Chp. 10 Social Information Processing Theory

Chapter 10 discusses Social Information Processing Theory. Griffin introduces three theories that explain the differences between CMC (Computer Mediated Communication) and face-to-face communication. The first, social presence theory, suggests that "text-based messages deprive CMC users of the sense that other warm bodies are jointly involved in the interaction" (142). This means that since the communicators are not actually face to face, it is difficult to know if they are intently involved in the conversation, or if they really care. The second, media richness theory, suggests that face-to-face communication provides the means for verbal and nonverbal cues which help the mediums convey messages and figure out hidden meanings. The third "concentrates on the lack of social context cues in online communication" (143). It claims that CMC users are not clear of their relative status, which leads to people becoming more self-absorbed. A lack of social context cues in a conversation can lead to flaming, which s hostile language can create a "toxic climate" for any type of growth on the Internet. With these three theories, it seems pretty evident that CMC users cannot communicate as well or in-depth as face-to-face communicators. However, Joseph Walther, communication professor at Cornell University, claims that CMC users can in fact develop close relationships.
Walther does not feel that nonverbal cues are a fatal loss to a conversation over the Internet. He believes that two features of CMC provide back up for SIP theory. The first, verbal cues, help form impressions of others based only on the language content of computer messages. The second, extended time, simply means that it takes longer for people to develop intimate relationships through CMC than it does face-to-face. Walther feels that given enough time, intimate relationships can be developed just as well as face-to-face ones. However, since CMC eliminates non-verbal cues, CMC users must solely rely on text based messages to get their information across.
I feel this is very true because of a conversation I once had with a friend. He and I had just met, so we were still learning more about each other, but as far as a physical attraction to him, it was just not happening for me. We got to talking later that night through instant messages online and he asked me if I wanted to go out to dinner with him. Now, at this point, I had no idea he had feelings for me, so I said, "Sure, I'd love to, babe." I call all of my guy friends "babe" so I did not think it was a big deal. I even went on to tell him how excited I was and made reference to it as a "date" with no care at all. I figured we were just going as friends, and he had no other motive about the dinner date. I came to find out later on, at dinner, that he was interested in me and wanted to be more than friends, and even felt that I was attracted to him by the "way we talked online." I could not believe he actually thought I was flirting with him! But then I thought about it and, if I were in his shoes, I probably would have thought the same thing. How can you tell how someone is saying something, or means something just by seeing it typed in words? It is not like I typed "I am so excited to go to dinner with you! But, I want you to know I do not care for you in any other way besides a friend, nor do I want you to express your desire to be with me." I felt for him, and put the blame on myself. To avoid this, Walther says to communicate often and send more messages to develop more intimate relationships.
Another big part of communication lies in chronemics. Chronemics are "how people perceive, use, and respond to issues of time in their interaction with others" (148). Walther claims that chronemics can be are not lost when dealing with CMC users. He uses the example of sending a late-night request to a professor, and how it would seem demanding, but when sent to a friend at the same hour, it might be flattering that they were thinking of that person so late. Chronemics are also seen when dealing with more intimate relationships, and if a response is delayed, it might signify being comfortable with one another and not feeling the need to respond so quickly. I agree with this example because whenever I email my family or boyfriend, I never expect a response that quickly. I know their schedules and also that they will respond when they get a chance. It reminds me how close we are and that they are not taking their time to be ignorant.
Lastly, Walther include sender, receiver, channel and feedback as the 4 main ingredients to good CMC. The sender has the ability to make a positive impression; the receiver may use attribution to figure out what the sender is really like; the channel gives the communicators the opportunity to interact rationally and think about what they are going to say before they say it, which Walther refers to as an asynchronous channel that parties can use nonsimultaneously; and feedback uses the self-fulfilling prophecy, which can confirm a person's expectations of another.