Short Paper on CMC

In class we have discussed several communication technologies that have developed over time and effected society as we know it today. Focusing on the invention of the computer which led to the development of the internet, it is clear this technology has entered American lives on a day-to-day basis. Ideas of “the computer” can be seen all the way back in the 1890s but not until the late 1900s are the ideas apparent of how we know the computer today. Around this same time the invention of the internet begins to be envisioned. The invention of these new technologies have sparked the topic of computer-mediated communication(CMC) versus face-to-face communication(FtF).
According to class lecture, there are four types of computer mediated communication; one-to-one asynchronous, many-to-many asynchronous, websites, and synchronous communication. These types of communication consist of communicating through e-mails, instant messaging, electronic bulletin boards, etc. There is never face-to-face interaction to convey a message. Individually, is there negative effects of the absence of face-to-face interaction? In relation to using CMC there are some potential effects that discuss how the audience now has an active role in deciding what media to consume, how people use media for different reasons, and how the internet affects an individuals behavior. CMC messages are absent of non-verbal cues which could skew one's interpretation of the message's intended meaning.
An article concerning the effects of CMC and FtF communication addresses the impact of social status between the two types of communication. The article states, “usually people with a high social status dominate the conversation in FtF communication however, with the growing use of CMC, everyone is participating more” (Boucher, Hancock, & Dunham, 2008). The article also explains how, while using CMC a person does not have to compete for speaking time because the two people can speak simultaneously whereas with FtF communication, only one person can speak at a time. This information has shown an equalized participation rate. Although CMC increases the chance of an equalized participation rate during the conversation, it also makes it more difficult “to express and address emotions and thoughts within text-based interactions” (Boucher, Hancock, & Dunham, 2008).
The results of both methods effect each individual portraying a specific message. An experiment described in this article tests whether status roles were constant throughout CMC and FtF and the accuracy of interpersonal perceptions between the two methods of communication. Surprisingly, the results were relatively accurate and showed no significant difference between both CMC and FtF. The article suggests, “it appears that the removal of nonverbal cues in CMC settings may not necessarily undermine judgmental accuracy and that communicators are able to monitor their partner’s reactions and feelings as effectively in CMC as those interacting face-to-face” (Boucher, Hancock, & Dunham, 2008).
These results are important when considering the future use of CMC. Possible effects of using this new technology will be the loss of interpersonal signs and non-verbal cues. However, the article discussed takes the stance “that communicators appear to be just as sensitive to their partner’s thoughts and feelings in text-based communication as in more traditional FtF interactions” (Boucher, Hancock, & Dunham, 2008). Individuals will continued to be effected with the increase of Computer-Mediated Communication.









Works Cited Page

Boucher, E. M., Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J. (2008). Interpersonal sensitivity in computer-mediated and face-to-face conversations. Media Psychology, 11(2), 235-258.