Social Information Processing Theory

Electronic propinquity

Extent to which channels can provide this feeling of relational or psychological clones towards another person

Propinquity

Perception of relational or psychological closeness towards another person

What is propinquity based on?

Based on features and affordances (bandwidth and directionality)

Needs and experiences of users (task complexity, communication skills, rules)

Availability of media choices

Social information processing theory

Rejects that the absence of NVs restricts individuating information

• People who communicate online are motivated 

• They substitute verbal cues for nonverbal information

• It might take longer to establish relationships online 

• Online relationships can be just as good as FtF relationships

Passive information seeking

Not interacting with anyone but still getting information about someone

• Indirect observation: just looking at someone, seeing what they do  

• Create setting: doing something to see how the person responds, response will give you information about them 

Disinhibition search (passive)

Try to observe someone when their gaunter is down, not publicly performing

Active information seeking

When you’re not interacting with a target, but you’re interfacing with someone else  

• Question 3rd party

Interactive information seeking

Interrogating, disclosing, nonverbal immediacy 

Extractive information seeking

Searching someone’s information online  

Triangle tests

Three people, try to develop a relationship with someone because you know they can get you access to someone else

Directness tests

Ask the other person how they feel, “what are we”

Separation tests

“We need a break”, spent time apart to see how your feelings change

Endurance tests

Take a look at your relationship, is it in a place where you want it to be

Public presentation tests

See if your partner wants to be seen mixing friend groups

Indirect suggestions

When someone will post a hypothetical to see if the relationship has a future

Warranting theory

People place more trust in information about a person that the person cannot easily manipulate than in self-descriptions they control completely

Warranting value

Extent to which cues are unaltered by the target 

• gives you confidence that the person online is the same person offline  

Warrants

Cues about information

Partial warranting

People can warrant themselves

Modification control

Extent to which the target is produced by something else, changing information

Dissemination control

Not changing information but controlling what information appears online (restaurants deleting bad reviews)

Source obfuscation

True identity of the source might be obscured, don’t know who’s posting it, seems fishy (Astroturfing)