Walthers Social Information Processing Theory (SIPT) - Essay Example

Walther’s Social Information Processing Theory (SIPT A Good Objective Socio-Psychological Theory November 10, Word count:3632 Introduction Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has become increasingly widespread with increasing access to smartphones and the Internet and the explosion in the production and consumption of social media in many developed and developing countries. CMC is now used for various purposes, including workplace, academic, and close/intimate relationship communication (Cornelius & Boos, 2003). Since the beginning of CMC, a number of communication scholars already offered their perspectives on how technology impacts human relationship development. Joseph Walther proposed the Social Information Processing Theory (SIPT) to explain the usefulness of CMC in making strong human relationships that are comparable to those formed through face-to-face communication. Walther argues that CMC can facilitate the development of strong interpersonal relationships, but it can take a longer time and depend on other factors, including extended time. Walther developed the SIPT to understand how people start and develop their relationships through computer and/or Internet communications (a more general view of CMC). During this time, Walther’s CMC focused on text-based messages that lacked nonverbal cues. Nowadays, CMC can include nonverbal expressions when people use videos in live or recorded forms. The paper, nevertheless, mostly focuses on text-based types of CMC to emphasize the loss of nonverbal communication through these technologies. These types include e-mail and online chatting. The paper aims to describe and analyze SIPT’s theoretical aspects and implications for communication. It uses different scholarly articles and the book, A First Look at Communication Theory (Griffin, Ledbetter, & Sparks, 2015), for the analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of SIPT as a communication theory. These articles show that SIPT is a good objective communication theory because it has attained the six standards of the criteria for good objective theories, but with some weaknesses. SIPT cannot explain why self-disclosure is not always needed in establishing online social relationships and it cannot predict how social factors and CMC abilities impact CMC behaviors. Theory Summary SIPT has developed in reaction to the theories of social presence, media richness, and social cues that criticized CMC. The social presence theory asserts that CMC deprives users of the actual presence of people, which results to CMC that is “more impersonal, individualistic, and task-oriented” than face-to-face communication (Griffin et al., 2015, p.122). This theory suggests that face-to-face communication has higher social presence than CMC, which results to more personalized and collective communication processes and effects (Noy, Raban, & Ravid, 2006, p.179). Media richness theory states that the bandwidth of the communication medium affects its ability to offer rich relational messages (Griffin et al., 2015, p.122). It insists that CMC has a narrower bandwidth compared to face-to-face communication, so the latter is more capable of successfully building close social relationships. Another theory asserts that CMC filters out social context cues (Griffin et al., 2015, p.122). It asserts that CMC users cannot determine and properly respond to their relative status and that CMC lacks social interaction norms, so CMC users tend to be less controlled when expressing their emotions (e.g flaming easily online since the sender is not in front of the receiver) (Griffin et al., 2015, p.122). In 1992, Walther developed the SIPT to assert that CMC users can maximize the limited cues they have to foster close relationships online (Griffin et al., 2015, p.122). He called his theory social information processing theory because he believes that people use CMC to gather and process social information, from which they will base their interpersonal impressions (Griffin et al., 2015, p.122). SIPT supports social penetration theory and uncertainty avoidance theory. The more that people share information with others online, the more that they can determine if they like these impressions, which reduce uncertainty. Walther asserts that CMC users employ verbal cues and extended time to make up for the loss of social cues online (Walther, Loh, & Granka, 2005, p.37). Verbal cues pertain to the linguistic messages shared online, while extended time means that, in the absence of social cues, people need more time before they can form impressions about others (Griffin et al., 2015, p.123). Walther underscores that verbal and nonverbal cues can be interchanged because people can adapt to cue-limited media if they have enough reasons to continue communication with online audiences (Griffin et al., 2015, p.124). Walther also argues that chronemic cues, or nonverbal ways that affect how people distinguish, use, or respond to issues of time, is the only nonverbal cue that CMC does not filter out (Griffin et al., 2015, p.126). SIPT further states that multimodality and anticipated future interaction can help build a good social relationship. Multimodality refers to using different media to develop a relationship, while anticipated future interaction refers to the probability of future interaction