impression development in computer‐mediated interaction

This article was downloaded by: [Oregon State University]On: 21 December 2014, At: 00:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Western Journal ofCommunicationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwjc20

Impression developmentin computer‐mediatedinteractionJoseph B. Walther aa Assistant Professor of Communication Studies ,Northwestern UniversityPublished online: 06 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Joseph B. Walther (1993) Impression development incomputer‐mediated interaction, Western Journal of Communication, 57:4, 381-398,DOI: 10.1080/10570319309374463

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319309374463

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwjc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10570319309374463

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570319309374463

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Western Journal of Communication, 57 (Fall 1993), 381-398

Impression Development inComputer-Mediated Interaction

JOSEPH B. WALTHER

This study reports an experiment of the effects of time and communication channel—asynchronous computer conferencing versus face-to-face meetings—on the developmentof interpersonal impressions. Prior research on interpersonal aspects of computer-mediated communication suggests that the absence of nonverbal cues inhibits interactants'ability to form impressions of each other and that without these cues communication isgenerally depersonalized. Past research is criticized for failing to incorporate socialcognitive, temporal, and linguistic perspectives on communication via computer technol-ogy. A social information processing perspective suggests different rates and patterns ofimpression development using alternative media. In this experiment, computer conferenc-ing and face-to-face groups addressed three tasks over several weeks. Results showed thatcomputer-mediated groups gradually increased in impression development to a levelapproaching that of face-to-face groups. New perspectives on social cognition in computer-mediated communication are recommended.

COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION (CMC) is proliferating in busi-ness, private, and academic domains. Accompanying this diffusion is

growing research exploring the differences between CMC and otherforms of communication, and the effects of one medium versus anotheron a variety of outcomes. Some suggest that computer conferencing mayadd "new dimensions" to public communication, enhancing communica-tion and interpersonal relationships (Heydinger, 1978). Others warnthat computer conferencing may result in "social problems and messes"(Vian & Johansen, 1981, p. 13).

The lack of nonverbal cues in CMC has caused several researchers tosuggest that social cognitive processes may differ between CMC andface-to-face (FtF) interaction. Such hypotheses have been dubbed the"cues-filtered-out" approach by Culnan and Markus (1987), who identi-fied as a core assumption that "substituting technology-mediated forface-to-face communication will result in predictable changes in intraper-sonal and interpersonal variables" (p. 423, emphasis added). Butempirical tests of the hypotheses have not focused on cognition directly.

JOE WALTHER (Ph.D., University of Arizona, 1990) is Assistant Professor of Communi-cation Studies at Northwestern University. The author thanks Peter Facciola for hiscontribution to the original literature review and Peter Miller for his comments onprevious drafts. Portions of the manuscript were presented at the 1991 meeting of theSpeech Communication Association, in Atlanta.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

382 Western Journal of Communication

Rather, differences in social cognition have been inferred from differ-ences in outcome behaviors. The research reported here more directlyexamines differences in social cognition in computer-mediated and FtFinteraction.

Social cognition may affect how we utilize CMC, evaluate its useful-ness, and relate to others in this environment. Roloff and Berger (1982)define social cognition as thought focused on human interaction. Itsimportance in human activity includes influencing where we focus ourattention, how we evaluate ourselves, our messages and situations, andour impressions of others (Duval & Wicklund, 1972; Fishbein, 1980,O'Keefe & Delia, 1982; Roloff & Greenberg, 1979; Sillars, 1982; Taylor& Fiske, 1978). This last process, impression formation, is an especiallyimportant aspect of interpersonal communication. As Winograd (1977,p. 68) suggests,

Both the speaker and listener have models of the events of the conversation. In addition,each participant has a model of the other person, including his or her knowledge, currentgoals, and processing state. . . . The speaker's model of the listener makes it possible totailor the communication; whereas the listener's model of the speaker makes it possible tointerpret the communication in a context-dependent way.

If CMC alters impression development, communication using thistechnology should be different than it is in other settings.

While social cognitive processes have been suggested to be the root ofCMC/FtF differences in interpersonal communication, it bears repeat-ing that the evidence supporting this position has been secondary innature. Principally, theoretical claims that interpersonal impressionsare less salient in CMC are supported by experimental findings thatCMC messages are less personal or socioemotional than those of FtFinteraction (e.g. Hiltz, Johnson, & Turoff, 1986).

"Cues-filtered-out" theories predicting differences between CMC andFtF interaction have also been challenged on other grounds (Lea, 1991;Matheson & Zanna, 1988; Rafaeli, 1988; Walther, 1992a). In order tosustain these criticisms two issues become imperative: First, previously-found differences between CMC and FtF outcome behaviors must beaccounted for through other phenomena. Second, more direct examina-tion of the underlying social cognitive process must yield other patternsthan those suggested by the cues-filtered-out theories. The presentresearch undertakes these issues.

