Computer Mediated Communication

Yuhua (Jake) Liang, Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA

Joseph B Walther, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) involves sending messages through computer networks such as the Internet.
Research on the social impacts of text-based CMC began with a cues-filtered-out perspective, highlighting the loss of social
information due to the absence of face-to-face, nonverbal cues. More recent theories focus on how message senders exploit
the CMC medium in order to create messages and relationships actively. A sender-receiver-message-channel-feedback model
of communication reveals how CMC affects social dynamics.

Communication technologies have potentially altered the
way human beings share information with one another. The
ability to communicate by sending and receiving text infor-
mation has been more readily available in recent history.
Just as the Pony Express, the telegraph and the telephone
enabled individuals to communicate across great distance,
new communication technologies have again reinvented
the available means of communication. Electronic
communication technologies utilizing computers have refa-
miliarized our society with text-driven means of connecting
with each other. Yet, despite the changes associated with
historical text-based interpersonal media such as mail and
phone, the rapid speed and other unique affordances of the
Internet has sparked considerable interest in how computer-
mediated communication (CMC) differs from traditional
communication.
The earliest research on CMC focused on the effects of new
technology related to task performance outcomes. In the 1980s
and 1990s, CMC consisted of electronic email and computer
conferencing, chats, and electronic bulletin board systems
hosting online forums. Research addressed the effects of those
text-based communication systems not only on tasks, but also
how the social dynamics and effects of the technology on users
affected tasks or group performance. Today, with a greater
variety of social media and expanded roles for their applica-
tion, communication technology now plays an integral role in
how people interact with one another across myriad types of
social relationships.
Communication technologies available today have
increased the frequency, ubiquity, and impact of CMC. Indi-
viduals often work and interact with others via computers on
a daily basis. People may access CMC through their mobile
devices as well as computers. More complex and crowd-based
systems exist today to provide new means of digital collabo-
ration and online sharing. Social media technologies, such as
Facebook and Twitter, provide highly accessible means of CMC
by relating the content to the people we know. In addition to
new enablement and accessibility, communication patterns
today blend the use of offline and online channels across most
of our personal and professional relationships (Ramirez and
Zhang, 2007).
Despite the mass proliferation and integration of CMC
into our lives today, the delineation between CMC and
other forms of communication remains useful and necessary
in order to understand how technology affects communi-
cation processes. Even though CMC now hosts more
multimodal channels in terms of photos, videos, and
immersive graphical environments, text-based communica-
tion remains as a mainstay of how individuals exchange
messages. Research developed on the basis of older text-
based forms of CMC should continue to apply. As we
develop an understanding of how CMC can affect commu-
nicators we can posit new questions as newer communica-
tion technologies such as Web 2.0 continue to expand the
range of CMC. With that in mind, this article reviews several
theoretical perspectives on CMC by focusing on the effects
of CMC on those who use it, following the perspective of
a basic communication model.
CMC: A Communication Perspective
A basic model of communication aids in identifying the impact
of CMC, the central components of which include senders,
receivers, messages, feedback, and communication channel
(see for review Walther, 1996). Senders initiate the exchange of
information by articulating intentions into information to be
conveyed to others. The message contains the information
symbols representing the information to be exchanged. Senders
deliver messages by using a communication channel, the vehicle
that carries the message. Such vehicles include face-to-face
communication, telephone, teleconference, Facebook posts,
and electronic chats, among others. Receivers interpret the
message and often provide a return message in the form of
feedback. This feedback reverses the role of the senders and
receivers as the cycle continues iteratively until the termination
of the communication event.
In addition to the capabilities of the CMC channel, CMC
also occurs across different contexts. For example, Facebook’s
social context alters how users may interpret and construct
messages relative to email or other systems. When a Facebook
user posts a status update, members of this person’s social
network may read the message in light of past interactions
with that user. On the other hand, messages exchanged on
a company or organization’s office chat system likely result in
a different interpretive framework. Employees may experience

504 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.95090-6

more reluctance in sharing social activities outside of the
workplace on company websites as opposed to their friends
and family via Facebook.
New communication technologies challenge existing theo-
retical perspectives. Early views of CMC focused on comparing
the ability of the communication channel to those in face-
to-face communication and/or other forms of CMC. Theoret-
ical developments that followed offered a different view of
CMC. Instead of focusing on the limiting constraints of the
communication channel, these developments focused on how
users can adapt to CMC to convey messages. We begin with an
overview of the earlier theoretical view of CMC based on
channel characteristics.
