When it comes to human relationships and communication, there is frequently an assumption that face-to-face is best. When the Internet first took off, in the mid 90s, there was a concern that computers would make ‘real’ communication more difficult. Even today, the vast majority of computer-mediated communication is text-based, and doesn’t involve the use of web-cams.

So it might be quite surprising to find that psychology research shows that people who communicate via a computer (such as email, Internet chat room or a social networking site) are more friendly, disclose more information about themselves and thus can develop a close relationship more quickly than if they meet face-to-face. This is one reason why organisations should consider using technologies such as social networking to create communities and boost engagement in the workplace.

There are a number of theories which contribute to this phenomenon:

Anonymity:

It has been suggested that the reason people tend to be more open if they communicate through a computer is due to anonymity[1], the use of pseudonyms which are common in newsgroups and chat rooms [2] and ‘the strangers on a train’ phenomenon, whereby people tend to disclose a lot more information about themselves to others they think they’re unlikely to meet again[3]. Additionally research has also shown that people are more honest when asked questions by a computer than in a face-to-face meeting. What we don’t know, however, is whether the choice of the Internet in the first place is motivated by a predisposition to self-disclose.

Visibility:

People also disclose more when they are visually anonymous, which is typical in many forms of computer-mediated communication.  But when a web-cam is introduced into the equation, the amount of self-disclosure as well as the amount of talking is reduced[4]. Visual anonymity means that people are unencumbered by prejudice or stigma based on their physical appearance, gender or age, so interaction with others over the Internet/via a computer may be liberating and empowering, resulting in changes in how they see themselves e.g. developing their confidence and assertiveness.

Absence of non-verbal cues:

Visual anonymity also means an absence of the normal non-verbal cues, which in turn enables people to choose how they present themselves, for example, as more friendly, knowledgeable or empathic [5]. The computer thus acts as a medium for re-inventing oneself, consciously or unconsciously. This doesn’t mean that people are necessarily pretending to be someone they’re not; some researchers have suggested that communication via a computer is a medium to present the true and authentic self3.

Text-based rather than verbal:

There are a number of reason why communicating in writing differs to face-to-face interaction. Firstly, text-based interaction means that you have time to reflect on your message before sending it. The fact that you can choose how and when (or if) to respond means that you have the opportunity to present yourself in particular way. You are more in control of what you communicate (or not) and when.

Secondly, writing down feelings or experiences can be therapeutic and cause cognitive changes[6], which might encourage further self-disclosure.

De-individuation

De-individuation[7] is a process whereby certain social conditions (in particular anonymity) lead to changes in the way you perceive yourself and others, and result in less-restrained behaviour[8]. It has been suggested that this less-restrained behaviour is a reflection of the true self: ‘under the protective cloak of anonymity users can express the way they truly feel and think’.

Detached Attachment

Detached attachment, or ‘dettachment’, refers to the unique opposing features of an online relationship, in that it is distant and immediate at the same time. Online friends might be geographically separate, but they are actually in the same (cyber)space[9]. And whilst they are geographically separate, they are temporally and emotionally immediate.

Online relationships are thus a complex phenomenon, showing many paradoxical features. Although it’s often said that people are less friendly with their neighbours nowadays, electronic communication like social networking is enabling us to easily create and maintain social ties with people on the other side of the world, which was impossible 10 or 20 years ago. Research into social networking is still relatively new, and whilst the form of human relationships seems to be changing, the need to make close connections with our fellow beings is as important, if not more important, than ever. Technology can enable the creation and maintenance of friendships, you just need to be aware that they can develop more quickly than you think.

[2] Finn (1999)

[3] Bargh et al (2002)

[4] Joinson (2001).

[5] Tanis (2007)

[6] Pennebacker (1997)

[7] Zimbardo (1969)

[8] McKenna & Bargh (2000, p62)

[9] Cairncross (1997); Kellerman (2002)

Image: Looking Glass

What initially struck me about the CWM was the sheer energy in the room, even before the main debate got underway. About a quarter of the delegates were new to the network, the atmosphere warm and welcoming, in sharp contrast to the rather solemn surroundings.

The panel, made up of

• Aliza Blachman O’Keeffe (Executive Coach with Eden McCallum)
• Jane Atkinson (PR and image consultant, former spokesperson for the late Diana, Princess of Wales),
• Stuart Higgins (ex-editor of the Sun and now MD of Stuart Higgins Communications), and
• Neville Hobson (VP New Marketing for Crayon and blogger-extraordinaire),

contrasted traditional and new media contexts in a lively and engaging way, drawing on their personal experience and including many anecdotes to illustrate their points of view.

And what also intrigued me was the contrast between the way ‘old’ and new media works, with the latter having an unforeseen level of impact on every aspect of PR and personal branding, as well as on society more generally.

* In traditional media (newspapers and mainstream TV) it may take several months or even years to carefully craft the ‘right’ public image. With new media (basically anything delivered using the internet), this might be achieved within days or even hours.

Business people might dismiss this as only relevant to the world of celebrity, but the point is that personal and corporate reputations can be improved or tarnished in just the same amount of time.

In addition, your (or your company’s) public image can even be created or affected without your agreement or knowledge. We were advised by Neville Hobson to google our own names when we got home – whilst we may not be able to change what is out there in the public arena, at least we can be aware of it. Forewarned is forearmed.

It seems that the rewards for getting it right can be enormous, but the risks are equally large.

* The way new media works dictates that authenticity is crucial. When you’re in the public eye (voluntarily or not), if you’re not authentic you’ll be found out and exposed, and probably sooner rather than later. So why is authenticity so important?

* Well, authenticity is linked to trust, and new technology has contributed to a huge change in the nature of trust in society. According to Neville Hobson, we are more likely to trust ‘a person like me’ than our politicians or the media. It seems that we are now prepared to trust people we’ve never met and probably never will, simply because we got talking to them in an internet chat-room, or liked what they had to say on a blog. Therefore, if you want to create a professional image which is trusted and respected, be authentic.

There were several questions to the panel along the lines of “given what we’ve heard about the dangers, should I try to establish a personal brand at all?” Stuart Higgins quoted an example of a very high profile woman whose reputation has been enhanced by the fact that she has resolutely kept quiet at public engagements. It works both ways. The key is to know what you’re going into and to adhere to the simple rules.

And what of the business world? Well, the Edelman Annual Trust Barometer states that

Trust has important bottom-line consequences. In most markets, more than 80% [of respondents] say they would refuse to buy goods or services from a company they do not trust, and more than 70% will criticize them to people they know, with one-third sharing their opinions and experiences of a distrusted company on the Web.

So companies are not immune from the issues surrounding authenticity and trust.

According to Edelman, “To build trust, companies need to localize communications, be transparent, and engage multiple stakeholders continuously as advocates across a broad array of communications channels’

For another perspective on this CWN event, see writer Yang-May Ooi’s blog.

Other reports and surveys about the nature of trust :

Reuters survey

Public trust and confidence in charities – Nov 05

Public Affairs News – Democratisation of Trust

IEEE Communications Society – Survey of Trust in Internet Applications – 2000

Trust Us – Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting