Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 426

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Paralanguage and social perception in computer‐mediated communication

Lea, Martin, Spears, Russell·1992·Journal of Organizational Computing
DOI 10.1080/10919399209540190
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

It is widely held that computer‐mediated communication (CMC) filters out many of the social and affective cues associated with human interaction with consequent effects on communication outcomes and the medium's suitability for interpersonal tasks. The relationship between paralanguage and social perception in CMC in different social contexts is investigated in two experiments. In Study 1, it was hypothesized that there would be significant differences in subjects’ perceptions of anonymous communicators as a function of the paralinguistic content of the electronic mail messages they received. Subjects read three sets of messages containing different types of paralinguistic cues and a fourth set of control messages. They also completed a set of person‐perception rating scales in respect of each message sender. The hypothesis was supported for both novice electronic mail users and for experienced users drawn from a large telecommunications organization. In Study 2, subjects participated in group discussions over a CMCS under four conditions, manipulated in a 2 × 2 between‐subjects design. The salience of the task group was either high or low, and subjects were either de‐individuated (physically isolated and visually anonymous) or individuated (physically copresent and visually identifiable). From social identity theory, it was hypothesized that de‐individuated subjects for whom group identity had been made salient would evaluate users of paralanguage more positively than when group salience was low, in accordance with a social attraction response associated with perceptions of group identity. The hypothesis was supported. The results suggest that paralanguage is one means by which social information is communicated in CMC and that the meaning of paralinguistic marks is dependent on the group or individual context that is pre‐established for the communication. The studies, therefore, question earlier assumptions that the social context is dramatically reduced or eliminated in this medium. The implications of contextual effects for the use of CMC by work groups in organizations are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10919399209540190

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Lea, M., & Spears, R.
Venue
Journal of Organizational Computing
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1992-01
Volume
2
Issue
3-4
Pages
321-341
ISSN
1054-1721 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1080/10919399209540190
OpenAlex
W2100205581
Cited by
426
References
3
FWCI
4.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.