Cues-Filtered-Out Theories
Culnan and Markus (1987) first described a class of CMC
theories as adopting a cues-filtered-out approach. The major
contention in these theories maintains that CMC constraints
the symbol systems that are available in the communication
process, and thereby limits the meaning that users are able to
exchange. Because CMC is primarily text-based, it lacks
nonverbal cues. These theories assumed a relationship between
the restricted cues that the channels offered and a commensu-
rate restriction in senders’ abilities to convey certain kinds of
messages. There was less focus on the senders and receivers in
terms of their potential adaptation of messages to alternative
channels. Several particular theories typify the cues-filtered-out
perspective.
Social Presence Theory
The first theory applied to CMC that reflected a cues-filtered-out
perspective is social presence theory. Short et al. (1976)
conceptualized that various communication systems differ in
the availability of cue systems. Short et al. also claimed that the
decrease of cues corresponded to a decrease in social presence
between communicators. Although the theory originally
focused on telecommunication systems, it was applied to CMC
in the 1980s and 1990s.
The restriction of cue systems was suggested to impact the
degree of social information a system could convey. Therefore,
information about individuals’ character and personality, and
their interpersonal warmth and ease would be unlikely to be
exchanged effectively without nonverbal cues, from a social
presence perspective.
Media Richness Theory
Social information differs from more instrumental forms of
information, for which certain other cues-filtered-out theories,
media richness theory in particular (Daft and Lengel, 1984,
1986), suggest that “leaner” media (without nonverbal cues)
may be more efficient. For instance, CMC may suffice when one
person needs to tell another person the date for an event. On
the other hand, if an individual wished to get to know another
person’s character or personality – characteristics which
nonverbal cues might more efficiently convey – social presence
and media richness theories suggest that CMC would denude
Computer Mediated Communication 505
the quality of information due to the lack of nonverbal cues to
express socioemotional content.
Media richness theory focused on how organizations can
utilize different types of communication channels to deal with
decision-making contexts. Daft and Lengel (1984) attempted
to provide a model for how different communication
channels (e.g., memos, letters, chats, telephone conversations,
and face-to-face interactions) rank in their abilities to
reduce the equivocality managers experience during decision
making. Equivocality refers to the ambiguity that arises from
the presence of multiple, possibly conflicting interpretations.
For example, a decision regarding whether a new policy
should be adopted should evoke high equivocality. Such
a context involves discussions among various managers and
different interpretations regarding the consequences of the
policy implementation.
These researchers contended that the ability of the
communication channel to manage equivocality depended on
information richness, which is comprised of (1) feedback speed
or the rapidity of feedback, (2) multiple cues or the number of
cues supported by the communication system, (3) language
variety or the range of meaning that can be conveyed with
language, and (4) personal focus or the ability of the
communication to convey personal feelings and emotions
(Daft et al., 1987). According to the media richness view, face-
to-face communication would rank as the richest channel
whereas other forms of mediated communication would be
leaner (Daft et al., 1987). Face-to-face communication
contains fast feedback, the greatest number of cues, the use of
natural language, and the ability to adapt to individuals. On
the other hand, CMC, such as chats and emails, would rank
lower due to the lack of some richness criteria. It is regarded
as a leaner group of channels.
Media richness theory argued that the best communication
performance occurs as a function of matching the equivocality
of the communication task to the richness of the communi-
cation channel. Specifically, high equivocality would require
high information richness, and vice versa. For instance,
managers attempting to make a policy decision require
discussion and interpretation among multiple perspectives,
thus face-to-face communication would be ideal. Alternatively,
sharing accounting information or other objective data does
not elicit a high degree of equivocality, meaning that a lean
channel such as email would actually be more ideal in this
context.
Empirical Findings
Both social presence theory and media richness theory provide
a fairly intuitive understanding of CMC. The simplicity of
treating different CMC categorically based on the absence of
nonverbal cues is transparent and simple. Perhaps due to such
an appeal, numerous investigations followed a cues-filtered-
out approach in both organizational and interpersonal
contexts. However, the empirical support has been generally
mixed.
