Social presence theory

Last updated

Social presence theory explores how the "sense of being with another" is influenced by digital interfaces in human-computer interactions. [1] Developed from the foundations of interpersonal communication and symbolic interactionism, social presence theory was first formally introduced by John Short, Ederyn Williams, and Bruce Christie in The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. [2] Research on social presence theory has recently developed to examine the efficacy of telecommunications media, including SNS communications. [3] The theory notes that computer-based communication is lower in social presence than face-to-face communication, but different computer-based communications can affect the levels of social presence between communicators and receivers. [4]

Contents

Origins

The concept of social presence originated from Morton Wiener and Albert Mehrabian's study of immediacy and Michael Argyle and Janet Dean's concept of intimacy. [5] Wiener and Mehrabian identified immediacy as nonverbal communication behaviors such as eye contact and body movements that can enhance closeness in interactions. [5] Argyle and Dean noted intimacy as a combination of eye contact, physical proximity, and smiling. [5]

The U.K.'s post office first funded Short et al.'s work in an attempt to observe customer's attitudes towards different media channels. [6]

Social Presence Theory is defined by the different apparent physical proximities produced by various media, [7] the two more popular media being face-to-face communication and online interaction. [8] [9] Social presence is measured by the ability to project physical and emotional presence and experience it from others in interactions. [10] [11] Effective communication is measured by the parties' interpersonal involvement while considering the constraints of the communication medium used. [12]

Definitions of social presence are inconsistent, as scholars attempt to pinpoint what the phenomenon encompasses, and how it can be adapted as new media of interpersonal communication arise. Social Presence in recent years has been defined as the feeling of community a learner experiences in an online environment. [13] We have developed multiple non-verbal intimacy behaviors in the online community that enhance our relationships with people when we communicate in a medium where there is no real-life contact. [14]

Additional Research

Patrick R. Lowenthal [15] noted that concepts of social presence fall on a spectrum between users' perceptions of a person being real or "being there" and whether two communicators experience positive interpersonal and emotional connections between each other. [16] Lowenthal believes that most researchers tend to fall somewhere on the spectrum between those two perceptions.  

Other research has defined social presence as the awareness of others in an interaction, combined with an appreciation of the interpersonal aspects of that interaction. [17] [18] [19] In 1995, Gunawardena argued that social presence varied with perception and was a subjective issue based upon objective qualities. [20] We are social beings, and we crave socialization, and social presence explains how we form relationships and how beneficial and necessary they are to our lives. [21]

The definitions and interpretations of social presence—given by multiple sources after the original work conducted by Short, Williams, and Christie—have offered a more unobstructed view that Social Presence is more of a combination of factors that present themselves in a way so as to develop greater intimacy within a group that has a positive effect on the individual's affective filters. [14] [22] [23] Several researchers have suggested that intimacy and immediacy are contributing factors to Social Presence with intimacy defined as a measure of communication involving eye contact, proximity and body language [24] [25] and immediacy defined as the psychological distance between two parties that is conveyed through verbal and nonverbal cues in speech. [19]

Chih-Hsiung Tu said that Short et al.'s definition was not satisfactory because it did not include all components of social presence. He also said that the theory did not address enough degrees of social presence in computer-mediated communications. [26]

In 2000–2001, Tu [27] argued that within distance learning, social presence rests upon three dimensions: social context, online communication, and interactivity. Social contexts contribute to a predictable degree of perceived social presence. Social contexts involve task orientation and privacy, [28] topics, [24] [19] social relationships, and social process. [19] A closely related theory, electronic propinquity, also examines this quality of human connection through technology. [11]

Classification of media

Social Presence Theory classifies different communication media on a one-dimensional continuum of social presence, where the degree of social presence is equated to the degree of awareness of the other person in a communication interaction. [12]

Social Presence Theory in communication is effective if the communication medium has the appropriate social presence required for the level of interpersonal involvement required in an engagement, which is one of the challenges communicators have at the time of engaging their audience. [29]