that can motivate users to use CMC for relationship-building (Griffin et al., 2015, p.126). Walther believes that CMC can be multimodal enough to offer different ways of communication. These modalities, in turn, make up for the social cues that are not available in CMC by enabling people to share more about themselves on a regular basis and to be more consistent in their projections of their identities. Social disclosure is essential to online impressions (Jahng & Littau, 2015, p.6). Increasing disclosure through CMC improves interpersonal attraction too (Antheunis et al., 2012, p.758). Besides multimodality and anticipated future interaction, a hyperpersonal perspective shows that CMC-based relationships can be more intimate than face-to-face-based counterparts (Griffin et al., 2015, p.127). Walther used the sender-receiver-channel-feedback categories to determine four kinds of media effects that uniquely happen to CMC users. He stated that senders use selective self-presentation to produce overwhelmingly positive impressions online. They edit and change their profiles and other kinds of posts to align them with their target social media identity (Griffin et al., 2015, p.127). The receiver, on the contrary, may develop overattribution of similarity (Griffin et al., 2015, p.127). Attribution is the process of observing what people do, in order to make sense of their true identity (Griffin et al., 2015, p.127). Overattribution of similarity means that people focus more on their similarities with the senders of information online than differences (Griffin et al., 2015, p.127). For the channel, asynchronous communication in CMC can encourage positive communication. CMC is usually asynchronous because senders and receivers of information are not always interacting on the real-time sense. Asynchronous CMC benefits relationships because people can take time to think about their words and their long-term effects on their relationships than face-to-face communication where spontaneity can lead to saying bad words that people do not usually mean (Griffin et al., 2015, p.129). Feedback in CMC refers to self-fulfilling prophecy which means that people say something that results to an expected reaction (Griffin et al., 2015, p.129). Self-fulling prophecy reflects behavior confirmation that begins with initial impressions of senders of information. The next aspect of SIPT is the warranting value of information. This refers to two kinds of information, the information from the owner of the profile and those who can comment or add to the profile of the former (Griffin et al., 2015, p.129). These posts have different warranting value (i.e. “the perceived validity of information presented online with respect to illuminating someone’s offline characteristics”) (Griffin et al., 2015, p.130). Anything that the profile owner posts online to his profile has low warranting value because he can manipulate it, while posts from friends, family, and other people who know the owner can post something that has high warranting value because the owner cannot easily manipulate the latter (Griffin et al., 2015, p.130). This concept underscores that receivers asses warranting value too when determining the true identity of senders. Theory Worldview This section discusses the location of SIPT in the world of communication theories where SIPT is a socio-psychological theory in objective territory. It is generally an objective theory because it asserts that there are basic truths and that these truths can be determined through objective investigation (Griffin et al., 2015, p.22). These basic truths concern the use of CMC for the establishment of different social relationships that can be at par with or be higher in equality than those established in face-to-face interactions. Objective theories also emphasize studying “what is” than teaching “what should be” in communication processes (Griffin et al., 2015, p.22). Walther does not want to teach good CMC practices. He studies CMC as it is and in comparison with face-to-face communication across different situations and communication goals. Furthermore, SIPT is an objective theory because it wants to determine cause-and-effect relationships (Griffin et al., 2015, p.22). It wants to know how the use of verbal cues and extended time impact the quality of CMC relationships. Besides being an objective theory, SIPT is a socio-psychological theory because it has goals of understanding communication as consisting of interpersonal influence and processes (Griffin et al., 2015, p.22). It is concerned of how people use chronemics, for instance, to adapt to the cue restrictions of CMC. In addition, SIPT does not belong to the cybernetic tradition, even if they are both about information processing (Griffin et al., 2015, p.23). The cybernetic tradition is more concerned of reducing noise than predicting the cause and effect of communication behaviors (Griffin et al., 2015, p.23). SIPT is more concerned of the use of CMC in creating good social relationships. After discussing the objective and social-psychological tradition of SIPT, the paper describes its epistemology, the first concept of theory mapping. Epistemology refers to the study of the origin, nature, method, and limitations of knowledge (Griffin et al., 2015). SIPT asserts that the origin of communication is interpersonal (Utz, 2003). People begin communication