What is this article about?

Computer-mediate communication (CMC) is getting more popular these days. CMC can take place synchronous (chat) or asynchronous (email). Communication is increasingly taking place through e-mail and chat and this is not only on a private level, but also on a professional level. E-mail makes work more efficient and is widely used at the office. E-mail and chat also help us to maintain our relationships with family and friends. A lot of people will tell you that they can’t imagine themselves without internet.

Computer communication is so common in our lives that researchers want to know how different online communication is from face to face (F2F) communication. Are our CMC conversations less intimate than face to face communication? Are they shorter? Do we use different language or language styles and do we chose different topics to talk about in CMC? This paper will look at the differences in emotion communication between these two types of communication. Emotion communication is defined as the expression and the sharing of moods and emotion between two or more individuals. Explicit and implicit emotion will be included in this paper.

To examine the difference in emotion communication between the two types of communication, one must first know more about the two types of communication. The biggest difference between these two is the sociality. There are two dimensions of sociality: the physical and the social dimension. The physical dimension means that you are actually together with somebody. This dimension implies that in CMC there are no verbal cues. Bodily contact plays a big role in the expression of emotions, both positive (hugging, embracing) and negative (hitting). Not seeing each other may have consequences for the emotion recognition, because we don’t see the nonverbal cues. This may also impact expressing one’s own emotion towards others.

The social dimension is the extent to which the presence of the other person is salient. When engaging in CMC, you are less aware of the other person, because you can’t see him or her. You know to whom you’re sending an e-mail, but the presence of this person is less salient. It may also refer to whether you know the other person. Yet another meaning of social dimension is the extent to which social norms are salient. Some researchers think that social norms are absent in CMC and that there is no social control. Other researchers, however, think that by the absence of others social norms are made more salient in CMC than in F2F interactions.

The authors of this article think that social presence and visibility may influence three aspects of emotion communication: the overall content and style of the message, the expression of emotions and the recognition of emotions. There is little research on the last aspect and the authors will therefore mainly focus on the other two aspects.

The authors assume that social presence has a similar impact on both the overall style and content of the message and the expression of emotions. These two will depend on the relationship with the interaction partner and the anonymity. The authors also assume that reduced visibility of emotions strengthens emotional style and content and makes it easier to express emotions. The authors reviewed articles about emotions in F2F and emotions in CMC to see what the differences between these two are.

What is the role of emotional talk in CMC?

People feel the need to talk about and reflect on their emotional experiences. This is called social sharing. As soon as an emotion is experienced, people feel the urge to share it. From studies about F2F and emotions we know that the bigger the emotion we feel is, the more we have the need to talk about it. Talking about emotions differs for the two sexes. Men are more likely to talk to women (usually their wives or girlfriends) about their feelings, while women share their emotions with a wider range of people, both men and women. This is probably because women in our society occupy roles that require them to be more emotionally expressive and more concerned with themselves and others than men are.

It is very common that the person you share your emotions with tells it to another person. So, sometimes it’s really hard to trust someone. Research showed that when someone shares highly intense emotions, listeners talked less, showed more nonverbal behavior and de-dramatized their responses. Sharing emotions improves interpersonal relationships and social integration. People who share intimate, personal stories tend to be more liked than people who don’t. Also, sharing emotions is healthy and good for one’s well-being.

Researchers first thought that CMC would be less emotional than F2F, because there is a lack of social and non-verbal cues. There is, however, no evidence to support this claim. For example, MSN. MSN was an enormous hit. People chat with their friends and they can maintain contacts with people from all over the world. It provides new ways of communication and to try out new personality aspects. People who find expressing themselves difficult in face to face contact, may have less problems expressing themselves on MSN. Another example of CMC and emotional expressions is computer-mediated therapy. People who experience anxiety when they have to meet up with a therapist, and people who have restricted mobility, can interact with the therapist through a computer. Studies showed that people are satisfied about this type of therapy. Also, researchers have found that there are the same gender differences in language and style in CMC as in F2F. Women tend to be more emotional and men seem to be less concerned with the socio-emotional context. There is no evidence that shows that there is no emotional context in CMC. The relative anonymity of CMC makes it sometimes even less difficult for people to express their emotions. That being said, it looks like CMC reinforces the communication of emotions instead of reducing them.