On a continuum of social presence, the face-to-face medium is considered to have the most social presence; and written, text-based communication the least. [30] Inter-party and interpersonal exchanges are two aspects of interactions identified by Short, Williams, and Christie. It is assumed in Social Presence Theory that in any interaction involving two parties, both parties are concerned with acting out certain roles and developing or maintaining some sort of personal relationship. [17]

Face-to-face interactions

The most basic of interactions are done face-to-face; and the participants exchange, in addition to verbal communication, a set of non-verbal cues, such as facial expression, direction of gaze, posture, dress, and body language. [7] In the work about Kinesics done by Birdwhistell in 1970, [31] there were two types of functions identified for non-verbal cues. [31] One of the functions is directly related to the message that is being sent from one individual to another is concerned with the communication process and the integrational aspects. [31] [7]

The integrational activity includes the behavior that keeps the interaction in process, and the comprehensibility that goes in the exchange between individuals. Argyle, in 1969, identified the functions of six non-verbal cues and the role they play in the communications process. [32] There are three that are integrational and three that are informational. [32]

The integrational functions [32] are:

  1. Mutual attention and responsiveness: eye-gaze, head nods, and gestures. [7]
  2. Channel control: head nods and eye movements. [7] [33]
  3. Feedback: This is mainly for the speaker to know how the audience is receiving the message. [7]

The informational functions [32] are:

  1. Illustrations: Hand gestures to paint a picture or an object. [32] [7]
  2. Emblems: Gestures being used instead of a word, like moving your head up and down to signify "yes." [7] [32]
  3. Interpersonal attitudes: eye-gaze, gestures, proximity, and facial expressions. [7] [32]

Computer-mediated interactions

As computer-mediated communication has evolved, a more relational view of social presence has emerged. Social presence has come to be viewed as the way individuals represent themselves in their online environment. [14] It's a personal stamp that indicates that the individual is available and willing to engage and connect with other persons in their online community. Social presence is demonstrated by the way messages are posted and how those messages are interpreted by others. [22] Social presence defines how participants relate to one another, which in turn affects their ability to communicate effectively. [34]

Social Presence Theory provides a foundation for communication systems designers and serves as a main principle in computer-mediated-communication studies. [35] Gorham & Cristophel (1990), Tu & McIsaac (2002), and Aragon (2003) place high importance on using engagement tactics, in online classrooms, geared towards increasing social presence and reducing distance. [36] These tactics include humanizing the interactions between instructor and students. [37] Asynchronous (pre-produced content accessed individually by students on the web) and synchronous (real-time, simultaneous live connections of students together) components combined can enliven online interactions. [9] Depending on the technology used, synchronous sessions can provide both audio and video connections, allowing an interchange involving both sight and sound, and all the rich nonverbal communication inherent in tone of voice and facial expressions. In a more recent study with distance learning, it is argued that distance learning works strictly to teach academic skill and that face-to-face learning teaches more well rounded skill. Author Jennifer J. Roberts' research discusses a blend of the two teaching mediums and their importance. [38] Brian E. Mennecke, et al., examined how online mediums affect the communication between educators and their students. They discovered an absence of consistent social cues which resulted in their emphasizing a more personal approach to communicating, with added significance placed on the cultural perspectives of the students and how they communicate in an online environment. [39]

Designers have accepted Social Presence Theory as a major design principle, to gain insight into user behavior when developing web-based applications and social computing technologies. [40] They use social communication tools to enhance the student experience and to overcome the challenges of forming interpersonal relationships in a virtual space. [41] Designers seek to provide a high-quality experience for the users by encouraging meaningful interactions between users and the development of interpersonal relationships. [40] [42] In a study conducted by Jahng and Littau in 2016, [43] it was found that the importance we give to computer-mediated communications in order to trust the people we communicate with is reinforced. Their study describes how important it is for journalists to be active on social media in order to create a bond of trust with their audiences. Individuals do not feel comfortable when professionals are not as active on social platforms as is the established norm. [43] Joshua Weidlich, et al., write that every medium can be identified by how genuine are the emotions that are felt by the receiver when the subject communicates emotions both verbally and non verbally. [44]

