خودارائه گری انتخابی در ارتباطات به واسطه کامپیوتر: ابعاد بیش از حد شخصی فن آوری، زبان و شناخت
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|38956||2007||20 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 9681 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 23, Issue 5, September 2007, Pages 2538–2557
Abstract The hyperpersonal model of computer-mediated communication (CMC) posits that users exploit the technological aspects of CMC in order to enhance the messages they construct to manage impressions and facilitate desired relationships. This research examined how CMC users managed message composing time, editing behaviors, personal language, sentence complexity, and relational tone in their initial messages to different presumed targets, and the cognitive awareness related to these processes. Effects on several of these processes and outcomes were obtained in response to different targets, partially supporting the hyperpersonal perspective of CMC, with unanticipated gender and status interaction effects suggesting behavioral compensation through CMC, or overcompensation when addressing presumably undesirable partners.
. Introduction The most interesting aspect of the advent of computer-mediated communication (CMC) is how it reveals basic elements of interpersonal communication, bringing into focus fundamental processes that occur as people meet and develop relationships relying on typed messages as the primary mechanism of expression. While many encounters in electronic space involve no more than simple queries for and provision of information, other relationships evolve over CMC. CMC-based relationships range from professionally friendly to quite intimate (see e.g. Landis, 1994 and Reid, 1991). Some lead to off-line relations (e.g. Baker, 1998, Parks and Floyd, 1996 and Parks and Roberts, 1998), while others remain entirely online (e.g. Allen, 1996 and Preece, 2001). Regardless of eventual trajectory, some basic processes take place during first acquaintanceship, where CMC differs substantially from face-to-face (FtF) communication, in form if not in function. Physical features such as one’s appearance and voice provide much of the information on which people base first impressions FtF, but such features are often unavailable in CMC. Various perspectives on CMC have suggested that the lack of nonverbal cues diminishes CMC’s ability to foster impression formation and management (see e.g. Kiesler, 1986 and Kiesler et al., 1984), or argued impressions develop nevertheless, relying on language and content cues (see e.g. Baym, 1995, Walther, 1992 and Walther, 1993). One approach that describes the way that CMC’s technical capacities work in concert with users’ impression development intentions is the hyperpersonal model of CMC (Walther, 1996). The model specifies several concurrent dynamics in sender, receiver, channel, and feedback systems that are affected by CMC attributes, which promote the development and potential exaggeration of impressions and relationships online: As receivers, CMC users idealize partners based on the circumstances or message elements that suggest minimal similarity or desirability. As senders, CMC users selectively self-present, revealing attitudes and aspects of the self in a controlled and socially desirable fashion. The CMC channel facilitates editing, discretion, and convenience, and the ability to tune out environmental distractions and re-allocate cognitive resources in order to further enhance one’s message composition. Finally, CMC may create dynamic feedback loops wherein the exaggerated expectancies are confirmed and reciprocated through mutual interaction via the bias-prone communication processes identified above. As a cross-contextual model, the hyperpersonal framework has received support in a variety of settings, involving both dyads and groups, in educational, romantic, and group/leadership settings (e.g., Chester and Gwynne, 1998, Gibbs et al., 2006 and Wickham and Walther, in press, resp.). With regard to its propositions regarding impression formation and management, empirical tests have shown how CMC leads to more extreme impressions than FtF (Hancock & Dunham, 2001) and more positive relations over time compared to FtF (Walther, 1997) and compared to CMC accompanied by users’ photos (Walther, Slovacek, & Tidwell, 2001). Few studies have explored aspects of senders’ behavior, with exceptions focusing on self-disclosure, personal questions, and verbal expressions of affinity in CMC relative to FtF communication (Tidwell and Walther, 2002 and Walther et al., 2005). No research to date has specifically and empirically focused on the elements of the model that posited (1) how CMC users exploit interface attributes of the channel in order to attempt to enhance impressions and relational messages, (2) message characteristics corresponding to these efforts, and (3) the degree to which cognitive resources are allocated to message composition in CMC, all in the service of selective self-presentation online. The present study examines these processes in an experiment designed to identify the degree to which CMC participants deliberately affect their self-presentations and relational messages by using the affordances of CMC.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
