Social Information Processing theory

Social information processing theory(SIP)By: Joseph Walther

SummarySIP theory is all about Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC). Some examples would be email, Instant Messaging, etc. Anything text-based in which most nonverbal cues are filtered out.This theory states that CMC users can adapt to this restricted medium and use it effectively to develop close relationships.

Before SIPBefore SIP theory the general consensus was that CMC was not a good medium to develop relationships through. There existed 3 theories:Social presence theory: Suggests that CMC deprives users of the sense that another actual person is involved in the interaction.Media richness theory: Purports that CMC bandwidth is too narrow to convey rich relational messages.Cues filtered out: Interpretation of CMC that regards lack of nonverbal cues as a fatal flaw for using the medium for relationship development

CMC vs. Face-to-Face:A “SIP” Instead of a GulpIf you were handed a glass of water you could choose to either gulp it straight from the glass, or through a straw one sip at a time. That’s the key difference Walther believes there to be between SIP and face-to-face communication: the amount of time it takes to develop the relationship.Walther believes that, even without the rich nonverbals present in face-to-face communication, given enough time CMC users can develop relationships just as strong as those done through face-to-face.

Verbal Cues of Affinity Replace Nonverbal cuesWalther claims that CMC users rely on text-only messages to convey the information that nonverbal cues would do in face-to-face encounters.Griffin in the text uses excerpts from the movie “You’ve Got Mail” as an ongoing example of SIP in action. Kathleen and Joe meet online and develop a relationship through email, and in their email they self-disclose information about how they feel about their relationship; they communicate relational affinity messages that their nonverbals would do if they had been face-to-face.

Experimental Support for a Counterintuitive IdeaWalther a two of his students ran a study to test SIP theory. You can read on page 142 of the text about the experiment in detailIn summary, 28 pairs of students split into face-to-face and CMC users, with no prior relationship with one another, were asked to discuss moral dilemmas, and one person in each of the pairs was a confederate with a goal to either be friendly or unfriendly.

Experiment ResultsAfterwards the non-confederates were asked about their impression of their partners, and it showed that the confederates in the CMC group were able to convey friendliness or unfriendliness just as successfully as the ones in face-to-face. The CMC users employed their text-only medium to convey a level of relational communication that eventually equaled the affect that can be expressed face-to-face through multiple channels.

Extended Time – The Crucial Variable in CMCWalther believes that any message spoken in person will take at least four times longer to say through CMC. This may explain why previous controlled lab studies showed CMC as inferior because both modes of communication was limited to the same amount of time.Walther also believed that two other temporal factors could contribute to intimacy on the internet: anticipated future interaction and chronemics.

Temporal FactorsAnticipated future interaction: A way of extending psychological time; the likelihood of future interaction motivates CMC users to develop a relationship.If you know you’ll be interacting with someone, you’re more likely to disclose more information about yourself.Chronemics: The study of people’s systematic handling of time in their interaction with others.This is a nonverbal that is not filtered out in CMC. Someone can note what time of day you sent a message online, that in and of itself sends a message; how long did it take for you to respond? What does that say about how they feel about the relationship?

A Couple ExamplesBrad Paisley’s “Online”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE6iAjEv9dQ

Hyperpersonal PerspectiveDefinition: The claim that CMC relationship are often more intimate than those developed when partners are physically together. “How senders select, receivers magnify, channels promote, and feedback increases enhanced and selective communication behaviors in CMC.”

SenderSelective Self-PresentationOnline positive portrayal without fear of contradiction, which enables people to create an overwhelmingly favorable impression. Social cues that photo realism offers can have a dampening effect on the relationship and they should be avoided.

Reciever: Overattribution of SimularitySocial Identity deindividuation: CMC users overestimate their similarity with others they meet in online interest groups. Assumption that people who are in the same interest groups are like them in some important way. Commonality is all they have to go on as they form impressions of others.

Channel: Communicating on Your Own TimeAsynchronous channel: nonsimultaneous medium of communication that each individual can use when he or she desires. Online communication happens without having to attend to each other at the same time. You can plan, edit and contemplate what you are going to say next. Advantage when dealing with touchy issues, conflict and misunderstandings. Also gives the chance to fabricate reasons and make up things that might not be true.

Feedback: Self-Fulfilling ProphecyDefinition: Tendency for a person’s expectation of others to evoke a response from them that confirms what was originally expected. Senders express themselves how they want and receivers create an idealized image of their partner. Channel lets users express themselves the way they want, when they want. The person you perceive as wonderful starts acting that way.

CritiqueThe use of online dating might actually make relationships form faster because of anticipation of future interaction makes the impression forming process go faster. People who use CMC to join online discussion groups may have a higher need for affiliation than the typical person whose relationships are developed through multichannel modes of communication. The theory has plenty of holes and the author openly admits that. The theory makes some claims that some may feel are farfetched but the depth of research and analysis provided by Walther make it a respected and validated theory.

Activity – WARNING: Only for brave individuals!Would you like to actively apply this theory in real life? There is a website called Omeglewhere you can chat with a random stranger one-on-one (you have the option to video chat but DO NOT choose that option…trust me). There are several ways you can apply the theory: You can be genuine and try to get to know the person; see how they self-disclose and if you can note any relational affinity messages (talking about what they think of the conversation). You can put on a false persona, see if they buy into it, and note how text-base communication allows you to be whomever you want to be.

Activity (continued)Now because the person you’re chatting with knows that there is a very small chance you’ll ever talk with them again sometimes they enter the chat with a certain goal. You can note how they act if that seems the case; you can see how low anticipation of future interaction affects the quality of the communicationYou can also try to recreate something similar to Walther’s study. Go into the interaction with a goal to either be friendly or unfriendly, and see how they react. Maybe even ask after a few minutes what they think of you.Now, if you’re brave, go ahead and give it a try! http://omegle.com/

Social Information Processing theory

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Social Information Processing theory (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Social Information Processing theory