Sliv04.qxd 8/31/01 11:36 AM Page 62

4

Interpersonal Life Online

NANCY K. BAYM

In concluding her 1984 analysis of experimental interact consisted primarily of local area networks research on computer-mediated communication, that offered e-mail, group decision-making soft- linguist Naomi Baron wrote that ‘computer medi- ware and computer conferencing. Despite the early ated communication – at least as currently used – is presence of recreational CMC, its use in organiza- ill suited for such “social” uses of language’ (1984: tional contexts set the research agenda through the 136). Fourteen years later, in a move indicative of 1980s. Today’s forms of CMC include asynchro- the shift in this line of research, she argued that nous media such as mailing lists (discussion forums ‘e-mail is, in many respects, an ideal tool for build- organized by topic and distributed to subscribers ing or maintaining social relationships’ (1998: through e-mail), newsgroups (publicly accessible 157). Although computer-mediated communication discussion forums organized by topic which are was not invented with interpersonal interaction in similar in form to e-mail but do not require e-mail mind, the rise of the Internet has clarified that this subscriptions), and message boards on the World technology is fundamentally social (Parks and Wide Web. Synchronous computer-mediated forms Roberts, 1998; Sproull and Faraj, 1997). E-mail, of communication include chat (multi-user ‘chan- used primarily for person-to-person contact, is the nels’ or ‘rooms’ in which people gather in small Internet’s ‘killer app’ and the best predictor of numbers to discuss topics both general and whether new users will stay online (Kraut et al., specific), MUDs and MOOs (multi-user ‘places’ in press). Even aspects of the Internet that do not elaborately constructed through text for purposes of seem particularly social, such as business sites, role playing games, social interaction and educa- online magazines and information services, have tion), instant messages (a more targeted form of integrated social opportunities such as chat spaces chat, in which users keep ‘buddy’ lists and can keep and bulletin boards into their sites (Parks and tabs on whether or not their friends are online and Roberts, 1998). The early failure of its inventors available to receive messages), and graphic user and scholars to grasp the social implications of this worlds (akin to MUDs and MOOs but graphical). A medium is typical of the history of many new sense of the popularity of these media (at least in media. As Kraut et al. (in press) have pointed the United States) can be gained from a Pew Internet out, the interpersonal implications of the telephone and American Life Project poll in the spring of were also not apparent to its innovators or early 2000. They found that each day 91 per cent of analysts. This chapter examines the Internet, and American net users (an estimated 84 million computer-mediated communication (hereafter people) send e-mail, 45 per cent (primarily young CMC) more broadly, arguing that CMC’s interper- people) send instant messages, and 28 per cent sonal opportunities are among its most important. participate in chat rooms or online discussions. Research into CMC began in the 1970s, as net- Although organizations are far from the only con- worked computer systems were being installed in text for CMC use, early organizational research codi- large organizational contexts and as maverick com- fied core assumptions and comparisons to which puter enthusiasts were creating interactive dial-in much interpersonal CMC scholarship still reacts. I bulletin board systems. At the time, organizational begin by elaborating this backdrop. I then explore computing systems which allowed multiple users to contemporary thought about the characteristics of Sliv04.qxd 8/31/01 11:36 AM Page 63

INTERPERSONAL LIFE ONLINE 63

CMC. Having laid out these two frameworks for The task-oriented claims made from this CMC research, the remainder of the chapter focuses approach have held up reasonably well, but the on four areas of interpersonal meaning that have interpersonal implications of the cues-filtered-out received the most attention: online language use, approach have been roundly criticazed, and this identity, personal relationships and social groups. deterministic perspective has for the most part been dropped (although, as I will discuss below, the issue of limited non-verbal cues remains central). The criticisms were methodological, empirical and con- MEDIA CHARACTERISTICS ceptual. Methodologically, most of the lab studies brought together unrealistically small, zero-history The Cues-Filtered-Out Perspective groups for a median time period of 30 minutes (Rafaeli and Sudweeks, 1997; Walther et al., 1994; Most early efforts at analysing CMC were based on Weisband and Atwater, 1999). Among differences the premise that media characteristics have consis- in research designs were group characteristics and tent effects on communication. Drawing largely on members, communication system infrastructures, small-group research from social psychology, in functions or tasks around which the groups were particular the work of Bales (1950), this research organized, and groups’ temporal structures had practical goals. Early applications and studies (Hollingshead and McGrath, 1995; Walther and (e.g. Martino, 1972; Price, 1975) were generally Burgoon, 1992; Walther, 1992). However, these concerned with efficiency and effectiveness variations were rarely addressed within the work, (Kiesler et al., 1984). This research agenda essen- confounding experimental designs with findings tially asked what happened when face-to-face work (Hollingshead and McGrath, 1995). groups meet via computer instead. Questions Empirically, the laboratory evidence for differ- included how CMC affected the quality of group ences between face-to-face and computer-mediated decisions, leadership, participation and time to communication was statistically significant, but the decision (Rice and Love, 1987). Given this con- magnitude of difference was small (Walther et al., cern, the basis of comparison was (and often 1994). More importantly, research using a different remains) face-to-face communication, the key fea- methodological approach – the field study – turned tures of which were taken to be the ongoing provi- up evidence that socioemotional communication not sion of feedback and the clarity of participants’ only existed in computer-mediated groups, but was relative social status. Social presence theory (Short more likely to be prosocial than antisocial. Hiltz and et al., 1976) and later media richness theory (Daft Turoff (1978) reported that users compensated for and Lengel, 1984), both of which argued that media the coldness of the medium with extra efforts to differ in the information they can provide and there- be friendly, warm and personal. Social cues reported fore in the extent to which they are appropriate for in early CMC field studies included ASCII art, different communication tasks, were combined into salutations, degree of formality of language, para- what Culnan and Marcus (1987) called the ‘cues- language, communication styles and message head- filtered-out’ approach. This work is summarized ers (Hiltz and Turoff, 1978; Lea et al., 1992). In a and critiqued at length elsewhere (e.g. Lea and content analysis of transcripts from a professionally Spears, 1995; Walther et al., 1994) so I hit only the oriented CompuServe forum, Rice and Love (1987) highlights here. found that socioemotional content (defined as show- Cues-filtered-out took the defining features of ing solidarity, tension relief, agreement, antago- CMC to be the absence of regulating feedback and nism, tension and disagreement) constituted around reduced status and position cues. This was taken to 30 per cent of messages. Only 0.4 per cent of the result in anonymity and deindividuation, with a content was negative, and 18 per cent showed soli- variety of communicative consequences (e.g. Hiltz darity. In their critique of the notion that flaming is and Turoff, 1978; Kiesler et al., 1984). In experi- rampant in computer-mediated systems, Lea et al. ments where small face-to-face groups were com- (1992) concluded that there was no comparative evi- pared with small computer-mediated groups, dence that flaming is more common in CMC than in researchers found that the latter took longer to com- other media or face-to-face. The richer portrait of plete tasks, single leaders were less likely to CMC revealed by field research has since led to emerge, participation became more equal, and there more sophisticated conceptualizations of variables was more uninhibited behaviour (e.g. Hiltz and in experimental research. Turoff, 1978; Siegel et al., 1986). Most famous of Most conceptual criticisms of the cues-filtered- the ‘uninhibited’ behaviours is flaming, which out perspective revolved around definitions of Walther et al. (1994) in a meta-analysis defined socioemotional communication and disinhibition. operationally as name calling, swearing, insults, As Lea (1991) pointed out, Bale’s category system, impolite statements, threats and put-downs, crude which was often used to code messages, has very flirtations of a demeaning or sexually explicit restrictive definitions of socioemotional. It also nature, and attacks on groups or individuals. requires that messages be identified as either Sliv04.qxd 8/31/01 11:36 AM Page 64