4. Results 4.1. Examination of covariates The time a participant spent composing may be due to one’s motivation to manage impressions and to reflect thoughtfulness, but it may also be affected by native typing skills or how much verbiage one types. Preliminary correlation analyses examined (1) composing time and typing speed (in words-per-minute), and (2) composing time and the length of the finished messages (in words). Indeed, composing time was negatively correlated with typing speed, r(52) = −.39, p < .005, as expected. However, composing time was also strongly associated with the number of words, r = .70. There was no difference between these relationships, z = 1.53, and it remains unclear whether some participants took longer to type because they were slower typists or because they typed more. For this reason typing skill was a covariate in subsequent analyses where time typing was a variable. 4.2. Hypothesis tests Message qualities. The first analyses examined the effects of the target on subjects’ language production. Multivariate analysis of variance examined whether the independent variable, anticipated partners’ desirability, had a significant effect on the three dependent variables characterizing the participants’ writing behavior (verbiage, personalization, and complexity). The multivariate effect was significant, Wilks lambda = .77, F(6, 98) = 2.30, p = .04, η2 = .123. Hypothesis 1 predicted more verbiage from participants motivated to selectively self-present than from unmotivated users within CMC. No univariate main or interaction effect obtained for the partner factor on the number of words transmitted. Although this calls for rejection of the hypothesis, it is interesting to note that the results of language adjustments described below appear to have been accomplished rather efficiently, without significant variation in wordiness. The second hypothesis predicted that the target affects language personalization through pronoun selection. The main effect was significant at the univariate level, F(2, 51) = 4.65, p = .014, η2 = .15, with no overriding gender interactions. The directions of the means were not consistent with predictions or the desirability manipulation check. Results showed that those communicating with a target they assumed to be a high school student used the most personalized language (M = 104.00, SD = 22.79), which post hoc Newman–Keuls analyses revealed to be greater than personalization toward control targets (M = 92.63, SD = 27.37) and high-status target communicators (M = 79.06, SD = 21.70). Hypothesis 3 specified that target desirability affects language complexity. Partner level had a significant effect on Flesch index, F(2, 50) = 4.36, p = .018, η2 = .16. Newman–Keuls comparisons demonstrated that the highest and lowest scores were significantly different. Language complexity was greatest (i.e. the mean Flesch score was lowest) for those subjects who believed they were addressing the university professors, M = 60.47, SD = 8.25. Flesch scores for those allegedly addressing the high school addressee were highest, M = 69.00, SD = 9.70, while those associated with the undescribed control target ranged in the middle, M = 67.53, SD = 8.02. Mirroring the language accommodation to high school students in pronoun personalization, when the student subjects anticipated an electronic conversation with a professor, they adjusted their language upward, so to speak. While the independent linguistic features were each reflected differently in response to the anticipated partner, it remains a question what extent these micro-level differences correspond to differences in the perceived social nature of the messages, which RQ1 sought to discern. Stepwise multiple regression analyses were conducted to explore the contributions of the micro-linguistic variations within messages (provided by automated coding) on the relational communication evaluations of those messages (provided by outside raters). The language variable primarily related to immediacy was the sheer number of words, which rendered a very large positive effect and was the first predictor to enter the model, adjusted R2 = .45, F(1, 50) = 41.99, β = .69, p < .01. Language complexity was also significantly and positively related to immediacy, β = .29, with the final equation rendering an adjusted R2 = .52, F(2, 49) = 28.85, p < .001. The percentage of personal words did not enter the model with these other factors. Composing time and editing behaviors. The next analyses examined the effects of anticipated partner on the composition and editing processes CMC users undertook. H4 