Among the earliest labels applied to the study of communication processes and new and digital media forms is Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC). This label is used to apply to the study of communication message transmission through computer-mediated formats. The focus of these studies is on how people create messages within the structures of computer technology, and how the computers themselves functioned in the transmission process. These studies also focus on encoding and decoding the messages through computer technologies. It is important to understand that the establishment of this field of study predates the prevalence of the Internet, and in many ways predates using computers to exchange information between parties instantaneously. Instead, these studies focus on how humans and computers interact, and what happens to the message while it is inside of a computer system. Consider the image below that illustrates the extent to which we have found the convenience and safety associated with using technology to communicate with loved ones and share. In this image, a couple is getting married and sharing the ceremony via computer-mediated communication video conferencing.
Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) is the study of information exchanges and communication processes through text, audio, video, and other digitally mediated communication technologies. CMC theory is focused on "the social and cultural transformations being brought about by computers and, more precisely, the internet. It goes further than this, though, by focusing on social interaction — how identities, relationships, and communities are being changed or influenced by the internet" (Thurlow, Lengel, & Tomic, 2004, p. 2). Internet technology, social media, and technological globalization have had a profound impact on how communication processes are viewed and understood. Many of these early theories were behavioral in nature, focused on attempts to predict and control the role and impact of computer-mediated communication technologies on interpersonal and social behavior.
The majority of early CMC studies, especially those from the 1970s and 1980s, focused on business and corporate communication processes. Home usage was relatively rare except for gaming and word processing, and multiplayer online games were only beginning to develop. There are a number of issues that are raised in the studies, especially in regard to privacy and surveillance, and power dynamics. Power and gender in organizations, in particular, became a point of discussion as theories developed which argued that computer technologies would both erase difference in the organization, thereby leveling the playing field, and simultaneously increase corporate control of ourselves. Stanley Deetz’s (1992) corporate colonization argument that we discussed in module 7 arose from these claims.
Scholars focused on CMC compare these new media formats to other media forms, testing for patterns and similarities, as well as what processes are distinct to the new forms of media. Many of these scholars divide their arguments into two categories: synchronous and asynchronous communication (Hiltz, Johnson, & Turoff, 1986; Koenig, 1954). Synchronous communication refers to communication that occurs when those communicating are all online and interacting at once, or those media forms intended for immediate interaction. Examples would be instant messaging, gaming spaces, FaceTime, texting, chat rooms, application sharing, and video conferencing. Asynchronous communication refers to communication practices that do not require all participating parties to connect at once. Asynchronous examples include email, blogs, discussion boards, wikis, online dating sites, streaming audio and video, web books, surveys, calendars, and learning objects.
Early discussions of CMC often focused on comparing computerized communication processes to face-to-face (f2f) communication (Lievrouw, 2009; Thurlow, Lengel, & Tomic, 2004). Many of these critiqued CMC as slower and less effective at transmitting emotional and other non-text based information. Other studies indicated that CMC, especially in business communication, equalized power differences in communication interaction as it produced a greater variety of ideas and alternatives and encouraged people to take more time reading and sharing the information (Bordia, 1997; Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991; Walther, 1996). These studies also often examined the time-saving features of not needing to retype or mimeograph messages within corporate contexts, advocating for computer technologies as effective business tools.
A dominant early theory was Media Richness Theory (MRT) (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Lengel & Daft, 1989), which proposed that some media had more rich communication qualities than others, and that these qualities have an impact on communication potential requiring careful medium choice. Therefore, message complexity needs to be paired with media richness.
Daft and Lengel proposed four characteristics for determining the richness of media:
Clarity of information cues
Rapidness of feedback
Personal focus establishment for end users
Natural language inclusion
The theory was aimed at organizational media usage, and provided the list of criteria so that organizational managers could choose the most effective media for information processing.
Early CMC theories also often focused on the lack of social interaction when communication is mediated, discussions grounded in social presence theory (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). Social presence theory is centered on the argument that humans are social creatures, and that communication processes require a level of social presence or interactivity. Early CMC theories using this concept were skeptical of mediated communication, because it removes too many attributes associated with social presence. However, more contemporary arguments, particularly those looking at educational and marketing technologies, often look at how newer communication technologies, i.e. social media, can generate interactivity and, therefore, generate some beneficial communication (Anders, Coleman, & Castleberry, 2017; Tseng, Huang, & Teng, 2015; Verhagen, Van Nes, Feldberg, & Van Dolen, 2014).
Therefore many contemporary approaches take a relational view of CMC and social presence (Fox & McEwan, 2017; Fulk & Yuan, 2017; Ruppel, Gross, Stoll, Peck, Allen, & Kim, 2016), and are centered on a core research question: Are Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media replacing or enhancing face-to-face (f2f) communication?
As instant messaging and online communities developed, computer technologies became more utilized as a tool for communicating over distance, much like the telephone had done for people in prior generations. Social Information Processing Theory (SIP) (Walther, 1992) was developed to examine how the lack of nonverbal communication cues impacts messaging. In this theory Walther argues that CMC users are able to adapt technology to develop relationships.
Walther disagreed with many of the earlier studies, especially those focused on social presence, media richness, and a lack of nonverbal cues. Instead, he argued that interpersonal relationships can occur without face-to-face interaction. Because f2f communication styles do not translate directly into a text-based format, symbolic communication styles were created to replace the nonverbal cues missing in text-based communication. Gamers in online gaming communities were among the first to develop textual cues to indicate sarcasm, sighs, shrugs, and other common nonverbal communication signals that were needed to progress their games and interactions as players. As computer-based communication became more and more common, emoticons became a popular way of signifying nonverbal codes in email, texting, and instant messenger programs.
Walther continued his discussion of CMC focusing on the potential richness digital communication technologies. His Hyperpersonal Model of Communication (1996) discusses how strong participation levels and involvement in community and relationship building online generate exaggerated interpersonal or hyperpersonal communication. Reflecting, in part, impression management theory (Goffman, 1956) that we discussed in the Branding Module, Walther argues that people exaggerate characteristics online as a type of self-promotion, and create positive feedback loops in order to encourage interaction from other online communicators. This type of communication then exceeds face-to-face interaction, as it is not inhibited by stereotypes and communication attributes generated by nonverbal and tonal cues.
Contemporary digital communication studies tend to view more multiplicities and intersectionalities of identity and communication than the earlier studies. Internet technologies are and comprise convergent media and therefore reflect many of the ideals attributed to Jenkins' (2006) media convergence that we discussed in Module 8 (Pearson & Elliot, 2015; Pettegrew & Day, 2015). Messages are seldom limited to individual technologies: someone posts a video on YouTube and it's reposted via Twitter and Facebook by the originator, or by viewers (Juris, 2012; Van Dijck, 2013).
In fact, social media encourage reposting on other social media, providing embed tools and sharing options to simplify proliferation. Media distributors, such as news organizations, also use these tools to reinforce their own product distribution.
Cyborg Culture(s)
Interpretive and critical approaches to CMC generally focus on how media technology impact individuals' rights and creative freedoms. One of the core approaches from these paradigms comes from Haraway's (1985) A Manifesto For Cyborgs in which she argued that as humans become more technologically bound, we become cyborgs in our identities. Haraway suggested that many human distinctions, such as gender, race, and ethnicity would be, if not completely erased, made less important through technological advances. The resulting cyborg theory (Haraway, 1985) claims as we become more technological in our bodies and identities, we will be able to break through barriers and eliminate historical restrictions associated with these stereotypes and categorizations. Haraway (1985, 1991) further argued that we were becoming dependent on the technologies in constructing our identities, and we would evolve beyond physical limitations. For example, if you are playing a video game, would you choose to be a mundane typical human character, or would you choose to be, when allowed, a dragon or an elf? And are we restricted to our offline genders when we go online in games, or other online social spaces? If nobody knew who you were, would you make your avatar look like you?
Haraway and other cyborg theorists (Haraway, 1985, 1991; Gonzáles, 2000) further argue that these freedoms would eventually cross over into our offline realities. When you consider medical advances for physical disabilities, plastic surgery for cosmetic values, and our cultural dependence on mobile technology, we can start to see Haraway’s predictions coming to pass. While this theory has since evolved due to evidence of hyperreal or exaggerated stereotypical characterizations in online identities, the concept that communication technology is leveling the playing field is still promoted in technology industries.
Cyborg theory today is often applied to social media.
How is Facebook a factor in our cyborg identities? Do you think we will become more or less of cyborgs as we continue to evolve as humans? Will Facebook stay a major part of our lives or will it fade and be replaced by yet another new media technology?
Cyborg studies focus on virtual identities. Virtual identities, in turn, are often studied as part of virtual communities. These virtual communities are discussed as aspects of cyberculture.
Cyberculture studies focus on how online cultures form, how they impact offline culture, and how they obtain unique characteristics due to the media platforms utilized (Matei, 2006; Silver, 2006). Similarly, Jones (1995) describes cybersociety as how communities of people interact and communicate through internet technology.
Convergence cultures (Jenkins, 2006) have naturally developed with increased usage of and exposure to digital communication technologies, developing from the convergence "between cyberspace and 'real life'" (Thurlow, Lengel, & Tomic, 2004, p. 33).
