Interaction Ritual Threads: Does IRC Theory Apply Online?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Interaction Ritual Threads: Does IRC Theory Apply Online? Paul DiMaggio, New York University Clark Bernier, Princeton University Charles Heckscher, Rutgers University David Mimno, Cornell University Working Paper #16, April 2017 Interaction Ritual Threads: Does IRC Theory Apply Online?1 Paul DiMaggio, Clark Bernier, Charles Heckscher, David Mimno New York University Princeton University Rutgers University Cornell University 1 Paper prepared for The Microsociology of Randall Collins: New Directions in Theory and Research, ed. Elliot Weininger, Annette Lareau and Omar Lizardo. The authors thank IBM for making these data available and are grateful to Mike Wing and Jim Newswanger for invaluable guidance in understanding the context and structure of the Jams and data, as well as thoughtful comments (for which we also thank Randall Collins) on an earlier draft. Opinions are the authors’ alone, with which neither IBM nor any IBM employee should be presumed to agree. Interaction Ritual Threads: Does IRC Theory Apply Online? Paul DiMaggio, Clark Bernier, Charles Heckscher, David Mimno New York University Princeton University Rutgers University Cornell University This paper presents results of the first empirical application of Randall Collins’s theory of Inter- action Ritual Chains (IRC) to internal corporate online interactions, using nearly complete data on two online discussions organized by a major multinational corporation for its employees worldwide. The discussions we analyze took place on the company’s Intranet, open to employ- ees but not visible to outsiders. Participants had to register to view or post, and anonymous posts were not permitted. IRC theory predicts outcomes of face-to-face communication based on physiological and neurological mechanisms that depend on co-presence. Such mechanisms are absent in online communication, but we find that IRC theory applies nonetheless. Online discussions have three components: forums dedicated to specific topics; posts (statements that individuals address to others who are viewing a particular forum); and threads (sets of posts that respond to previous posts, establishing an online interaction sequence). Al- though online discussions aim to encourage wide-ranging interaction, typically most posts do not receive responses and most threads are not very long. Thus one measure of a discussion’s robustness is its persistence as evidenced by the length of threads. We focus on the micro- determinants of thread length, asking under what conditions a post elicits a response and a thread acquires an additional contribution. To test IRC theory, we predict persistence as a function of two features (focus and entrainment) that the theory highlights and a third (identity) that is an outcome of successful IRCs with potential positive feedback effects. Although Collins developed his theory to explain face-to-face interaction and has ex- pressed skepticism about whether IRC dynamics operate online, we find that the theory pro- vides considerable explanatory leverage, with analyses yielding strong support for the efficacy Interaction Ritual Threads ---2--- of focus and entrainment in promoting thread persistence in the discussions we studied. We infer from the theory’s strong performance that although some elements of IRC dynamics are limited to face-to-face interaction, others may be generic to human communication. To broaden IRC theory’s scope, we emphasize, first, structural features of different com- municative genres and, second, a wider range of mechanisms through which the effects of such features as focus and entrainment are transmitted. Both structure and mechanisms, we argue, vary markedly between face-to-face and computer-mediated interaction. We suggest that the face-to-face communication genres on which Collins’s work has focused are special (albeit especially important) cases of the broader range of phenomena to which the theory applies. Introduction The theory of Interaction Ritual Chains was articulated by Collins (1981) and fully explicated in Collins (2004). Collins begins with Durkheim’s work on ritual (1965 [1912]) and Goffman’s in- sight (1967) that, in societies with a complex division of labor, successful interactions are rituals that ratify the sacredness of individuals who participate in them. But he goes well beyond this, first, in developing an elegant predictive theory of the circumstances under which interaction rituals succeed or fail and, second, in describing implications of this view for such macro-sociol- ogical phenomena as group formation, culture production and collective behavior. Briefly summarized, Collins argues that when two or more participants assemble around a common focus of attention, the process produces situational entrainment (intense involve- ment in and commitment to the interaction), which in turn produces solidarity, shared identity, and tangible emotional energy (EE). EE, in turn, influences human behavior through two chan- nels. First, people gravitate to situations in which their EE is likely to be enhanced. Second, Interaction Ritual Threads ---3--- high levels of EE are associated with greater buoyancy, confidence, attractiveness, and influ- ence, and shared feelings of conviction and moral rectitude. Interactions are successful when they produce increased EE for the parties involved. IRC theory offers an elegant solution to the micro-macro dilemma and a versatile basis for understanding many sociological phenomena. Not surprisingly, citations of both “Micro- foundations” (1981) and Interaction Ritual Chains (2003) display a steady rise from publication through the present. But as IRC theory has evolved, so has the world: much interaction now takes place through media that were just building up steam when Interaction Ritual Chains was published in 2003. Then, less than one in ten U.S. adults used a social media site (like Facebook or LinkedIn); by 2015, 65 percent did (Perrin 2015). Texting on cell phones also grew over that period, with 73 percent of adults using a cell phone to send and receive text messages by 2013 (Duggan 2013). Computer-mediated interaction is especially prevalent among Americans aged 13 to 17: 80 percent send and receive text messages, the median user exchanges thirty messages per day, and texting is replacing telephone conversations as the modal form of inter- action (Lenhart 2015; 2012). To be sure, with a few exceptions (e.g., online courses taken for credit, or text messages sent to people in the same home or office) computer-mediated communications complement rather than substitute for face-to-face interaction (Rainie and Wellman 2012), and people who use social media more also have more face-to-face friendships (Chen 2013). Nonetheless, the sheer explosive growth of online communications of many kinds – e-mail, texting, social media posts, online meetings and discussion forums – now means that computer-mediated interact- ion represents a significant portion of people’s communicative time budget. Interaction Ritual Threads ---4--- These trends raise the following question: Does IRC theory apply online? Or is its scope restricted to settings of physical co-presence? Why the theory should not apply. Online interaction appears to lack what Collins (2004:23) identifies as two fundamental ingredients of interaction rituals: “situational co- presence” and “mutual focus of attention.” “Interaction rituals,” he writes (2004:19) “are processes that take place as human bodies come close enough to each other so that their nervous systems become mutually attuned in rhythms and anticipations of each other, and the physiological substratum that produces emotions in one individual’s body becomes stimulated in feedback loops that run through the other person’s body.” Online communications can sustain high levels of shared attention to a common topic, but they lack the physicality and temporal synchrony that Collins sees as essential to IRCs. By contrast to face-to-face interaction, computer-mediated textual communication relies on just a single channel, lacking the multi-sensory information provided by propinquity and depriving participants of access to the intimacy-inducing rhythms of verbal interaction and physical synchrony that play such an important role in face-to-face interaction. As Collins puts it, online communication modalities lack the flow of interaction in real time; even if electronic communications happen within minutes, this is not the rhythm of immediate vocal participation...There is little or no buildup of focus of attention in reading an email, or paralinguistic background signals of mutual engrossment…the more that human social activities are carried out by distance media, at low levels of IR intensity, the less solidarity people will feel…” (Collins 2004: 63-64). Interaction Ritual Threads ---5--- To be sure, the Internet has been shown to play a role in the emergence and spread of social movements and collective action (Caren and Gaby 2011; Castells 2015). But the Internet almost always plays an auxiliary role, diffusing information rather than replacing face-to-face interaction. Bloggers have circulated information about the crimes of a regime (Howard 2010). Formal applications (e.g., meetup.com, which played an important role in Howard Dean’s 2004 anti-war presidential campaign [Kreiss 2012]) have provided platforms for organizing face-to- face gatherings (Tukfeci and Wilson 2012). Social-media opinion leaders and organizers have provided logistic information about the location of public demonstrations.