Virtual Methods

do not sit easily with a researchers’ desire to elicit candid responses. It would be
expected then that synchronous CMC methods should reduce impression management,
and at least in theory should provide better quality data, particularly when
dealing with sensitive topics.
Conclusion
Internet Behaviour and Virtual Methods • 33
If the Internet-based research process, whether an interview or automated survey,
is seen as a social encounter, then an understanding of principles underpinning
behaviour on the Internet can be invaluable to a researcher. Once the research
process is recognized as such, then issues of power, status, privacy and vulnerability
come to the fore, and should ideally inform the design of virtual methodologies.
Although the effect of design can be subtle, the differences observed in response
rates, answers to sensitive questions (or choosing not to answer) and social desirability
are important enough to warrant careful consideration in any research programme.
Alas, outside of a few subdisciplines (primarily survey and experiment methodology
and medical research of sensitive issues) the question of how the mode and
design of a research tool can influence responses has been somewhat neglected.
Similarly, it is not completely clear why computer-based research tends to lead to
more candid responses than pen and paper or personal interviews. Although
anonymity might seem the most obvious cause, in many cases (for example, telephone
interviews or web-based surveys) it is arguable that participants are actually
less anonymous than traditional methods (for example, completing a survey in
class). In this case, the ‘strangers on the train’ explanation (Bargh & McKenna
2004) may not hold up particularly well – any reduction in anonymity is likely to
be associated with an increase in the potential vulnerability following candid selfdisclosure.
The work of Moon (2000) on disclosure to geographically distant computers
suggests that such concerns do influence people’s responses to research.
We may need to look more closely at the context in which various methodologies
are enacted to fully understand response differences. Many of the high disclosure
methodologies are conducted in private: either via a computer terminal,
typing answers on a laptop or keying numbers on a telephone. However, the lower
disclosure methodologies (face-to-face interview, telephone interview) tend to
reinforce not only the social presence of the researcher, but also the salience of any
reaction from them to the participants’ responses. A long tradition within social
psychology and sociology has noted the importance of others’ reactions on
self-evaluation. According to this, much of our self-perception and esteem comes
by evaluating others’ reactions to our own behaviour (the so-called ‘looking glass’
of interaction). Presumably, disclosing socially undesirable information to another,