Differences in online relating

[posted by Lorraine]

Joe Walther’s visit to Purdue University introduced us to a wide variety of theoretical approaches to relationships in online environments. The focus of his lectures was how people relate in online environments, or “how does communication behavior affect how people relate online” (Walther, 2006)? More specifically, he framed his work to address the question of whether the development and maintenance of relationships in computer-mediated communication is similar to that in face to face settings.

We discussed a number of underlying theories that inform this issue, including (electronic) propinquity theory (Korzenny, 1978), social identification (SIDE) theory, and social information processing (SIP) theory. As we covered the development of relationships in online environments, we discussed how relationships develop and thrive in the absence of standard visual and social markers of categorization and status.

Theories of online relating tend to confirm our general understanding that individuals seek similarity in their relationships. The theory of homophily (Walther and Parks, 2002) tells us that it is human nature to notice differences in the individuals in our society. But, as our communities and workplaces become increasingly diverse (whether offline, online, virtual, or through global work), how definitive is this construct in determining relationship development? What do we know about an individual’s ability and willingness to discern differences (in age, gender, race, culture, ability) in online relationships and what kind of difference do those differences make in how we relate?

In considering this question, there are different time points to acknowledge: How do we perceive differences in online relationships, what happens to relationships when differences are revealed, and how does relationship maintenance progress (or breakdown) in the face of differences? This leads to the related question: which differences make a difference in relationship development? We examine these questions, briefly and topically, under three main theories discussed by Walther.

Social identification (SIDE) theory, based upon social presence theory tells us that online relating happens through social identification, using self-categorizations (Postmes and Baymes, 2005). Because we are visually anonymous, we tend to relate to people in a group-based way, making assumptions about characteristics based upon membership in known groups (e.g. all students at Purdue must share certain characteristics). In other words, in the absence of visual cues, we relate to individuals as if they are the ‘typical’ person in a group. Thus, anonymous interactions online create stronger relationships if there are not visual representations, because we assume everyone is just like us (or like the typical person in a group we’re willing to relate to). We may react negatively when we find that those expectations of similarity are not true.

In research on virtual workgroups, Postmes and Baymes (2005) use social identity theory to approach the understanding of computer-mediated communication (CMC) for intergroup relations on the Internet. Their work indicates that differences in online relations are overcome with a shift to task-focused communication, i.e., that differences are not substantial when communication is functional or task-based, as opposed to social relational, but that – as in real life – differences are indeed noticed and make a difference in how people relate in online settings. In fact, they use this work to debunk suggestions that social identities will be obliterated in online environments, stating that “social identities inscribed to stigmatized and powerless groups offline would become somewhat irrelevant online” (p.218) is a somewhat utopian perspective. In general, people “present …their true selves online”, and use the Internet to “extend and enrich their “real” selves” (p. 219). In other words, the power of homophily (a more powerful differentiator) is retained in the construction and development of relationships in online environments.

Social information processing (SIP) theory (Walther and Parks, 2002) takes a different perspective and views relationships in terms of the information that must be processed during communication. This theory suggests that people attempt to reduce uncertainty and use and attend to any available cues (nonverbal and verbal)when managing relationships. Because the channel of communication affects the rate of information exchange, information processing is slower in computer-mediated communication (CMC) than face to face (f2f), suggesting that online relationships will be more problematic. However, newer evidence tells us that these differences diminish with time. But when we think about the concepts of channel (bandwidth) and quantity of cues, what role does difference play in information processing about social cues that would affect relationships?

Related to this is the theory of electronic propinquity (Korzenny, 1978). Propinquity is a term describing “nearness in place” (p. 5), that is, a spatial versus psychological closeness. Electronic propinquity – is electronic nearness or presence, and is proposed to be dependent upon the following factors: psychological bandwidth (perceived amount of information), complexity of information, capacity of channel, communication skills, perceived number of communication rules, and perceived number of choices among channels. (Korzenny, 1978). This theory suggests that electronic propinquity will vary based upon bandwidth, information complexity, channel directionality, communication skills and rules, and medium choices available. In general, the greater complexity and choices, the less propinquity one will feel.

Using this theory to understand difference, tells us that difference makes information more complex (since it is beyond our known realm), and thus propinquity theory would predict that propinquity, or nearness, will be reduced. In other words, introducing difference into our online relations will reduce nearness, or propinquity. This is consistent with information theory (Shannon, 1948), which states that as we reduce complexity in information, through the number of choices available, we increase certainty. Or, as we increase complexity in information, we increase the number of choices and decrease certainty.

We know that more information doesn’t always increase trust or identification (Walther and Bunz, 2005), and that too much information can actually decrease trust. This is consistent with the sense that introducing difference (or more information) into online relations increases complexity, reduces certainty, and ultimately reduces propinquity.

What does this mean for understanding our ability to develop working relationships in global organizations that are likely to be characterized by a diverse workforce? Virtual teams of today face the same changing conditions of work that non-virtual organizations do – that is a workforce that is increasingly less homogenous, and more likely to be diverse (diversity). Jarvenpaa and Leidner’s (1998) work on global virtual teams tells us that in teamwork, where group cohesiveness is the outcome and communication is task-focused, individuating (relational) is taken over by the desire for the group cohesiveness that is required for task focus. This work returns to the premise that with time, although increasing information will reveal greater differences, communication goals may shift, and individual differences will be ignored in favor of group-based needs.

We don’t know if these findings are different when relating is not task-based. When differences exist and are known, can there be successful relationship-based communication as well? There is new work on the question of differences and divides in online relating. Hargataii (2006) addresses this question in terms of gender differences and digital divides. There is also new work being done on cultural differences in organizational relationships (Yum and Hara, 2005).

But, the body of research currently suggests that contrary to the diminishing differences of f2f and CMC over time, it appears that there is an effect of increasing difference in terms of how people notice and identify differences in online settings. In other words, with more time, we are more likely to discover and discern differences in those with whom we relate in online environments. Theories of homophily and social identification would suggest, then, that with increased time, relationships with those who are different from you will weaken, not strengthen.

To summarize, each of these theories suggest that differences, when revealed in online relationships, will create barriers that will increase the complexity, reduce certainty, and diminish the closeness that we feel in relating to others. Additional research in understanding which differences make a difference would help us to better understand this phenomenon.

References
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346-371.

Hargittai, E. (2006). Differences in Actual/Perceived Social Skills Online. Online at: http://www.eszter.com/research/pubs/hargittai-shafer-genderskills.pdf.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791-815.

Korzenny, F. (1978). A theory of electronic propinquity: Mediated communications in organizations. Communication Research, 5, 3-24.

Postmes, T., & Baym, N. (2005). Intergroup dimensions of the Internet. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 213-238). New York: Peter Lang.

Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, p. 379–423 and 623–656, July and October, 1948.

Walther, JB, Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 2005.

Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yum, Y.-O., and Hara, K. (2005). Computer-mediated relationship development: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), article 7. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/yum.html.