Social presence theory has received numerous critiques and
challenges for the oversimplification explanation of CMC in
a social context (Lea and Spears, 1992; Walther, 1992). In
short, these critiques centered on challenging the assumptions
and artifacts present in social presence work. Media richness
506 Computer Mediated Communication
theory has also been challenged in from multiple angles. First,
the original study did not directly test the theoretical proposi-
tion laid out by its authors. The empirical support used
to substantiate the theory’s formulation involved asking
managers what communication channel they would select in
a number of communication contexts that differed in equivo-
cality. Daft et al. (1987) found a positive correlation between
how well the managers selected the communication channel
and the manager’s actual performance evaluations. This corre-
lation did not test the theoretical proposition that using various
communication channels resulted in the best decision-making
outcome, given situations that vary in equivocality. Dennis and
Kinney (1998) experimentally tested media richness theory
and failed to find supporting evidence. These researchers
found that richness led to differences in the time that it
would take to complete a task. However, richness did not
affect decision quality. In short, the critiques and
contradictory evidence limit the viability of the cues-filtered-
out approach to understanding CMC.
Despite the critiques and problems associated with cues-
filtered-out approaches, this view of CMC continues to
perpetuate in recent studies of new media (see for review
Walther, 2011). Adopting a cues-filtered-out approach often
hinders the advances possible in the study of CMC. Fortu-
nately, alternative theoretical views focus on how CMC inte-
grates factors beyond those in the communication channel
alone.
Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects
The social identity model of deindividuation effects, or SIDE
model (Lea and Spears, 1992), shares some similarities with
the other cues-filter-out theories. Specifically, SIDE also
assumes that the absence of nonverbal cues limits the
transmission of interpersonal information online. However,
unlike other cues-filtered-out approaches, the SIDE offers
a mechanism for online communication based on visual
anonymity and social identification. Visual anonymity occurs
when communicators utilize text-based communication
where no visual information about each other is available.
Under such a condition, communicators deindividuate and
lose a sense of self-awareness. If they identify themselves with
a salient social group, they will likely follow the behaviors of
that social group.
The following scenario exemplifies a scenario for how SIDE
may function in CMC. Assume that a college student reads and
writes responses on a political forum. If the forum is text-based,
the student should remain visually anonymous to others on
the forum, as well as others to the student. The student is
able to garner information about others on the forum and
realizes that some of the forum participants are also students
at the same university. If the student identifies with the in-
group of students from the same university, he or she
should orient toward the behavior of those from the same
institution (e.g., evaluate them as more attractive, follow the
recommendations advocated). On the other hand, if the
student realizes that some of the other contributors on
the same forum are from a rival institution, he or she may
regard these people as out-group members. The student is
likely to evaluate these out-group members as less attractive
and be less likely to follow any recommendations advocated
by those members.
The SIDE model’s parsimonious explanation of visually
anonymous CMC led to a wide following. The theory has even
been applied to understand the effect of CMC in interpersonal
contexts: In the case of visually anonymous romantic partners
who may have met online, SIDE offers an interesting inter-
pretation for their relational development. An application of
the SIDE suggests that romantic communication and attraction
toward partners result due to the social identification they feel
toward salient group identities. According to SIDE, the attrac-
tion does not develop out of interpersonal processes but group
identification processes alone (Lea and Spears, 1995).
Taken together, the cues-filtered out approaches to CMC
provide a limited understanding of how people communicate.
The primary assumption that text-based communication
can only convey a certain quantity or form of meaning
ignores any possibilities of relational development or
transformative properties using CMC. In the case of SIDE, the
prediction that social identification with group members
would lead to adherence to group behavior also assumed that
visual anonymity and text-based communication restrict or
discourage users from conveying personal and interpersonal
information. The next few of theoretical perspectives focus
more on the interpersonal capabilities of CMC. In particular,
these perspectives emphasize communicators’ ability to
utilize CMC in such a way as to provide meaning, to detect
and foster personal impressions, and develop relational
communication that approximates, or even exceeds, the
level of relational regard that is typical in face-to-face
communication.
Theories of Interpersonal Adaptation
A fundamental difference between cues-filtered-out approaches
and theories described below can be understood from the
communication model. Cues-filtered-out approaches focus on
the channel primarily, with the exception of SIDE which also
focuses on receivers’ social identification. Instead, the theoret-
ical frameworks of interpersonal adaptation and exploitation
of media posit an understanding of CMC through all compo-
nents of the communication model, raising in prominence the
role of the sender and the sender’s active creation of messages
and channels. This approach to understanding CMC paints
a picture of how communicators can take advantage of all
communication elements to share meaning.
Social Information Processing Theory
The social information processing (SIP) theory (Walther, 1992)
assumes that individuals aim to develop interpersonal
impressions and relations with others. It proposes that when
the communication channel limits the cues available to
communicators, as is the case using text-based CMC,
individuals will utilize the available cues in that channel to
share their desired meaning. In particular, communicators
primarily utilize the content of the written language (e.g., the
choice and style of words) to encode and decode information
from others.

