SELECT AN EDITION:
9th EDITION   10th EDITION   11th EDITION
A First Look at Communication Theory Reveal main menu
 

The screen on this device is not wide enough to display Theory Resources. Try rotating the device to landscape orientation to see if more options become available.

Resources available to all users:

  • Text Comparison—theories covered in A First Look and ten other textbooks
  • Theory Overview—abstract of each chapter
  • Self-Help Quizzes—for student preparation
  • Chapter Outlines
  • Key Names—important names and terms in each chapter
  • Conversation Videos—interviews with theorists
  • Application Logs—student application of theories
  • Essay Questions—for student prepatation
  • Suggested Movie Clips—tie-in movie scenese to theories
  • Links—web resources related to each chapter
  • Primary Sources—for each theory with full chapter coverage
  • Further Resources—bibliographic and other suggestions
  • Changes—for each theory, since the previous edition
  • Theory Archive—PDF copies from the last edition in which a theory appeared

Resources available only to registered instructors who are logged in:

  • Discussion Suggestions
  • Exercises & Activities
  • PowerPoint® presentations you can use
  • Short Answer Quizzes—suggested questions and answers

Information for Instructors. Read more


CHANGE TO: View by Type

Resources
by Theory

 VIEW BY THEORY HOME
For the full list of resources
see View by Type

Instructors can get additional
resources. Read more













TEXT COMPARISON

Archived chapters (PDF)
from previous editions are
available in Resources by
Type. See list

New to Theory Resources?
Find out more in this
short video overview (3:01).


Social Information Processing Theory
Joseph Walther

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION: RELATIONSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 10
 Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Relationship Maintenance 
Chapter 10
 Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Relationship Maintenance 

Chapter Outline 9th Edition

  1. Introduction.
    1. Walther initially developed SIP to explain how people form relationships across the communication technologies.
    2. Scholars who studied new electronic media have offered a variety of theories to explain the inherent differences between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and face-to-face communication.
      1. Social presence theory suggests that text-based messages deprive CMC users of the sense that other people are jointly involved in the interaction.
      2. Media richness theory classifies each communication medium according to the complexity of the messages it can handle efficiently. 
      3. A third theory concentrates on the lack of social context cues in online communication. 
    3. Each of these theories favors a “cues filtered out” interpretation that regards the absence of nonverbal cues as the medium’s fatal flaw. 
    4. Joe Walther, a communication professor at Michigan State, argued that given the opportunity for sufficient exchange of social messages and subsequent relational growth, face-to-face and CMC are equally useful mediums for developing close relationships.
  2. CMC versus face-to-face: A sip instead of a gulp.
    1. Walther labeled his theory social information processing (SIP) because he believes relationships grow only to the extent that parties first gain information about each other and use that information to form impressions.
    2. SIP focuses on the first link of the chain—the personal information available through CMC and its effect on the composite mental image of the other.
    3. At its heart, the theory recognizes that the information we receive depends on the communication medium we’re using.
    4. Two features of CMC provide a rationale for SIP theory.
      1. Verbal cues: CMC users can create fully formed impressions of others based solely on linguistic content of messages.
      2. Extended time: Though the exchange of social information is slower via CMC than face-to-face, over time the relationships formed are not weaker or more fragile.
  3. Verbal cues of affinity replace nonverbal cues.
    1. Walter claims that humans crave affiliation just as much online as they do in face-to-face interactions.
  4. Experimental support for a counter-intuitive idea
    1. Walther isn’t content to rely on such anecdotes for support of his theory.
    2. Walther and two of his former graduate students ran a comparative study to test how CMC users pursue their social goals and if affinity can be expressed through a digital medium.
      1. In their study, the participants discussed a moral dilemma with a stranger via either CMC or face-to-face.  The stranger was in actuality a research confederate told to pursue a specific communication goal.  Half the confederates were told to interact in a friendly manner and the remaining pairs were told to interact in an unfriendly manner.
