How Real is Communication in the Virtual World of Cyberspace? By Introduction Continued
|
|
| Links
|
In light of the fact
that CMC can become more personal over time, it is interesting to note that this type of
communication might start out even more personal than face to face interaction. People are
less concerned about the impression they are making because of the inherent anonymity of
the medium, and they are not as worried about proper turn taking or other formalities.
Therefore, in its initial stages, CMC can be more intimate that FtF communication (Walther
& Burgoon, p.60). Computer mediated communication may even initiate relationships that
might never have begun if they required a face to face meeting. For instance, it is more
likely that a student would approach a professor with a question over e-mail or some other
form of CMC than to call him or her on the phone or arrange an appointment (Kiesler,
Siegel, & McGuire, p.1127). Another reason that CMC can foster more positive communication than FtF might support is that CMC allows for selective presentation of certain features of a participant's identity. Also, depending on the form of CMC used, a writer is allowed more time to plan a response that shows off his or her better side (Walther & Burgoon, p.79). The anonymity encouraged by CMC can eliminate a person's anxiety over how he or she will be judged based on his or her opinions, and it leads to a medium in which people feel more free to express themselves and to stand up for their rights (Spears & Lea, p.430). Because there are networks in many businesses over which employees can converse with one another, CMC can help to develop lateral communication among these fellow workers, also leading to a more personal type of communication. Lateral communication refers to that which takes place between employees of the same rank, rather than between boss and employee. Some studies have shown that employees are more likely to discuss different good or bad aspects of their jobs using these types of networks than they would in face to face settings because of fear that they will get caught (Spears & Lea, p.440). However, CMC can also be portrayed as a medium which discourages this type of lateral communication. One author describes CMC as the utilitarian "panopticon." A panopticon is a device proposed by Michel Foucault for prisons in which the prisoners are unable to see or communicate with one another. In a panopticon, a super ordinate presides over the building at all times, watching to make sure that the prisoners do not find some way to communicate. With this absence of lateral support, the prisoners are helpless to ignite a revolt or uprising. This can be compared to CMC because some say that there is a super ordinate like this that can preside over computer mediated communication. The boss or manager of a company that is networked might oversee the messages that are sent among employees, thus leading to less personal exchanges (Spears & Lea, p.438). Overall, CMC can have many different effects on business related communication. One of these influences is the fact that CMC will, at first, have more of a task orientation than FtF meetings would have. Because it requires much more effort and time to socialize over CMC, participants will usually go straight to the issue (Walther & Burgoon, p.62). However, despite this increased task focus, group consensus on a topic is less likely to occur because there are no social cues to adhere to and strong leaders cannot take charge of the discussion quite as easily as they could with a face to face meeting. Also, since the anonymity reduces the feelings of dominance or subordinance that ordinarily govern group meetings, more people will strive to make their opinions known (Walther & Burgoon, p.52). The decisions that are made, then, could be more extreme and less compromising (Spears & Lea, p.448). Since there can be so many differing interpretations of the personal nature of CMC, it seems reasonable to assume that it can be more or less personal depending on the nature of the conversation, the participant, and the length of time involved. Laid back, informal communication, such as what occurs in chat rooms, is more likely to be of a personal nature, while business oriented discussions will probably be more technical. In the case of the characteristics of the participant, it is important to realize that each person possesses a range of different characteristics, and any one of these might become prominent, depending on the situation. For example, in face to face interaction, a shy person might become loud and flamboyant around good friends, but he or she might seem reclusive in an unfamiliar situation. In the same way, participants on different forms of CMC can exhibit a number of different characteristics at different times. This theory is known as the Self Categorization Theory because each person decides which of his or her categorizations he or she will make salient at a certain time (Spears & Lea, p.441). Because of this fact, CMC can become more or less personal depending on how the participant expresses himself or herself (Spears & Lea, p.443). The amount of time involved in a series of CMC messages, though important, is less significant than the number and length of these messages. The rate of information exchange for computer mediated communication is inherently slower because of the need to think about and type a response. It is much easier to simply speak a message instead of typing it out, so it requires more time and messages in CMC to give and take information than it would for face to face (Walther & Burgoon, p.55). In conclusion, because of the various opinions on whether CMC is more or less personal than FtF communication, one must recognize that the personal or impersonal qualities of CMC are not inherent to the medium. The personality and circumstances of the users must be taken into account when discussing this issue (Walther & Burgoon, p.52). Also, if a person's communication styles are built into him or her, then the mode of communication can do little to change how he or she interacts (Spears & Lea, p.437). Each different form of communication has its own features, so we will explore chat rooms, email, listserves, MOOs, MUDs, and Usenet groups in order to determine: how real is communication in the virtual world of cyberspace? |
This project was produced for Psy380, Social Psychology of Cyberspace, Spring 1998, at Miami University.
This document was created April 26, 1998 and last modified on .