Research related to the importance of social presence to the success of students points to the need to design social communication tools to enhance users' experience of one another. [45] Social presence affects different aspects of a learner's experience, such as their "success (Russo & Benson, 2005; Zhan & Mei, 2013), satisfaction (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Richardson & Swan, 2003; So & Brush, 2008; Zhan & Mei, 2013), and performance (Lomicka & Lord, 2007; Richardson & Swan, 2003)." [41] A positive social presence enables students to engage with each other with ease, while a negative social presence has been shown to increase disappointment in users, which decreases cognition and familiarity with the material. [46] Without social presence learning interaction suffers, which has negative effects on learning performance. [47] Patrick Lowenthal discussed future trends in online learning with social presence theory in mind. He stated "researchers and practitioners alike will have to consider a new host of things related to social presence with the continued blurring of boundaries between classroom and fully online courses as well as between course bound communication tools (e.g., discussion forums) and non-course bound tools (e.g., Facebook and Twitter)...." [48]

Significance

Social presence is critical in improving instructional effectiveness in any setting, especially in distance education. In 2000–2001, Tu argued that within distance learning, social presence has three dimensions: social context, online communication, and interactivity. Social contexts contribute to a predictable degree of perceived social presence. Social contexts involve task orientation, privacy, topics, social relationships, and social process. [28] [24] [19] As an example, when a conversation is task-based and public without a sense of community being in place, the perception of social presence is low and affective filtering (a communication blockage brought about by negative emotional feelings) is high. In addition, research sheds light on the relationship between a shared learning space and participants' satisfaction and encourages the building up of a shared learning space for a better e-learning environment. [49]

Recent research highlights the importance of social presence in educational settings when delivering feedback on marked assessments. [9]

Measurement

There are three common forms of measuring social presence:

The Social Presence Scale (SPRES), created by Charlotte Gunawardena and Frank Zittle, consists of 14 Likert items to indicate users' perceived social presence. [50]

The Social Presence and Privacy Questionnaire (SPPQ), designed by Chih-Hsiung Tu, distinguished social context, online communication, and interactivity based on a CMC attitude instrument and perceived privacy. [50] However, Tu acknowledged that future work needs to improve the validity of the research. [51]

Karel Kreijns, Paul A. Kirschner, Wim Jochems, and Hans van Buuren developed a self-reporting Social Presence Scale, consisting of five items:

No. ItemItemMSDFactor Social Presence
1When I have real-time conversations in this CSCL environment, I have my communication partner in my mind‟s eye2.151.17.80
2When I have asynchronous conversations in this CSCL environment, I also have my communication partner in my mind‟s eye2.751.16.70
3When I have real-time conversations in this CSCL environment, I feel that I deal with very real persons and not with abstract anonymous persons2.901.50.79
4When I have asynchronous conversations in this CSCL environment, I also feel that I deal with very real persons and not with abstract anonymous persons3.561.21.79
5Real-time conversations in this CSCL environment can hardly be distinguished from face-to-face conversations1.811.01.69

Conclusion

In 1986, Steinfield found that task complexity, interdependence, uncertainty, and the perceived need to communicate over distances were positively associated with increasing online communication. In 1992, Walther argued that social relationships could stimulate changes in discourse as well. In examining text-based computer-mediated communication (e-mails) of conference participants, Walther discovered participants formed impressions of other participants from their communications. These impressions developed into visual interpretations of the other, and a sense of intimacy and identification between participants, which led to greater perception of social presence.

