Impression Formation in Computer-Mediated Communication Revisited

By Jeffrey T. Hancock, P. Dunham. Communication Research, 2001

315 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology, Human-Computer Interaction

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6537e674c3403815716fcce491f312acc31e4cdd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Human-Computer Interaction

Citations in the corpus

Absence Makes the Communication Grow Fonder: Geographic Separation, Interpersonal Media, and Intimacy in Dating Relationships (2013, background): “CMC research (e.g., Hancock & Dunham, 2001) has established an intensification effect in which individuals who communicate in text-based, asynchronous CMC environments overrely on limited cues and develop more biased impressions of one another than those who communicate FtF (for a review, see…”
Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition (2007, background): “…has challenged whether similarity and/or anticipation are theoretically necessary and suﬃcient, as the processes posited by the model have been demonstrated in situations varying in these qualities (e.g., Bou-cher, Hancock, & Dunham, 2004; Hancock & Dunham, 2001; Herring & Martinson, 2004).”
Comparing Online and Offline Self-Disclosure: A Systematic Review (2012, unknown): “Participants engaging in CMC formed less detailed but more intense impressions of their partners than individuals communicating FTF. 10 This second tenet of hyperpersonal CMC theory suggests an exaggerated intimacy where the individuals feel they are able to communicate without restraint in the pres”
A Social Skill Account of Problematic Internet Use (2005, background): “…communication differ from one another in ways that should be especially appealing to those who perceive themselves to have low self-presentational skills (for detailed reviews of these differences, see Hancock & Dunham, 2001; Ramirez, Walther, Burgoon, & Sunnafrank, 2002; Walther & Parks, 2002).”
Preference for Online Social Interaction (2003, unknown): “A number of theories describe ways in which interpersonal processes in some CMC applications are distinct from those in FtF interaction (see Hancock & Dunham,2001;Ramirez,Walther,Burgoon, & Sunnafrank,2002).”
The Faces of Facebookers: Investigating Social Enhancement and Social Compensation Hypotheses; Predicting FacebookTM and Offline Popularity from Sociability and Self-Esteem, and Mapping the Meanings of Popularity with Semantic Networks (2008, background): “Initial impressions made by individuals communicating online may be less complete and less detailed than those made in face-to-face situations (Hancock & Dunham, 2001).”
Perceived Helpfulness of Online Consumer Reviews: The Role of Message Content and Style (2010, background): “The burden of style expression is carried by the communicator’s specific wording choices, and thus, these choices are likely to have a strong effect on the impressions created by an online message (Hancock and Dunham, 2001).”
Research Note - Privacy Concerns and Privacy-Protective Behavior in Synchronous Online Social Interactions (2013, background): “When others refuse means of identification, individuals find it difficult to assimilate enough factual information to better understand others’ opinions (Hancock and Dunham 2001).”
College Students' Motivations for Facebook Use and Psychological Outcomes (2014, background): “It was also found that CMC users have greater confidence in their impressions formed toward other people (Hancock & Dunham, 2001).”
The Role of Friends’ Appearance and Behavior on Evaluations of Individuals on Facebook: Are We Known by the Company We Keep? (2008, background): “Hancock and Dunham (2001) found that participants in an online task-focused discussion of limited duration tended to make fewer judgments about the personalities of their partners, but more intense ratings on the judgment scales to which they did respond, than in comparable face-to-face discussions”
Preliminary Development of a Model and Measure of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) Competence (2006, background): “…that have been formulated thus far (see Walther & Parks, 2002) have tended to examine how CMC moderates such outcomes as impression formation (Hancock & Dunham, 2001; McKenna et al., 2002; O’Sullivan, 2000; Tanis & Postmes, 2003), impressions of appropriateness (Harper, 2002; Rice, 1993;…”
The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-Representation on Behavior (2007, background): “Other research has looked at how the narrow communication channels in CMC impacts impression formation (Hancock & Dunham, 2001; Jacobson, 1999; Trevino & Webster, 1992; Walther, Slovacek, & Tidwell, 2001).”
Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: The effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits (2010, background): “…in any interpersonal context, scholars have used two complementary theories to explore the unique characteristics of self-presentation in CMC settings (Hancock & Dunham, 2001): (i) the social identification and deindividuation (SIDE) model, and (ii) social information processing (SIP) theory.”
Short Communication A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perception, group membership and trusting behaviour (2005, result): “These results mirror the finding that individuating information affects impressions people form of strangers through reducing ambiguity (Hancock & Dunham, 2001; Tanis & Postmes, 2003; Walther, Slovacek, & Tidwell, 2001).”