contemplating digital orality

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.

Hyperpersonal
In the last few posts, I discussed this Walther article and the ways in which computer-mediated communication (CMC) can be more impersonal than face-to-face (FtF) communication and the ways in which it can been as interpersonal as FtF. In this third (and final) post on this Walther article, I look at his consideration of the hyperpersonal perspective of CMC. This idea refers to the way in which CMC is even more personal than (surpassing the affection and emotion level of) FtF communication. He states that these situations in which we find CMC more desirable than FtF is generally in a recreational setting and relate to four different elements of the communication process: receivers, senders, characteristics of the channel, and feedback processes. Read the rest of this entry »

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.

Interpersonal
Continuing from the Last post, after considering the impersonal perspective of CMC, Walther goes on to look at the interpersonal perspective. “The model assumes that communicators in CMC, like other communicators, are driven to develop social relationships” (10). While this is true of text-based social settings like chat rooms (not so popular now, but certainly so in the mid-to-late 1990s), it can be seen to be even more accurate now with communication occurring through social media tools such as Twitter, Facebook, 12seconds.tv, etc. Read the rest of this entry »

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.

This 1996 article is quite dated in many of its discussions, including its characterization of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC). While Walther never directly defines CMC in this article, he uses the term largely to refer only to text-based communication, such as email and chat. However, we now communicate online through other methods that offer various levels of modality, such as audio and video. Yet, within this article, Walther puts forth many ideas that are foundational to both my study and to the current state of CMC. Read the rest of this entry »

Definition:

Junghyun Kim, citing (Cathcart & Gumpert, 1983), defines Interpersonal communication as:
[A] dyadic(sic) interaction that takes the form of verbal and nonverbal exchanges between two (or a small group of) individuals, consciously aware of each other, usually interacting in the same time and space. Through interpersonal communication, people maintain and adjust their self-image, relate to others, cooperate in decision-making, or accomplish tasks together.

This definition favors FtF communication as the highest form of personal interaction over other communication forms in that it occurs in real-time, in a single location, between two or more individuals relating to, and working with, others. I’d like to extend this definition to include Read the rest of this entry »

Again, I am merely touching on this theory due to the fact that I am this week discussing Junghyun Kim’s 2003 article in which he discusses this and other media theories. Soon, I will elaborate on this theory, including the subsequent Media Synchronicity and Media Naturalness theories.

Media richness theory, proposed by Daft and Lengel in 1984, essentially states that task performance increases when the task needs are matched to the medium’s richness. Additionally, the theory suggests that individuals predictably favor the use of specific communication media to perform certain tasks. Specifically, that rich media are a more likely to be found appropriate for “equivocal” communication, which occurs more in complex tasks. Daft and Lengel define the richness of media as the ability of information to change understanding within a time interval. The theory argues that the richness of media differs between media types, with face-to-face communication being richer than communicating via email, for example. Read the rest of this entry »