predicted more time being spent, and H5 predicted more editing, when participants were writing to more desirable targets. An analysis of time composing with typing rate as a covariate yielded no significant effects due to the partner to whom subjects believed that they were writing. Typing speed exerted a significant effect on time composing, F(1, 50) = 7.24, p = .01, without which no other effects persisted. Analysis of editing behaviors yielded a significant three-way subject sex by target sex by target status (2 × 2 × 3) interaction effect, F(2, 42) = 4.34, p = .02, with no two-way interactions or main effects persisting. Among male participants, the greatest editing was directed to female control targets (i.e., females about whom it was only stated that they were students), followed closely by the targets who were described as male high school loners. Males edited least when they believed they were addressing high-status male or female (professor) targets, or control (unspecified student) males. Female participants, on the other hand, edited most when addressing a female, high-status target, closely followed by a male/control. The range of female subjects’ editing was greater than male subjects’, with their highest-edited target (female professor) averaging 71.5 edits, while their least-edited target averaged 16.8 edits (female/control). Males ranged from 49.50 to 20.75 edits. (Means are reported in Table 1.) Thus the female subjects edited for the female professor most while they, like male participants, disregarded their respective same-sex “peer,” editorially speaking. Male subjects edited more for a cross-sex peer, but least for a professor of the opposite sex. In the final analysis, the results indicate that editing is employed differently when communicating with partners with different attributes in CMC, with gender and status of the target mediating these effects. Table 1. Means (and standard deviations) for editing behaviors (insertions, deletions, backspaces) by subject sex, presumed target sex and status Subject sex Male Female Target sex Male Female Male Female Target status High 21.33 (18.01) 20.75 (13.05) 25.75 (35.37) 71.50 (37.04) Neutral 24.00 (16.15) 49.50 (24.72) 70.00 (42.12) 16.80 (31.52) Low 44.25 (39.99) 26.25 (11.64) 41.00 (45.40) 26.20 (18.08) Table options Analysis for H6 and H7 examined whether, as suggested in the hyperpersonal perspective, variations in editing and composition behaviors were used to enhance the relational tone of the messages they produced. Correlation tests examined whether time spent composing or whether editing frequency were related to the immediacy/affection of the final messages. Results showed significant one-tailed correlations between both composing time, r = .36, p = .005, and editing, r = .44, p = .001, with immediacy/affection. The hypotheses were supported. Self-reported mindfulness was also analyzed. H8 specified that communicating with more desireable targets prompts greater mindfulness during the message composition process. Mindfulness results were obscured by a significant two-way interaction for target sex by target status, F(2, 40) = 3.28, p = .048, η2 = .13. The means do not present readily interpretable patterns. 4 Among male targets there was slightly more mindfulness when the stimuli were more identifiable (that is, the professor or the high school student) than the ambiguous control, but female targets induced less mindfulness when identified and more mindfulness when ambiguous. Research question 2 asked about the relationships among time, editing, and the production of words: whether individuals use their time for more deliberation, more editing. A preliminary regression analysis on composing time, with typing score forced into the model first and with editing and word counts entered next, demonstrated that composing time was influenced by editing and word count over and above variations in typing ability. Since previous results ambiguated the a priori expectation regarding which experimental conditions provided greater motivation to selectively self-present, a median split on mindfulness was used as a break variable to create two sub-groups. Results indicated that for those reporting less mindfulness online (n = 29), the more total amount of time they spent in the writing session, the more word volume they produced (r = .75, p < .001) and the more they edited (r = .51, p = .006), with no differences between these two activities, z = 1.48. However, for those experiencing more mindfulness online (n = 22), although the associations of time with both word count (r = .49, p = .03) and editing (r = .87, p = .001) were significant, the association between time and editing was significantly stronger than the relationship between time and word production, z = 2.48. These findings are consistent with the hyperpersonal contention that more mindful processing in CMC accompanies more effort in message construction, increasing CMC editing.