Social Cues, when less is more

Apologies - it's going to be a long one as there are lots of things that need to come out of my head!

So last week's musings were about social cues in the online environment. We have touched slightly on this in our tutor forums, questioning whether more design and support is needed in the online world, as we can't see the nuances that we would in the face- to-face(f2f). How does a trainer know whether or not their participants are engaged?

It seems that for a long while it was felt that computer mediated communication (CMC) could not compare to the rich environment that f2f offers. Computers are good for information and not emotion. Living in 2011 social media enriched lives we know this is not the case. And it seems that the academics would also agree, with a number of researchers investigated how CMC offers a different kind of social interaction, which in some way is better than f2f.

So what are the implications for out changing perception of CMC when designing online learning? What can we learn from some of this research?

Ben Ze’ev, A. (2003) ‘Privacy, emotional closeness, and openness in cyberspace’, comments about the tradeoff between privacy and emotional closeness. Our needs for emotional ties mean that we relinquish some of our privacy - it's how we are programmed to build relationships. He comments that we disclose personal information either to those we are intimate with, which comes with the risk of being hurt, or to strangers who we don't know, so we don't care as it has no impact on our continuing relationship with them.

" On the Net, self-disclosure is more prevalent because we feel safer in cyberspace than in actual space"

There is an interesting link to the growth of the 'confessional'. That in the media more and more people seem encouraged to reveal themselves and their secrets, so much so that it is often a badge of honour, and those that don't disclose are viewed with suspicion, which leads to an increasing concern about the erosion of privacy.

There is a need for different relationships with different people, and we should be able to have some degree of privacy over this, as it's emotionally necessary. The online world, allows some control over this, so we can reveal as much or as little as we want, without the shame that often emerges when similar disclosures are made in face-to-face relationships. He also touches on shame, and the importance of it in the creation of a society's moral codes. Are moral norms looser in cyberspace? Or is shame per se declining?

Walther, J.B. and Boyd, S. (2002) ‘Attraction to computer-mediated social support’  takes this a step further by explaining there a number of different ways in which CMC can support individuals that share characteristics of a tradition self help f2f support.  What I liked about this, was that I had seen examples of this in the tutor group forum.

·      Informational support - advice, facts and feedback that help us make judgments or decision

·     Emotional - expressions of caring, concern, empathy, sympathy

·     Esteem - expressing admiration, or understanding others work

·     tangible aid - actual practical help in the f2f world

·     social network - directing or referring to another person or group - tying them into a wider community.

Again there is this rationalisation that the anonymity of online interaction enables 'weak links that facilitate low risk discussions about high risk topics'

Herring, S.C. (1999) ‘Interactional coherence in CMC’, main point seems to focus on the lack of simultaneous feedback, and the opportunities this affords, rather than the weaknesses. Where answers are thought out, and  planned for, communication is richer and of a greater quality. People think before they speak, which allows for a higher cognitive process.

This links to the Walthers 'hyperpersonal' model, in which an advantage is gained over Face-to-face methods as the user is able to tailor their presentation of themselves to suit their needs.

In all of these there is a tension between 'efficiency' which suggests that online communication reduces social interaction and is not suited to creating personal relationships and the 'hyperpersonal'  that says because we don't know, we assume people are like us, or we tailor our and their personality based on our disclosures, and therefore feel more connected.

Lea, M., Rogers, P. and Postmes, T. (2002) ‘SIDE-VIEW: Evaluation of a prototype system to develop team players and improve productivity in Internet collaborative learning groups’,  Here , rather than enhancing the environment to provide more social cues, tasks are set to create a group identity - anonymous activities create the 'team'. Visual media has the potential to undermine a group, where a group identity has been formed based around the need to complete the task, meaning there is less need for the interpersonal cues .(It's all about the collective) .

HE is individualistic so it's harder to encourage collaboration. Is this why collaborative uses of online tools are being used and developed more in the business world, where collaboration is often the point?

Weisband, S. and Kiesler, S. (1996) 'Self-disclosure on computer forms: meta-analysis and implications' talks about the false illusion of privacy that CMC can create. Online we can let our guard down without realising it, and we actually share a lot more of our personal information than we do in f2f interviews.

Computer interfaces lack the social context cues therefore people who lack experience with computers are less aware of the risks of disclosure.

So what does it mean for us.............

Other reading

Walther, J.B. (2006) ‘Nonverbal dynamics in computer-mediated communication, or :( and the net :( ’s with you, :) and you :) alone’ in Manusov, V. and

Joinson, A.N. (2001) ‘Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity’, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol.31, no.2, pp.177–92;

Nowak, K., Watt, J.H. and Walther, J.B. (2005) ‘The influence of synchrony and sensory modality on the person perception process in computer-mediated groups’, Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, vol.10, no.3