In 1991, Gunawardena argued that a purely text-based communication system (e-mail, discussion boards, and chat) rests upon the assumption that people using such a system have already developed a level of comfort with the technology that allows the person to effectively use it. Gunawardena argued further that text-based communications should account for not all users having a level of comfort in its use. Courses or conferences that rely heavily on such a system for communication should begin with light and casual conversation in areas that the user has familiarity with, which helps them in gaining a comfort level with the technology. [14] Later work by Palloff and Pratt, in 1999 and 2003, validated Gunawardena's recommendation, and they called for establishing learning communities among online users at the very beginning of courses. In doing so, Palloff and Pratt argued that affective filters are lowered.

Interactivity involves the activities and communication styles that online users engage in. In 1986, Norton identified eleven communication styles that can be associated with online communications: impression-leaving, contentious, open, dramatic, dominant, precise, relaxed, friendly, attentive, animated, and image. What style participants use in communicating, especially the style teachers use, will impact social presence. [22]

In their 2002 study on social presence, Tu and McIssac declared, "Social presence positively influences online instruction; however, frequency of participation does not represent high Social Presence". In both a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the interactions of 51 volunteers, Tu and McIssac found that social context was more qualitative (a learned skill-set rather than a prescriptive set of actions) to achieve positive impact, online communication was more strongly related to quantifiable and organizational skills of participants, and that interactivity constituted skill sets and communication styles used in combination. As a result, Tu and McIssac identified the following variables that had strong positive effects on the fueling or perception of social presence.

Variables Identified in Data from Tu and McIssac (2002)
Dimensions
VariablesI. Social ContextII. Online CommunicationIII. Interactivity
1Familiarity with recipientsKeyboarding and accuracy skillsTimely Response
2Assertive/AcquiescentUse of emoticons and paralanguageCommunication Styles
3Informal/formalCharacteristics of real-time discussionLength of messages
4Trust relationshipsCharacteristics of discussion boardsFormal/informal
5Social relationships (love and information)Language skills (writing and reading)Type of tasks (planning, creativity, social tasks)
6Psychological attitude toward technologySize of groups
7Access and locationCommunication strategies
8User characteristics

While research in social presence is ongoing, researchers are confidently recommending designing online and e-format courses along the three dimensions that have been discussed. By building trust online, providing social "hand holding" support up front in any course using computer-mediated communication, and promoting informal relationships, teachers and instructors can provide a strong sense of social presence, increase a sense of community, and in turn increase interaction among participants.

See also

Related Research Articles

Proxemics is the study of human use of space and the effects that population density has on behavior, communication, and social interaction.

Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) is the study of how people utilize technology collaboratively, often towards a shared goal. CSCW addresses how computer systems can support collaborative activity and coordination. More specifically, the field of CSCW seeks to analyze and draw connections between currently understood human psychological and social behaviors and available collaborative tools, or groupware. Often the goal of CSCW is to help promote and utilize technology in a collaborative way, and help create new tools to succeed in that goal. These parallels allow CSCW research to inform future design patterns or assist in the development of entirely new tools.

Rapport is a close and harmonious relationship in which the people or groups concerned are "in sync" with each other, understand each other's feelings or ideas, and communicate smoothly.

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is defined as any human communication that occurs through the use of two or more electronic devices. While the term has traditionally referred to those communications that occur via computer-mediated formats, it has also been applied to other forms of text-based interaction such as text messaging. Research on CMC focuses largely on the social effects of different computer-supported communication technologies. Many recent studies involve Internet-based social networking supported by social software.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nonverbal communication</span> Interpersonal communication through wordless (mostly visual) cues

Nonverbal communication (NVC) is the transmission of messages or signals through a nonverbal platform such as eye contact, facial expressions, gestures, posture, use of objects and body language. It includes the use of social cues, kinesics, distance (proxemics) and physical environments/appearance, of voice (paralanguage) and of touch (haptics). A signal has three different parts to it, including the basic signal, what the signal is trying to convey, and how it is interpreted. These signals that are transmitted to the receiver depend highly on the knowledge and empathy that this individual has. It can also include the use of time (chronemics) and eye contact and the actions of looking while talking and listening, frequency of glances, patterns of fixation, pupil dilation, and blink rate (oculesics).

Media richness theory, sometimes referred to as information richness theory or MRT, is a framework used to describe a communication medium's ability to reproduce the information sent over it. It was introduced by Richard L. Daft and Robert H. Lengel in 1986 as an extension of information processing theory. MRT is used to rank and evaluate the richness of certain communication media, such as phone calls, video conferencing, and email. For example, a phone call cannot reproduce visual social cues such as gestures which makes it a less rich communication media than video conferencing, which affords the transmission of gestures and body language. Based on contingency theory and information processing theory, MRT theorizes that richer, personal communication media are generally more effective for communicating equivocal issues in contrast with leaner, less rich media.

Social affordance is a type of affordance. It refers to the properties of an object or environment that permit social actions. Social affordance is most often used in the context of a social technology such as Wiki, Chat and Facebook applications and refers to sociotechnical affordances. Social affordances emerge from the coupling between the behavioral and cognitive capacities of a given organism and the objective properties of its environment.

The uncertainty reduction theory, also known as initial interaction theory, developed in 1975 by Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese, is a communication theory from the post-positivist tradition. It is one of the few communication theories that specifically looks into the initial interaction between people prior to the actual communication process. Uncertainty reduction theory originators main goal when constructing it was to explain how communication is used to reduce uncertainty between strangers during a first interaction. Uncertainty reduction theory claims that everyone activates two processes in order to reduce uncertainty. The first being a proactive process, which focuses on what someone might do. The second being a retroactive process, which focuses on how people understand what another does or says. This theory's main claim is that people must receive information about another party in order to reduce their uncertainty and, that people want to do so. While uncertainty reduction theory claims that communication will lead to reduced uncertainty, it is important to note that this is not always the case. Dr. Dale E. Brashers of the University of Illinois argues that in some scenarios, more communication may lead to greater uncertainty.

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is a pedagogical approach wherein learning takes place via social interaction using a computer or through the Internet. This kind of learning is characterized by the sharing and construction of knowledge among participants using technology as their primary means of communication or as a common resource. CSCL can be implemented in online and classroom learning environments and can take place synchronously or asynchronously.

Presence is a theoretical concept describing the extent to which media represent the world. Presence is further described by Matthew Lombard and Theresa Ditton as “an illusion that a mediated experience is not mediated." Today, it often considers the effect that people experience when they interact with a computer-mediated or computer-generated environment. The conceptualization of presence borrows from multiple fields including communication, computer science, psychology, science, engineering, philosophy, and the arts. The concept of presence accounts for a variety of computer applications and Web-based entertainment today that are developed on the fundamentals of the phenomenon, in order to give people the sense of, as Sheridan called it, “being there."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social information processing (theory)</span>

Social information processing theory, also known as SIP, is a psychological and sociological theory originally developed by Salancik and Pfeffer in 1978. This theory explores how individuals make decisions and form attitudes in a social context, often focusing on the workplace. It suggests that people rely heavily on the social information available to them in their environments, including input from colleagues and peers, to shape their attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions.

The hyperpersonal model is a model of interpersonal communication that suggests computer-mediated communication (CMC) can become hyperpersonal because it "exceeds [face-to-face] interaction", thus affording message senders a host of communicative advantages over traditional face-to-face (FtF) interaction. The hyperpersonal model demonstrates how individuals communicate uniquely, while representing themselves to others, how others interpret them, and how the interactions create a reciprocal spiral of FtF communication. Compared to ordinary FtF situations, a hyperpersonal message sender has a greater ability to strategically develop and edit self-presentation, enabling a selective and optimized presentation of one's self to others.

Media naturalness theory is also known as the psychobiological model. The theory was developed by Ned Kock and attempts to apply Darwinian evolutionary principles to suggest which types of computer-mediated communication will best fit innate human communication capabilities. Media naturalness theory argues that natural selection has resulted in face-to-face communication becoming the most effective way for two people to exchange information.

