Is CMC a Richer Form of Communication Than Face-to-Face Communication?

Is CMC a Richer Form of Communication Than Face-to-Face Communication?

To answer the question as to whether CMC is a richer form of communication than face-to-face communication one must situate the question contextually within the purview of the individual. I don’t mean to answer the question as my typical high-school sophomore might answer it; however, the answer truly is, “It depends.” Probing this general statement a bit more, one might rightly see that on which side of the issue one falls depends on one’s particular needs, and from which form of communication one feels comfortable getting those needs met.   

            In terms of communication theory, the human need for communication can be framed within the human impulse to converse and socialize.  As Lengel, Thurlow and Tomic (2009) point out, humans tend to operate out of a communication imperative (p. 51).  The communication imperative is a double-edged sword, however. It not only argues that humans are wired for communication, but it also argues that humans will overcome any technological or practical obstacles in a communication environment in order to maximize the possibility for relational fulfillment (Lengel, Thurlow & Tomic, 2009, p.51).   Therefore, in general, it can be argued that we need communication, in part, to relate in and to our world, and when we encounter communication barriers, we will do whatever it takes to remove or minimize those barriers so that we can more efficiently relate in and to our world.

            But the choice to relate in and to the world through CMC or through f2f communication depends also on the purposes behind the communication event.  In some cases, people will use CMC simply for information exchange. When one uses CMC simply for information exchange, one may have less of a degree of social presence than when one is using CMC for more intimate social encounters.  Newberry (2001) has shown that the degree of social presence can impact a person’s perception, appreciation, participation, and level of satisfaction in CMC.

But when one uses CMC for more intimate interpersonal encounters, the degree of social presence can be enhanced, and yet tempered by one’s comfort level. Walther (1996), as stated in Lengel, Thurlow and Tomic (2009), for example, argued that CMC can be even more friendly, social, and intimate than f2f communication (p.53).  But the “can be” element here is the wildcard. That CMC can be perceived as more friendly, social, and intimate than f2f communication does not necessarily guarantee that CMC will be perceived as more friendly, social, and intimate. Again, it all depends on one’s preference. For some people, CMC provides the anonymity that allows for a perceived freedom from constraints and/or a freedom from responsibility (Lengel, Thurlow & Tomic, 2009, p.62), both of which can maximize the need for relational fulfillment. For others, however, myself included, CMC pales in comparison to f2f communication because, in part, of a lack of social cues (RSC model) that make CMC much more difficult to manage and more “effortful” (Lengel, Thurlow & Tomic, 2009, p. 61).  In order to have my relational needs fulfilled or maximized, I need the nonverbal cues that cannot be fully experienced in CMC.  Although Skype offers a CMC exchange of nonverbal cues, I prefer the warmth of a smile, or the sternness of a look that derive their strength from the “live,” face-to-face interaction.  Even though Skyping is a “live” event, there is something removed about it, as if it were “almost live” or “virtually live.”

            It is this removed quality of the interaction in CMC that leads me to conclude that our online personalities are constructions, portions of which are true revelations of who we are, but which are also much more limited in their abilities to allow us to fully express who we are.  Lengel, Thurlow and Tomic (2009) point out that our identities are socially constructed, are a lifelong process, and can be one of multiple identities we take on to present ourselves in different ways to the outside world (p.97). Add the socially constructed and lifelong-process characteristics of identity to a tendency, in theory, for people to construct different personalities online, as is the case in identity play, as described in Lengel, Thurlow and Tomic (2009, p. 100),  and we can see that one’s online identity is a construction that can change at any moment.  The change can come from any number of variables including one’s comfort level with self-disclosure, one’s willful construction of a “real”, transparent identity (revealing who the person really is), or the construction of a more “avatar-ish,” and less “real” identity.

            I end this paper with the sophomoric response I offered at the beginning of the paper. Is CMC a richer form of communication than face-to-face communication? Because of the variables discussed above, “It truly depends.”

References

Lengel, L., Thurlow, C., & Tomic, A. (2009). Computer mediated communication:

            Social interaction and the internet. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. (Original work

            published 2004).

Newberry, B. (2001). Media richness, social presence and technology supported communication Activities in education. Retrieved November 6, 2011 from http://learngen.org/Resources/lgend101_norm1/200/210/211_3.htm