Suggested citation:
Kelly, T. L. (1997). "Conversational Narcissism in Hyperpersonal Interaction." (Unpublished graduate paper, Portland State University, October 1997). Portland, OR: Author.
Introduction
This paper reviews the literature for conversational narcissism and its function in hyperpersonal interaction facilitated by computer-mediated communication (CMC). More than half of computer users use their computers at least part of the time for socializing (Reid, 1994; Hellerstein, 1986; Rheingold, 1993; Walther & Burgoon, 1992.) A longstanding area of the internet that mediates hyperpersonal interaction is Internet Relay Chat (IRC). Joseph B. Walther (1996) names this sort of interpersonal communication in cyberspace, "hyperpersonal interaction." Though the medium is different than FTF (face-to-face) conversation, the strategies for interaction management are often the same (Rintel & Pittam, 1997).
Literature Review
Elizabeth Reid (1992) in "Electropolis: Communication and Community on Internet Relay Chat," says IRC is "essentially a playground," it's primary function social and recreational. This tendency toward informal, even undisciplined, discourse is part of the reason IRC is treated with little tolerance and moderate disdain by some serious scholars. IRC is a program and a system and a culture that in 1993 was populated primarily by undergraduate students, often computer science majors (Crump, 1993). However, the popularity of IRC has grown exponentially since then, with the development of software that makes IRC easy to navigate. Comparable "head counts" have been performed since Crump's study, and based on these this writer would argue that the culture base of IRC has expanded far beyond the subgroups of "undergraduates" and "computer science majors" to include such a mix of proportions one would normally find in a generic culture or subculture.
Sean Rintel, using Laver's model of phatic communion as a guide, states there is no way to find out status information on IRC except "by exchange of verbal utterances either freely given or in answer to questions." (Rintel, 1997) However, that's not necessarily so. There are cues that signify status (ownership of a bot, status of channel op, and universally recognized e-mail addresses that denote status, such as chomsky@mit.edu) and that point to social status in the medium itself. Rintel agrees that these are status cues, but that he was unable to include them in his study (personal communication with Rintel, 1997). Furthermore, this status constitutes a hierarchy of authority that has been demonstrated to influence hyperpersonal interaction management (Peterson & Davie, 1996) An argument can be made that hyperpersonal interaction strategies in cyberspace include conversational narcissism., though David Kolb claims that it is not possible to monopolize attention in such a medium (Kolb, 1996).
What is conversational narcissism? The term was first used by Charles Derber (1979) to designate "ways that American conversationalists act to turn the topics of ordinary conversation to themselves without showing sustained interest in others' topics" (p. 5). Derber's work grew out of studying Georg Simmel's work on the sociology of interpersonal life (Simmel, 1950) and Erving Goffman's work on FTF relations. (Goffman, 1959). Derber observed two possible responses conversationalists use to either direct focus on the speaker, on oneself, or redirect the focus of conversation to self: a "support response" or a "shift-response." The shift-response - redirecting focus of attention in a conversation to oneself - is the hallmark of the conversational narcissist. Derber finds that the "pervasive tendency for individuals to seek predominant attention for themselves" is a component of American culture because it supports individualism, self-gratification and encourages self-interest and self-absorption (Derber, 1979). This finding was built upon Christopher Lasch's theory of a culture of narcissism. Lasch also specified that it is an American phenomenon (Lasch, 1979). Most of the social science literature on narcissism addresses the pathological and not the communicative manifestation.
Anita Vangelisti & Mark Knapp expanded on Derber's model, suggesting ways narcissistic characteristics may be manifested in conversation (Vangelisti, Knapp, & Daly, 1990). She names: inflated artificial self-importance, exploitation of others for personal gain, utilizing what Lasch calls a "calculating seductiveness" (Lasch, 1979); exhibitionism in order to gain center of attention, and a propensity towards impersonal relationships devoid of empathy. One method of creating interpersonal distance is to use an intimacy-seeking strategy like self-disclosure in a non-intimate manner, such as at the wrong time or too frequently. (This opens up interesting questions regarding studies of self-disclosure, addressed later in this paper.) The narcissist has a difficult time with intimate relationships. In addition, conversationally narcissistic strategies include boasting, refocusing the topic of conversation on the self, exaggerating hand and body movements, using a loud tone of voice, and "glazing over" when others speak (Vangelisti et al, 1990).
The underlying assumption that physical contact is necessarily a part of human communication pervades social theory. (Reid, 1994) It can be argued that not all components of converational narcisissm as defined by Derber and elaborated by Vangelisti can be considered in a relational model for hyperpersonal interaction, because of the limitations of CMC. For instance, it is impossible to see if a participant in an IRC chat channel is exaggerating her hand and body movements. However, the use of "emoticons" (facial expressions indicated in certain kinds of punctuation mark combinations), exaggerated punctuation, and capitalizing sentences to denote shouting, are universally recognized (in cyberspace) as indications of the sort of body language so important to understanding FTF communication (Rintel & Putnam).
