Mediated Communication Theory

Overview

Mediated communication theory encompasses two modes of interaction: face-to-face and computer-mediated. Face-to-face communication theory has a lengthy history in communication studies especially related to interpersonal relationships. Computer-mediated communication (CMC), on the other hand, finds significant focus as new technologies continually transform the means of interaction through new devices and platforms. At the basis of mediated communication theory, whether by face-to-face or computer-mediated interactions, exists the drive and necessity for social relationships. Couldry and Hepp (2017) contribute the term "mediatization" to characterize the process by which social processes change with the advent of new technologies. An important component in the study of mediated communication theory examines what is at stake with or without a social order (Couldry & Hepp, 2017). The ability to interact between people enables societies to maintain a structure because communication creates a collaborative process of understanding, but when communication networks fail, as in the case of a censored media under tyrannical rule, the social order can erode and detrimentally damage other societal institutions. While communication itself will still exist between individuals, because of the way that mediated communication helps develop and disseminate social ideas and norms, a breakdown in mediatization leaves groups isolated from others and unable to reach an understanding of acceptable interaction.

Scholars since Aristotle and Hegel have proposed an understanding of the social as not only some constructed reality of human interactions but also a natural process inherent in and to human existence. Key to enacting this second nature is the ability to assemble, to interact sustainably. To interact socially considers interdependence on other actors in the world with whom to engage. Face-to-face communication in physical proximity, not mediated through devices, is considered as a fundamental action to build trust through detectable cues that indicate how to communicate and socialize (Rhoads, 2010; Van Swol, Braun & Kolb, 2015). These cues may be nonverbal, as in facial expressions or hand gestures, or paraverbal, as in the tone of voice or vocal fry. These verbal, paraverbal, and nonverbal signifiers that help people understand how to interact with other individuals can be deeply cultural and only conveyed through face-to-face interactions. A nod in one culture may mean yes and in a different one mean no; eye contact in some cultures is offensive. Other theories attempt to define and measure the means of interaction: media richness theory, media synchronicity theory, and many social dynamic media theories (Rhoads, 2010).

As stated previously, face-to-face communication can instill trust between two people—some individuals may assume that a person will not lie directly to their face; this is not proven true, however (Van Swol, Braun & Kolb, 2015). Individuals can lie, but face-to-face interactions may also allow disclosure and transparency in a way that mediated communication threatens with a textual record. While face-to-face communication is understood as a positive means for interaction, physical proximity can also inflict barriers for those individuals in communication. For example, a person's stature or posture can assert dominance over another individual, thus empowering one person to express more freely than the other in an interaction. In another example, a face-to-face interaction unleashes sound and volume; thus, an individual can speak over others in a meeting space or in close proximity.

Giddens (2015) refers to the transformation of social order and interaction as the digital revolution, what others have simply termed a communication revolution. Computer-mediated communication must be considered in terms of the infrastructure of the medium as well as the processes by which these technologies produce a sociality (Couldry & Hepp, 2017). Since the advent of technology, starting with radio, film, and television, the material quality of the medium affects the ability of communication. In these early media, communication was one-sided and interaction impossible. However, these technologies still offered the social world to users by presenting views of others. Over time, technologies have come to dominate the way people communicate and interact. The telephone enabled voice interactions, webcams enabled face-to-screen interactions, and computers and mobile devices enabled instant long distance but real-time interactions.

Computer-mediated communication has even changed the structures and institutions, notably, for example, in the case of work. Society has progressed from an industrial, labor-intensive economy to one based on information and wireless connection (Atkin & Lau, 2006). People can meet online from multiple locations to conduct business and can engage with multiple media to achieve productivity. On a group video call, participants might access a PowerPoint slide presentation on their independent screens and simultaneously view the slides and listen to colleagues over the servers. Participants can type notes and records directly into their computers and record the meeting with digital software. Even so, studies have found that spatial proximity does foster a sense of motivation and collegiality that cannot as easily increase in mediated environments (Rhoads, 2010).