      2. The mode of communication made no difference in the emotional tone perceived by the participants.
      3. Self-disclosure, praise, and explicit statements of affection successfully communicated warmth as well as indirect agreement, change of subject, and compliments offered while proposing a contrasting idea.
      4. In face-to-face interactions, participants relied on facial expression, eye contact, tone of voice, body position, and other nonverbal cues to communication affiliation.
  5. Extended time: The crucial variable in CMC.
    1. Walther is convinced that the length of time that CMC users have to send messages is the key determinant of whether their message can achieve a comparable level of intimacy as face-to-face interactions.
    2. Messages spoken in person take at least four times as long to say via CMC. This differential may explain why CMC is perceived as impersonal and task-oriented.
    3. Since CMC conveys messages more slowly, Walther advises users to send messages more often.
    4. Anticipated future interaction and chronemic cues may also contribute to intimacy on the Internet.
      1. People will trade more relational messages if they think they may meet again and this anticipated future interaction motivates them to develop the relationship.
      2. Walther believes that chronemic cues, or nonverbal indicators of how people perceive, use, or respond to issues of time, is the only nonverbal cue not filtered out of CMC. 
    5. Walther claims that sometimes, CMC actually surpasses the quality of relational communication that’s available when parties talk face-to-face.
  6. Hyperpersonal perspective: Closer through CMC than in person.
    1. Walther uses the term hyperpersonal to label CMC relationships that are more intimate than if partners were physically together.
    2. He classifies four types of media effects that occur precisely because CMC users aren’t proximal.
      1. Sender: Selective self-presentation
        1. Through selective self-presentation, people who meet online have an opportunity to make and sustain an overwhelmingly positive impression.
        2. As a relationship develops, they can edit the breadth and depth of their self-disclosure to conform to the cyber image they wish to project.
      2. Receiver: Overattribution of similarity
        1. Attribution is a perceptual process where we observe people’s actions and try to figure out what they’re really like.
        2. In the absence of other cues, we are likely to overattribute the information we have and create an idealized image of the sender.
      3. Channel: Communicating on your own time
        1. Walther refers to CMC as an asynchronous channel of communication, meaning that parties can use it nonsimultaneously.
        2. A benefit is the ability to plan, contemplate, and edit one’s comments more than is possible in spontaneous, simultaneous talk.
      4. Feedback: Self-fulfilling prophecy
        1. A self-fulfilling prophecy is the tendency for a person’s expectation of others to evoke a response from them that confirms what was anticipated.
        2. Self-fulfilling prophecy is triggered when the hyperpositive image is intentionally or inadvertently fed back to the other person, creating a CMC equivalent of the looking-glass self.
  7. The warranting value of information: What to trust?
    1. Social networking sites are popular means of CMC, but are distinct because of the inclusion of photos, video, a personal profile, network connections, and the ability to add information to others’ profiles.
    2. Information is believed if it has warranting value. Does their online profile match their offline characteristics?
      1. Low warrant information can be easily manipulated by owner and may not be trustworthy.
      2. High warrant information is less easily changed and more trustworthy.
    3. Social networking sites allow interpersonal information to come from both self and others.
  8. Critique: Walther’s candid assessment.
    1. Walther admits, SIP does not allow for differences in the affiliation drive, particularly in reference to motivating effects of anticipated future interaction.
    2. Walther doesn’t believe the hyperpersonal perspective has reached that state, because “certain aspects of the model remain underresearched,” including how the components of the model fit together and why feedback increases attraction.
    3. Nevertheless, Walther candidly acknowledges that only additional work can discover the theoretical ‘glue’ that would bind the hyperpersonal perspective’s four components into a coherent whole.
    4. The warranting principle may depend on the information’s social desirability according to the values of the society.