PRIOR RESEARCH ON IMPRESSIONS IN CMC

Computer conferencing may well influence communicators' percep-tions of each other, but the nature of these influences is not clear. Vianand Johansen (1981) suggested that the ambiguity and uniqueness ofthe social cues present during computer conferencing should change theway users evaluate other group members compared to interactionsthrough other media. DeSanctis and Gallupe (1987) speculated that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Fall 1993 383

computer-mediation reduces interpersonal attraction and group cohesive-ness by increasing the psychological distance between discussants.Numerous experimental studies report that CMC is more task-oriented,cold, and less personal than FtF communication (Connolly, Jessup, &Valacich, 1990; Hiltz, 1975,1981; Hiltz, Johnson, & Agle, 1978; Hiltz etal., 1986; Hiltz, Turoff, & Johnson, 1989; see also Rice, 1984; Rice &Love, 1987), effects which have been attributed to users having rela-tively amorphous impressions of their partners. Likewise, emotionalexpression in computer conferencing is often reported as negativeand/or inflammatory (Kiesler, Zubrow, Moses, & Geller, 1985; Sproull &Kiesler, 1986).

Theorizing about the social psychological effects of CMC has concen-trated on the number of communicative channels in CMC as the causaldifference between media. Social presence theory (Short, Williams, &Christie, 1976) defines social presence as the salience of another personin an interaction and the salience of an interpersonal relationship. Socialpresence is said to be a property of communication media. Communica-tion systems differ in their capacity to transmit such cues as facialexpression, gaze, posture, physical appearance, and vocalic behavior,which are often rich with impression-bearing and interpersonal informa-tion. CMC, without nonverbal elements and backchanneling cues, isextremely low in social presence.

The lack of social context cues hypothesis (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986)stakes a similar position. Social context cues include aspects of theenvironment and actors' nonverbal behaviors which define the nature ofthe social situation and actors' identities and relative status. In FtFsettings these cues are conveyed by physical appearance, adornments,proxemic behaviors, spatial arrangements and artifacts (Siegel, Du-brovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986). With lowersocial context information, communicators are said to become moreself-absorbed versus other-oriented in CMC. The absence of socialcontext cues should result in more impersonal behavior and polarizationof attitudes, hence, more negative perceptions of group members. Thiscognitive effect is said to cause excited and uninhibited communicationsuch as "flaming" (insults, swearing, and hostile, intense language), andmessages reflecting status equalization (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire,1984; Siegel et al., 1986; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986).

Other effects are also attributed to reduced impressions and relatedcognitive processes. Extending the "lack of social context cueshypothesis," Dubrovsky, Kiesler, and Sethna (1991) asserted thatobserved equality of participation in CMC is due to reduced evaluationanxiety and reduced feedback, leading to the cognitive effects of reducedself-consciousness and other-consciousness. These effects, in turn, causemore communicative output from lower-status or shy persons whowould defer speaking in FtF interaction. There was no direct investiga-tion of the causal chain of cognitive factors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


The "lack of social context cues hypothesis" remains consistent in itscharacterization of CMC as bereft of impression-bearing data. Althoughone research report and two subsequent reviews by these theorists havedescribed uninhibited positive as well as negative emotional expressionsin CMC (Kiesler et al., 1985; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991a, 1991b), theirtheoretical position regarding inadequate social cues remains basicallyunchanged. Cognitive responses are said to take place in CMC because of"the scant social information in these technologies" (Dubrovsky et al.,1991, p. 119), without which users will not or cannot glean interpersonalimpressions.

In contrast, others report different effects, suggesting that impres-sions may be more salient than suggested above. For example, in theirstudy of computer conferencing among federal agencies, Johansen,DeGrasse, and Wilson (1978, p. 143) noted that researchers with similarinterests met and formed alliances through CMC:

The U.S. Department of Energy uses computer-based teleconferencing to assist incoordinating the activities of regional laboratories in various parts of the country. Thisapplication has also spawned serendipitous interorganizational communication betweenscientists . . . at the Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey. In this case,scientists who happened to be using computer conferencing for other purposes found theyhad research interests in common with each other and then established a joint conference.Teleconferencing thus seems to expand the opportunities to contact distant colleagues andsometimes even to discover new colleagues.

In a more direct examination of impression-bearing cues, Holmes andBerquist (1990) described identification-seeking and display in one formof CMC. Within an electronic bulletin board community a conventioncalled "MORFing" is quite common. MORFing is the use of theacronym, MORF, for the query "Male OR Female?". In addition, userschose pseudonyms by which their messages were consistently labelled,which resembled citizens' band radio "handles" such as MYSTRY-LADY, TALL-TEXAN, and others. In a variety of ways, then, CMCallows for enough impression-bearing information to identify others andfor the development of collegial relations among previously unknownindividuals.

Another factor which may affect social cognitive effects pertains to thesynchronous or asynchronous nature of a CMC system. Much CMCresearch employed systems in which participants were logged on to-gether, exchanging messages in "real time." In this mode immediateresponses or delays might signal personal or interpersonal attitudes.While synchronous systems may resemble FtF meetings more thanasynchronous CMC does, asynchronous systems are those which real-world users employ most often. While there are exceptions (e.g. GroupDecision Support Systems, Internet "chat" and synchronous systems onmany commercial bulletin boards) most uses of CMC such as mail,distribution lists, and conferences are asynchronous. Some argue forgreater specification of system and context factors in the exploration of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Fall 1993 385

technologies' effects (Nass & Mason, 1991) and optimal uses (Rice,1987); others claim that e-mail, conferencing, and bulletin boards arethe same environment with a common character (Kiesler et al., 1985).