In the same way that face-to-face communication offers some advantages and disadvantages to the way multiple people in proximity can interact productively, computer-mediated communication has positive and negative influences on social interaction. Whereas in face-to-face communication a person can dominate others through tone or posture, in computer-mediated communication, the space for interaction is neutralized. All can exist on a level playing field (dependent on the assumption that all within an interaction space will use the same type of technology, which is unlikely with the rapidity of technological advances). People can interject and communicate simultaneously rather than waiting for another person to finish, though this "norm" has begun to change as certain technologies and platforms offer on-screen cues that another person may be formulating a response. Still, this type of cue does not replace the nonverbal and paraverbal cues that face-to-face communication enables, and thus, misunderstanding over the emotional tone of a mediated conversation can escalate. In another case, computer-mediated communication, although seen as productive by enabling multi-tasking more easily, can also allow participants in an interaction to tune out. Without the visibility of physical presence, people can fake their engagement in an interaction and reduce the productivity of using computer-mediated communication. A clear example of this is webinar attendance in which people sign into a forum, thus documenting their attendance and "participation," but can easily mute the conversation and tend to other business if a video or microphone is not connected. Disengaged participants may physically leave the room or attend to distractions, such as e-mail, social media, or games, in another window on the same computer. Post-COVID-19 educational and business meetings held via remote access often find the teacher or meeting host is alone or one of few people utilizing the camera. Many teachers have noted student participation during synchronous learning has dropped off considerably.

Further Insights

Technologies have done more than affect merely the spatial proximities through which communication is possible; new media technologies contribute what some might consider new languages to communicate through. Through smartphones and other mobile devices, abbreviated phrases and symbols stand in for words in messages conveyed between people. Using combinations of acronyms and numbers, letters, and symbols, people tried to elicit the emotions that would be evident in face-to-face interactions. Early text message formats allowed only a small number of characters per message sent, and people responded to such limitations with easily decoded abbreviations and acronyms, such as LOL for laugh out loud or BRB for be right back. Condensing exclamations and idioms allowed more "space" to communicate information. As technology continued to develop and character limits became obsolete, these new "words" remained in computer-mediated speak despite the ability to fully express the "laugh."

Another way that people use technology and digital language to try to bridge the nonverbal with physical cues is through the use of emojis. Emojis have a long history of use in East Asia, but they have become a global phenomenon common across devices and operating systems. With tiny images, a person can express emotions of happiness, sadness, anger, and a plethora of other feelings. An official committee of people have been ordered to determine the inclusion of emojis on technological platforms, and the creation of emojis has become a public project open to anyone to propose. Thus, emojis in a way serve as an official digital language with institutionally defined meanings connected to each symbol. However, across different operating systems, for example between an Apple iPhone and Samsung Galaxy, an emoji sent from one platform may be rendered into a completely new form on the other device and misconstrue the meaning of the message. Furthermore, it can be argued that even though these tiny symbols offer a means for emotional portrayal and visible cues, much can still remain undetected in an interactive exchange.

Computer-mediated communication is not limited to computers as the medium for interaction. Technologies such as smart watches and eyeglasses with built-in screens for Internet browsing are other media facilitating digital interaction. Still, even more unique means of allowing communication will develop and may bridge the gap of the verbal and nonverbal lost between face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. For example, holograms have been used to position a three-dimensional rendering of a person in a space in which they are not actually present. Artificial intelligence (AI) adds another layer of consideration in mediated communication, as the social aspect includes the participation of the technology as well as the infrastructure. Will the advent of AI change social norms for interaction to include structures for how to understand and incorporate technology as a participant in the conversation? In what ways will technologies assert their norms onto the social structures and institutes developed by people in face-to-face contexts?

Computer-mediated communication increased significantly during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Because of stay-at-home orders and social-distancing requirements, face-to-face interactions were restricted. People relied more heavily on talking on phones, texting, and chatting via video. They also relied on social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram to communicate. Studies have shown that this helped people avoid feeling lonely and isolated.

Issues

While technology transforms the social fabric of communication, it does not necessarily do so for all. A critical issue in computer-mediated communication theory warns of the digital divide that limits who has access to the opportunities that will arise with technological advances. As mediated communication becomes more reliant on technology and as social structures deviate from face-to-face interactions, those individuals unable to afford the technologies will be left out. However, access to the material media is not the only way that societies are divided with the increase in mediated communication. The use of media requires knowledge and education to learn proper usage, so people who cannot access the educational facilities to learn how to use technologies are at a disadvantage to habituate the accepted social norms of communication within a particular medium.

