Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 367

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Affect in Computer-Meditated Communication: An Experiment in Synchronous Terminal-to-Terminal Discussion

Kiesler, Sara, Zubrow, David, Moses, Anne Marie, Geller, Valerie·1985·Human–Computer Interaction

Abstract

With the spread of computer networks, communication via computer conferences, electronic mail, and computer bulletin boards will become more common in society, but little is known about the social psychological implications of these technologies. One possibility is a change in physiological arousal, feelings, and expressive behavior-that is, affect. These computer-mediated communication technologies focus attention on the message, transmit social information poorly, and do not have a well-developed social etiquette. Therefore, these technologies might be associated with less attention to others, less social feedback, and depersonalization of the communication setting. In the present study we examined what would happen to feelings and interpersonal behavior in an experiment in which two people met for the first time and discussed a series of questions in order to get to know one another. We measured physiological arousal (pulse and palmar sweat), subjective affect (emotional state and evaluations), and expressive behavior (self-disclosure and uninhibited behavior) in both synchronous computer-mediated and face-to-face discussions. (For comparison purposes, we also examined these effects under high- and low-evaluation anxiety). Communicating by computer did not influence physiological arousal, and it did not change emotions or self-evaluations. However, people who communicated by computer evaluated each other less favorably than did people who communicated face-to-face, they felt and acted as though the setting was more impersonal, and their behavior was more uninhibited. These findings suggest that computer-mediated communication, rather than provoking emotionality per se, elicits asocial or unregulated behavior. Of course, our data are based on a laboratory experiment using just one type of computer-mediated communication, but the results are generally consistent with anecdotal evidence and new field research on how people use computers to communicate in organizations.

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 · 10.1207/s15327051hci0101_3

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Kiesler, S., Zubrow, D., Moses, A. M., & Geller, V.
Venue
Human–Computer Interaction
Published
1985-03
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
77-104
ISSN
  • 0737-0024 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7051
OpenAlex
W2155026712
Cited by
367
References
2
FWCI
8.18
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.