review - articles - Review Prelim 1 Articles Hancock and...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Review – Prelim 1 – Articles Hancock and Dunham o Research question: what factors influence impression formation? What happens when we restrict or eliminate impression-relevant signals? o After CMC interaction or FtF interaction, participants rated partners’ personality profile, which were then assessed in terms of breadth and intensity o CFO Cues Filtered Out Reduction of nonverbal social cues in CMC produces a depersonalized form of communication and decreased awareness of others Inhibits interpersonal relations Leads to amorphous (vague) impressions o Vs. SIDE theory Social Identification/Deindividuation Lack of cues renders CMC partners anonymous, so increased reliance on few remaining social cues like role, status, etc Lack of cues leads to overattribution on the basis of minimal information Construct more stereotyped and exaggerated representations of partners Instead of CFO assuming that scarce cues means lean perception of CMC partner, scarce cues lead to more intense and exaggerated perceptions of partners o Vs. SIP theory Social information-processing CMC retards the rate at which impression-relevant cues are exchanged during social interaction, rather than simply reducing or eliminating the amount of such information Initial impressions are incomplete, but they become more developed and comprehensive over time as participants seek out relevant information about their partners o Hyperpersonal model (Walther) Fundamental assumption that deindividuated participants will formed more stereotyped impressions based on limited social and interpersonal cues available Leads to overattribution in absence of individuating or contraindicating information Selective self-presentation
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Intentionally select positive, desirable cues and mask physical and behavior cues not normally under participant’s control Lack of cues may allow user to reallocate cognitive resources normally applied to active involvement in FtF to language selection, message construction, impression management Hyperpersonal + SIP: initially breadth will be low (number of individual characteristics that participants are willing to rate) and intensity will be high (extreme + or - ) Vs CFO prediction of relatively neutral attributes along with small breadth o Procedure: tangram-matching task o Discussion Broad reduction of nonverbal data about a partner in a single CMC interaction constrains the range of information normally relied on to form more robust impressions CMC participants made fewer attributions than FtF CMC participants made more extreme attributions than FtF Consistent with Walther: when individual identity not salient, exaggerated attributions about personal qualities made Initial support for hyperpersonal model Van Gelder –
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 6

review - articles - Review Prelim 1 Articles Hancock and...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online