CHAPTER 14 Theories of Computer- Mediated Communication and Interpersonal Relations Joseph B. Walther omputer-mediated communication (CMC) accurate way (DeAndrea & Walther, in press). systems, in a variety of forms, have Although many people perceive that social media C become integral to the initiation, devel- messages are trivial and banal, so is the stuff by opment, and maintenance of interpersonal rela- which relationships are maintained (Duck, Rutt, tionships. They are involved in the subtle shaping Hurst, & Strejc, 1991; Tong & Walther, 2011b). of communication in almost every relational The ubiquity of CMC is not sufficient impetus context. We may observe or participate in the for it to be a focus of study in interpersonal com- conversations of huge numbers of social actors, munication research. How CMC changes our from the Twitter messages of experts we have messages—how they are constructed, whether for never met to one’s family’s blog and from mes- specific relational purposes or with lesser or saging a barely acquainted Facebook friend to greater effect—remain important questions that coordinating with one’s spouse through texting continue to drive inquiry in interpersonal CMC about who will pick up the kids that day or say- research. How does the Internet affect the likeli- ing via e-mail that one is sorry about the fight hood of having relationships? With whom? And they had that morning. Individuals exploit the how do we manage these relationships? How do features of these media to make their best impres- disclosures and affectations influence others and sion and attract attention or to ward off unde- ourselves, and how do online interpersonal pro- sired contacts (Tong & Walther, 2011a). We cesses affect the instrumental and group dynam- continually form and re-form our impressions ics that technology enables? How do we exploit and evaluations of others online, from deciding existing technologies for relational purposes, and whose recommendations to trust in discussion how do we evade the potential dampening effects boards (Van Der Heide, 2008) to evaluating the that technologies otherwise may impose on friend who portrays himself online in a not quite relational communication? How do technology 443 444——PART IV: Processes and Functions developers incorporate features into communica- both in light of a number of empirical tests of tion systems specifically designed to support and their validity, and intensions and extensions of enhance relational functions? their explanatory power. New technological There are many methodologies employed in developments may have enlarged or diminished studying CMC and social interaction. Large-scale, their relative scope. Newer theories have also sophisticated surveys enumerate what people are arisen, some barely tested, the ultimate utility of doing online and why they say they are doing which remains to be seen. This is not to suggest them (e.g., Katz & Rice, 2002; the Pew Internet & that the only theories the field needs are those American Life Project at http://pewinternet.org/). focusing specifically on CMC. As Yzer and There are accounts of the metaphors that define Southwell (2008) suggested, the most useful the online experience for Internet date seekers explanations of CMC may be those that rest (e.g., Heino, Ellison, & Gibbs, 2010) and interpre- strongly on robust theories developed in tradi- tive investigators’ insights from interacting with tional contexts. For the present purposes, the groups of young people about what is going on chapter focuses on CMC-specific theoretical for- and what it means online (boyd, 2007). Conference mulations. As Scott (2009) observed, “We can’t proceedings from design experiments report cog- keep up with new innovations, so we need theory nitive and affective responses to variations in the and models that can” (p. 754). representation of others’ online behaviors or dif- This chapter provides, first, a description and ferent interface characteristics with which to evaluation of 13 major and minor theories of behave online (e.g., the ACM Digital Library CMC. Although readers may find many of these at http://portal.acm.org/dl.cfm). A number of approaches reviewed in other sources, particular recent and forthcoming volumes address different efforts have been made to review the theories’ aspects of interpersonal interaction online, development and status since the publication of including works by Amichai-Hamburger (2005), the previous edition of this Handbook (see Baym (2010), Joinson, McKenna, Postmes, and Walther & Parks, 2002). These theories are classi- Reips (2007), Konijn, Utz, Tanis, and Barnes fied according to their conceptualization of the (2008), Papacharissi (2010), Whitty and Carr way users respond to the characteristics of CMC (2006), and Wright and Webb (2011), among oth- systems, particularly in the adaptation to cue ers. Any of these approaches provide glimpses systems that differ from face-to-face communi- into the changing landscape of interpersonal cation. These theories include the now standard communication and CMC. No one chapter can classification of cues-filtered-out theories, which paint this landscape or summarize it well. Worse assert that systematic reductions in the nonverbal yet, such an amalgamation of facts would suffer cues conveyed by different communication sys- from a lack of coherence, reflecting a field with tems lead to impersonal orientations among more work being done than consensus on what users. There are differences among the foci of work should be done. Moreover, to describe what impersonal orientations, some of which are aso- people are doing interpersonally with CMC today cial and others quite specific and social in nature. would be to invite obsolescence very quickly, The second group of theories depicts how charac- given the pace of change in communication and teristics of communicators, their interactions technology. Readers who expect such an account- with others, and contextual factors affect the ing in this essay will be disappointed. perceived capacities of different communication Alternatively, despite the field’s youth, there systems. These perceptions, in turn, affect the are now a greater number of theoretical positions expressiveness and normative uses of these same directly related to CMC than any single overview technologies as if the capacities themselves had of the field has previously described. Some theo- changed. The next set of theories reflects the ries have matured and are due for evaluation, ways in which communicators adapt to or exploit Chapter 14: Computer-Mediated Communication and Interpersonal Relations——445 the cue limitations of CMC systems to achieve or and Rice and Case (1983) first applied this model surpass face-to-face levels of affinity. Finally, new to CMC, using it to predict that CMC rendered theoretical ideas are mentioned that address the less socio-emotional content than other, multi- utility of different media over the progression of modal forms of communication. Numerous experi- usage sequences or relational stages or compare ments supported these contentions. Neverthe less, media effects of different kinds based on the rela- a number of theoretical and methodological tive effortfulness of different channels. The dis- critiques by other researchers challenged the cussion includes numerous examples from social presence explanation of CMC dynamics research that help exemplify critical findings (e.g., Lea & Spears, 1992; Walther, 1992). These related to these frameworks. critiques challenged several assumptions of the The chapter ends with a few notes of concern social presence model and identified artifacts in about trends in contemporary CMC research. the research protocols that supported its applica- These trends represent understandable develop- tion to CMC. ments given the nature of the field, yet they also Despite the demise of social presence in some present potential problems in the further devel- quarters of CMC research, extensive research opment of knowledge in certain domains. These and definition efforts have continued with concerns involve the role of face-to-face com- respect to the role of presence with regard to set- parisons in technology-focused research, the tings such as virtual reality and computer-based potential impact of new technologies on earlier gaming. Biocca, Harms, and Burgoon (2003) CMC theories, and the implications of multimo- suggested definitional issues that a robust theory dality in relationships (i.e., how to learn about of social presence might require and the pro- the usage of a variety of communication systems spective benefits of a renewed social presence within any single relationship). theory for comparing effects among various media. K. M. Lee (2004) highlighted the various conceptions of presence in related literatures, Cues-Filtered-Out Theories including telepresence, copresence, and social presence, as each construct describes somewhat As numerous reviews have reflected, Culnan and different states of awareness of the self and oth- Markus (1987) coined the term cues-filtered-out ers during electronic communication (see also to describe a group of theories sharing the prem- Lombard & Ditton, 1997). Nevertheless, the ise that CMC has no nonverbal cues and there- various constructs and related measures are fore occludes the accomplishment of social often used interchangeably or in duplication. functions that typically involve those cues. Nowak and Biocca’s (2003) experiment on the optimal level of anthropomorphism