64 THE CHANGING SOCIAL LANDSCAPE

socioemotional or task-oriented, whereas messages the speed of transmission and immateriality of time, are usually multifunctional and can be both. Thus, especially in synchronous CMC (Baron, 1998; even studies such as Rice and Love’s, which Carnevale and Probst, 1997; McKenna and Bargh, found considerable socioemotional communication, 2000). In asynchronous CMC, the fact that one can may have underestimated its prevalence. Regarding read and respond to messages on one’s own time disinhibition, many studies included positive as has been taken to expand the potential for interper- well as negative comments as uninhibited behav- sonal engagement and thus to be a critical feature of iour (Lea et al., 1992), so that most socioemotional the medium. In a real break from earlier technolo- or off-task communication was seen as disinhibited. gies such as the telephone, CMC dramatically Empirical evidence also showed that even flaming, reduces the costs associated with communication which seemed to be the most clearly disinhibited across distance (Baron, 1998; Pew, 2000; Sproull behaviour, sometimes took inhibited forms (for and Faraj, 1997). This explains in part why many instance, punctuation marks substituted for letters people report that e-mail is good for keeping in in swear words). Furthermore, flaming was shown touch with friends and family far away and also that to be context-dependent, occurring at different they make fewer long-distance phone calls since levels across computer-mediated groups (Lea going online (Dimmick et al., 2000; Pew, 2000). et al., 1992). If the cues-filtered-out perspective was A second characteristic of CMC is the limited right that media characteristics have consistent information available regarding participants. The effects, there was no way to account for the devel- notion of reduced social cues remains central. opment of norms regarding the appropriateness of However, the effort has shifted from asking simply flaming, or the fact that over time groups came to what effect this has, to more nuanced efforts to sanction inappropriate behaviours (Hiltz and understand the variety of possible consequences, Turoff, 1978; Lea et al., 1992). I return to the the contexts which give rise to different options, issues of context and norm development throughout and the creative ways in which communicators what follows. make use of, or compensate for, this media charac- teristic. The reduction of physical appearance cues, along with the evidence of status and attractiveness Communication-Relevant Qualities they bear, creates a kind of invisibility or anonymity of Computer Media (Carnevale and Probst, 1997; McKenna and Bargh, 2000; Sproull and Faraj, 1997; Turkle, 1996), Despite the criticisms, the experimental findings of which opens the potential for multiplicity of identi- cues-filtered-out research cannot simply be dis- ties (Stone, 1995; Turkle, 1996), a high degree of missed (Walther, 1992; Walther et al., 1994). Most privacy (Baron, 1998), and a lower sense of social CMC researchers have continued to rely on media risk (Curtis, 1997) or accountability (Stone, 1995), characteristics to think through key questions. among other possibilities (topics I return to in the However, rather than positing limited cues as the discussion of identity). primary independent variable, or assuming that In addition to obscuring information about par- limited cues invariably produce particular results, ticipants as individuals, CMC can also hide infor- the challenge now is to explain the roles that media mation regarding the participant structure of characteristics can play in shaping communication interactions. The net blurs the boundary between and to clarify the variables that produce differing interpersonal and mass media (Baym, 1996; Lea results in varying contexts. This has led to more and Spears, 1995; Morris and Ogan, 1996; Rafaeli sophisticated methodological and conceptual and Sudweeks, 1997). E-mail and instant messaging analyses. The media qualities with the greatest are usually clearly interpersonal given their specific interpersonal implications fall into roughly three addressees, but other forms of CMC are harder to categories: those having to do with spatiotemporal categorize. As Culnan and Marcus (1987) argued, issues, with the participants, and with the elec- addressivity in CMC is fundamentally different tronic and (usually) written nature of the medium. from face-to-face communication, as there is usu- I focus on the Internet in what follows, though ally no need to specify identity and location of most of the discussion can be generalized to other recipient in the latter. Furthermore, in many forms forms of CMC such as local area networks. of CMC, such as newsgroups and mailing lists, it In terms of time and space, as long as one is in a can be difficult if not impossible to judge the size country or region that has access, the Internet makes of one’s audience (Carnevale and Probst, 1997). physical location largely irrelevant (e.g. Baron, Finally, just as a producer loses control over who 1998; Lea and Spears, 1995; McKenna and Bargh, watches a television show once it is aired, there 2000; Sproull and Faraj, 1997). Interaction between is usually little, if any, control over access to and two people in the same building is indistinguishable participation in computer-mediated groups (Galegher from interaction between people half a world apart. et al., 1998). Interactions between two individuals This creates a kind of spaceless proximity that did can thus have consequences for social formations not exist to this extent before, a sense enhanced by larger than pairs. Just as the mail, telegraph and Sliv04.qxd 8/31/01 11:36 AM Page 65

INTERPERSONAL LIFE ONLINE 65

telephone bridged time and space before the net, involves participants who are often temporally anonymity and unclear participant structures separated and do not share physical co-presence. occurred in pre-Internet days, but not on anything Communicators in CMC must make explicit much like their current scale. of the information that would be carried by the Finally, computer-mediated messages can be voice, gestures or other non-verbal cues in face-to- stored in memory, replicated, retrieved at later face conversation. Like speech, much CMC is dates, and edited prior to sending, which has also direct, contextualized and interactive (e.g. Baym, been taken to have interpersonal consequences 1996; Galegher et al., 1998). Writers can assume (Carnevale and Probst, 1997; Cherny, 1999; Culnan that their readers will share many referents, will and Marcus, 1987; Walther, 1996). Some (e.g. Hiltz be reading within a few days and will be able and Turoff, 1978; Walther, 1996) suggest that the to respond. Messages are often open to reformultion. additional visual channel of written discourse com- These analyses of online interaction recognized bined with the ability to edit leads to better organi- that media characteristics influence linguistic zed and better thought out statements than occur forms. For instance, in synchronous CMC one sees face-to-face. Again, all of the consequences of many language features that can be attributed to the these media characteristics were possible before desire to increase speed by typing less (and, for computers, but the Internet combines them in such heavy users, to minimize carpal tunnel syndrome). a way and on such a scale as to represent a qualita- In Internet relay chat and MOOs, people use abbre- tive shift in mediated communication. These char- viations, acronyms, shortened words, the deletion acteristics together form a backdrop for the of subject pronouns, and contractions in response to discussion that follows. the medium (Cherny, 1999; Werry, 1996), much as they did with the telegraph. However, participants in many CMC media also actively strive to make their language seem conversational (Werry, 1996), Media Comparisons indicating that the medium is only one influence on language. Wilkins points to lexical repetition, In casting the characteristics of CMC in terms of which ‘made it possible for the participants to fol- space, time, visual and auditory cues, participant low the conversational sequence, to integrate structure and storage capabilities, the basis of com- entries with the appropriate preceding ones, and parison is usually face-to-face communication, a thus to experience the discourse as conversation’ fact that follows both from the early agenda of (1991: 63). Werry (1996) and Galegher et al., CMC research and from the tendency of CMC users (1998) point to the informal style of much CMC. to think of the medium as conversational. However, ‘The discourse,’ concluded Galegher et al. ‘does as suggested by those who view CMC as a cross not depart discernibly from oral and written pat- between interpersonal and mass media, and those terns of conversation’ (1998: 524). That CMC who have compared it to the telephone, face-to-face appears more similar to speech and writing than dif- conversation is by no means the only basis for com- ferent also points to the limits of conceptualizing parison. Discourse analysts, in particular, have paid the medium as a core causal variable. Most of this a good deal of detailed attention to language forms research has been conducted in English-speaking in CMC, often comparing CMC to writing. Rather groups, owing largely to the (now changing) histor- than drawing on social psychology, these scholars ical predominance of the English language on the were more likely to be guided by linguistic anthro- Internet and of the location of so many CMC pologists (e.g. Bauman and Sherzer, 1974; researchers in the United States, Australia and Gumperz and Hymes, 1972). While the former tra- England. Werry’s work, however, examined both dition often focuses on identifying variables English- and French-speaking groups and found through the decontextualized space of the labora- these phenomena in both languages. Non-English tory, the latter seeks to describe language forms in CMC is an area ripe for research, and one which has naturally occurring contexts, and to explain these begun to receive increased attention. forms in terms of those contexts. Discourse analysts As is the case with flaming, language forms have rarely looked at organizations, focusing online are highly normative and vary across and instead on classroom and recreational groups. within CMC contexts. These norms, argued Ferrara Early on, Baron (1984) noted the need to distin- et al. (1991), are acquired through interactions with guish between the use of CMC to replace writing other users. As the technology evolves, the usership and its use to replace speech. In the time since, many grows and the varieties of CMC evolve, it becomes (e.g. Baron, 1998; Ferrara et al., 1991; Wilkins, increasingly difficult to differentiate claims about 1991) have explored the extent to which CMC com- the medium from claims about participants or stage pares to writing, usually concluding that CMC rep- of normative development (Baron, 1998). Baron resents ‘a hybrid language variety displaying (1998) argued that e-mail should be considered a characteristics of both oral and written language’ ‘creole’ language, in that it is a still emerging (Ferrara et al., 1991: 10). Like writing, CMC hybrid of other language varieties. I would argue Sliv04.qxd 8/31/01 11:36 AM Page 66

