Emotion encoding and interpretation in computer-mediated communication: Reasons for use

As computer-mediated communication (CMC) is increasingly used to build and maintain relationships, the examination of channel choice for the development of these social ties becomes important to study. Using free response data from Riordan and Kreuz (submitted for publication), we examine reasons for choosing among face-to-face, asynchronous email, or synchronous instant message channels to transmit negatively or positively valenced emotional information. The most common reason for choosing face-to-face over channels of CMC was the ability to use more nonverbal cues. The most common reason for choosing a CMC channel over face-to-face was to shield oneself from the message recipient. Face-to-face was deemed more effective, more personal, more comfortable, and less permanent than CMC channels. Reasons differed significantly by valence and channel. We suggest that better knowledge of why people choose certain channels for different types of socio-emotional communication can help develop more comprehensive theories of CMC that account for different attributes of each channel in information transmission.

[1]  Andrew J. Flanagin,et al.  Reconceptualizing ‘flaming’ and other problematic messages , 2003, New Media Soc..

[2]  Joseph B. Walther,et al.  The Impacts of Emoticons on Message Interpretation in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2001 .

[3]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Verbal Irony Use in Face-To-Face and Computer-Mediated Conversations , 2004 .

[4]  J. Walther Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1992 .

[5]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[6]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Expressing emotion in text-based communication , 2007, CHI.

[7]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[8]  Landra L. Rezabek,et al.  Visual Cues in Computer-Mediated Communication: Supplementing Text with Emoticons , 1998 .

[9]  R. Daft,et al.  Media Symbolism, Media Richness, and Media Choice in Organizations , 1987 .

[10]  Rosalind Dyer,et al.  What's the Flaming Problem? or Computer Mediated Communicatio - Deindividuating or Disinhibiting? , 1996, BCS HCI.

[11]  J. W. McCormick,et al.  Computer friends and foes: Content of undergraduates' electronic mail , 1992 .

[12]  Joseph B. Walther,et al.  Nonverbal cues in computer-mediated communication, and the effect of chronemics on relational communication , 1995, J. Organ. Comput..

[13]  L. Tidwell,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting to Know One Another a Bit at a Time , 2002 .

[14]  Ranida B. Harris,et al.  An Investigation of the Computer-mediated Communication of Emotions , 2007 .

[15]  Dane Archer,et al.  Words and everything else: Verbal and nonverbal cues in social interpretation. , 1977 .

[16]  Dean W. Ginther,et al.  An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Frequency and Duration of Messaging on Impression Development in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2002 .

[17]  Susan C. Herring,et al.  Interactional coherence in CMC , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[18]  Philip A. Thompsen,et al.  Effects of Pictographs and Quoting on Flaming in Electronic Mail. , 1996 .

[19]  P. Ekman,et al.  The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage, and Coding , 1969 .

[20]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity , 2008, MIS Q..

[21]  Roberto J. Mejias,et al.  The Effects of National Culture and Anonymity on Flaming and Criticalness in GSS-Supported Discussions , 2004 .