Virtual Methods

22 • Adam N. Joinson
Models of Internet Behaviour
Early theories of Internet behaviour (and more specifically computer-mediated
communication) tended to focus on what was lost during Internet-based interaction
(Sproull and Kiesler 1986). The lack of visual and feedback cues in CMC was
invoked to predict that any interaction will tend to be rather formal and task-oriented,
and will lack the richness of real-time face-to-face interaction (Daft and
Lengel 1984). For instance, Hiltz and Turoff (1978) reported that only 14 per cent
of CMC groups’ communication was socio-emotional in content, compared to 33
per cent in face-to-face groups. Rice and Love (1987) studied 2,347 sentences
exchanged using CMC: 28 per cent were ‘positive’ socio-emotional messages, 4
per cent negative socio-emotional messages and 71 per cent were task-oriented
messages.
However, historical analyses strongly suggest that a loss of visual cues need not
be accompanied by a concurrent reduction in the ‘socialness’ of interaction (see
Joinson 2003). For instance, Standage (1998: 123) notes that ‘despite the apparently
impersonal nature of communicating by wire, [the telegraph] was in fact an
extremely subtle and intimate means of communication’. Fischer (1992) also notes
that telephone executives bemoaned frivolous use of the telephone in internal
memoranda, and actively discouraged social uses of the telephone until the 1920s.
Despite this censure, the use of the telephone for intimacy became accepted and
everyday. Other instances of intimate behaviour have been recorded via letter,
flashlight and radio / CB (Citizens’ Band) (see Joinson 2003 for a summary).
Clearly then, lack of visual or verbal cues need not lead an interaction to be taskoriented,
unregulated or desocialized. Indeed, more recent work on CMC suggests
that it is this lack of cues which leads CMC to be more highly social, regulated by
norms and intimate than face-to-face interaction.
An accumulating body of experimental evidence, first person accounts and
observation research has shown that Internet-based communication can be characterized
as highly socialized – perhaps even more social than face-to-face interaction
(Rheingold 1993a; Walther 1996). Moreover, issues of status and hierarchy
transfer just as easily to Internet-based interactions (Spears et al. 2002), negating
the contention that lack of cues leads to a reduction in concern for the audience or
equalization effects.
For instance, there is evidence that Internet communication can lead people to
identify highly with relevant social groups and identities (Spears and Lea 1992;
Spears et al. 2002) and develop high levels of affiliation and liking (Walther 1996).
Internet relationships may well be characterized by idealization of the other
partner (McKenna, Green and Gleasin 2002), leading to intense feelings and ‘just
clicked’ experiences (Joinson 2003). The prognosis for an Internet relationship is
just as healthy as that for one formed face-to-face (McKenna et al. 2002). Perhaps