66 THE CHANGING SOCIAL LANDSCAPE

this is true of all CMC. That the nature of Internet role playing game systems using participant discourse is still emerging further suggests the observation and interviewing. Looking at the dis- limited causal power of the medium and the futility course, he concluded that there was a tremendous of making simple generalizations about online amount of play with punctuation and spelling interaction. (Myers, 1987b). He argued this resulted from a Users’ perceptions of CMC and their desires desire for spontaneity. Danet et al. (1995; 1997), regarding these media are central to the forms Werry (1996) and Cherny (1999) are among those computer-mediated discourse takes. As Lea (1991) who have shown similar play with phonetic and showed, even perceptions of a single computer visual qualities of language use in synchronous medium like e-mail are complex and varied. In his computer media. Danet et al. (1997) argued that the effort to explore users’ perceptions of the similari- computer medium is inherently playful because of ties and differences between e-mail and other its ‘ephemerality, speed, interactivity, and freedom media, Lea used the repertory grid method in which from the tyranny of materials.’ subjects construct categories of meaning as bases The most common variety of playful language for comparison. He found that e-mail was seen as activity online is probably humour, which seems to written, asynchronous, spontaneous, informal, and be more common online than off. In a large project slightly impoverished and impersonal. Perceptions (see Sudweeks et al., 1998) in which dozens of varied as to whether e-mail was seen as consequen- researchers from several countries and universities tial or inconsequential, or direct or indirect. Lea conducted a quantitative content analysis of thou- concluded that e-mail was in some ways more like sands of messages from international Usenet news- note and letter writing, and in other ways more like groups, BITNET lists and CompuServe, Rafaeli and face-to-face communication and telephoning. In a Sudweeks (1997) found that more than 20 per cent blow to what he termed ‘rationalist’ models that of the messages contained humour. In my analysis assume reduced cues will make CMC more effi- of a Usenet newsgroup that discussed American cient and businesslike, Lea’s subjects didn’t con- soap operas (Baym, 1995), I found that 27 per cent strue CMC as particularly information efficient or of messages addressing a dark and troubling story- inefficient relative to other media. line were humorous. The forms of humour included Ultimately, computer media should not be under- clever nicknames for characters (e.g. Natalie, also stood as deficient versions of face-to-face commu- called Nat, was dubbed ‘Not’ when a new actress nication (Culnan and Marcus, 1987), or as peculiar took over the role, and became ‘Splat’ when the versions of the telephone, the television or the writ- character was killed in a car accident), plot parodies ten word. Instead, theoretical approaches need to and many others. Surveys revealed that humour consider CMC’s unique and varied qualities, and made both messages and participants stand out as understand how users draw on their existing com- especially likeable. municative competencies in multiple media to Language play is a form of performance. actively construct social meaning within the chal- Bauman (1975) and Hymes (1975) described per- lenges and opportunities posed by this medium. The formance as communication that is marked as open next section examines four primary areas of inter- for evaluation by an audience. As Danet et al. personal social meanings: language use, identity, (1997) argued, online performance draws attention relationships and social groups. to the language and the medium, turning the lack of other cues into a communicative asset. Com- municative performances serve a variety of social functions, among them displaying competence INTERPERSONAL ISSUES IN CMC (often in the service of self-enhancement), enter- taining an audience and facilitating group cohesion Computer-Mediated Language Use (Bauman, 1975). By making the language form and content performative and playful, participants in Rationalist conceptions of CMC assumed that cue CMC enhance the appeal of the discourse, build deprivation would create discourse that was more online identities and foster fun relationships. serious and information-oriented than face-to-face communication (Lea, 1991; Rice and Love, 1987). Aside from the fact that sometimes people turned Computer-Mediated Identities more nasty than reasonable, this idea has also been undermined by a wide variety of field studies that Since language is so often the only form of com- explored recreational CMC from qualitative lin- munication in CMC, it becomes the primary means guistic, sociological, communication and anthropo- of managing and forming impressions of our own logical perspectives and consistently found that and others’ selves. Perhaps no aspect of online language use online is often remarkably playful. social life has received as much attention as iden- In what may have been the first pair of studies tity, in both (often conflated) senses of personal along these lines, Myers (1987a; 1987b) studied individuality and category membership. O’Brien Sliv04.qxd 8/31/01 11:36 AM Page 67

INTERPERSONAL LIFE ONLINE 67

(1999: 95) points to two ‘conceptual clusters’ that are still a long way from knowing the offline characterize online identity formation as well as consequences of online identity (McKenna and the interests of scholars studying the phenomenon. Bargh, 2000). Most analytic attention (scholarly and popular) has Most attention given to computer-mediated focused on the cluster of ‘disembodied/multiplicity/ identity play has centred on MUDs. In this regard, fantasy’, while most online identities are along the it’s instructive to remember the Pew finding that lines of ‘embodied/authenticity/reality’. In a pre- only 28 per cent of American Internet users partici- scient essay titled ‘Anonymity is part of the magic’ pate in any kind of online discussion groups, and a (a quote drawn from an interview), Myers (1987a) miniscule percentage of such groups are MUDs. In drew attention to how reduced cues opened up the comparison with the 91 per cent of people who use potential for identity play. The users he inter- e-mail and the 45 per cent who use instant mes- viewed took this to be one of the medium’s pri- saging (which do not lend themselves to the same mary appeals. Reid (1991) explored the kind of anonymity), MUDs hardly represent typical postmodern nature of this phenomenon in Internet online interaction. According to Curtis (1997), cre- relay chat in an essay that was among the first to ator of the LambdaMOO, the most popular social describe online gender swapping. As evidenced by MUD and site of much MUD research, even in Turkle (1996) and Stone (1995), the postmodern MUDs, role playing and gender swapping are implications of anonymity and identity play can be uncommon. Parks and Roberts (1998) argued that theoretically intoxicating. By divorcing our selves there are no data to indicate identity deception is from our bodies, from time and from space, the either widespread or more common online. To the computer opens a realm in which the multiplicity contrary, some research suggests that anonymity, of identity that is taken to characterize contempo- and its associated lessening of social risk, may rary life (e.g. Gergen, 1991) reaches an apex. allow people to be more honest and take greater We can be multiple people simultaneously, with risks in their self-disclosures than they would no one of these selves necessarily more valid offline (McKenna and Bargh, 2000). The Pew poll, than any other. These varied identities can have for instance, found that Americans feel they can be varied degrees of relation to the embodied ‘self.’ more honest in e-mail with loved ones and friends Organizational research, guided by its practical than they can be in conversation. Rather than agenda, conceptualized anonymity as problematic. making us less like our embodied selves, CMC’s The research outlined here, guided by a postmodern reduced cues sometimes allow us to be more true to theoretical agenda, conceptualizes anonymity as our embodied selves than we can be in the flesh. indicative of a broad cultural shift. Though popular Online identities are also made to correspond to media often view online anonymity as dangerous, embodied identities through contextualization. In Turkle (1997: 151) examined how some of the an analysis of (woefully understudied) personal MUD users she interviewed used the Internet as a web home pages, Wynn and Katz found that people way to grapple with psychological issues such as ‘pull together a cohesive presentation of self across parental relationships, and argued that MUDs are eclectic social contexts in which individuals partici- ‘privileged spaces for thinking through and work- pate’ (1998: 324). Rather than being multiple or ing through issues of personal identity’. anonymous, the online identities constructed One possible outcome of these experiments in through home pages were richly contextualized in identity is the resolution of identity issues offline. offline social contexts and groups through self- Turkle (1996; 1997) wrote of the potential to work descriptions, implied audiences, and links to web- on identity issues involving control and mastery. sites of other people and groups. Wellman made a Myers (1987a) argued that his subjects gained a similar point in a review essay when he wrote that sense of efficacy or power through the self-creation too many scholars and pundits ‘treat life online as process. McKenna and Bargh (2000) proposed that an isolated social phenomenon…They usually constructing a new identity which is successful ignore the fact that people bring to their online within a new peer group can allow for role changes interactions such baggage as their gender, stage in that create real changes in self-concept. Some (e.g. the life cycle, cultural milieu, socioeconomic status, Haraway, 1991) have suggested that this may ulti- and off line connections with others’ (1997b: 446). mately go beyond individual effects to redefine In short, the focus on disembodied identity reflects identity categories such as gender in offline life. theoretical interests and the lure of the exotic rather This argument is disputed by others (e.g. Donath, than an effort to understand the typical. 1999) who point out that people tend not to erase or A different approach to identity has been redefine gender online but to exaggerate it, so that taken by Lea and Spears (e.g. 1995), who sought men who pretend to be women usually portray a theoretical explanation for the variation in themselves as exceptionally sexually attractive in online identity. Their SIDE (social individuation highly stereotypical ways. This has also been found and deindividuation) model is based on self- amongst adolescent women who misrepresent their categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987; Tajfel appearance online (Clark, 1998). At this point, we and Turner, 1986) which conceptualizes self as a Sliv04.qxd 8/31/01 11:36 AM Page 68