In sum, theories and evidence regarding CMC and impression develop-ment are contradictory and confusing. Experimental/laboratory confer-encing research generally found depersonalizing effects of CMC, whilefield studies found more interpersonally positive results (see for reviewWalther, 1992a). These differing results may have more to do with theresearch designs than with the technological variations. Generally,group conferencing studies employed zero-history and/or time-limitedgroups. Since field studies used ongoing participants over time, thehistory of the electronic exposures varied. Participants often communi-cated with one another over longer periods of time, and time mayinteract with social cognitive processing, as is argued below.

A SOCIAL INFORMATION PROCESSING APPROACH

Time limitations in computer conferencing experiments may pre-empt normal social cognitive patterns of impression development, andthe interpersonal communication which results from such impressions.Early CMC/FtF experiments typically used zero-history problem-solving groups with limited time in which to reach a decision. Findingsrevealed differences in interpersonal as well as message frequencies.Possibly because they had to type to communicate, CMC participantsexchanged fewer messages in the same time period as FtF groups (Hiltzet al., 1986; Siegel et al., 1986; Weisband, 1989; see also Rice, 1980).Alternatively, when computer-mediated groups are given as much timeas they need to reach consensus, the average number of messagesexchanged does not differ from FtF groups making the same decision(Dubrovsky et al., 1991; Weisband, 1989). Based on these findings, itappears that CMC and FtF groups may operate at different rates.

Different communication and information rates is a core assumptionof the social information processing approach to CMC effects (Walther,1992a). This perspective holds that rate differences pertain not only totask-related information, but to identifying and relational messages aswell. While "social information processing" has different connotationsin different literatures (see, e.g., Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977,1978), and hasbeen used to describe a media selection model (Fulk, Steinfield, Schmitz,& Power, 1987; Rice & Aydin, 1991; now called a "social influence"model, Fulk, Schmitz, & Steinfield, 1990), the usage here is closest tothat in psychological literature regarding social cognition and impres-sion formation processes (e.g. Taylor & Crocker, 1981; Wyer & Srull,1980). It describes a framework regarding the processing of socially-revelatory information in CMC and FtF communication, and the effectson impressions and relational communication.

In FtF conversation, partners develop initial impressions rapidlybased on nonverbal characteristics such as physical appearance and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


vocal qualities; when such cues are available, social actors rely on them(J. Burgoon & Saine, 1978). As cues-filtered-out authors point out, suchcues are not apparent in CMC. However, the cues-filtered-out authorshave neglected the notion that linguistically-borne cues are highlycapable of conveying personality and attitude characteristics. While theabsence of nonverbal cues should dampen impression development,language cues may compensate. According to M. Burgoon and Miller(1987, p. 199), "By evaluating our language choices, others makeattributions about social and professional status, background andeducation and even the intent of communication." For example, Bradac,Bowers, and Courtwright (1979) reviewed effects on competence, charac-ter, socioeconomic status, anxiety, similarity, and affect impressionsresulting from variations in language intensity, verbal immediacy, andlexical diversity. By extension, the formation of initial impressionsthrough these and other cues in CMC seems likely when users providesufficient message exchanges.

This approach is consistent with social cognition and communicationresearch on impression development in non-mediated contexts. Modelsof impression formation generally hold that perceivers form impressionsabout actors' dispositions and personalities through inductive observa-tion of specific events, by which inferences about a few specific traitsgeneralize to relatively global judgments in ways consistent withperceivers' implicit personality theories (Carlston, 1980). Thus, we maymake rather extensive impressions based on little exposure. This notionin itself does not imply a dynamic or interactive process. However, it iswidely held that reliance on preliminary judgments stimulate inferencetesting—a search for, and attention to, confirmatory information withinthe actor's behaviors (Neisser, 1976; Salomon, 1981). As our searchesand observational experiences mount, our impressions may becomemore well-developed. These observations are "likely to be acquiredpiecemeal over a long period of time" (Wyer & Srull, 1980, p. 228).Clearly, interpersonal interaction affords this kind of inference testing.Individuated impressions may be generated through the use of "strate-gic probes" (Berger, Gardner, Parks, Schulman, & Miller, 1976),interactive "patterns of communication used by an individual to gaininformation about another person's beliefs, motives, and intentions" (p.56). Since strategic probes and their responses can be conveyed throughverbal behavior the process of interpersonal knowledge acquisition maybe similar in CMC and FtF communication.

It may take interactants longer, however, to observe and decodeimpressions from verbal/textual cues alone than from multi-channelcues (Walther, 1992a). The knowledge gained through ongoing observa-tion and strategic probes amplifies deviations from stereotypic firstimpressions (Wyer & Srull, 1980). As such, impression development maybe retarded in CMC compared to FtF processes; FtF participants have ahead-start, so to speak. The greater time requirements to exchange

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Fall 1993 387

messages in CMC, and the lack of nonverbal cues, may slow downimpression formation computer-mediated environment versus similarFtF encounters. If the formation of interpersonal impressions is hin-dered but nevertheless possible in CMC, then changes in impressiondevelopment should be expected to occur when communicators interactover longer periods of time. Indeed, impressions should not be expectedto develop when time is constrained; they may reach greater levelsthrough extended transactions. Thus:

HI: Given previously unacquainted participants, interpersonal impressions becomemore developed over time in CMC.

This within-subjects hypothesis challenges a strict cues-filtered-outperspective.

The next hypothesis offers more precise predictions about the natureof cue processing as affected by medium and message frequency. As FtFpartners make inferences from nonverbal information, impressiondevelopment is expected to increase rapidly, then stabilize over theduration of a group's interaction. In CMC, where impression cues areless abundant, such development will occur more gradually.

H2: The effect of message frequency on impression formation is mediated by thecommunication channel such that(a) impressions are more developed in early FtF communication than in earlyCMC;(b) the level of impression development becomes similar and greater after manyexchanges in either medium.

Thus, we may expect an interaction of medium and message accumula-tion on impression development, with initial intercepts higher in FtFthan CMC, while terminal positions converge. The trend for impressiondevelopment should produce a linear/quadratic plateau in FtF, whileimpression formation develops linearly in CMC.

METHOD

Participants

Subjects were undergraduate students attending three courses in twodepartments, representing several majors at a large university whoparticipated in this project for course credit. Several groups of subjectswere eliminated from the final analysis. The final sample consisted of 96subjects, divided equally into CMC and FtF conditions. There wereslightly more males, 55%, than females, 45%. Computer conferencingexperience, computer ownership, and other demographic factors wereassessed and had no meaningful effect on other measures.1

Treatments

Subjects were randomly assigned to treatment condition (CMC orFtF) and to zero-history three-person groups based on several criteria:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


First, groups reflected a mixture of students from the three differentcourses; second, no subject in a group was in the same course section asanother subject; third, for the FtF groups, subjects' schedules allowed acommon day and time for three two-hour meetings. Twenty-two groupswere formed with a minimal chance for group members to associateoutside of their respective meetings. Although no formal check wasconducted to see whether subjects met outside of their conferences—they were instructed explicitly not to do so—perusal of their messagessuggested that no one did. Condition assignments were revealed to subjects intheir classes, along with meeting dates and times for FtF subjects, trainingsession sign-ups and conference codes for CMC subjects.

CMC Procedures

Training. CMC subjects attended one of six training sessions. Partici-pants received standard training on the computer conferencing systemfrom experimenter's assistants, using handouts and hands-on experi-ence. When they first logged on, subjects were directed to read anelectronic message in their practice conference instructing them onseveral points: (1) They were to work on three tasks over several weeks;(2) all interaction with other group members was to take place withinthe conference, and they were not to attempt to contact each otherthrough FtF, other computer systems, or other means; (3) they wouldreceive questionnaires to fill out at the completion of each task; and (4)their comments were subject to storage, retrieval, and analysis.

Conferencing. CMC participants used the computer ConferencingSYstem (COSY) (see Rapaport, 1991; Smith, 1988) hosted on theuniversity's mainframe computer. COSY is a text based asynchronousmedium; conference members need not be on-line simultaneously, butaccess the system individually to read and write conference messages attheir own discretion and convenience. In COSY, participants are di-rected to previously unread messages within one of several "topic"groups when they log on. They may read, "attach" comments to priormessages, or initiate new "unattached" comments. Each message in thissystem is automatically imprinted with the user's last name, messagenumber, date, time, and length of message.

Participants accessed COSY 24 hours-a-day through personal comput-ers and modems, or from campus terminals. Participants were told notto use other electronic mail, as such messages would not be stored asconference data. They were also instructed to avoid planned or inadver-tent meetings via the following: "You have been assigned to groups with2 other people whom you do not know. You are expected NOT to try tocontact them. Avoid discussion with these people should you make theiracquaintance. You should expect that you will NOT meet these peopleface-to-face, and you must not attempt to do so."

Tasks. Participants faced three decision-making tasks over the 5-weekcourse of the conference. The order of the tasks was counterbalanced

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Fall 1993 389

across groups. Instructions for these tasks requested group discussionand the presentation of a group recommendation for the decisionsolution. Deadlines were announced, and subjects were reminded thatthey would be evaluated on the quantity of their participation and thequality of their decision.

The tasks involved open-ended decision-making problems whichasked the participants to make policy recommendations.2 The scenarioswere intended to be involving and relevant to the subjects' interests, inorder to generate discussion and authentic group behavior (see Mc-Grath, 1984). Deadline reminders appeared in the conferences threedays before each deadline. These reminders also announced the "topic,"or electronic location, of the second and third tasks.

In order to prevent memory degradation, instructions called forsubjects to complete dependent measure surveys as soon as each taskwas completed. Conferences were monitored, and participants weretelephoned when they did not log into a conference topic after threedays. Groups in which any subject did not participate in a task discussionwere excluded from analysis. Sixteen groups completed all activities.

Face-to-face Subjects

These subjects were instructed to attend a classroom for their threemeeting times over a five week period. Assistants placed reminder callsthe day prior to each meeting. Groups in which any subject failed toattend a meeting were dropped from the analysis. Sixteen groupscompleted all three meetings.

Setting. The classroom used for the FtF meetings -featured a largedesk, and three padded chairs positioned at each side except that closestto a videocamera, across the room. On the desk was a tabletopmicrophone, three pens, three copies of the decision task, and a name tagfor each respective subject. These tags were placed close together in thecenter of the table, so that subjects had to sort them out rather than usethem to infer seating position. In this way seating selection wasperformed by the group, and subjects could associate their partners'names appropriately with the names on the dependent measure surveys.The exposure of the videocamera to the FtF groups paralleled the CMCgroups' knowledge of the experimenter's constant perusal of theirmessages. One of several lab assistants conducted each meeting session.

Procedures. When subjects arrived for their first meeting they wereasked to read and initial a notice, almost identical to that which the CMCsubjects read in training, reminding them about the several meetings,the surveys, and the prohibition against attempting contact with theirgroup members outside of the experiment.

Subjects were prevented from interacting until all three arrived, thendirected to the desk to read the task for that session. The tasks were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


identical to those used in the CMC condition, modified slightly toaccommodate the FtF administration. The assistant started the videorecorder and asked subjects to state their names. The assistant thendiverted her/his attention from the groups for the duration of theirdiscussions. When groups indicated that they were finished, theyseparated and completed dependent measures.

Impression Development

Participants completed self-report interpersonal impression question-naires that included fourteen four-interval scale items about others'character, with an additional "don't know" response for each attribute(see Walther, in press). While a four-interval scale is highly atypical, thecentroid of a scale with an odd number of intervals is often explicitly orimplicitly a "don't know" response; it was crucial to be able todifferentiate a subject's "don't know" responses from median assess-ments of a trait. From this measure, the number of the "don't know"responses versus otherwise completed items were counted as an index ofimpression development, such that a lower number reflects a moredeveloped impression.3 Participants completed the measure after theconclusion of each of the three tasks (with two other measures, theresults of which are reported in Walther, 1992c, and Walther &Burgoon, 1992). The names of the target persons were written on thequestionnaire forms before subjects received them. The ratings ofpartner judgments were rotated and counterbalanced across the threesessions.4

Message Accumulation

On the basis of previous research (Dubrovsky et al., 1991; Weisband,1989), it was assumed that the number of idea units generated per taskwould not differ between communication media. With the verification ofthis assumption, the administration of dependent measures at the end ofeach task would represent equal or near-equal intervals of messageaccumulation. The verification procedures included eight trained coderswho counted prepositional "idea units," (see, e.g., Weisband, 1989) fromFtF videotapes and CMC transcripts. Inter-coder reliability and between-media similarity were very high (for procedural details, see Walther &Burgoon, 1992). The final analysis of the frequencies of idea unitsemployed a repeated measures analysis of variance with time as arepeated factor. No significant differences emerged across conditions,time, or due to a condition by time interaction. As the administration ofthe dependent measures coincided with three near-equal messageaccumulation intervals, subsequent analyses commenced using thesetime points as planned.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Fall 1993 391

Analyses

Data were analyzed prelimiarily for interaction and main effects witha 2 (conditions) x 16 (groups nested within conditions) x 3 (time)ANOVA with time as a repeated factor.5 Second, a direct test of themutual CMC and FtF trends was conducted with a one degree offreedom contrast analysis; contrast analysis was also used for thebetween-conditions time one test (see Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1985).These are reported as one-tailed i-tests.

Results

Hypothesis 1 predicted greater impression development at time threethan at time one in CMC. Hypothesis 2 predicted a condition by timeinteraction on impression development with (H2a) initial, time 1impressions being more developed in FtF than CMC, and (H2b) anincrease in impression development in FtF to a plateau, with a linearincrease in impression development in CMC.

The hypotheses were generally supported. The omnibus condition bytime interaction obtained, F (2,60) = 3.65, p = .032, r\2 = .05. Initialimpressions were more developed in FtF than in CMC as demonstratedby a significant 1 df contrast (with the group-within-condition MS usedas MSerror), t (30) = 2.56, p < .01, T|2 = .11, supporting H2a. Furthersupport for H2a was provided by a significant omnibus main effect forcondition, F (1,30) = 8.47, p = .007, r\2 = .22, since conditions differedmost in impression development at time one. The means (with standarddeviations) are presented in Figure 1.

The specific interaction trends toward greater impression develop-ment in both conditions were tested directly using a single 1 df test with

5.64 (2.98)

4.87 (2.45)

3.49 (1.51) 3.59 (1.37)

4.19 (2.18)

3.39 (1.58)

Time 1 Time 2

• C M C - - - F t F

Time 3

Figure 1. Impression development by condition and time. Note. Stan-dard deviations in parentheses.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


contrast weights indicating a linear CMC trend (4, 1, —2) and a linearand quadratic "plateau" FtF trend (1, - 2 , -2) . The resulting MScontrastwas tested against the MS for time x group-within-condition. Thestatistic was significant, t (60) = 6.21, p < .001, T|2 = .26, supportingH2b.

The significant trend results also suggest support for HI, thatimpressions are more developed at time 3 than at time 1 within CMC.Additional support for HI was found in a main effect for time, F (2,60) =4.76, p < .025, T|2 = .06. An inspection of the means suggested that thetrend result may be accounted for primarily by CMC means since therewas little variation among FtF means across time. In order to evaluatethis suspicion, post hoc 1 df polynomial probes of the CMC and FtFtrends were conducted within each respective condition. These post hoctests upheld the linear trend for CMC, t (60) = 4.07,p < .001, T|2 = .11,providing direct support for HI; but there was no effect among FtFmeans, t (60) = .0009.

Overall, HI was supported but H2 was partially supported, since thetrend patterns did not accrue for FtF. While the development ofimpressions did not match the trend prediction in the FtF condition, andthe initial difference between conditions was not entirely overcome overtime, the central argument underlying the research was substantiated:Impressions did become more developed among CMC participants asmessages were exchanged, as predicted, and CMC groups approachedthe level of impression development experienced in FtF groups. Sincethe condition by time interaction was ordinal, and because of thesignificant main effect for condition, it cannot be ventured that the levelsof CMC and FtF impression development became equal within the timelimitations of the present study. However, the CMC trend suggests thatsuch groups would continue to develop impressions with even moremessage exchange.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this investigation was to explore the effects of CMC ongroups' impression development. Most previous studies in this areaconstrained opportunities for the effects of time to impact user behavior,and have concluded—perhaps falsely—that observed differences ininterpersonal aspects between CMC and FtF communication wereinherent effects of the new communication medium. Such an approachneglects potentially potent influences of social information processingthrough verbal and textual behaviors. In order to explore these issues,subjects within zero-history CMC and FtF groups of three experiencedmultiple message exchange periods over six weeks. Hypotheses wereposited predicting the evolution of CMC and FtF groups' impressiondevelopment.

Sufficient support obtained challenging the static-effects views ofCMC. When computer-mediated groups are allowed to continue over

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Fall 1993 393

time and accumulate numerous messages, this continuity has significantimpacts on users' ability to form impressions of one another, despitenever meeting face-to-face. At the completion of the first of three tasksimpressions were significantly less developed among CMC groups thanin FtF groups; this was the expected pattern based on the cues-filtered-out perspective as applied to initial interactions among unac-quainted partners. However, these time one differences were followed byconsiderable movement toward FtF levels in subsequent interactions.CMC users formed increasingly developed impressions over time, presum-ably from the decoding of text-based cues.

The effect of time on FtF groups was not as clear cut. It was predictedthat FtF impressions, derived from both nonverbal and verbal informa-tion exchanges, would develop in an L-shaped direction, reachingasymptosis quickly. However, FtF groups did not appear to exhibitsignificant change from their initial, more developed level of impressionformation. In retrospect, the design may not have been sensitive enoughto detect impression development in FtF. FtF participants rated theirimpressions of their partners only after the end of the first discussion,since doing so earlier would have been overly intrusive. However, sinceFtF impressions form almost instantaneously in normal interactions,impressions may have been fully formed by the time they were firstassessed; thus, there was no change detected in FtF impression develop-ment.

It had been hypothesized that time interacts with communicationcondition in the prediction of impression development. An ordinalinteraction obtained, with time and condition main effects persisting. Itis unclear whether the amount of interaction CMC groups shared in thisstudy was enough for their impressions to develop as much as FtFgroups'. However, the CMC trend suggests that if impressions in thesegroups did not equal those communicating FtF, they may yet catch up.

One concern with the present results has to do with the level ofinteractivity in the CMC system presently employed. The asynchronousconferencing system used in this study may have affected users differ-ently than would a synchronous CMC facility. Recent linguistic researchon CMC (Ferrara, Brunner, & Whittemore, 1991) suggests that synchro-nous CMC brings forth an "emergent register," language resembling ahybrid of speech and writing. Several features, such as the occasionalomission of articles and unstressed subject pronouns, the shortening ofwords through abbreviations and symbols, and copula omissions, lead tothis conclusion. Yet such interaction is very immediate, featuring manyyou and I references. Communicators find different methods of conversa-tion management in various CMC systems (Anderson, Beard, & Wal-ther, 1992; Holmes, 1987), which may affect perceptions. Aside from thespoken-versus-written differences these systems entail, the retardationof feedback due to the asynchronous interaction itself may have helpedslow down impression development in CMC relative to FtF. In a sense,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


the present results offer partial support for the social informationprocessing perspective, with further evidence from synchronous CMCreplications desired.

While this experiment confirms that communicators using CMCengage in social information processing and form impressions of oneanother, it is not clear that these impressions are of the same kind thatare made face-to-face. Recent research (Walther, 1992b; Walther &Burgoon, 1992) suggested that asynchronous CMC users may engage in"selective self-presentation." Since normal, FtF/synchronous conversa-tion entails "heightened levels of psychic, sensory, and emotionalinvolvement and arousal, increased cognitive load, competing conversa-tional and relational demands, differential salience of context cues, andgreater investment in outcomes," (J. Burgoon & Walther, 1990),asynchronous CMC may obviate many of these effects. Asynchronouscommunication may offer the communicator less stressful conversa-tional demands, allowing increased opportunity and flexibility. In thismode one may plan, contemplate, and edit one's comments more easilythan in the more spontaneous, simultaneous mode. As such, asynchro-nous communication may allow users to be more cognitively mindfuland deliberative in their message construction, disclosing aspects oftheir personalities and adopting communication behaviors which aremore stereotypically desirable, and creating more positive impressions.In this research, FtF communication was synchronous and CMC wasasynchronous. It is hard to imagine asynchronous FtF communication,but CMC systems do vary in synchronicity. As this discussion suggests,there are other possible differences between synchronous and asynchro-nous interactions above and beyond the alternative media that facilitatethem, and the opportunity for selective self-presentation in an asynchro-nous environment is just one.

In conclusion, while previous research on CMC using secondaryevidence suggested static changes in impression formation, this studyexamined impression development more directly. CMC participantsdeveloped impressions of their partners gradually over a period of fiveweeks, showing a linear increase in impression development and comingclose to the level that FtF communicators accrued earlier on. Thisresearch makes a step toward a more thorough understanding of CMCbehavior, and underlying social cognitive processes in this new medium.Given the contradictory findings from previous lab and field research,the secondary nature of evidence regarding interpersonal impressions inprevious work, and the alternative pattern revealed in this study,previous theories about CMC are seriously challenged. Findings supporta social information processing perspective on CMC (Walther, 1992a), inthat the rate of impression processing may be more likely to be affectedby differences between communication media, rather than fixed differ-ences in impression development due to different media themselves.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Fall 1993 395

ENDNOTES

1. Oneway analyses of variance showed no effects of demographic and experience itemson impression development.

2. The scenarios involved faculty hiring strategies, use of writing-assistance softwarefor college papers, or mandatory student ownership of personal computers; two of thesewere original and one was adapted from a scenario used in another experiment in groupdecision-making. Transcripts of the tasks employed are available from the author uponrequest.

3. Validation of the instrument is reported in Walther, in press.4. Despite the order rotation, there may be some danger of reactivity in this multiple

administration of the same instrument. However, the effects of such a threat may benegligible in the overall purpose of the study. Although the repeated administration of thismeasure may affect the accuracy of the mean response estimates, the determination ofchanges between conditions over time—the central concerns of this research—may be lessaffected; any non-random effect in one condition should also affect the other.

5. Results from the 2 × 3 × 16 analyses of variance yielded a significant univariateeffect for group nested within condition on impression development, F (30,64) = 3.23, p <.001, η2 = .60. Additionally, a significant group by time interaction obtained on impressiondevelopment, F (60,128) = 1.83, p = .002, η2 = .46. While these were not hypothesizedeffects, the effect sizes are rather large, and their terms offer an appropriate "individualdifferences" effect in the analysis of group behavior.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. F., Beard, F. K., & Walther, J. B. (1992, October). Computer-mediatedcommunication (CMC): A conversation analysis. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.

Berger, C. R., Gardner, R. R., Parks, M. R., Schulman, L., & Miller, G. R. (1976).Interpersonal epistemology and interpersonal communication. In G. R. Miller (Ed.),Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 149-171). Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Bradac, J. J., Bowers, J. W., & Courtright, J. A. (1979). Three language variables incommunication research: Intensity, immediacy, and diversity. Human Communica-tion Research, 5, 257-269.

Burgoon, J. K., & Saine, T. (1978). The unspoken dialogue: An introduction to nonverbalcommunication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Burgoon, J. K., & Walther, J. B. (1990). Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluativeconsequences of violations. Human Communication Research, 17, 232-265.

Burgoon, M., & Miller, G. R. (1987). An expectancy interpretation of language andpersuasion. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Recent advances in language,communication, and social psychology (pp. 199-229). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carlston, D. E. (1980). Events, inferences, and impression formation. In R. Hastie et al.(Eds.), Person memory: The cognitive basis of social perception (pp. 89-119).Hillsadale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Connolly, T., Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluativetone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36,97-120.

Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L.Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizationalcommunication: An interdisciplinary perspective, pp. 420-443. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, R. B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decisionsupport systems. Management Science, 33, 589-609.

Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon:Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups.Human Computer Interaction, 6, 119-146.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


Duval, S., & Wicklund, S. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. New York: AcademicPress.

Ferrara, K., Brunner, H., & Whittemore, G. (1991). Interactive written discourse as anemergent register. Written Communication, 8, 8-34.

Fishbein, M. A. (1980). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. InH. Howe (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 28, pp. 65-116). Lincoln,NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Heydinger, R. B. (1978, October). Computer conferencing: Its use as a pedagogical tool.Paper presented at the meeting of the World Society Education Conference,Houston, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 177 935).

Hiltz, S. R. (1975). Communications and group decision-making: Experimental evidenceon the potential impact of computer conferencing, a selective review of small groupcommunications experiments. (Research Rep. No. 2). Newark, NJ: New JerseyInstitute of Technology, Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center.

Hiltz, S. R. (1981). The impact of a computerized conferencing system on scientific researchcommunities. (Research Rep. No. 15). Newark NJ: New Jersey Institute ofTechnology, Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center.

Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Agle, G. (1978). Replicating Bales' problem solvingexperiments on a computerized conference: A pilot study. (Research Rep. No. 8).Newark, NJ: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Computerized Conferencing andCommunications Center.

Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making:Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized confer-ences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225-252.

Hiltz, S. R., Turoff, M., & Johnson, K. (1989). Experiments in group decision making, 3:Disinhibition, deindividuation, and group process in pen name and real namecomputer conferences. Decision Support Systems, 5, 217-232.

Holmes, M. E. (1987). A conversational analysis of computer-mediated discourse. In J.Wilson (Ed.), Belfast working papers in language and linguistics (Vol. 11, pp. 1-14).Jordanstown, Northern Ireland: University of Ulster.

Holmes, M. E., & Berquist, C. (1990, November). Gender display in synchronouscomputer-mediated discourse: A case of channel constraints and opportunities.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association,Chicago.

Johansen, R., DeGrasse, R., & Wilson, T. (1978). Group communication through comput-ers, volume 5: Effects on working patterns. Menlo Park, CA: Institute for theFuture.

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.

Kiesler, S., Zubrow, D., Moses, A. M., & Geller, V. (1985). Affect in computer-mediatedcommunication. Human Computer Interaction, 1, 77-104.

Lea, M. (1991). Rationalist assumptions in cross-media comparisons of computer-mediated communication. Behaviour & Information Technology, 10, 153-172.

Matheson, K., & Zanna, M. P. (1988). The impact of computer-mediated communicationon self-awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 221-233.

McGrath, J. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nass, C., & Mason, L. (1990). On the study of technology and task: A variable-basedapproach. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communicationtechnology (pp. 46-67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: Freeman.O'Keefe, B. J., & Delia, J. G. (1982). Impression formation and message production. In

M. E. Roloff & C. E. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 33-72).Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins,J. M. Wiemann, & S. Pingree (Eds.), Advancing communication science: Mergingmass and interpersonal processes (pp. 110-134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Fall 1993 397

Rapaport, M. (1991). Computer mediated communications: Bulletin boards, computerconferencing, electronic mail, information retrieval. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Rice, R. E. (1987). Computer-mediated communication and organizational innovation.Journal of Communication, 37, 65-94.

Rice, R. E. (1980). Computer conferencing. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress incommunication sciences (Vol. 7, pp. 215-240). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Rice, R. E. (1984). Mediated group communication. In R. E. Rice & Associates (Eds.), Thenew media: Communication, research, and technology (pp. 129-156). Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

Rice, R. E., & Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Networkproximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 36, 219-244.

Rice, R. E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated network. Communication Research, 14, 85-108.

Roloff, M. E., & Berger, C. E. (1982). Social cognition and communication: An introduc-tion. In M. E. Roloff & C. E. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp.9-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Roloff, M. E., & Greenberg, B. (1979). Resolving conflict: Methods used by TV charactersand teenage viewers. Journal of Broadcasting, 23, 285-295.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in theanalysis of variance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Salomon, G. (1981). Communication and education: Social and psychological interactions.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunication.London: John Wiley.

Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes incomputer-mediated communication. Organizational behavior and human decisionprocesses, 37, 157-187.

Sillars, A. L. (1982). Attribution and communication: Are people "naive scientists" or justnaive? In M. E. Roloff & C. E. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication(pp. 73-106). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Smith, C. (1988). The educational value of computer-mediated communications. Media inEducation and Development, 21, 169-171.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail inorganizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991a, September). Computers, networks, and work. ScientificAmerican, pp. 84-91.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991b). Connections: New ways of working in the networkedorganization. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. InE. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontariosymposium (Vol. 1, pp. 89-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the headphenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 11, pp. 249-288). New York: Academic Press.

Vian, K., & Johansen, R. (1981). Knowledge synthesis and computer-based communicationsystems: Changing behaviors and concepts. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 206265).

Walther, J. B. (1992a). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A rela-tional perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.

Walther, J. B. (1992b). A longitudinal experiment on relational tone in computer-mediatedand face to face interaction. In J. F. Nunamaker & R. H. Sprague (Eds.),Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 1992, (Vol.4, pp. 220-231). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

Walther, J. B. (1992c, May). When mediated dyadic communication is not interpersonal.Paper presented to the annual meeting of the International CommunicationAssociation, Miami.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


Walther, J. B. (in press). Validation of a quantitative measure of impression development.Southern Communication Journal.

Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediatedinteraction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.

Weisband, S. P. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediatedand face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes 53, 352-380.

Winograd, T. (1977). A framework for understanding discourse. In M. Just & P. Carpenter(Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension (pp. 63-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1980). The processing of social stimulus information: Aconceptual integration. In R. Hastie et al. (Eds.), Person memory: The cognitivebasis of social perception (pp. 227-300). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

impression development in computer‐mediated interaction

Documents