Notes: Psychology of Modern Communication and Impression Management

Course Introduction and Modern Communication

Generative AI and Decision Making

  • Design Question for Generative AI Scientists: Imagine working at a company that develops tools for message writing. The core question is: which outcomes should be measured to assess the effectiveness of these tools?

    • The persuasiveness of a single message.

    • The strength of a relationship.

    • The overall strength of relationships across an entire organization.

  • Time Horizons for Impact: Consider which of these outcomes might yield the most financial benefit in the next six weeks, six months, or six years.

The Productivity Paradox

  • Concept: Introduced by Brynjolfsson, Rock, & Syverson (2017) in "Artificial intelligence and the modern productivity paradox: A clash of expectations and statistics".

  • Core Idea: "We see transformative new technologies everywhere but in the productivity statistics." This highlights a discrepancy where advanced technologies, like AI, are pervasive but their expected positive impact on economic productivity is not yet clearly reflected in statistical data.

Progress in Science

  • Mechanism: Science advances through the use of evidence and arguments to persuade others to adopt new ideas and understanding.

The Importance of Social Relationships

  • Fundamental Human Need: Human beings are inherently social animals.

  • Influence on Well-being and Functioning: Relationships are critically important for both personal well-being and effective functioning in various contexts.

  • Effort in Relationship Maintenance: People actively work hard to form and maintain relationships they value.

  • Sophisticated Social Cognition: Humans possess "social brains," indicating a high degree of sophistication in discerning and navigating relationships.

The Impression Problem

  • Core Challenge: This problem addresses how designers and users reconcile their understanding and presentation of True character when interacting through a SYSTEM.

  • Model Components:

    • DESIGNER: Creates the SYSTEM.

    • USER: Interacts with the SYSTEM.

    • SYSTEM: The medium or technology facilitating communication.

    • DESIGNER'S MODEL & USER'S MODEL: The internal representations or understandings held by the designer and user, respectively.

    • True Character: The authentic self of an individual.

    • Understanding: How one person comprehends another.

    • Statements: Verbal or written communications.

    • Behavior: Observable actions.

    • Mind Melding: An ideal, direct understanding between individuals (often aspirational).

  • Impression Formation: The cognitive processes by which individuals use available information about a person to develop an understanding (impression) of who they are and how they are likely to behave. This moves from True character towards Mind Melding through Understanding Statements and Behavior.

  • Impression Management: The active processes by which individuals attempt to influence other people's opinions or understandings (impressions) of them. This is a deliberate effort to shape how one is perceived.

Overview of Impression Management and Formation

  • Impression Management Topics:

    • Self-Presentation vs. Self-Disclosure

    • The Three Selves: Actual, Ideal, Ought

  • Impression Formation Topics:

    • Social Information Processing

    • Hyper-personal Judgments

    • Warranting, Cues given vs. given off

Self-Presentation vs. Self-Disclosure

  • Self-Presentation:

    • Definition: A deliberate process in which people utilize statements, behaviors, or other strategies to convey an impression to others that is beneficial to their own interests.

    • Goal: To strategically manage and shape others' perceptions.

  • Self-Disclosure:

    • Definition: A process in which individuals knowingly provide authentic personal information to a communication partner.

    • Goal: To foster understanding, caring, validation, and acceptance from the partner.

The Three Selves: Actual, Ideal, and Ought

  • Actual Self: Who you really are.

    • Relationship Consequences: Easiest to maintain in relationships.

  • Ideal Self: Who you aspire to be.

    • Relationship Consequences: Attracts new relationships, facilitates deeper bonds based on shared values and goals.

  • Ought Self: Who others expect you to be.

    • Relationship Consequences: Helps maintain favor, status, and reputation within a social group.

  • "Cornell Confusion": High-achieving individuals often struggle to differentiate between their ideal self (who they want to be) and their ought self (who others expect them to be), leading to potential internal conflict or external pressure.

The Mediation Problem and Impression Formation with Limited Cues

  • Core Question: How do people form impressions of others when they only receive partial information?

  • Limited Cues: In mediated communication, the amount of available information about a True person, soul is restricted, complicating Understanding Statements and Behavior.

  • Early Theories: "Cues Filtered Out":

    • Hypothesis: Fewer communication cues lead to more impersonal impressions and interactions that are primarily task-focused.

    • Deterministic View: Technology was seen as deterministically shaping the cue flow, which in turn dictated the qualities of interaction.

Social Information Processing (SIP) (Walther, 1993)

  • Central Tenets:

    • Fundamental Social Goal: Relationship formation is a crucial and foundational social objective for human beings.

    • Adaptation of Technology: Individuals are capable of adapting communication technologies to effectively meet their social goals.

  • Process:

    • People engage in self-presentation and self-disclosure by utilizing all available cues provided by the medium.

    • Conversely, people evaluate others based on the available cues they receive.

    • Outcome: Developing relationships through mediated communication may take more time compared to face-to-face interactions, but it is ultimately achievable and meaningful.

Hyperpersonal Model (Walther, 1996)

  • Premise: Because individuals strategically self-present and disclose using available cues, and evaluate others through these same cues, people often form hyper-personal judgments when cues are filtered out.