68 THE CHANGING SOCIAL LANDSCAPE

range of self-categories including both personal and tendency to use physical and spatial metaphors social identities. SIDE theory tries to identify situa- in describing and accounting for relationships’ tional conditions that will invoke particular self- (1995: 212). Lea and Spears also fault these categories and make the behaviour normative to theories for their tendency to ignore relationships that self-category possible and appropriate (Lea and that cross boundaries, don’t lead to marriage or are Spears, 1995). From this perspective, some online negative. On the other side of the coin, they point contexts will do little to make the self-categories out that perspectives on CMC that focus on disem- associated with offline selves relevant, and these bodiment, such as those discussed in the previous will be most likely to result in identity play, decep- section, also raise doubts about the possibility of tion and other behaviours divorced from social con- forming genuine personal relationships through texts. Other contexts will make those categories mediated means. more relevant, and will invoke self-representations One of the wonderful things about CMC is that it and behaviour consistent with embodied versions of gives us an opportunity to rethink theories of com- the self. Consistent with this theory, Myers (1987a) munication. In this case, despite the implications of and Baym (2000) have argued that the selves con- many interpersonal and postmodern theories that structed in online groups are dependent on the people can’t or won’t form personal relationships norms of the groups within which they are con- through CMC, people do, and do so often and fairly structed, so that what is an appropriate identity in successfully. CMC, and the Internet, offer new one context may not be in another. ‘The process of opportunities for creating relationships. The self-creation,’ wrote Myers, ‘depends very heavily Internet’s discussion groups broaden the field on continuous group negotiation within previously of potential relational partners beyond those physi- negotiated interaction contexts’ (1987a: 259). cally proximate (Lea and Spears, 1995). Kraut et al.’s To summarize, to the extent that it exists in CMC, (in press) interviews suggest that online groups are anonymity is used in varying ways in different con- the main way in which people start online relation- texts. In some cases, it offers the chance to explore ships. Parks and Floyd (1996) conducted a survey untried identities or to falsify the self. In other cases, of Usenet participants in which they found that it offers the freedom to be more open and honest almost a third had formed friendships through than one would otherwise be. In still other cases, Usenet. In a follow-up study of MOOs, Parks and anonymity is an obstacle to be overcome through Roberts (1998) found that such a high per centage various forms of self-disclosure. It is too often for- of their respondents had formed personal relation- gotten that in much – perhaps even most – CMC, ships through MOOs that they were statistically however, anonymity is not an issue, as people are unable to compare them with those who had not. I corresponding with people they also know offline documented many interpersonal friendships and and building online selves that are richly contextual- occasional romances that had emerged through a ized in their offline social networks. Usenet group (Baym, 2000). Indeed, the people I studied often described the group as ‘a bunch of close friends’. Relational opportunities online are COMPUTER-MEDIATED RELATIONSHIPS also increased by the aforementioned reduction of social risk, which makes some people more willing to strike up conversations with strangers (Curtis, The same forces that can affect identity online also 1997). Furthermore, liking and attraction face-to- offer new possibilities for developing and sustain- face are often based in the early stages on physical ing interpersonal relationships in this medium. Just appearance (e.g. Duck, 1977). In CMC, people are as studies of online identity have gravitated toward more likely to be brought together by shared inter- novel identities, most of the attention regarding ests, giving them the chance to discover similarity interpersonal relationships in CMC has explored in values and interests, and to focus on one the formation of new relationships, with particular another’s conversational style without attending to attention to friendship and, to a lesser extent, appearance (McKenna and Bargh, 2000). This is a romance. In their excellent review of relational devastating reversal for stage models of relational theory and its implications for CMC, Lea and development such as social penetration which so Spears (1995) argued that theories of personal rela- often rely on physical attraction to explain the early tionships are biased toward face-to-face communi- stages of relational development (Lea and Spears, cation, and often define relationships in terms of 1995). Computer-mediated relationships often fol- face-to-face qualities, leaving them unable to low a predictable developmental trajectory (Baker, explain relational development in CMC. They fault 1998; Parks and Floyd, 1996), moving from public traditional theories such as Altman and Taylor’s discussion, to e-mail, to the telephone and then to (1973) canonical social penetration model for their face-to-face meetings. Of the friendship pairs in ‘emphasis on physical proximity, face-to-face Parks and Floyd’s (1996) study, 98 per cent had interaction, and nonverbal communication and talk spoken on the telephone and a third had met face- as the essential processes of relating, and a general to-face. Eventually, CMC becomes just one way Sliv04.qxd 8/31/01 11:36 AM Page 69

INTERPERSONAL LIFE ONLINE 69

that relational partners interact (Wellman and to the importance of context in understanding inter- Gulia, 1999). personal dynamics in online environments. Walther has conducted a line of research which At times, relationships formed online may be seeks to explain relational development in the face more appealing than those formed face-to-face, a of reduced cues. His social information processing phenomenon Walther (1996) labelled ‘hyper- theory proposes that regardless of medium, people personal interaction’. In hyperpersonal communica- experience the need to reduce uncertainty and tion, users overestimate the attractiveness of their increase affinity. As a result, CMC users ‘adapt online relational partners, relative to people they their linguistic and textual behaviours to the solici- know offline, making CMC more socially desirable tation and presentation of socially revealing, rela- than face-to-face communication. Walther (1996) tional behaviour’ such as personal self-disclosures offers several explanations for this, including the (Walther et al., 1994: 465). Walther and Burgoon freedom to idealize that the lack of visual cues pro- (1992) showed that, over time, CMC becomes more vides, the ability for communicators to choose similar to face-to-face communication in terms of which aspects of the self to disclose and when to socioemotional conversation and impression for- disclose them, the increased ability to devote atten- mation. In zero-history groups, Walther (1994) tion to message formation, and the likelihood that found that the expectation of future interaction these factors will combine such that computer- increased the likelihood of the expression of imme- mediated messages show more self-awareness and diacy and affection, similarity and depth, trust and introspection. To this list might be added Lea and composure. The differences between interpersonal Spears’ (1995) point that when one meets in a information revelation and processing in CMC and group linked by common interest, it is easy to face-to-face are issues not of quality, he argued, assume that the other is similar to the self in other but of rate. ways as well. In an experiment, McKenna and Some dismiss relationships formed via CMC as Bargh (2000) found that people who met online inferior to those formed face-to-face, raising the once then met face-to-face liked each other more issue of relational quality. Wellman and Gulia than people who met face-to-face both times. Like (1999) argued that most relationships formed online language and identity, relationships formed through the net are specialized weak ties, encour- online do not seem to differ radically from those aged by the lack of status and situational cues. formed face-to-face. Indeed, they often evolve into However, Wellman and Gulia also argue that strong face-to-face relationships. They can be weak or ties emerge online and, as is the case offline, these strong, specialized or broad, committed or casual, ties encourage frequent, companionable contact; idealized or well grounded. they are voluntary, mutually reciprocal and sup- The Internet also serves as a means for people portive of partners’ needs; and they create long- with existing ties to maintain their relationships, a term contact. Lea and Spears (1995) argued for phenomenon which has only recently gained any understanding CMC relationships through the eyes academic attention and remains underexplored. In a of those who have them, claiming that a lack of study comparing Internet and telephone use, face-to-face meeting does not render relationships Stafford et al. (1999) found that e-mail was used to less real or significant to those involved. Parks and support and maintain meaningful relationships. Floyd (1996) used scales that measure commitment This was especially true of long-distance relation- in face-to-face relationships, and found that Usenet ships, and those which people didn’t have the time relationships were moderately committed, gener- to keep up with face-to-face (Dimmick et al., 2000; ally exceeding the scales’ midpoints. Parks and Pew, 2000; Wellman and Gulia, 1999). The Pew Roberts (1998) did this too, and also asked people (2000) poll found that e-mail increases contact with to make specific comparisons with an offline rela- family and friends for significant majorities of tionship. They found that MOO relationships were online Americans, and that siblings who have stronger than those formed through Usenet (a find- e-mail use it more than they use the telephone to ing they attributed to the sense of co-presence cre- contact one another. Though the maintenance of ated by synchronous communication) and as a existing relationships is less exotic a topic than the whole showed moderate to high levels of develop- creation of entirely new ones, a more balanced ment. Parks and Roberts (1998) did find some dif- understanding of the interpersonal implications of ferences between MOO relationships and face- CMC will have to devote considerably more atten- to-face ones. Offline relationships were slightly tion to this more common dimension of online life. more developed, but there were no differences in depth and breadth of interaction; cross-sex friendships were more common in MOOs than in Computer-Mediated Social Groups newsgroups or offline; and respondents spent signi- ficantly more hours per week with their offline rela- From the earliest research into CMC, there has tional partners than their online counterparts. The been a strong interest in groups. The organizational differences between Usenet and MOOs point again research, as we have seen, begins with the Sliv04.qxd 8/31/01 11:36 AM Page 70

70 THE CHANGING SOCIAL LANDSCAPE

assumption that CMC groups are different from experience the group as community. These social others, and examines the effect of computer medi- meanings include identities and relationships, as ation on small-group processes. A second strain of well as group-specific forms of expression and research explores voluntary social groups, often behavioural standards. Tepper (1997) has written focusing on issues of community. The term ‘com- about a Usenet group which uses the practice of munity’ has become almost synonymous with asking stupid questions as a way to distinguish ‘online group’, especially when the term is advan- insiders (who know better than to answer them) tageous for site developers. This implies that any from outsiders (who plunge in with earnest group involved in social discussion is necessarily a responses). Cherny (1999) offers a rich description community. However, as is the case in offline of many ways MOO participants developed unique groups, online groups vary widely. Though ‘com- ways of interacting and making jokes. All of these munity’ may apply to some, it is forced with others. can be considered normative, in that they become Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997) argued that groups normal within the group, while remaining unfamil- differ in terms of their interactivity, or the extent on iar (and often incomprehensible) to outsiders. a continuum to which sequences of messages relate Knowing the inner discourse of a group, with its to each other. Interactivity functions as a mecha- codes, in-jokes, vocabulary and routines, can offer a nism that makes people want to become involved sense of belonging that many find appealing. Other in and stay with Internet groups. norms for appropriate behaviour within groups A complete review of the literature on online include those that regulate the appropriateness social groups is beyond the scope of this chapter. In of flaming (Baym, 1993; Lea et al., 1992) and the keeping with my focus on interpersonal issues, I use and misuse of anonymity (Baym, 2000). focus on three common and consistent findings in Galegher et al. (1998) showed differences in analyses of online groups: they are normatively reg- how one establishes legitimacy and authority ulated, hierarchical and often very supportive. As depending on whether a group is recreational or with language, identities and relationships, work on explicitly supportive. online social groups reveals that ‘everything old is Online groups also take social form through the new again’. In many ways computer-mediated emergence of social hierarchies, a finding which groups are not very different from other kinds of runs counter to the experimental finding that com- groups. I close this section with a glance at the puter mediation creates equality, but which is com- ongoing debate concerning the label ‘community’. pletely consistent with offline groups. In one-shot Many studies of online communities have situations, it may be rare for single leaders to described how groups develop norms for their inter- emerge and participation may be fairly evenly dis- action. The term ‘ways of speaking’ is used in the tributed in CMC. Over time, however, groups ethnography of communication to describe how develop patterns of participation which are radically group values, beliefs and social structures are unequal. At the simplest level, one can distinguish embodied in a culture’s language form and use. heavy users, light users and lurkers. Baym (1993), Emergent ways of speaking online range from the Galegher et al. (1998) and others have shown pat- use of particular words, phrases or other routines to terns of participation in which the majority of par- standards of appropriate and inappropriate conduct ticipants write only once or never, while a tiny and means for handling behavioural violations. Lea minority write the majority of the messages. et al. (1992) argued that norms in CMC are locally Participants may gain status through a variety of defined, created by the group rather than the means other than loquacity, including skilled use of medium. There are norms that run across groups; the software (Myers, 1987a), shared expertise however, it is questionable whether any behavioural (Kollock, 1999) and clever performance (Baym, standards apply to all computer-mediated groups. 1993), forms of social capital at play offline as well. McLaughlin et al. (1995), for example, conducted a Some computer-mediated groups have hierarchies study of messages from several Usenet groups built into their design, pointing again to the impor- which chastised others’ behaviour, and were able to tance of context. MUDs, for instance, partition derive ‘a taxonomy of reproachable conduct’ that users into levels with differing degrees of control applies across Usenet. Werry (1996) points to a over the system. At one extreme are those who general code of conduct for Internet relay chat. can delete other users; at the other are guests I have discussed Baron’s (1998) claim that norms with no abilities to create lasting change (Reid, for e-mail use are still emerging, a claim true of 1999). MUDs also develop emergent hierarchical other modes of CMC as well. I have argued that structures; in adventure-based MUDs these are community in CMC is an emergent process (Baym, based on competition and strength, while in social 1998), in which the pre-existing factors of system MUDs they are based on contributions to the group infrastructure, temporal structure, participant char- (Reid, 1999). acteristics and external contexts are appropriated in Another finding from field research into volun- unpredictable ways by users. The outcome is a tary groups which runs counter to the findings from set of social meanings that allow participants to short-term experimental groups is that online Sliv04.qxd 8/31/01 11:36 AM Page 71

