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.
Philippa.
No comments:
Post a Comment