| Chapter 1: | Introduction |
|
|
Membership is highly fluid, with low social costs associated with joining or leaving, and participation varies enormously. There are often many lurkers who passively participate by reading posts but never actively form relationships with others (Baym, 2000; Mickelson, 1997; Preece, Nonnecke, & Andrews 2004). At the same time, a core collection of members commonly post messages daily and respond to nearly anyone who posts.
CMC and Social Support
Of the difference cited above, the most significant difference between an electronic social network containing CMC and a traditional social network made up of face-to-face communication is physical. People who are connected electronically need not have physical proximity, and online conversations are carried out without physical cues. Some theorists argue that this creates contacts without intimacy and communication that is impersonal, negative, and uninhibited. Two predominant theories that espouse these propositions are the social presence model and the reduced social cues model (for discussion see Lea & Spears, 1995; Preece & Maloney-Krichmar, 2003). The social presence model posits that the amount of social presence that can be conveyed in a medium determines its ability to foster depth and intimacy in a relationship (Rice, 1993; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). The second model, the reduced social cues model, describes how CMC filters out social cues, such as tone of voice, appearance, and physical setting, thereby greatly influencing interactions in ways that tend to be more negative than positive (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991; Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994). These models led to the conclusion that a lack of intimacy and a tendency toward negative interactions create an environment ill-suited for social interaction or the sharing of emotions (Baron, 1984; Stoll, 1995).