INTERPERSONAL LIFE ONLINE 71

groups tend to be interpersonally supportive, even of community, argued that many online groups are when they are not designed to be (Wellman and best likened to foraging communities. Foraging Gulia, 1999). Some groups are explicitly supportive, communities are aggregations of individuals, mem- providing camaraderie and advice on fields such as bership is temporary and voluntary, people move medical conditions, addiction and abuse recovery. and groups are redefined based on ecological or Other groups, while ostensibly organized to discuss personal factors, and they are typically egalitarian. hobbies or other lighter-weight topics, may Ultimately, however, Komito concludes that ‘the nonetheless provide social support. In a content most useful means of looking at Net communities analysis comparing levels of empathy in online may be to treat “community” as background, and patient and emotional support groups to other sorts focus instead on how individuals and groups cope of online groups, Preece and Ghozati (1998) found with continuously changing sets of resources and that empathy is more prevalent in patient and emo- constraints and how individuals make regular tional support groups, but that most groups use adjustments in their rules for social interaction’ empathic communication. Kollock (1999) pointed (1998: 104–5). out that online groups are notable for the provision of expert and informational support. Adapting social exchange theory (e.g. Ekeh, 1974; Roloff, INTERPERSONAL CONSEQUENCES 1981) to the Internet, he argued that the features of OF THE INTERNET online interaction (specifically that gifts of infor- mation and advice are given to unknown recipients one might never encounter again and that one can’t This review of interpersonal issues in online life expect immediate reciprocation) change the costs just scratches the surface of a broad range of and benefits of social action such that even a research that comes from many disciplines and response to a single person becomes a public makes use of multiple methods. I have focused on good. In addition to the potential of such offerings what happens in the online context, arguing that to increase one’s own status within a group, much of what happens there is highly sociable, and Kollock (1999) located the motivations for con- that this interpersonal interaction is among the tributing in this environment to anticipated future greatest appeals of CMC. The simple picture of reciprocity and the sense of efficacy that can come CMC and its effects painted by early experimental from being able to help. research has given way to a far more varied and Wellman and Gulia (1999) have argued that there complex portrait – or set of portraits – as the use of is something distinctive about the provision of sup- CMC has grown and people have found new ways port, information, affiliation and sense of belonging to make use of it. Far from impersonal, CMC is to a group of people one hardly knows. These qual- often playful and creative. People use it as a means ities (among others) have led many to label these to assert their own identities and to explore new groups ‘communities’, a label much debated in both means of self-presentation. New relationships rang- popular and scholarly discourse. Some are highly ing from weak acquaintanceships to deep romantic enthusiastic about such communities because they bonds are formed, and relationships with people overcome barriers of time and space and offer formed offline are perpetuated through CMC. access to others with shared interest that may not be Social groups form that offer a sense of belonging, available locally (e.g. Rheingold, 1993). Others information, empathy and social status, among express concern that in an increasingly fragmented other rewards. All of these phenomena offer power- offline world, online groups substitute for ‘real’ ful incentives for people to become involved with (i.e. geographically local) community, falling short CMC and to stay online once there. in several ways. Lockard, for instance, argued that However, as the controversy surrounding the use ‘to accept only communication in place of a com- of the term ‘community’ indicates, there is concern munity’s manifold functions is to sell our common from many quarters that our increased use of the faith in community vastly short’ (1997: 225). The Internet will have deleterious consequences for the most serious charges against calling online groups rest of our lives. This concern has been bolstered by communities are their homogeneity and lack of Kraut et al.’s (1998) unexpected finding that first- moral commitment. Because participants can leave year users of the Internet became more socially iso- with a mere click, online communities ‘do not lated and depressed the more they went online, and oblige their participants to deal with diversity’ by Nie and Erbring (2000) whose subjects reported (Healy, 1997: 63). becoming more socially isolated the more they used There have been several reviews of the concept the Internet. These studies have both been attacked of community and its applicability to CMC (e.g. on methodological grounds. Kraut et al. (1998) Fernback, 1999; Komito, 1998), most of which have been criticized for their atypical sample, and point out that debates over the definition of for describing the Internet as causing depression ‘community’ far predate the Internet. Komito when the users who showed increased symptoms of (1998), in an interesting analysis of different kinds depression did not seem to meet clinical definitions Sliv04.qxd 8/31/01 11:36 AM Page 72

72 THE CHANGING SOCIAL LANDSCAPE

of depression (Rierdan, 1999). Nie and Erbring’s together to find commonly valued items, they used study has been challenged for its leading questions, the Internet for shared social experimentation, for offering no assessment of the magnitude of and the Internet gave them the chance to show reported reductions in social contact, and for off esteemed knowledge and skills for one another. assuming all online activities are ‘non-social’. A The Pew (2000) study found that Internet users were questionnaire study of students at the University of more active socially than non-users: 61 per cent of Texas (Scherer, 1997) puts the issue into sharper non-users reported visiting family or friends the day perspective. Scherer found that 13 per cent of before, whereas 72 per cent of Internet users had Internet users reported some signs of dependency done so. This included heavy and long-time Internet on the Internet, specifically that it interfered with users. Even the Internet dependent students in academic work, professional performance or social Scherer’s (1997) study had more relationships face- life. Those reporting such ‘Internet addiction’ were to-face than they had online, although they were significantly more likely to be male. This suggests more likely to have a larger proportion of their rela- that it may be a relatively small percentage of net tionships online. It may very well be that for some users for whom the Internet has negative conse- people the Internet has damaging personal and quences. A serious problem with all of these studies interpersonal consequences. For others, an online is their retreat to determinism; the Internet is con- social life extends and complements the sociability ceptualized as a single entity, as though it makes no they maintain offline. As a whole, however, we difference with whom one communicates online must conclude that, as McKenna and Bargh put it, and as though all online contexts are identical. ‘there is no simple main effect of the Internet on Critics of the notion that online life lessens the the average person’ (2000: 59). The questions that quality of offline life argue that Laney community have yet to be asked will explore which individual and sociability are not ‘zero-sum games’ (Orleans variables combine with the many variable of and Laney, 2000; Wellman and Gulia, 1999). Internet use and contexts and with what range Wellman (1997a; 1997b Wellman and Gulia, 1999) of impacts. has been among the most vociferous proponents of the notion that use of the Internet is integrated into the rest of life. Wellman and Gulia (1999) argued SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS that the problems with conceptualizing the net as something that will divorce people from face-to- face life include the facts that online ties are strong Research into the interpersonal dynamics of CMC and important, that the comparison between elec- began with the naive assumption that media charac- tronic communities and face-to-face ones is false teristics would have determining effects on interac- given the overlap in online and offline contacts, and tion. There are numerous ways in which media that people manage relationships in multiple media. characteristics contribute to interpersonal social Wellman wrote: ‘community ties are already geo- processes. Language takes on enhanced roles and graphically dispersed, sparsely knit, specialized in hybrid forms as a result of the limited non-verbal content, and connected heavily by telecommunica- cues and the written yet speedy nature of the tions (phone and fax). Although virtual communi- medium. Identity play, self-revelation and the cre- ties may carry these trends a bit further, they also ation of new relationships are enabled by the cue sustain in person encounters between community and participant structures. Social group formation is members’ (1997a: 198). In organizational contexts, encouraged by the spatiotemporal and inexpensive people who communicate heavily in one modality nature of the net, qualities which also enable offline tend to communicate heavily in others; heavier groups to move online and which let relationships users of CMC are also more likely to use the tele- that developed offline be perpetuated online. phone and to have face-to-face conversations However, there are many other contributors to (Kraut and Attewell, 1997). online interpersonal dynamics, including contexts, There is also evidence that people who use the users and the choices those users make. The com- Internet are as socially and culturally involved as puter medium is far more complex and diverse than those who do not. Robinson and Kestnbaum found first imagined. that ‘computer users are at least as active as, if not The shift from simplistic thinking to a recogni- more active than, nonusers in most arts-related tion of the range of computer-mediated communi- activities’ (1999: 215). In terms of interpersonal cation is in part a shift in methods and approach. relationships, an observational study of children’s Early research was characterized by a narrow and home use of the computer determined that ‘online practical agenda which generally relied on labora- communication was usually not a substitute for tory experiments. These experiments often failed to interpersonal communication; rather, both often recognize confounding variables, leading to the occurred simultaneously’ (Orleans and Laney, sense that any effects found must result from ‘the 2000: 65). The online world was a topic for computer’. Field research explored a broader range children’s conversation, children surfed the net of CMC contexts, examining organizations, but also Sliv04.qxd 8/31/01 11:36 AM Page 73