  • Definition: The hyperpersonal model suggests that when individuals interact via mediated communication (where cues are limited), they tend to make more extreme judgments about others (either more positive or more negative) than they would during Face-to-Face interactions.

  • Example (Ellison et al.): An individual receiving an email with poor spelling or grammar might form an extreme judgment like: "If I am getting email from someone that obviously can’t spell or put a full sentence together, I’m thinking what other parts of his life suffer from the same lack of attentiveness?” This demonstrates mediation constraints leading to extreme judgment from limited cues.

Social Comparison

  • Definition: The process of looking at others to gain an understanding of how others perceive us.

  • Purpose: To assess whether we are meeting expectations or succeeding relative to the values and norms of a particular group.

  • Most Relevant Group: Typically, this comparison is most significant with close peers.

Recursive Adaptation of Self-Presentation (in SIP)

  • Concept: Individuals recursively adapt self-presentation based on impression formation norms. This is a spiral of feedback where each part continually influences the other in an ongoing, cyclical manner.

  • Example 1 (Message Length):

    • An individual learns: "I became quite aware that I had to be very brief. . . . More often than not when I would write a long response, I wouldn’t get a response."

    • Interpretation: Long responses implied being "too desperate for conversation" or a "hermit."

    • Adaptation: The individual then modifies their self-presentation by making messages shorter to conform to perceived norms.

  • Example 2 (Lying about Age):

    • An individual observes: "Everybody lies about their age or a lot of people do."

    • Implication: "So I have to cheat too in order to be on the same page as everybody else that cheats."

    • Adaptation: If they don't lie, they appear "twice as old" (44 becomes 48), so they adapt their self-presentation to fit the recursive norms of deception within that social context.

Mechanisms of the Hyperpersonal Model

Mediated communication promotes hyperpersonal judgments through three key mechanisms:

  • 1. Over-attribution:

    • Definition: People tend to jump to conclusions and make inferences about a person's underlying character based on limited information.

    • Example: The Ellison et al. example where poor spelling leads to the conclusion of a generally disorganized life.

  • 2. Selective Self-Presentation:

    • Definition: Individuals have greater control in mediated environments to present only the cues that selectively support the desired impression they wish to convey.

    • Example: Carefully curating a public profile to show only positive aspects, such as "I have a warm, healthy smile in every picture."

  • 3. Behavioral Confirmation:

    • Definition: Once an impression (even an extreme one) is formed and positively reinforced, individuals tend to behave in ways that maintain that impression.

    • Example: If "My smile posts are getting lots of likes," a person feels obligated to "post more!" The presented self then becomes reinforced as the ought self due to the positive feedback.

Impression Formation and Warranting

  • The Problem of Distrust: Given that people try to build relationships and make impressions, and that distorting reality can yield advantages, individuals suspect others of doing the same to gain benefits.

  • Warranting:

    • Definition: A warrant is a means of demonstrating or justifying that a claim made about oneself is true and credible.

    • Effectiveness: A warrant is effective when it is "hard to fake". This means that if the claim were false, it would be difficult or impossible to produce the given signal or information.

  • Trust and Control: The degree to which we trust a warrant is directly proportional to the amount of control the individual has over the information or cues we receive about them.

Cues Given vs. Cues Given Off

  • Cues Given:

    • Definition: Information that is intentionally selected by an individual to present to others.

    • Warrant Strength: These are WEAK WARRANTS because they are `"easy to fake." A person can intentionally align these cues with desirable social impressions.

    • Example: A leader making a prepared statement.

  • Cues Given Off:

    • Definition: Information that is unintentionally emitted or implicitly forthcoming from an individual's presence or behavior.

    • Warrant Strength: These are STRONG WARRANTS because they are not chosen/selected, and therefore are viewed as more reliable signals of true character.

      • Note: They are not necessarily more accurate, but are perceived as less deceptive.

    • Example: A leader answering questions at a press conference or town hall (where answers are spontaneous and less controlled).

Categories of Cues Given Off:

  1. Interior Residue:

    • Definition: Cues given off by an individual's own behavior or internal characteristics.

    • Examples: Body language, the state of private spaces (e.g., cleanliness/messiness of a room).

  2. Exterior Residue:

    • Definition: Cues given off about an individual by others.

    • Examples: Things friends say about you, comments or endorsements from others.

The Impact of Generative AI on Warranting

  • Challenge to Authenticity: Images used to be hard to fake, representing a stronger warrant for cues given off. However, Professor Mor Naaman at Cornell Tech argues that this is no longer true due to generative AI.

  • Blurring the Lines: Generative AI tools (e.g., Google's 'Reimagine' tool) can easily manipulate images, creating scenarios that appear to be cues given off (like discarded ballots at a polling station, or alcohol/drugs in a personal photo) but are, in fact, cues given (intentionally created and presented).

  • Implications: This makes it increasingly difficult for observers to distinguish between authentic, unintentional cues given off and intentionally fabricated cues given that resemble reality, thus undermining the reliability of visual warrants and potentially increasing distrust in online information. Generating misinformation, especially regarding critical events like elections, becomes significantly easier.

Upcoming Session (Thursday)

  • Readings:

    • Re-read the article on phone bans.

    • Read the policy brief from the teacher's union on phone bans.

    • Read the policy brief from the NYCLU on phone bans.