Thursday, 10 October 2013

Which of the criticisms of the 'social cues filtered out' model of Sproull & Kiesler do you find to be the most compelling evidence against its validity... and why?


This week I'm going to focus more on the theory behind cyberpsychology - in particular arguing against a model that states there is a 'cues filtered out' aspect of CMC (computer mediated communication). So a bit of background: The 'Cues Filtered Out' model was proposed by Sproull & Kiesler in 1986 and, like the social presence model by Short et al (1979), is a model of CMC which focuses very much on what is lost through online communication. This model outlines that, when conversing through online mediums, there is a complete elimination of many of the cues which people use in order to understand social context and adjust their behaviour as a result. According to the cues filtered out model, these aspects are separated into three categories; geographical cues which communicate distance and place of the receiver, organisational cues which hint at hierarchical structures within society such as job status, and situational cues such as age and gender. Sproull & Kiesler expand further by placing these cues into two types; static cues, i.e a person’s appearance and environment, and dynamic cues such as the individual’s non-verbal behaviour. For example, upon meeting a person you may notice that they come from another country from their accent or dress sense (geographical cues), are a professional person from the name badge on their clothing (organisational cues), and that they are an older male (situational cues). All these aspects will go on to influence how you speak to the person and what you say, despite the fact that no discourse has actually taken place yet. Because these cues are 'filtered out' during CMC, the model suggests that people will become less focused on the receiver, and as a result become more disinhibited. This may then lead to extreme behaviours, such as 'flaming' or 'trolling'.
Despite the fact that this model makes some pretty convincing points, and can explain the above behaviours over CMC, it most certainly isn’t the whole picture. I personally feel the most damaging evidence against this model comes from Walther (1992) who highlights that, despite the communication occurring online, these social cues are so salient that people use innovative ways to overcome their absence in cyberspace. Last week, I discussed the use of creative keyboarding, which is a perfect example of individuals doing exactly that. There are elements of truth to the cues filtered out model; online communication does lack non-verbal aspects, but people compensate for this quite easily by conveying emotions, emphasis and mannerisms through text instead. Though Walther agrees that it is probably faster to gain information on age and status through face to face communication, people still gain this information online. He argues that, given an unlimited amount of time, the amount of information gathered online compared to face to face communication will be exactly the same. This argument was confirmed in a later meta-analysis conducted (Walther et al., 1994). 

Second Life Online Venue
Referring to virtual environments, such as 'Second Life' and (my personal favourite from when I was about 14) ‘Habbo Hotel’, the first thing that normally happens when meeting somebody new, is that they’ll ask you ‘ASL?’, which is basically short for ‘Age? Sex? Location?’. Aren’t these the very cues which Sproull & Kiesler argue are completely filtered out online? And as soon as the asker receives a response, they can start building up a visual image of the individual they are talking to. The cues filtered out model also doesn’t exactly explain how individuals can form intimate relationships online either; surely, if cyberspace was as absent of social cues as Sproull & Keisler suggest, the idea of forming romantic attachments would be almost impossible. Even the fact that many online venues have visual avatars, where people can convey aspects of what they actually look like, or their personality or identity, is trying to replicate the non verbal aspects of human communication. Because the ‘cues filtered out’ model completely fails to acknowledge that people use creative keyboarding, and other ways to overcome what is lost over CMC, and can accomplish many of the things that individuals achieve in meatspace, it will never be a comprehensive model of computer mediated communication. 

Lastly, this model is not one I completely agree with because it does not recognise the adaptability, or plasticity, of human behaviour. Even if CMC didn’t ‘work’ because it was completely devoid of everything that conceptualises interpersonal communication, humans will adapt in order to MAKE it work, and in the case of online communication, they certainly have.

Until next time,
Philippa.

No comments:

Post a Comment