INTERPERSONAL LIFE ONLINE 73

looking at role playing and social groups in bulletin conversation may create groups with a good deal boards, IRC, Usenet and other recreational forms of of abbreviation and language play, while those who CMC. This work in natural contexts revealed both want their interaction to resemble writing may cre- the variables that had been confounded in experi- ate spaces that look like formal letters. Rather than mental work, and the wealth of alternative scenar- resigning themselves to ‘cuelessness’, people rose ios for CMC. The diversity revealed by fieldwork to the occasion and found alternative ways to has played back into laboratory work, so that more express themselves. Though they will always have recent experimental work has been oriented toward their place, predictive theories of CMC will always discerning the range of variables that can cause a fall short. range of outcomes in a range of CMC contexts. The There are no simple questions to ask about CMC, lesson is not that one method is better than another, as there is no single thing that is CMC, any more than but that regardless of method, researchers need to there is a single thing called ‘telephone-mediated recognize the breadth of CMC contexts and the communication’, or ‘television-mediated communi- significant (and often unpredictable) inputs of users. cation’. Discussions about the quality of CMC, If we look at context, it is clear that what happens which are surely worth having, must be predicated in a decision-making organizational group with on this more complicated and messy reality. The zero history (e.g. levelling of status, anonymity, studies to be done should look at the varieties and rudeness) is quite different from what happens in a dimensions of contexts, and the varieties, percep- recreational MOO with a built-in power structure tions and creativity of users, and should explore both and a long history, where one will find a status hier- the predictable and the unpredictable social mean- archy, well-known participants (who are likely to ings that emerge from the many combinations of have met offline), well-developed friendships, and these variables. CMC’s uses and implications must standards for appropriate interaction. What happens be contextualized in the offline worlds in which they in a social MOO differs from what happens in a are embedded. In short, we must remember that the social Usenet group; indeed MOOs differ from each computer may be new, but like the many new media other. E-mail between friends or family may that came before, it is only a medium. not resemble any of these. The infrastructure of different kinds of computer-mediated interaction (e.g. one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many, real- REFERENCES time versus asynchronous, built-in power structure or not) also provides context that shapes what occurs within. There are also a variety of reasons for Altman, I. and Taylor, D.A. (1973) Social Penetration: interacting via computers – among them work, play, the Development of Interpersonal Relationships. relational maintenance, the seeking of social New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. support – each of which gives rise to differing sets Baker, A. (1998) ‘Cyberspace couples finding romance of expectations, brings different realms of back- online then meeting for the first time in real life’, ground knowledge to bear, and otherwise shapes the Computer Mediated Communication Magazine, basic context in which interaction takes place. Many http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1998/jul/baker. contexts from offline life are imported into online html. interaction, an area about which we still know far Bales, R.F. (1950) Interaction Process Analysis: a Method too little. Any assessment of the interpersonal import for the Study of Small Groups. Reading, MA: Addison- of CMC requires a complex understanding of how Wesley. the use of CMC fits into the overall distribution and Baron, N.S. (1984) ‘Computer mediated communication conduct of people’s interpersonal interactions. as a force in language change’, Visible Language, Users must be considered for at least two rea- 18 (2): 118–41. sons: they have critical individual differences and Baron, N.S. (1998) ‘Letters by phone or speech by other they are creative. Far from being monolithic, people means: the linguistics of e-mail’, Language and differ in their perceptions of the Internet, in what Communication, 18: 133–70. they want online, and in what they find online. Bauman, R. (1975) ‘Verbal art as performance’, American Some find support and friendships that enhance Anthropologist, 77 (2): 290–311. their lives, others find their lives diminished by Bauman, R. and Sherzer, J. (1974) Explorations in the their time online. Nearly all of the research into Ethnography of Speaking. London: Cambridge CMC has been conducted at the level of the group, or University Press. averaged across individuals; we know too little about Baym, N. (1993) ‘Interpreting soap operas and creating the individual differences that make a difference in community: inside a computer-mediated fan culture’, computer-mediated experience. Journal of Folklore Research, 30 (2/3): 143–76. Users are also creative, and they shape online Baym, N. (1995) ‘The performance of humor in contexts in ways that may not be predictable even computer-mediated communication’, Journal of from rich understandings of contexts and media. Computer-Mediated Communication, 1 (2), http://www. People who want their interaction to resemble ascusc.org/jcmc/vol1/issue2/baym.html. Sliv04.qxd 8/31/01 11:36 AM Page 74

74 THE CHANGING SOCIAL LANDSCAPE

Baym, N. (1996) ‘Agreement and disagreement in a Ferrara, K., Brunner, H. and Whittemore, G. (1991) computer-mediated group’, Research on Language ‘Interactive written discourse as an emergent register’, and Social Interaction, 29: 315–46. Written Communication, 8 (1): 8–34. Baym, N. (1998) ‘The emergence of online community’, Galegher, J., Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1998) in S. Jones (ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting ‘Legitimacy, authority, and community in electronic Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. support groups’, Written communication, 15 (4): Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 35–68. 493–530. Baym, N. (2000) Tune In, Log On: Soaps, Fandom, and Gergen, K. (1991) The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Online Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Identity in Contemporary Life. New York: Basic. Carnevale, P. and Probst, T.M. (1997) ‘Conflict on the Gumperz, J.J. and Hymes, D. (1972) Directions in Internet’, in S. Kiesler (ed.), Culture of the Internet Sociolinguistics: the Ethnography of Communication. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 233–55. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Cherny, L. (1999) Conversation and Community: Chat in Haraway, D.J. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: the a Virtual World. Stanford: CSLI. Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association. Clark, L.S. (1998) ‘Dating on the net: teens and the rise of Healy, D. (1997) ‘Cyberspace and place: the internet as “pure” relationships’, in S. Jones (ed.), Cybersociety middle landscape on the electronic frontier’, in 2.0: Revisiting Computer-Mediated Communica- D. Porter (ed.), Internet Culture. New York: Routledge. tion and Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 55–71. pp. 159–83. Hiltz, S.R. and Turoff, M. (1978) The Network Nation: Culnan, M.J. and Markus, M.L. (1987) ‘Information tech- Human Communication via Computer. Reading, MA: nologies’, in F.M. Jablin, L.L. Putnam, K.H. Roberts Addison-Wesley. and L.W. Porter (eds), Handbook of Organizational Hollingshead, A.B. and McGrath, J.E. (1995) ‘The whole Computing: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Newbury is less than the sum of its parts: a critical review of Park, CA: Sage. pp. 420–43. research on computer-assisted groups’, in R. Guzzo and Curtis, P. (1997) ‘Mudding: social phenomena in text- E. Salas (eds), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making based virtual realities’, in S. Kiesler (ed.), Culture of the in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Internet. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 121–42. pp. 46–78. Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1984) ‘Information richness: Hymes, D. (1975) ‘Folklore’s nature and the sun’s myth’, a new approach to managerial behaviour and organiza- Journal of American Folklore, 88: 345–69. tional design’, Research in Organizational Behaviour, Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. and McGuire, T.W. (1984) ‘Social 6: 191–233. psychological aspect of computer-mediated communi- Danet, B., Wachenhauser, T., Cividalli, A., Bechar- cation’, American Psychologist, 39 (10): 1123–34. Israeli, H. and Rosenbaum-Tamari, Y. (1995) ‘Curtain Kollock, P. (1999) ‘The economies of online cooperation: time 20:00 GMT: experiments in virtual theater on gifts and public goods in cyberspace’, in M. Smith and Internet relay chat’, Journal of Computer Mediated Com- P. Kollock (eds), Communities in Cyberspace. munication, 1 (2), http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol1/ New York: Routledge. pp. 220–42. issue2/contents.html. Komito, L. (1998) ‘The net as a foraging society’, The Danet, B., Ruedenberg-Wright, L. and Rosenbaum- Information Society, 14 (2): 97–106. Tamari, Y. (1997) ‘“HMMM … WHERE’S THAT Kraut, R.E. and Attewell, P. (1997) ‘Media use in a global SMOKE COMING FROM?’: writing, play and perfor- corporation: electronic mail and organizational knowl- mance on internet relay chat’, Journal of Computer edge’, in S. Kiesler (ed.), Culture of the Internet, Mediated Communication, 2 (4), http://www. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 323–42. ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/danet.html. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Dimmick, J., Kline, S.L. and Stafford, L. (2000) ‘The grati- Mukhopadhyay, T. and Scherlis, W. (1998) ‘Internet fication niches of personal e-mail and the telephone: paradox: a social technology that reduces social competition, displacement, and complementarity’, involvement and psychological well-being?’, American Communication Research, 27 (2): 227–48. Psychologist, 53 (9): 1017–31. Donath, J. (1999) ‘Identity and deception in the virtual Kraut, R., Mukhopadhyay, T., Szczypula, J., Kiesler, S. community’, in M. Smith and P. Kollock (eds), and Scherlis, B. (2000) ‘Information and communica- Communities in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge. tion: alternative uses of the Internet in households’, pp. 29–59. Information Systems Research, 10: 287–303. Duck, S.W. (1977) The Study of Acquaintance. Lea, M. (1991) ‘Rationalist assumptions in cross-media Farnborough, Hants: Teakfield–Saxon House. comparisons of computer-mediated communication’, Ekeh, P.P. (1974) Social Exchange Theory: the Two Behaviour & Information Technology, 10 (2): 153–72. Traditions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lea, M. and Spears, R. (1995) ‘Love at first byte?’, in Fernback, J. (1999) ‘There is a there there: notes toward a J. Wood and S. Duck (eds), Understudied relationships: definition of cybercommunity’, in S.G. Jones (ed.), Off the Beaten Track. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Doing Internet research: Critical Issues and Methods pp. 197–240. for Examining the Net. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lea, M., O’Shea, T., Fung, P. and Spears, R. (1992) pp. 203–220. ‘“Flaming” in computer-mediated communication: Sliv04.qxd 8/31/01 11:36 AM Page 75