CHANGE TO: View by Type

Resources
by Theory

 THEORY HOME
For the full list of resources
see View by Type

Instructors can get additional
resources. Read more













TEXT COMPARE

Archived chapters (PDF)
from previous editions
are available in
Resources by Type.
See list

New to Theory
Resources?
Find out more in this short
video overview (3:01).


Social Information Processing Theory
Joseph Walther

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION: RELATIONSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 10
 Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Relationship Maintenance 
Chapter 10
 Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Relationship Maintenance 

Chapter Outline 9th Edition

  1. Introduction.
    1. Walther initially developed SIP to explain how people form relationships across the communication technologies.
    2. Scholars who studied new electronic media have offered a variety of theories to explain the inherent differences between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and face-to-face communication.
      1. Social presence theory suggests that text-based messages deprive CMC users of the sense that other people are jointly involved in the interaction.
      2. Media richness theory classifies each communication medium according to the complexity of the messages it can handle efficiently. 
      3. A third theory concentrates on the lack of social context cues in online communication. 
    3. Each of these theories favors a “cues filtered out” interpretation that regards the absence of nonverbal cues as the medium’s fatal flaw. 
    4. Joe Walther, a communication professor at Michigan State, argued that given the opportunity for sufficient exchange of social messages and subsequent relational growth, face-to-face and CMC are equally useful mediums for developing close relationships.
  2. CMC versus face-to-face: A sip instead of a gulp.
    1. Walther labeled his theory social information processing (SIP) because he believes relationships grow only to the extent that parties first gain information about each other and use that information to form impressions.
    2. SIP focuses on the first link of the chain—the personal information available through CMC and its effect on the composite mental image of the other.
    3. At its heart, the theory recognizes that the information we receive depends on the communication medium we’re using.
    4. Two features of CMC provide a rationale for SIP theory.
      1. Verbal cues: CMC users can create fully formed impressions of others based solely on linguistic content of messages.
      2. Extended time: Though the exchange of social information is slower via CMC than face-to-face, over time the relationships formed are not weaker or more fragile.
  3. Verbal cues of affinity replace nonverbal cues.
    1. Walter claims that humans crave affiliation just as much online as they do in face-to-face interactions.
  4. Experimental support for a counter-intuitive idea
    1. Walther isn’t content to rely on such anecdotes for support of his theory.
    2. Walther and two of his former graduate students ran a comparative study to test how CMC users pursue their social goals and if affinity can be expressed through a digital medium.
      1. In their study, the participants discussed a moral dilemma with a stranger via either CMC or face-to-face.  The stranger was in actuality a research confederate told to pursue a specific communication goal.  Half the confederates were told to interact in a friendly manner and the remaining pairs were told to interact in an unfriendly manner.
      2. The mode of communication made no difference in the emotional tone perceived by the participants.
      3. Self-disclosure, praise, and explicit statements of affection successfully communicated warmth as well as indirect agreement, change of subject, and compliments offered while proposing a contrasting idea.
      4. In face-to-face interactions, participants relied on facial expression, eye contact, tone of voice, body position, and other nonverbal cues to communication affiliation.
  5. Extended time: The crucial variable in CMC.
    1. Walther is convinced that the length of time that CMC users have to send messages is the key determinant of whether their message can achieve a comparable level of intimacy as face-to-face interactions.
    2. Messages spoken in person take at least four times as long to say via CMC. This differential may explain why CMC is perceived as impersonal and task-oriented.
    3. Since CMC conveys messages more slowly, Walther advises users to send messages more often.
    4. Anticipated future interaction and chronemic cues may also contribute to intimacy on the Internet.
      1. People will trade more relational messages if they think they may meet again and this anticipated future interaction motivates them to develop the relationship.
      2. Walther believes that chronemic cues, or nonverbal indicators of how people perceive, use, or respond to issues of time, is the only nonverbal cue not filtered out of CMC. 
    5. Walther claims that sometimes, CMC actually surpasses the quality of relational communication that’s available when parties talk face-to-face.
  6. Hyperpersonal perspective: Closer through CMC than in person.
    1. Walther uses the term hyperpersonal to label CMC relationships that are more intimate than if partners were physically together.
    2. He classifies four types of media effects that occur precisely because CMC users aren’t proximal.
      1. Sender: Selective self-presentation
        1. Through selective self-presentation, people who meet online have an opportunity to make and sustain an overwhelmingly positive impression.
        2. As a relationship develops, they can edit the breadth and depth of their self-disclosure to conform to the cyber image they wish to project.
      2. Receiver: Overattribution of similarity
        1. Attribution is a perceptual process where we observe people’s actions and try to figure out what they’re really like.
        2. In the absence of other cues, we are likely to overattribute the information we have and create an idealized image of the sender.
      3. Channel: Communicating on your own time
        1. Walther refers to CMC as an asynchronous channel of communication, meaning that parties can use it nonsimultaneously.
        2. A benefit is the ability to plan, contemplate, and edit one’s comments more than is possible in spontaneous, simultaneous talk.
      4. Feedback: Self-fulfilling prophecy
        1. A self-fulfilling prophecy is the tendency for a person’s expectation of others to evoke a response from them that confirms what was anticipated.
        2. Self-fulfilling prophecy is triggered when the hyperpositive image is intentionally or inadvertently fed back to the other person, creating a CMC equivalent of the looking-glass self.
  7. The warranting value of information: What to trust?
    1. Social networking sites are popular means of CMC, but are distinct because of the inclusion of photos, video, a personal profile, network connections, and the ability to add information to others’ profiles.
    2. Information is believed if it has warranting value. Does their online profile match their offline characteristics?
      1. Low warrant information can be easily manipulated by owner and may not be trustworthy.
      2. High warrant information is less easily changed and more trustworthy.
    3. Social networking sites allow interpersonal information to come from both self and others.
  8. Critique: Walther’s candid assessment.
    1. Walther admits, SIP does not allow for differences in the affiliation drive, particularly in reference to motivating effects of anticipated future interaction.
    2. Walther doesn’t believe the hyperpersonal perspective has reached that state, because “certain aspects of the model remain underresearched,” including how the components of the model fit together and why feedback increases attraction.
    3. Nevertheless, Walther candidly acknowledges that only additional work can discover the theoretical ‘glue’ that would bind the hyperpersonal perspective’s four components into a coherent whole.
    4. The warranting principle may depend on the information’s social desirability according to the values of the society.

 
 
 
Home  McGraw-Hill—How to get copies of A First Look  Information for Instructors  Meet the Authors
Compare Comm Theory Texts  Viewing Hints & Troubleshooting 
Contact Us  Instructor Login 
 
 

Copyright © Em Griffin 2025 | Web design by Graphic Impact