because of social and psychological motivations (Utz, 2003). In addition, they acquire knowledge of others through self-disclosure, interrogation, detection of deception, and other ways of gathering and assessing online impressions (Utz, 2003). Walther believes that people take time to learn about people through verbal cues and extended time (Walther et al., 2005, p.37). CMC users “adapt their language, style, and other cues” to know more about another person and to project their identity to their audiences (Walther et al., 2005, p.37). CMC users create and understand knowledge about the people they interact with online through these various information-seeking strategies. The next theory mapping concept is ontology. Ontology is the study of nature of being and of reality. The ontology of SIPT asks about what exists in CMC and the nature of CMC existence. Walther believes that CMC concerns the sender-receiver-channel-feedback categories. CMC has something unique for these categories that face-to-face communication does not have. The sender exists within the limits of CMC, so he would use selective self-presentation to create a profile that appeals to his receiver (Griffin et al., 2015, p.127). The receiver believes that the nature of the sender depends on his attributes. She believes that, through careful questioning and other information-seeking and confirming strategies, she can confirm these attributes (Griffin et al., 2015, p.127). She would then decide the reality of their interpersonal reaction through overattribution or lack of similarity (Griffin et al., 2015, p.127). For the channel, asynchronous communication exists in CMC. The reality is limited to what is sent and received online (Griffin et al., 2015, p.127). Feedback, moreover, is real according to the assessment of the sender. Receivers would decide if these perceptions are confirmed or disconfirmed (Griffin et al., 2015, p.127). The last concept in theory mapping is axiology. Axiology pertains to the study of values. Axiological values focus on what is intrinsically valuable. SIPT has a realist, but social-oriented, ontology where its axiology means that reality should be approached from an objective stance, but human relationships and processes are complex enough to not be easily and perfectly defined and predicted. In addition, SIPT wants to understand knowledge, and not to create social changes. It seeks to study CMC and to understand how it works (Griffin et al., 2015). It allows others to make use of CMC research in whatever social purpose they see fit. In other words, SIPT does not have any social-change agenda, though other researchers can use it to promote normative ways of using CMC in diverse relationships and settings. Theory Analysis SIPT is a good communication theory because it can explain the similarities and differences between face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Walther described what CMC has and does not have in comparison to face-to-face communication. CMC has cues filtered out, especially when using text-based channels only, such as e-mail and chat. Furthermore, CMC users can practice selective self-presentation to produce overwhelmingly positive impressions (Griffin et al., 2015, p.127). The receiver of CMC can engage in overattribution of similarity (Griffin et al., 2015, p.127). She can focus on similarities than differences between her and the sender (Griffin et al., 2015, p.127). For the channel, asynchronous communication in CMC can result to a more harmonious communication. Face-to-face communication cannot avoid spontaneous expressions, which can include emotional outbursts. Asynchronous CMC can avoid this, thereby reducing conflicts (Griffin et al., 2015, p.129). Though SIPT can make these explanations, it cannot explain why self-disclosure is not always needed in establishing online social relationships. The studies of Jahng and Littau (2015) and Antheunis et al. (2012) showed that self-disclosure is not necessary for the establishment of quality CMC-based relationships. Interactivity and asking questions weigh more in their studies, in terms of creating good social relationships online. SIPT has always valued self-disclosure as essential to online relationship-building, so having other factors involved deserve future studies. SIPT also attains the the second criterion of a good objective theory, which is having the ability to make predictions across different social media (Griffin et al., 2015). One of these predictions is that extended time and maximizing available cues can result to close social relationships. Jahng and Littau (2015) studied the impact of social cues and interactivity in social media (Twitter) on perceptions of journalists’ credibility. They used the theories of social information processing theory (SIPT) and social presence theory. They focused on studying the function of social media in influencing the credibility standard of journalists. They made a controlled experiment to determine if there is a causal relationship between the traditional factor (i.e., gender) and social cue and interactivity (which are the factors in CMC that can affect journalists’ credibility evaluations). Their mixed-design experiment included 37 university students in the U.S. Findings showed that interactivity, not social cue, predicted credibility for these journalists and that gender did not affect these