INTERPERSONAL LIFE ONLINE 75

observations, explanations, implications’, in M. Lea 2 (4), http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/rafaeli. (ed.), Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication. sudweeks.html. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. pp. 89–112. Reid, E.M. (1991) ‘Electropolis: communication and Lockard, J. (1997) ‘Progressive politics, electronic indi- community on Internet relay chat’. Masters Thesis, vidualism and the myth of virtual community’, in University of Melbourne, Australia. D. Porter (ed.), Internet Culture. New York: Routledge. Reid, E. (1999) ‘Hierarchy and power: social control in pp. 219–32. cyberspace’, in M. Smith and P. Kollock (eds), Martino, J.P. (1972) Technological Forecasting for Communities in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge. Decisionmaking. New York: American Elsevier. pp. 107–33. McKenna, K.Y.A. and Bargh, J.A. (2000) ‘Plan 9 from Rheingold, H. (1993) Virtual Communities. Reading, MA: cyberspace: the implications of the Internet for person- Addison-Wesley. ality and social psychology’, Personality and Social Rice, R.E. and Love, G. (1987) ‘Electronic emotion: Psychology Review, 4 (1): 57–75. socioemotional content in a computer-mediated com- McLaughlin, M.L., Osborne, K.K. and Smith, C.B. (1995) munication network’, Communication Research, 14 (1): ‘Standards of conduct on Usenet’, in Steve Jones (ed.), 85–108. Cybersociety: Computer-Mediated Community and Rierdan, J. (1999) ‘Internet–depression link?’, American Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 90–111. Psychologist, 54 (9): 781–2. Morris, M. and Ogan, C. (1996) ‘The internet as mass Robinson, J.P. and Kestnbaum, M. (1999) ‘The personal medium’, Journal of Communication, 46 (1): 39–50. computer, culture, and other uses of free time’, Social Myers, D. (1987a) ‘“Anonymity is part of the magic”: Science Computer Review, 17 (2): 209–16. individual manipulation of computer-mediated commu- Roloff, M.E. (1981) ‘Interpersonal Communication: the nication contexts’, Qualitative Sociology, 19 (3): Social Exchange Approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 251–66. Scherer, K. (1997) ‘College life online: healthy and Myers, D. (1987b) ‘A new environment for communica- unhealthy Internet use’, Journal of College Student tion play: online play’, in G.A. Fine (ed.), Meaningful Development, 38 (6): 655–65. Play, Playful Meaning. Champaign, IL: Human Short, J., Williams, E. and Christie, B. (1976) The Social Kinetics. pp. 231–45. Psychology of Telecommunications. Chichester: Wiley. Nie, N.H. and Erbring, L. (2000) Internet and Society: a Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S. and McGuire, T.W. Preliminary Report. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Institute (1986) ‘Group processes in computer-mediated commu- for the Quantitative Study of Society. Available at: nication’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/. Processes, 37: 157–87. O’Brien, J. (1999) ‘Writing in the body: gender (re)pro- Sproull, L. and Faraj, S. (1997) ‘Atheism, sex, and data- duction in online interaction’, In M. Smith and bases: the net as a social technology’, in S. Kiesler P. Kollock (eds), Communities in Cyberspace. New (ed.), Culture of the Internet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence York: Routledge. pp. 76–106. Erlbaum. pp. 35–52. Orleans, M. and Laney, M.C. (2000) ‘Children’s com- Stafford, L., Kline, S.L. and Dimmick, J. (1999) ‘Home puter use in the home: isolation or sociation?’, Social e-mail: relational maintenance and gratification oppor- Science Computer Review, 18 (1): 56–72. tunities’, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Parks, M.R. and Floyd, K. (1996) ‘Making friends in 43 (4): 659–69. cyberspace’, Journal of Communication, 46 (1): 80–97. Stone, A.R. (1995) The War of Desire and Technology at Parks, M.R. and Roberts, L.D. (1998) ‘“Making the Close of the Mechanical Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT MOOsic”: the development of personal relationships Press. online and a comparison to their offline counterparts’, Sudweeks, F., McLaughlin, M. and Rafaeli, S. (1998) Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15 (4): Networks and Netplay: Virtual Groups on the Internet. 517–37. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pew (2000) Tracking Online Life: How Women Use the Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986) ‘The social identity Internet to Cultivate Relationships with Family and theory of intergroup behaviour’, in S. Worchel and Friends. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American W.G. Austin (eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Life Project. Available at: www.pewinternet.org. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Preece, J. and Ghozati, K. (1988) ‘In search of empathy Tepper, M. (1997) ‘Usenet communities and the cultural online: a review of 100 online communities’, in politics of information’, in D. Porter (ed.), Internet Proceedings of the 1998 Association for Information Culture. New York: Routledge. pp. 39–54. Systems Americas Conference. pp. 92–4. Turkle, S. (1996) Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of Price, C.R. (1975) ‘Conferencing via computer: cost the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster. effective communication for the era of forced choice’, Turkle, S. (1997) ‘Constructions and reconstructions of in H.A. Linstone and M. Turoff (eds), The Delphi self in virtual reality: playing in the MUDs’, in Method: Techniques and Applications. Reading, MA: S. Kiesler (ed.), Culture of the Internet. Mahwah, NJ: Addison-Wesley. pp. 497–516. Erlbaum. pp. 143–55. Rafaeli, S. and Sudweeks, F. (1997) ‘Networked interactiv- Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. ity’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, and Wetherell, M.S. (1987) Rediscovering the Sliv04.qxd 8/31/01 11:36 AM Page 76

76 THE CHANGING SOCIAL LANDSCAPE

Social Group: a Self Categorization Theory. Oxford: Wellman, B. (1997a) ‘An electronic group is virtually a Blackwell. social network’, in S. Kiesler (ed.), Culture of the Walther, J.B. (1992) ‘Interpersonal effects in computer- Internet. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 179–208. mediated interaction’, Communication Research, 19 Wellman, B. (1997b) ‘The road to utopia and dystopia on (1): 52–90. the information highway’, Contemporary Sociology, Walther, J. (1994) ‘Anticipated ongoing interaction versus 26 (4): 445–9. channel effects on relational communication in computer- Wellman, B. and Gulia, M. (1999) ‘Virtual communities mediated interaction’, Human Communication research, as communities: net surfers don’t ride alone’, in 20 (4): 473–501. M. Smith and P. Kollock (eds), Communities in Walther, J. (1996) ‘Computer-mediated communication: Cyberspace. New York: Routledge. pp. 167–94. impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interac- Werry, C.C. (1996) ‘Linguistic and interactional features tion’, Communication Research, 23 (1): 3–43. of Internet relay chat’, in S. Herring (ed.), Computer- Walther, J.B. and Burgoon, J.K. (1992) ‘Relational com- Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and munication in computer-mediated interaction’, Human Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Communication Research, 18 (1): 50–88. pp. 47–63. Walther, J.B., Anderson, J.F. and Park, D. (1994) Wilkins, H. (1991) ‘Computer talk: long-distance conver- ‘Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: sations by computer’, Written Communication, 8 (1): a meta-analysis of social and anti-social communica- 56–78. tion’, Communication Research, 21: 460–87. Wynn, E. and Katz, J.E. (1998) ‘Hyperbole over cyber- Weisband, S. and Atwater, L. (1999) ‘Evaluating self and space: self-presentation and social boundaries in others in electronic and face-to-face groups’, Journal of Internet home pages and discourse’, The Information Applied Psychology, 84 (4): 632–9. Society, 13 (4): 297–328.