Judee K. Burgoon is a professor of communication, family studies and human development at the University of Arizona, where she serves as director of research for the Center for the Management of Information and site director for the NSF-sponsored Center for Identification Technology Research. She is also involved with different aspects of interpersonal and nonverbal communication, deception, and new communication technologies. She is also director of human communication research for the Center for the Management of Information and site director for Center for Identification Technology Research at the university, and recently held an appointment as distinguished visiting professor with the department of communication at the University of Oklahoma, and the Center for Applied Social Research at the University of Oklahoma. Burgoon has authored or edited 13 books and monographs and has published nearly 300 articles, chapters and reviews related to nonverbal and verbal communication, deception, and computer-mediated communication. Her research has garnered over $13 million in extramural funding from the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Counterintelligence Field Activity, and the National Institutes of Mental Health. Among the communication theories with which she is most notably linked are: interpersonal adaptation theory, expectancy violations theory, and interpersonal deception theory. A recent survey identified her as the most prolific female scholar in communication in the 20th century.

Intercultural communicative competence in computer-supported collaborative learning, is the application of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), to provide intercultural communicative competence (ICC) to its users.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interpersonal communication</span> Exchange of information among people

Interpersonal communication is an exchange of information between two or more people. It is also an area of research that seeks to understand how humans use verbal and nonverbal cues to accomplish a number of personal and relational goals.

Joseph B. Walther is the Mark and Susan Bertelsen Presidential Chair in Technology and Society and the Director of the Center for Information Technology & Society at the University of California, Santa Barbara. His research focuses on social and interpersonal dynamics of computer-mediated communication, in groups, personal relationships, organizational and educational settings. He is noted for creating social information processing theory in 1992 and the hyperpersonal model in 1996.

Channel expansion theory (CET) states that individual experience serves as an important role in determining the level of richness perception and development towards certain media tools. It is a theory of communication media perception that incorporates experiential factors to explain and predict user perceptions of a given media channel. The theory suggests that the more knowledge and experience users gain from using a channel, the richer they perceive the medium to be. The more experience, the more stable the knowledge base the person builds, the more knowledge he gains from the given media channel, thus the richer communication he would have using that channel, and ultimately the richer he would perceive the channel. There are four experiential factors that shapes individual's perceived media richness: experience with the channel, experience with the message topic, experience with the organizational context, and experience with a communication partner.

Emotions in virtual communication are expressed and understood in a variety of different ways from those in face-to-face interactions. Virtual communication continues to evolve as technological advances emerge that give way to new possibilities in computer-mediated communication (CMC). The lack of typical auditory and visual cues associated with human emotion gives rise to alternative forms of emotional expression that are cohesive with many different virtual environments. Some environments provide only space for text based communication, where emotions can only be expressed using words. More newly developed forms of expression provide users the opportunity to portray their emotions using images.

Affiliative conflict theory (ACT) is a social psychological approach that encompasses interpersonal communication and has a background in nonverbal communication. This theory postulates that "people have competing needs or desires for intimacy and autonomy". In any relationship, people will negotiate and try to rationalize why they are acting the way they are in order to maintain a comfortable level of intimacy.