In addition to CMC adaptation from a sender’s stand-
point, SIP supposes that the CMC channel alters the rate of
social information exchange compared to face-to-face
communication. In other words, to develop to the same level
of relationship, communicators who use CMC would require
more time than those in face-to-face communication. This
rate difference originates from the diminished information
available in text-based CMC as opposed to face-to-face
communication. Even as senders encode messages by
adapting to the cues and meaning available in CMC, the
communication takes more time to accrue the same meaning
as those in face-to-face communication. However, it is
important to note that the rate difference does not equate to
a superiority or inferiority of CMC when compared to the
face-to-face counterpart. Instead, social information simply
needs more time to accumulate and render effects on
relationships in CMC.
The Hyperpersonal Model of CMC
The hyperpersonal model of CMC (Walther, 1996) takes a step
beyond SIP theory. Specifically, the hyperpersonal model
contends that CMC may aid in the development of interper-
sonal relationships that even surpass those in face-to-face
communication. Such a process entails a series of theoretical
propositions that relate to (1) how receivers may process
CMC information, (2) how senders may encode messages,
(3) characteristics of the communication channel, and (4)
feedback. These propositions coalesce to describe a CMC
process that involves all components of the communication
model.
Receiver Effects
A receiver may experience exaggerated perceptions of the
message sender in CMC. Since a receiver does not have the
cues present in face-to-face communication, the receiver has to
fill the void by creating impressions regarding the sender.
When initial cues lead to positive first impression,
impression development may then involve idealization,
where the receiver bestows characteristics about the sender
preferentially. This articulation originated from the notion of
social identification to group identity in SIDE theory. Newer
accounts of the hyperpersonal model suggests that individual
stereotypes, not just those based on common social
categories, may also activate heightened receiver impressions
(Walther, 2006).
Sender Effects
With a text-based CMC in mind, communicators can selectively
present aspects of themselves online. As a result, they can
manage which aspects of themselves to present to others,
with an underlying goal to create a favorable impression in
the other communication partner. Of course, individuals can
choose to disclose negative personal information; however,
the lack of nonverbal cues in CMC actually minimizes the
nonverbal behavior that might damage positive interpersonal
impressions (e.g., poor eye contact, body postures) in face-
to-face communication. As a result, CMC senders can more
easily select aspect of themselves to present to their partners
to elicit favorable responses.
Computer Mediated Communication 507
Channel
Not only can senders selectively self-present, their ability to do
so is enhanced by the communication channel. Several aspects
of CMC facilitate message construction. For instance, in the
case of asynchronous CMC, both the sender and the receiver
can utilize time to construct the message and feedback.
Unlike face-to-face communication where the feedback
between communicators is more immediate, a CMC sender
and a CMC receiver have time to write the message, edit that
message, or even delete and rewrite the message. The use of
time and editing leads to more positive and affectionate
messages (see for review Walther, 2011).
Feedback
According to the former three components of the hyper-
personal model, the sender may selectively self-present to
garner positive impressions, the receiver may idealize the
sender, while both the sender and the receiver may capitalize
on the CMC channel to construct favorable messages. Based
on these enhancements, the feedback system created between
the sender and the receiver should contribute to a continuous
elevation of positive impression as they communicate with
each other. In other words, the feedback system in CMC
should enhance the interpersonal dynamics at play and
intensify the effects iteratively over time.
A synthesis of all four hyperpersonal components illustrates
a communication dynamic where the positive impressions of
the CMC communicators intensify over time. The model points
the possibility where such intensification may exceed those
experienced in face-to-face communication. Both SIP theory
and the hyperpersonal model challenge the limited views
provided by the cues-filtered-out approaches to CMC.
Moreover, the theories of adaptation of exploitation of media
paint CMC as an interactional landscape where users adapt
and appropriate all available means in the communication
process to reach affinity goals. Although the domain of
these theories resides primarily in the interpersonal
context, the theories’ application and interpretation suggest
that communication should be understood from the
communicator’s standpoint rather than the technology or the
channel.
Online Information Evaluation
Warranting
In addition to cyclical communication processes posited by
theories of interpersonal adaptation and exploitation of media,
some recent theoretical concepts examine how individuals
may make sense of information they receive online. Online
communication may involve the information individuals
disclose to each other. Individuals often evaluate the validity of
information about another person online, also known as
warranting (Walther and Parks, 2002). The communication
technology today provides quick access to information. Online
users also have access to a lot of information about others. For
example, online users may share a lot of personal information
on their online dating profiles including interests, religious
views, hobbies, among others. The warranting idea suggests
that information presented online may lead to a suspicion of
508 Computer Mediated Communication
possible distortions through selective self-presentation, such
as the sender effect specified by the hyperpersonal model.
For example, information on dating websites may show
both distorted physical (weight/height) and psychological
(hobbies) characteristics. The warranting concept argues that
such type of distortion is less likely to occur when two
communicators have access to each other’s social network.
Specifically, when one communication partner’s social circle
is available, one partner can hold the other responsible for
the content of the self-disclosure and verify that content.
Based on warranting, information that is more likely to relate
to a communication partner’s social network is less likely to
be seen as distorted. Warranting is useful in predicting how
communicators may judge the social information provided
by others online.
Participatory Websites
The CMC available today has dramatically changed from the
early text-based forms. Most online communication occurs via
websites that feature some social information from other users.
These types of participatory websites, known as Web 2.0,
complicate the theoretical concepts for understanding the
underlying communication dynamics at play. Moreover,
these social websites juxtapose messages from various
sources. An original author of some Web content may receive
comments and evaluation from other users regarding that
content. From a communication perspective, information
regarding the sender, receiver, message, feedback, and context
may blend together in a single webpage. The additional user-
generated content may serve to modify how other readers
may evaluate the content advocated by the original author,
the original author as a source, others who comment on the
source, as well as the content of the comments advocated by
others.
This following example illustrates the complexity of
understanding Web 2.0. Suppose that a product reviewer posts
a positive product review on Amazon.com. Assuming that the
review was meant to advocate to other readers for purchasing
a particular product, other readers may compose comments on
the review. If other readers write positive comments regarding
the review, then those who read the original review and cor-
responding comments may regard the product as positive
overall. However, if the review received negative comments that
do not support what the review advocates, readers of the
reviews and the comments that follow have to make sense of
both positive and negative information. To complicate matter
even more, Amazon.com reviewers and commenters may be
rated in terms of how helpful they are. These types of infor-
mation juxtapose against one another as the reader may review
them on a single website.
Walther and Jang (2012) offered a conceptual foundation
for defining the various sources available on Web 2.0 sites. They
proposed four elements including proprietor content, user-
generated content, deliberate aggregate user representations,
and incidental aggregate user representations.
Proprietor Content
Proprietor content relates to the message composed by the
primary author or the proprietor of a webpage. The proprietor
has controls over message that he or she composes. The
proprietor may edit that message (e.g., deleting a Facebook
post). The message may include videos, text, and/or pictures.
Furthermore, these forms of messages may operate in combi-
nation. A Facebook picture may accompany the written post in
text. Examples of proprietor content include YouTube videos,
Amazon.com reviews, Facebook profiles, among others.
User-Generated Content
User-generated content (UGC) relates to the messages that
other users contribute. This content does not originate from the
proprietor, but instead, from those who compose content in
response to the proprietor content. UGC differentiates Web 2.0
from traditional websites. Unlike traditional websites (e.g.,
a webpage that does not allow users to write comments), Web
2.0 displays UGC alongside the proprietor content. Examples
of UGC include comments responding to a Facebook post,
comments on product reviews (comments written in response
to an online news article).
Aggregated User Representations
Web 2.0 systems also allow users to leave evaluations of
others’ content. These evaluations may relate to proprietor
content, as well as UGC. Web 2.0 systems often encourage
users to rate or vote on the content produced by others. Then,
the system aggregates the ratings for others to view. The
aggregated ratings take the form of some statistics or figures.
Examples of these representations include the number of
stars, total votes, usefulness votes, helpfulness ratios, among
others. To delineate among the different types of user repre-
sentations, there are deliberate and incidental aggregate user
representations.
Deliberate aggregate user representations include responses
generated from directly requesting those responses from users.
For instance, after displaying an opinion from a user, the Web
2.0 system may solicit readers to rate if that opinion was useful
or not useful (e.g., 1 to 5 stars). An example of deliberate
representation may include ratings of review helpfulness.
Amazon.com displays the accumulated ratings of helpfulness
in the form of a ratio (e.g., 40 out of 41 people found the
review helpful).
In contrast, incidental aggregate user representations
include information captured by Web 2.0 systems. In partic-
ular, these representations do not reflect behaviors that users
would like to express, but instead, they are computed by the
Web 2.0 system and displayed with other information. Exam-
ples of these representations include the number of Facebook
friends, number of views on a YouTube video, the timestamp of
a particular comment or review, among others. These repre-
sentations offer a unique persuasive quality in that online
users have no control over them. As a result, they may serve to
aid certain aspects of self-presentations from a warranting
perspective.
Participatory Websites and Juxtaposition among Sources
Participatory websites create unique theoretical challenges
for CMC. Although the theoretical terms expressed previ-
ously aid in defining the various conceptual components
involved in Web 2.0, they do not offer a set of theoretical

propositions regarding the relationships among the concepts.
From a communication perspective, the model elements of
the sender, receiver, message, context, and feedback also offer
little explanatory utility as these components mix to serve
multiple roles in Web 2.0. For instance, a message proprietor
may respond to UGC and create a conversation between
a proprietor and a commenter. At the same time, other users
contribute to this dynamic through rating both the propri-
etor content and/or the UGC. When the Web 2.0 system
displays all these contents simultaneously, how do other
readers process that information and continue in the
participatory process by adding or rating the existing
content? What if more than one commenter is involved? This
question typifies the theoretical challenge in the study of
CMC as new technology enable online communicators to
interact at such a convergent level across multiple informa-
tion sources and ratings.
Summary and Future Direction
The current review began with an explanation of the commu-
nication perspective and elements in the communication
model. With this perspective in mind, we reviewed a few of the
theories involved in understanding CMC. The cues-filtered-out
approaches assumed CMC’s lack of nonverbal cues limited
communication. On the other hand, theories of interpersonal
adaption and exploitation of media posit a more interactive
process that may match and/or exceed face to face. Finally, the
conceptual framework for understanding participatory web-
sites provides a glimpse of the complexity and challenge of
theory development. As research incrementally increases our
understanding of CMC, technology is also on the forefront of
altering the landscape of digital interaction. Web 2.0 site
continue to modify both interface as well as the type of infor-
mation available to users.
See also: Audiences, Media; Information Society; Social Media.
Computer Mediated Communication 509
Bibliography
Culnan, M.J., Markus, M.L., 1987. Information technologies. In: Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L.,
Roberts, K.H., Porter, L.W. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication:
An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 420–443.
Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., 1984. Information richness: a new approach to managerial
behavior and organization design. In: Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Research
in Organizational Behavior, vol. 6. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 191–233.
Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., 1986. Organizational information requirements, media rich-
ness and structural design. Management Science 32, 554–571.
Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H., Trevino, L.K., 1987. Message equivocality, media selection,
and manager performance: implications for information systems. Management
Information Systems Quarterly 11, 355–368.
Dennis, A.R., Kinney, S.T., 1998. Testing media richness theory in the new media: the
effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research 9,
256–274.
Lea, M., Spears, R., 1992. Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated
communication. Journal of Organizational Computing 2, 321–341.
Lea, M., Spears, R., 1995. Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over
computer networks. In: Wood, J.T., Duck, S. (Eds.), Understudied Relationships:
Off the Beaten Track. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 197–233.
Ramirez Jr., A., Zhang, S., 2007. When online meets offline: the effect of modality
switching on relational communication. Communication Monographs 74, 287–310.
Short, J., Williams, E., Christie, B., 1976. The Social Psychology of Telecommuni-
cations. Wiley, London.
Walther, J.B., 1992. Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction:
a relational perceptive. Communication Research 19, 52–90.
Walther, J.B., 1996. Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal,
and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research 23, 3–43.
Walther, J.B., 2006. Nonverbal dynamics in computer-mediated communication or (and
the net :(‘s with you:) and you :) alone. In: Manusov, V., Patterson, M.L. (Eds.),
Handbook of Nonverbal Communication. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 461–479.
Walther, J.B., 2011. Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal
relations. In: Knapp, M.L., Daly, J.A. (Eds.), The Handbook of Interpersonal
Communication, fourth ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 443–479.
Walther, J.B., Jang, J., 2012. Communication processes in participatory websites.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18, 2–15. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01592.x.
Walther, J.B., Parks, M.R., 2002. Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: computer-
mediated communication and relationships. In: Knapp, M.L., Daly, J.A. (Eds.),
The Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, third ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. 529–563.
Walther, J.B., Van Der Heide, B., Ramirez Jr., A., Burgoon, J.K., Pena, J., 2015. Inter-
personal and hyperpersonal aspects of computer-mediated communication. In:
Sundar, S.S. (Ed.), The Handbook of Psychology and Communication Technology.
Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, England.