Synchronous and Asynchronous

The authors write, “This reduction in the immediacy, variety, and amount of simultaneous communication and feedback leads to a reduction in how dynamically co-constructed our communication is and results in a loss of social presence.” I found this very interesting.

I agree completely. In face-to-face (F2F) synchronous communication, we can catch the nuances of the other person’s conversation and read his or her body language, which helps us better understand what the person is meaning by what he or she says. This helps us construct and adapt our own side of the conversation accordingly. In other words, we can have dynamic, two-way effective communication. In addition, we can recognize the social presence of the other person in that it is easier in F2F to recognize the personality of the other person, which can help tailor the communication. F2F also makes the interaction that leads to successful communication easier and more effective.

On the other hand, computer-mediated communication is often asynchronous. So the conversation is not as dynamic as F2F communication. There is also often no sense of immediacy, because people are often not responding immediately, but doing their part of communication whenever they have time. And they have time to construct their message and amend it before they send it, so conversation is not as spontaneous. I prefer this because I have difficulty “thinking on my feet,” but do well in writing, especially when I take the time to review and edit my writing. However, this polished version of conversation doesn’t do anything toward helping people get a real sense of my social presence.

Anonymity, group size and proximity influence participation and communication in CMC groups

Anonymity, group size and proximity influence participation and communication in computer-mediated communication (CMC) groups. As I wrote in my first post earlier today, anonymity provides positive things in CMC. It helps people feel more comfortable in speaking out. In CMC compared to face-to-face (F2F) communication, low-status members tend to contribute more freely and all members tend to contribute uninhibitedly on an equal basis. The negative side of this is that lack of trust can become an issue because anonymity can also be a shield that hides the clues present in F2F communication that help people decide who is trustworthy and who isn’t.

Group size influences participation and communication in that large CMC groups tend to benefit most from CMC because more ideas tend to be generated per group member than in smaller groups. CMC makes it easy to exchange information, so when large groups are involved in information exchange, there is more group communication than in smaller groups and more of a sense of group involvement. Large groups also provide more of an opportunity for diversity, which tends to bring more knowledge, experience and generate more ideas.

Physical proximity also influences participation and communication. People who are not in the same location who use CMC have the advantage of anonymity that I listed above, while people who are using CMC in the same room are conscious of the personal-social identities of themselves and each other in the room even if they are only communicating via computer. These people can experience more social pressure and tend to conform more to group norms and expectations than if they were not in the same room.

How CMC differs from F2F communication

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) differs from Face-to-Face (F2F) communication in several ways. As I see it, the biggest difference is that CMC focuses less on personal and social aspects than F2F. This can have a positive effect in that a group can focus more on the task that needs to be done, how to do it and the content that needs to be analyzed in order to accomplish the task. Small groups are able to do all of this and perhaps get things accomplished more quickly because personal relationships and interpersonal attraction aren’t emphasized. Additional advantages are that participation is anonymous so people who might not speak out in F2F communication may be willing to do so in CMC and low-status members tend to contribute more freely, with all members contributing uninhibitedly on an equal basis.

I believe one of the negative aspects of CMC compared to F2F communication is that since individual personalities are detected less in CMC and communication style in CMC tends to be less social-emotional, there might be a detrimental effect on group cohesion since one of the influences on the development of group cohesion is contentment with the social aspects of the group. Additional negative aspects of CMC compared to F2F communication are that it’s sometimes harder to get a group consensus, (although, more unique ideas can be generated in CMC than in F2F communication), it’s less likely to have a leader emerge and leadership tends to be more decentralized and less permanent in CMC compared to F2F communication.

Constructive feedback

A concept I found useful in this week’s reading is constructive feedback. I’ve often wondered how to give it. I’ve always “sandwiched” constructive feedback between two positive statements. The book provided me with steps that are helpful. First I am to state the facts and tell how and why the behavior affects me, making a connection between the observed facts and my feelings. I am then to describe the change I’d like the person to think about making and why I think the change will help. Then I listen to what the other person has to say and we discuss options and consider compromise. The authors also talk about using “I” instead of “you” statements.

An example of constructive feedback using this information above might be: “I feel frustrated when you call me and start talking without asking me if I have time to talk. It would be really helpful to me if you would ask me if I have time to talk. Then, if I don’t have time at the moment to give you my full attention, we can set up a time when we both have time to talk. Does this sound okay to you, or do you have another idea that you think might work better for both of us?

Selective attention

An example of when I have selective attention is current and ongoing—the propositions and candidates involved in November’s election. I find myself choosing to pay attention only to the sides of the propositions that I believe in, and only to the candidates for whom I have decided to vote. So many of the advertisements out right now for the various propositions and candidates contradict the way I think, so I reject them and refuse to listen. Some of the arguments for and against the propositions are complicated, so I haven’t taken the time to understand them.

Because I’m comfortable in my decisions, it won’t be easy to listen to the opposing sides; however, I realize that I really need to listen to the other side of propositions and hear what the candidates I’m not intending to vote for are saying. The information I hear will either reaffirm my stances, or possibly even make me change my mind. I’ll see if I can truly listen to tonight’s debate without experiencing selective attention!