relationships. Social cues or self-disclosure did not matter for these participants, which negates SIPT’s belief in the importance of self-disclosure. Nevertheless, Twitter’s format may attract people who are not that concerned of social cues and more focused on helpful professional content from journalists. SIPT, however, cannot predict how social factors and CMC abilities impact CMC behaviors. Cho and Lee (2008) studied collaborative information-seeking processes for cross-cultural CMC groups. Their sampling included 3 groups of students (n=86) from three different universities, two in Asia and one in the United States. Researchers instructed the students to provide social recommendations using CMC. Findings showed that the social context, specifically “preexisting social network, intergroup boundaries, and culture,” greatly limited the flow of information (Cho & Lee, 2008, p.563). Cho and Lee (2008) concluded that social, not technological, constraints can hamper communication effects in cross-cultural CMC interactions. In addition, Cornelius and Boos (2003) learned that high communication and CMC media competencies are also important to effective CMC. They stressed that participants with poor communication and communication media skills cannot use CMC tools properly, which can result to CMC problems, even when given enough time. These studies show how social factors and different kinds of competencies are essential to the success in using CMC in building satisfactory social relationships. Though SIPT can have predictive problems, SIPT may be too predictive in nature that it is already deterministic (Griffin et al., 2015). Noy et al. (2006) determined that CMC can be used in testing relationships in games or simulations because it can be interpreted as an algorithm or formula. They liked how CMC can be used for different communication settings, including sharing and learning in business workplaces. Nevertheless, they did not think that CMC can provide for all kinds of dynamics or factors that can impact real-life CMC interactions. Though SIPT has limited predictive powers, it meets the third criterion of a good objective theory, relative simplicity. It has a simple set of variables with simple predictions. In particular, the extended time concept is a simple aspect that studies can examine. Hobman et al. (2002) studied different conflicts in CMC and face-to-face groups over time. They made a comparison between the cues-filtered-out approach and SIPT. They conducted an experimental study involving 39 groups where they worked together for three sessions. The researchers analyzed task, process, and relationship conflicts. Findings showed that CMC groups had more process and relationship conflicts than face-to-face groups in the first day, but these differences waned by the second and third day. These groups also did not have differences in the number of task conflict from the beginning until the end of the sessions. This study shows how SIPT is simple enough to be applied even to group conflicts. The fourth standard of a good objective theory is having testable hypotheses (Griffin et al, 2015). One of its testable hypotheses is that CMC users practice uncertainty-avoidance strategies, when nonverbal cues are absent. Antheunis et al. (2012) studied the language-based strategies that CMC users adapt in the absence of nonverbal cues: self-disclosure, question asking, and question/disclosure intimacy. They hypothesized that CMC users would use more self-disclosure and question asking and would express more intimate self-disclosures and questions. They believed that CMC users would give more verbal affiliative expressions to express affection. They conducted an experiment with three experimental communication conditions: text-based CMC, visual CMC (with webcam), and face-to-face communication. Their participants included 162 undergraduate students. Findings showed that CMC users used more verbal statements of affection than face-to-face participants. Researchers also learned that question/disclosure intimacy and question asking were greater in CMC than face-to-face interactants. However, they did not find an impact of the communication channel on the quantity of self-disclosure. This example shows how SIPT has testable hypotheses. Moreover, SIPT is a good objective theory because of its practical utility (Griffin et al., 2015). Its practical utility, however, is limited to interactions that can be done online. Nevertheless, Walther (2012) showed how SIPT can be used to understand how CMC enables virtual collaboration and potentially reduce intergroup prejudice. Removing physical features through text-based CMC can stop people from forming initial racial/ethnic/gender and other forms of stereotypes. At the same time, Walther (2012) noted that extended CMC can improve contact with diverse cultures, which, in turn, can remove negative stereotypes as people develop closer relationships and have more chances of taking time to consider their responses to one another (p.407). Finally, SIPT meets the sixth standard of a good objective theory, quantitative research (Griffin et al., 2015). Several studies already tested diverse aspects and assumptions of SIPT. Tong and Walther (2015) wanted to examine the conditions for interpersonal expectancy outcomes and communication for different modalities. Their experiment included 148 CMC users. The researchers