References

  1. ↑ Biocca, Frank; Harms, Chad; Burgoon, Judee K. (October 2003). "Toward a More Robust Theory and Measure of Social Presence: Review and Suggested Criteria". Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. 12 (5): 456–480. doi:10.1162/105474603322761270. ISSN   1054-7460. S2CID   34210666.
  2. ↑ Cui, Guoqiang; Lockee, Barbara; Meng, Cuiqing (2012-03-11). "Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends". Education and Information Technologies. 18 (4): 661–685. doi:10.1007/s10639-012-9192-1. ISSN   1360-2357. S2CID   254412061.
  3. ↑ Cui, Guoqiang; Lockee, Barbara; Meng, Cuiqing (2012-03-11). "Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends". Education and Information Technologies. 18 (4): 661–685. doi:10.1007/s10639-012-9192-1. ISSN   1360-2357. S2CID   254412061.
  4. ↑ Chang, Chun-Ming; Hsu, Meng-Hsiang (2016-02-15). "Understanding the determinants of users' subjective well-being in social networking sites: an integration of social capital theory and social presence theory". Behaviour & Information Technology. 35 (9): 720–729. doi:10.1080/0144929x.2016.1141321. ISSN   0144-929X. S2CID   30944569.
  5. 1 2 3 Cui, Guoqiang; Lockee, Barbara; Meng, Cuiqing (2012-03-11). "Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends". Education and Information Technologies. 18 (4): 661–685. doi:10.1007/s10639-012-9192-1. ISSN   1360-2357. S2CID   254412061.
  6. ↑ Cui, Guoqiang; Lockee, Barbara; Meng, Cuiqing (2012-03-11). "Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends". Education and Information Technologies. 18 (4): 661–685. doi:10.1007/s10639-012-9192-1. ISSN   1360-2357. S2CID   254412061.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Short, John; Williams, Ederyn; Christie, Bruce (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ISBN   978-0471015819.
  8. ↑ Lombard, Matthew; Ditton, Theresa (1997). "At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence". Computer Mediated Communication. 3.
  9. 1 2 3 Grieve, Rachel; Padgett, Christine R.; Moffitt, Robyn L. (2016-01-01). "Assignments 2.0: The role of social presence and computer attitudes in student preferences for online versus offline marking". The Internet and Higher Education. 28: 8–16. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.002.
  10. ↑ Krish 2012, p. 101-102.
  11. 1 2 Westerman 2015, p. 95
  12. 1 2 Sallnas, Rassmus-Grohn, & Sjostrom 2000.
  13. ↑ Tu and McIssac, 2002
  14. 1 2 3 4 Dixson, Marcia (2016). "Nonverbal immediacy behaviors and online student engagement: bringing past instructional research into the present virtual classroom". Communication Education. 66: 37–53. doi:10.1080/03634523.2016.1209222. S2CID   151596209.
  15. ↑ "Curriculum Vitae – Patrick R. Lowenthal". Google Docs . June 2021. Retrieved 6 September 2021.
  16. ↑ Cui, Guoqiang; Lockee, Barbara; Meng, Cuiqing (2012-03-11). "Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends". Education and Information Technologies. 18 (4): 661–685. doi:10.1007/s10639-012-9192-1. ISSN   1360-2357. S2CID   254412061.
  17. 1 2 Short, John, Ederyn Williams, and Bruce Christie 1976.
  18. ↑ Rice, 1993
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 Walther 1992.
  20. ↑ Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). "Social presence theory and implications for interaction collaborative learning in computer conferences". International Journal of Education Telecommunications. 1 (2): 147–166.
  21. ↑ Wei, J; Seedorf, S; Lowry, P; Thum, C; Schulze, T (August 2017). "How increased social presence through co-browsing influences user engagement in collaborative online shopping". Electronic Commerce Research and Applications. 24: 84–99. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2017.07.002. hdl: 10722/245387 .
  22. 1 2 3 Cobb, Susan Copley (2009). "Social Presence and Online Learning: A Current View from a Research Perspective" (PDF). Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 8.
  23. ↑ Baozhou, Lu; Weighou, Fan; Zhou, Mi (2015). "Social presence, trust, and social commerce purchase intention: An empirical research". Computers in Human Behavior. 56: 225–237. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.057.
  24. 1 2 3 Argyle & Dean 1965.
  25. ↑ Burgeoon, et al., 1984
  26. ↑ Cui, Guoqiang; Lockee, Barbara; Meng, Cuiqing (2012-03-11). "Building modern online social presence: A review of social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends". Education and Information Technologies. 18 (4): 661–685. doi:10.1007/s10639-012-9192-1. ISSN   1360-2357. S2CID   254412061.
  27. ↑ Tu, Chih-Hsiung (January 2000). "On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in a CMC environment". Journal of Network and Computer Applications. 23: 27–37. doi:10.1006/jnca.1999.0099.
  28. 1 2 Steinfield 1986.
  29. ↑ Turner, J (2018). "Options for the Construction of Attentional Social Presence in a Digitally Enhanced Multicommunicative Environment". Communication Theory. 28: 22–45. doi:10.1093/ct/qty002.
  30. ↑ Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon 2003.
  31. 1 2 3 Birdwhistell, R.L. (1970). Kinesics and Context. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
  32. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Argyle, M (1969). Social Interaction. London: Methuen.
  33. ↑ Argyle, M; Lalljee, M; Cook, M (1968). "The effects of visibility on interaction in the dyad". Human Relations. 21: 3–17. doi:10.1177/001872676802100101. S2CID   143613225.
  34. ↑ Kehrwald 2008.
  35. ↑ Shen, Yu, & Khalifa 2010, p. 338
  36. ↑ Kendall & Kendall, 2017
  37. ↑ Kendall & Kendall 2017, p. 64.
  38. ↑ Roberts, Jennifer J. (2019-09-26). "Online learning as a form of distance education: Linking formation learning in theology to the theories of distance education". HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies. 75 (1): 9. doi: 10.4102/hts.v75i1.5345 . ISSN   2072-8050. S2CID   204367149.
  39. ↑ Mennecke, Brian E.; Triplett, Janea L.; Hassall, Lesya M.; Conde, Zayira Jordán; Heer, Rex (2011-04-26). "An Examination of a Theory of Embodied Social Presence in Virtual Worlds*". Decision Sciences. 42 (2): 413–450. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2011.00317.x. ISSN   0011-7315. S2CID   10503085.
  40. 1 2 Shen, Yu, & Khalifa 2010, p. 339.
  41. 1 2 Kilic Cakmak, Cebi, & Kan 2014, p. 764
  42. ↑ Osei-Frimpong, K; McLean, G (March 2018). "Examining online social brand engagement: A social presence theory perspective" (PDF). Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 128: 10–21. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.010.
  43. 1 2 Jahng, M; Littau, J (2016). "Interacting Is Believing: Interactivity, Social Cue, and Perceptions of Journalistic Credibility on Twitter". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 93: 38–58. doi:10.1177/1077699015606680. S2CID   147467235.
  44. ↑ Kreijns, Karel; Xu, Kate; Weidlich, Joshua (2021-06-22). "Social Presence: Conceptualization and Measurement". Educational Psychology Review. 34 (1): 139–170. doi:10.1007/s10648-021-09623-8. ISSN   1040-726X. PMC   8217203 . PMID   34177204.
  45. ↑ Kilic Cakmak, Cebi, & Kan 2014, p. 765.
  46. ↑ Kilic Cakmak, Cebi, & Kan 2014.
  47. ↑ Wei, Chen, & Kinshuk 2012.
  48. ↑ Lowenthal, Patrick R. (2010), "The Evolution and Influence of Social Presence Theory on Online Learning", Social Computing, IGI Global, pp. 113–128, doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-984-7.ch010, ISBN   9781605669847 , retrieved 2022-10-17
  49. ↑ Johnson, R. D., Hornik, S., & Salas, E. (2008). "An empirical examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful e-learning environments". International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,66(5), 356-369.
  50. 1 2 iSALT Team (2014-01-01). "Social Presence Theory". ISALT Resources: Theories, Concepts, and Measures.
  51. ↑ Tu, Chih-Hsiung (January 2001). "How Chinese Perceive Social Presence: An Examination of Interaction in Online Learning Environment". Educational Media International. 38 (1): 45–60. doi:10.1080/09523980010021235. ISSN   0952-3987. S2CID   143947023.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.