katherine S. Thweatt (OpenSUNY) via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the
LibreTexts platform.

12.5.6 https://socialsci.libretexts.org/@go/page/66620