determined if confirmation or disconfirmation would happen in the absence of nonverbal communication. Findings proved the hyperpersonal model of CMC where positive selective self-representation resulted to behavioral confirmation, although they extended the model when they determined disconfirmation occurrences. They stated that CMC can offer opportunities for reducing negative expectations, if the latter are malleable enough, but not when they are largely stable already. Walther et al. (2005) studied the use of affective expressions in CMC and face-to-face interactions. They had 56 participants who received scenarios and instructions for showing affinity or disaffinity. Findings showed that the amount of experienced affinity did not differ for CMC and face-to-face interactions. The researchers could also not establish if verbal cues in CMC had more affective effect than verbal cues in face-to-face interactions. This study also supports that SIPT can be tested quantitatively. Conclusion SIPT is a good objective socio-psychological theory because it meets the six criteria of objective theories well and is focused on social and psychological nature of reality and effects of communication. SIPT is an objective theory because it is concerned of communication truths, using empirical approaches, and finding cause-and-effect relationships. It is a socio-psychological tradition because it believes that reality is social and communication has social and psychological motives, processes, and effects. Furthermore, SIPT is a good objective theory because it can explain CMC data well, it can predict the future through its variables, it is relatively simple enough to capture communication relationships, it offers testable hypotheses, it has practical utility, and it has quantitative research support. SIPT, however, cannot explain why self-disclosure is not always needed in establishing online social relationships and it cannot predict how social factors and communication and CMC abilities impact CMC behaviors. Sometimes, depending on the format and needs of the consumers, interactivity and interrogation are enough to gather information and make positive impressions. Furthermore, social factors are not well-studied in CMC. Cultural beliefs and practices can impact how people interact in cross-cultural CMC settings. In addition, communication and CMC abilities can shape the effectiveness of CMC interactions. If senders are poor communicators, poor users of CMC tools, or both, they cannot maximize available tools to create good social relationships. SIPT has practical and theoretical implications. Its objective standpoint and socio-psychological tradition can be tested further using more social and competency variables. In addition, SIPT can be examined for reducing prejudice and aggression among conflicting groups. It may not have been designed to generate social changes. It focuses on what is in CMC interactions, but it can also produce positive effects that can spill over to face-to-face interactions. Hence, future studies can examine how SIPT is not only limited to CMC, but how it can also shape human values and behaviors in face-to-face interactions. References Antheunis, M. L., Schouten, A. P. Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2012). Interactive uncertainty reduction strategies and verbal affection in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 39(6), 757-780. doi:10.1177/0093650211410420 Cho, H., & Lee, J. (2008). Collaborative information seeking in intercultural computer-mediated communication groups: Testing the influence of social context using social network analysis. Communication Research, 35(4), 548-573. doi:10.1177/0093650208315982 Cornelius, C., & Boos, M. (2003). Enhancing mutual understanding in synchronous computer-mediated communication by training: Trade-offs in judgmental tasks. Communication Research, 30(2), 147-177. doi:10.1177/0093650202250874 Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G.G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education. Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., Irmer, B., & Chang, A. (2002). The expression of conflict in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 33(4), 439-465. doi:10.1177/104649640203300403 Jahng, M. R., & Littau, J. (2015). Interacting is believing: Interactivity, social cue, and perceptions of journalistic credibility on twitter. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 1-21. doi:10.1177/1077699015606680 Noy, A., Raban, D. R., & Ravid, G. (2006). Testing social theories in computer-mediated communication through gaming and simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 37(2), 174-194. doi:10.1177/1046878105286184 Tong, S. T., & Walther, J. B. (2015). The confirmation and disconfirmation of expectancies in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 42(2), 186-212. Utz, S. (2003). Social identification and interpersonal attraction in MUDs. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62(2), 91. doi:10.1024/1421-0185.62.2.91 Walther, J. B. (2012). Interaction through technological lenses: Computer-mediated communication and language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(4), 397-414. Walther, J. B., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (2005). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24(1), 36-65. doi:10.1177/0261927X04273036 Read More