What is known about emotion expression in CMC?

This section focuses on whether the expressions of emotions are different and maybe also easier in CMC than in F2F. Is the relative safe environment of CMC a ‘place’ to express more emotions? What effect does the reduced social presence of others have on emotion expression?

Social presence influences facial expressions. Research has found that people smile more when somebody else is present, or even imaginary present compared to when they are alone. The identity of the interaction partner and the power relation with this partner can also affect the amount of emotion expression. It seems that different social context elicit different display rules for emotion. High sociality context are situations in which friends are present and this context elicits strong motives to communicate. In low sociality contexts, there is a weak motive to communicate. This applies in particular to the expression of positive emotions. Research has shown that people express intense negative emotions (like crying) when they are alone and positive emotion (like smiling) more when they are with others. As said above, the relationship with the interaction partner is also of importance for the display of emotions. If the interaction partner is a friend, emotions will be expressed more. If the interaction partner is a stranger, facial expressions will decrease. This seems to make sense, because it’s often not seen as appropriate to show intense feelings to a stranger. All these examples had to do with F2F, but how do these things work in CMC?

The authors of this article thought that more negative emotions would be expressed in anonymous CMC settings compared to in F2F settings. Research supported this view. One study showed that participants in F2F situations who just met and discussed some topics to get to know each other, were less negative about each other than in the CMC situation. Participants in the CMC situation were more anonymous than participants in the F2F situation and that’s probably the reason why the ratings were less positive. Other researchers have also found this effect and they named the expression of strong opinions and negative emotions in the form of insulting, offending or hostile comments ‘flaming’.

What is the effect of a lack of nonverbal cues in CMC?

Lack of visibility goes together with lack of nonverbal cues in CMC. Because of this, some believe that not all the information will be transferred. Nonverbal cues convey the speaker’s true feelings. Somebody can say that he likes some idea, but his nonverbal behavior (facial expression, arm movement) may show otherwise. Nonverbal cues can also intensify or reduce the meaning of a message. Stating something with a smile and stating the same thing with a frown has a different impact.

Because there are no nonverbal cues in CMC, a certain statement can be overestimated or underestimated and in turn this may lead to inappropriate behavior. It may also lead to a negative judgment of the person.

By now you might be thinking that CMC has its own nonverbal cues. A lot of e-mail systems, messaging systems and chats have their set of emoticons. The emoticons display facial expression that human beings make and it also has other symbols that can convey someone’s emotions (like balloons for happiness). Emoticons can thus add expressions to a text. A sentence can be interpreted as a joke if you place a certain emoticon in it, but it can also be interpreted as offensive if you do not place the emoticon. There are no gender differences found in the use of emoticons. Emoticons are used a lot. Researchers have found that more emoticons are used in socio-emotional contexts than in task-oriented contexts. This is because an emoticon is not sufficient enough in a negative situation to solve a problem. Communication is more important for solving problems. One difference between emoticons and non-verbal displays is that emoticons are more deliberate and voluntary. Also, non-verbal displays elicit mimicry. This is the unconscious imitation of another person’s facial expressions, gestures and posture. This happens especially when you like someone or feel empathy for this person. When you mimic someone, this person will like you also more. So mimicry has an effect in both directions. Mimicry is not possible with emoticons (and in that case, in CMC).

If mimicry sustains positive relationships, is it possible for CMC interactions to become positive? Research has shown that CMC groups are more positive in their ratings on several dimensions of intimacy than F2F groups. Researchers concluded that the effect of time on the development of relational bonds is stronger than the effects of the medium.

What is the conclusion?

It is not clear what role nonverbal cues exactly play in CMC. It is clear, however, that the lack of nonverbal cues is not stopping emotional exchange in CMC. Sometimes, people even exchange more emotions in CMC.