The relationship between social presence and online privacy

Internet and Higher Education

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 293-318

  Tu, Chih Hsiung ^a  

^a Graduate School of Education and Human Development   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer mediated communication; Online learning; Online privacy; Social environment; Social presence

Indexed keywords

BULLETIN BOARDS; ELECTRONIC MAIL; LEARNING SYSTEMS; ONLINE SYSTEMS; REAL TIME SYSTEMS; SECURITY OF DATA; SOCIAL ASPECTS; STUDENTS;

COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION; ONLINE LEARNING; ONLINE PRIVACY; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; SOCIAL PRESENCE;

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION;

EID: 2942518136     PISSN: 10967516     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00134-3     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Archer R.L., Hormuth S.E., Berg J.H. Avoidance of self-disclosure: an experiment under conditions of self-awareness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 8(1):1982;122-128.
2. Argyle M., Dean J. Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry. 28(3):1965;289-304.
3. Bartlett M.S. Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology, Statistical Section. 3(2):1950;77-85.
4. Biocca F. Cyborg's dilemma: embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 3(2):1997;. (Retrieved November 11, 1998, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/biocca2.html ).
5. Blocher, J. M. (1997). Self-regulation of strategies and motivation to enhance interaction and social presence in computer mediated communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.
6. Bullen M. Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. Journal of Distance Education. 13(2):1998;. (Retrieved June 1, 2001, from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol13.2/bullen.html ).
7. Burgoon J.K., Buller D.B., Hale J.L., deTurck M. Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Human Communication Research. 10(3):1984;351-378.
8. Champness, B. G. (1972). Attitudes towards person-person communications media. University College, London: Unpublished Communications Studies Group Paper No. E/72011/CH.
9. Champness B.G. Attitudes toward person-person communications media. Human Factors. 15:1973;437-448.
10. Christie B., Holloway S. Factors affecting the use of telecommunications by management. Journal of Occupation Psychology. 48:1975;3-9.
11. Denning D., Lin H.S. Rights and responsibilities in networked communities. 1994;National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
12. Denzin N.K. The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. 3rd ed. 1989;Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
13. Derlega V.J., Metts S., Petronio S., Hendrick C., Margulis S.T. Self-disclosure. 1993;Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
14. Finholt T., Sproull L.S. Electronic groups at work. Organization Science. 1(1):1990;41-64.
15. Friedman, B. (1990). Societal issues and school practices: an ethnographic investigation of the social context of school computer use. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
16. Garramone G.M., Harris A.C., Anderson R. Uses of political computer bulletin boards. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. 30(3):1986;325-339.
17. Goffman E. The presentation of self everyday life. 1959;Doubleday, New York.
18. Gunawardena, C. N. (1991). Collaborative learning and group dynamics in computer-mediated communication networks. Research Monograph No. 9 of the Second American Symposium on Research in Distance Education. (pp. 14-24). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, American Center for the Study of Distance Education.
19. Gunawardena C.N. Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications. 1(2/3):1995;147-166.
20. Gunawardena C.N., Zittle F.J. Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education. 11(3):1997;8-26.
21. Johansen R., Vallee J., Spangler K. Teleconferencing: electronic group communication. Cathcart R.S., Samovar L.A. Small group communication: a reader. 5th ed. 1988;140-154 Institute for the Future, Menlo Park, CA.
22. Kerr E.B., Hiltz S.R. Computer-mediated communication systems: status and evaluation. 1982;Academic Press, New York.
23. Knapp T.R., Swoyer V.H. Some empirical results concerning the power of Bartlett's test of the significance of a correlation matrix. American Educational Research Journal. 4(1):1967;13-17.
24. Leh A.S.C. Computer-mediated communication and social presence in a distance learning environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications. 7(2):2001;109-128.
25. Lincoln Y.S., Guba E.G. Naturalistic inquiry. 1985;Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
26. Markus M.L. Finding a happy medium: explaining the negative effects of electronic communication on social life at work. ACM Transactions on Information Systems. 12(2):1994;119-149.
27. McBride, N. K., & Bazley, M. (1997). Threads of conversation: the life of a public e-mail conference. Paper presented at the 5th European Conference on Information Systems.
28. Neumann P. Computer-related risks. 1995;ACM Press, New York.
29. Patton M.Q. Qualitative evaluation methods. 1980;Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
30. Pedhazur E.J., Schmelkin L. Measurement, design, and analysis: an integrated approach. 1991;Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
31. Perse E.I., Burton P., Kovner E., Lears M.E., Sen R.J. Predicting computer-mediated communication in a college class. Communication Research Reports. 9(2):1992;161-170.
32. Polhemus, L., Shih, L. F., & Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interactivity: the representation of social presence in an online discussion. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of American Educational Research Association.
33. Rice R.E. Media appropriateness: using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organization media. Human Communication Research. 19(4):1993;451-484.
34. Rifkind L.J. Immediacy as a predictor of teacher effectiveness in the instructional television. Journal of Interactive Television. 1(1):1992;31-38.
35. Ryan M.G. The influence of teleconferencing medium and status on participants' perception of the aestheticism, evaluation, privacy, potency, and activity of the medium. Human Communication Research. 2(3):1976;255-261.
36. Short J.A., Williams E., Christie B. The social psychology of telecommunications. 1976;Wiley, London.
37. Spears R., Lea M. Social influence and the influence of the 'social' in computer-mediated communication. Lea M. Contexts of computer-mediated communication. 1992;30-65 Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.
38. Sproull L.S., Kiesler S. Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science. 32(11):1986;1492-1512.
39. Steinfield C.W. Computer-mediated communication in an organizational setting: explaining task-related and socioemotional uses. McLaughlin M.L. Communication yearbook 9. 1986;777-804 Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
40. Swan, K., Polhemus, L., & Shih, V. (2002). An investigation of the development of social presence in asynchronous online course discussions. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of American Educational Research Association (AERA).
41. Towell J., Towell E. Presence in text-based networked virtual environments or "MUDS" Presence. 6(5):1997;590-595.
42. Tu C.H. Critical examination of factors affecting interaction on CMC. Journal of Network and Computer Applications. 23(1):2000;39-58.
43. Tu C.H. How Chinese perceive social presence: an examination of in online learning environment. Educational Media International. 38(1):2001;45-60.
44. Tu, C. H. (2002a). The impact of online tasks and social relationships on social presence in online knowledge construction learning community. Unpublished Manuscript. Washington, DC: The George Washington University.
45. Tu C.H. The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. International Journal on E-Learning. 1(2):2002;34-45.
46. Tu, C. H. (in press). The impacts of text-based computer-mediated communication on online social presence. Journal of Interactive Online learning.
47. Tu, C. H., & Blocher, J. M. (2000). Integrating student publishing and peer evaluation on the Internet using a database-driven design. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of American Educational Research Association. Retrieved April 3, 2002, from http://home.gwu.edu/~ctu/publication/2002/sp3cmc. pdf
48. Tu, C. H., & Corry, M. (2002). Social presence and critical thinking for online learning. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association.
49. Tu C.H., McIsaac M.S. An examination of social presence to increase interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education. 16(3):2002;131-150.
50. Walther J.B. Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a relational perspective. Communication Research. 19(1):1992;52-90.
51. Walther J.B., Burgoon J.K. Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research. 19:1992;50-88.
52. Weisband S.P., Reinig B.A. Managing user perceptions of email privacy. Communications of the ACM. 38(12):1995;40-47.
53. Wiener M., Mehrabian A. Language within language: immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. 1968;Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
54. Williams F., Rice R.E. Communication research and the new media technologies. Bostrom R.N. Communication yearbook 7. 1983;200-224 Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
55. Witmer D.F. Risky business: why people feel safe in sexually explicit on-line communication. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 2(4):1997.