By convergence, I mean the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who would go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they wanted. Convergence is a word that manages to describe technological, industrial, cultural, and social changes, depending on who's speaking and what they think they are talking about. In the world of media convergence, every important story gets told, every brand gets sold, every consumer gets courted across multiple media platforms. (Jenkins, 2006, pp. 2-3).
As discussed in Module 8, Jenkins' convergence theory focuses on how messages flow between and within multiple media forms. The concept also focuses on the cultural influences and emergent cultures that result from the interactivity of these media platforms.
Jenkins further identifies what he calls participatory culture online, which he places in opposition to consumer culture (Jenkins, 19 2006) and how consumers are also creators and producers of media. Fans, for example, not only participate in consuming texts, they act as textual poachers by creating fanfiction, fansubs and fandubs, fan videos, mashups, fan shipping (preferences for particular couples or pairing in characters) and even fan-activism. Similarly, online gamers in Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) create their characters and storylines as part of the end-user experience. Jenkins (2006) also discusses online collective intelligence, where knowledge is not located in individuals alone, but instead in a collective or community. Building on Levy's (1994) earlier use of the term, He explains, "None of us can know everything; each of us knows something; and we we can put the pieces together if we pool our resources and combine our skills" (p. 4). Finally, Jenkins discusses transmedia storytelling produced and consumed by transmedia audiences who simultaneously engage with multiple media platforms (Jenkins, 2006).
References
Anders, A. D., Coleman, J. T., & Castleberry, S. B. (2017). Communication preferences of business-to-business buyers for receiving initial sales messages: A comparison of media channel selection theories. International Journal of Business Communication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488417702476
Balsamo, A. (2000). Reading cyborgs writing feminism. In G. Kirkup, L. Janes, K. Woodward, & F. Hovenden, (Eds.). The gendered cyborg: A reader, (pp. 148-157). New York: Routledge.
Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of the experimental literature. The Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 99-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369703400106
Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.
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(2), 119-146.
Fox, J., & McEwan, B. (2017). Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 298-318.
Fulk, J., & Connie Yuan, Y. (2017). Social construction of communication technology. In C. Scott, & L. Lewis, (Eds.). The international encyclopedia of organizational communication. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118955567.wbieoc190
González, J. (2000). Envisioning cyborg bodies: Notes from current research. In G. Kirkup, L. Janes, K. Woodward, & F. Hovenden, (Eds.). The gendered cyborg: A reader, (pp. 58-73). New York: Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh.
Haraway, D. J. (1985). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review, 15(2), 65-107.
Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making communication process and outcome in face‐to‐face versus computerized conferences. Human communication research, 13(2), 225-252.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.
Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual poaching: Television pans and participatory culture. New York: Routledge.
Jones, S. (1995). CyberSociety: Computer-mediated communication and community. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.
Juris, J. S. (2012). Reflections on# Occupy Everywhere: Social media, public space, and emerging logics of aggregation. American Ethnologist, 39(2), 259-279.
Koenig, H. E. (1954). Application of network theory to the analysis of rotating machinery part I-Synchronous and asynchronous machines. Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Part I: Communication and Electronics, 73(2), 162-169.
Levy, P. (1997). Collective intelligence: Mankind's emerging world in cyberspace (R. Bononno, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Original work published 1994.
Lievrouw, L. A. (2009). New media, mediation, and communication study. Information, Communication & Society, 12(3), 303-325.
Matei, S. A. (2005). From counterculture to cyberculture: Virtual community discourse and the dilemma of modernity. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 10(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00262.x
Pearson, E., & Elliot, G. (2015). Multiplicities and the Subject: Rethinking a Mix-of-Attributes Approach in the Digital World. International Journal of Communication, 9, 694-709.
Pettegrew, L. S., & Day, C. (2015). Smart phones and mediated relationships: the changing face of relational communication. Review of Communication, 15(2), 122-139.
Ruppel, E. K., Gross, C., Stoll, A., Peck, B. S., Allen, M., & Kim, S. Y. (2016). Reflecting on connecting: Meta-analysis of differences between computer-mediated and face-to-face self-disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 18-34.
Short, J. A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.
Silver, D. (2006). Introduction: Where is internet studies? In D. Silver, & A. Massanari, (Eds.). Critical cyberculture studies (pp. 1-16). New York: New York University Press.
Tseng, F. C., Huang, H. C., & Teng, C. I. (2015). How do online game communities retain gamers? Social presence and social capital perspectives. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(6), 601-614.
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L. & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: Social interaction and the internet. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. New York: Oxford University Press.
Verhagen, T., Van Nes, J., Feldberg, F., & Van Dolen, W. (2014). Virtual customer service agents: Using social presence and personalization to shape online service encounters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 529-545.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication research, 19(1), 52-90.