Another way in which people are not offered equal access and opportunity to computer-mediated communication is through established social norms—gender roles, for example. Although this rapidly changes with the proliferation of technology, studies have found that the norms for women differentiated the way they used technology from men (Kimbrough, Gudagno, Muscanell & Dill, 2013). Men tended to communicate through media in a utilitarian style, to the point and efficient, characteristic of an independent member of the labor force, whereas women used media to foster relationships and maintain contact, considered a nurturing nature inherent to women. These "gendered" uses of technology play into stereotypical ideas of the emotional capacities of people, but in another example, the digital divide has in some deceptive ways disproportionately empowered one group over the other. For years, women remained outside the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, the STEM fields. These subjects were considered men's areas of expertise. Therefore, in the same way that people in certain communities may not have access to the school curriculums to learn how to use technology, women were structurally impaired from acquiring knowledge and skills to use media in more materially productive ways.

A final issue to consider in terms of mediated communication is the data left behind from an interaction. Van Swol, Braun, and Kolb (2015) found that people were less likely to lie or be deceptive in computer-mediated communication, often motivated by the idea that their typed or vocalized words could be recorded and recalled. A permanent record of what was said made people apprehensive about their interactions. On the one hand, this can encourage more honest communication, but it might also have a chilling effect on people's interactions. Communication may be stilted, which in turn can impact the development of social ideas and changes. Another more sinister possibility of computer-mediated communication is the ability for institutions to tap into the conversation. Governments can access technology to listen in on private conversations and use this information to maintain control. This means that anything conveyed digitally may permanently position a person against the state, even statements taken out of context. Legislation in democratic governments exist to curtail the ability of the state to spy on its citizens through technology, but the means to do so exist and have been used as cyber threats against ordinary people, sometimes by governments and sometimes by computer hackers.

Bibliography

Atkin, D. J., & Lau, T. Y. (2006). Information technology and organizational telework. In C. A. Lin & D. J. Atkin (Eds.), Communication Technology and Social Change.New York: Routledge.

Bael, Y. M., Wojcieszak, M., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2011). Online versus face-to-face deliberation: Who? Why? What? With what effects? New Media & Society, 14(3), 363–383. doi: 10.1177/1461444811413191

Castelli, F. R., & Sarvary, M. A. (2021). Why students do not turn on their video cameras during online classes and an equitable and inclusive plan to encourage them to do so. Ecology and Evolution, 11(8), 3565-3576. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.7123

Choi, M., & Hyesun, C. (2021, July 5). Mediated communication matters during the COVID-19 pandemic: The use of interpersonal and mass personal media and psychological well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, doi.org/10.1177%2F02654075211029378

Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (2015). The politics of climate change. Policy & Politics, 43(2), 155–162. doi: 10.1332/030557315X14290856538163

Kimbrough, A. M., Guadagno, R. E., Muscanell, N. L., & Dill, J. (2013). Gender differences in mediated communication: Women connect more than men do. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 896–900. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.005

Park, I., Sah, Y. J., Lee, S., & Lee, D. (2023). Avatar-mediated communication in video conferencing: Effect of self-affirmation on debating participation focusing on moderation effect of avatar. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39(3), 464-475. DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2022.2041897

Rhoads, M. (2010). Face-to-face and computer-mediated communication: What does theory tell us and what have we learned so far? Journal of Planning Literature, 25(2), 111–122. doi: 10.1177/0885412210382984

Simpson, T. (2017). Telepresence and trust: A speech-act theory of mediated communication. Philosophy & Technology, 30(4), 443–459. doi:10.1007/s13347-016-0233-3

Van Swol, L. M., Braun, M. T., & Kolb, M. R. (2015). Deception, detection, demeanor and truth bias in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 42(8), 1116–1142. doi: 10.1177/0093650213485785

Yao, M. Z., & Ling, R. (2020 Feb. 17). What is computer-mediated communication? An introduction to the special issue.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25, (1), 4-8. doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz027