Appendix A Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) Communication has been recognized as a core component of coordination, coop- eration, and collaboration [5, 8, 22]. We also saw that while communication is an essential element of social and collaborative activities, it is not sufficient, and that one could simply study communication without guaranteeing any higher- level processes such as coordination or collaboration. Here we will review several theories related to computer-mediated communication (CMC), several of which can inform computer-mediated collaboration, whereas others stand on their own for explaining communication itself. The widespread use of communication technologies has brought about new forms of socio-collaborative work. Social and collaborative activities can be per- formed through various communication media (e.g., email, IM, audio, video) and vary on several dimensions including concurrency (synchronous vs. asynchronous) and location (colocated vs. distributed) [7, 17]. Literature suggests that such work demands extensive information sharing, coordination, awareness [23], and division of labor and persistence [14]. Theories and studies within the context of CMC can explain how different communication media (e.g., email, audio, video) across varying dimensions (e.g., synchronous vs. asynchronous, colocated vs. distributed) can facilitate or hinder interaction and collaboration, and thereby performance of teams. This section outlines some of CMC theories to help understand such potential and shortcomings of various communication contexts within the framework of SIS. A.1 Social Presence Theory Social presence theory is one of the earliest theories in CMC, which can explain the kind of interactions during a socio-collaborative work. Presence is considered an integral part of mediated environments. Social presence is defined as the degree to © Springer International Publishing AG 2017 165 C. Shah, Social Information Seeking, The Information Retrieval Series 38, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56756-3 166 A Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) which a person is aware of another person in a mediated communication context [24]. This theory suggests that different communication media enable different levels of social presence experience. While face-to-face (F2F) communication has the highest level of social presence, CMC has a considerably lower level of social presence due to lack of nonverbal cues and reduced feedback. Since SIS requires extensive communication for information sharing and awareness, contexts with low social presence such as those in distributed and asynchronous dimensions may require extra efforts to compensate the limited affordances of these dimensions or may call for additional system features to facilitate communication and awareness. Early research also suggests that social presence is related to increased satisfaction [9, 21], but there is also evidence that a misfit between the medium and a task’s social need can negatively influence the experience of social presence [3]and communication performance [13]. Along these lines, there must be a fit between an SIS task and the degree of social presence to increase the outcomes of collaboration, and systems should support the necessary level of social presence. For example, simple tasks with unambiguous answers benefit from media which have only low social presence, while judgment tasks call for media which allow high social presence [3]. A.2 Media Richness Theory Another theory in CMC is media richness theory [4] which considers media according to their capability to provide feedback in terms of the number of channels they support (e.g., audio, visual). “Rich” media such as F2F communication allow excessive information, whereas “lean” media like text allows little. The main argument in this theory is that there is a match between the equivocality of communication tasks and the communication media. More specifically, the more equivocal the communication task, the richer the media it calls for. Early research has sorted out certain task categories in terms of their need for information richness [12, 20] and has showed mixed findings on the need for information richness with regard to a task in collaborative work. A recent literature review suggests that collaborative work demands extensive information sharing, coordination, and awareness [23], and significant amounts of coordination require richer media [26]. Past studies have found that F2F and audio-only interactions do not differ in terms of task outcome for problem-solving tasks [2], but participants’ performance on design tasks was significantly better in F2F, copresent than audio- only, remote conditions [16]. Other studies could not find any advantages for using video-mediated communication (VMC) in collaborative environments [1, 16, 30]. In contrast, social tasks, involving negotiation or conflict resolution, show some benefits of F2F or VMC [6] not for task outcome but for increased participant satisfaction [16]. More recent studies testing the effectiveness of CMC compared to F2F in collaborative working found CMC to be more effective (e.g., [10]), which can be explained by the task-oriented nature of CMC. A.3 Social Information Processing (SIP) Theory 167 The task-oriented nature of CMC was also shown in the early studies of CMC. Walther [28] investigated the effects of CMC on social relationships and found that the impersonal style of communication in CMC was reduced when participants had enough time to complete their task. Several studies in the CMC literature showed that certain personal communication was lower in CMC than F2F highlighting the task-oriented nature of CMC. For example, one study showed that task performance of CMC participants was initially poorer when compared to the performance of verbal interactions, but improved as they gained experience of the CMC context [15]. Participants in this study adopted a specific way of giving directions, where they were more precise compared to F2F interactions. Along with these lines, individuals working collaboratively on an information seeking task may find different ways for communicating awareness or search findings when encountered with communication constraints in contexts such as text chat. A.3 Social Information Processing (SIP) Theory The SIP theory of CMC interaction [29] assumes that communicators in CMC can reduce interpersonal uncertainty, form impressions, and develop affinity in online settings as they can do in F2F context and rejects the view that the absence of nonverbal cues restricts the communicators’ capability to exchange information. SIP theory posits that communicators exchange social information through the content, style, and timing of online messages. The rate of information exchange is slower online due to instrumental and relational constraints as well as inefficiency in communicating online. When time is limited, interaction can be expected to be impersonal and task oriented; and when not restricted communicators can reach levels of impression and relational development just like they would in F2F settings. Some early studies considered the relative availability of higher-order infor- mation seeking strategies in CMC and F2F. Studies of initial interactions in F2F settings have identified several distinct types and subtypes of information seeking strategies. For instance, Tidwell and Walther [27] argued that, unlike F2F settings, online systems offer individuals only limited opportunities to observe others unobtrusively or to gain information about them indirectly. They further argued that if CMC users adapt available cues to perform interpersonal functions, then they would rely on interactive strategies to a greater extent in CMC than in F2F settings. They examined the information seeking strategies of CMC and F2F dyads engaged in acquaintance and decision-making tasks. Their results support the adaptation view that CMC users employed a greater proportion of self-disclosures and questions than did F2F partners. Additionally, the correspondence between the frequency of the interactive strategies and partners’ ratings of one another’s communication effectiveness was significantly more positive in CMC than in F2F communication. Along with SIP theory, F2F partners seem to draw on visual, auditory, and verbal cues at their disposal, and CMC partners adjust their strategies for effective interpersonal information acquisition. Later, the theory took also into consideration the variations in the motivation to reduce uncertainty across different types of media and anticipated future interaction in predicting interactions in CMC. 168 A Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) A.4 Social Identification/De-Individuation (SIDE) Theory SIDE theory assumes that CMC’s lack of nonverbal cues filters out interpersonal and individual identity information [11]. CMC may promote de-individuation by reduc- ing the number of channels that are used for personal interaction. De-individuation is defined as the process whereby submergence in a group produces loss of identity for individuals [18]. Communicating without nonverbal information, and in physical isolation, promotes greater group identification and self-categorization in line with social identity. CMC groups interpret the content of others’ messages as signals for creating or reinforcing group norms [11]. When CMC context makes group identity salient, individuals overly attribute similarity and common norms, resulting in social attraction to the group and group members. A recent study revealed that