Derber's strategies were observed in conversations between American participants, as were Vangelisti's. To this point, all research on conversational narcissism has been done strictly between Americans. However, hyperpersonal interaction in cyberspace is not strictly an American past-time. Do Derber's and Lasch's models hold up outside of a strictly American context? It is possible to consider certain IRC channels as subcultures, with specific behaviors that identify it as such (Hellerstein, 1985; Sproull, et al., 1984). For instance, a channel called "30plus" consists of Americans, Australians, Dutch, Canadians, British and South African men and women over the age of 30. People have met on the channel and later married. Babies have been born. Deaths have occurred. World events have been experienced together (such as the Persian Gulf War). Channel participants have been socializing daily on 30plus since 1990 about these and other personal and social matters that are comparable to interpersonal interaction within a culture or subculture. The personal experience over years of IRC observation by this writer has shown that IRC channel "subcultures" that utilize the English language are rarely strictly comprised of Americans (indeed, many of those researching social interaction on IRC fail to account for the time they are not online. IRC is a culture that never sleeps. Participation at any one time relies on the movement of the planet.)
CMC interactions have long been shown to foster socioemotional interaction (Rice and Love, 1987; Reid, 1992, 1994; Walther, 1992). One assumption that is made about CMC is that the nature of the medium makes it impossible to monopolize attention (Kolb, 1996). However, Kolb wrote this in the context of e-mail discussion lists. Likewise, Charles Steinfield explored the task and "socio-emotional" use of electronic mail in an office setting. He found a number of variables which could be used to predict the social use of the computer, among them being the actual "social presence" of the computer and the amount of time a person had been employed by the organization. (Steinfield, 1986.) This is important because a significant percentage of IRC users are "logged in" from their workplace, during their work hours. The overall picture of which type of CMC one is observing apparently has a critical bearing on whether or not interpersonal aspects such as conversational narcissism will be found.
There are some differences in interactional strategies in CMC, as compared to FTF interaction. There is "flaming," and it is an important component of understanding the limits of hyperpersonal communication and also in understanding how conversational narcissism can be achieved in specific areas of cyberspace. Flaming constitutes a distinctive characteristic of IRC, newsgroups and electronic mail. Definitions vary, but it generally means "attacking someone personally for their posting" by using "insults, swearing, and hostile, intense language," including using all capital letters to denote shouting. (Walther, 1992).
The study of conversational narcissism as a significant component in interpersonal communication and hyperpersonal interaction can be drawn from a semiotic blueprint (Shank, 1994). Three basic types of semiotic conversation can be identified by using the Jakobson model (1970) The first one is the monologue. A single sender passing information to one or more passive receivers is a monologue. The second type is a dialogue. The sender and receiver take turns exchanging information in a dialogue. The third type of conversation is the discussion. A discussion starts with one sender and multiple receivers, and then the receivers take turns being senders while the initial sender still retains control of the conversation.
Conversation in IRC requires a different sort of definition. Though the information relayed from senders to receivers "scrolls" down the screen in much the same way that film credits scroll down at the end of a movie, everybody is "talking" at once. There are an infinite number of points of origin for jumping into the discussion. And there is no one sender or receiver controlling the flow of information. What there is is a quasi-discussion that has the potential to use the commonalities of verbal communication as well as the idiosyncrasies of written text to convey information. This type of conversation has been called a multilogue (Shank, 1994).
Kolb said it is impossible to monopolize the attention in a multilogue, particularly in the context of e-mail discussion lists. It can be argued that Kolb implied other forms of CMC in that assumption. By observing conversational narcissism during hyperpersonal interactions on IRC, it is possible to rule out Kolb's assumption , at least with those forms of multilogue that are of the live "chat room" variety. Toward accomplishing this research into the interpersonal aspects of CMC, Walther posted research questions in his 1988 Research Proposal for CMC:
1. How does relational communication (i.e., the dimensions thereof) compare in face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication?
2. Does anonymity have an effect on the above-named processes? How is this related to group satisfaction?
3. What is the effect of anonymity on reticent individuals' participation in computer-mediated communication?
4. What is the effect of conferencing system-based course content discussions on learning?
These questions form a base from which further questions about specific aspects of hyperpersonal interaction can be resolved. Another important area of research for understanding the subject of this paper comes from social network theory and is indicated in an abstract for a paper by James Vanleuven, entitled "Toward a Theory of Channel Effects":
"Little theory development has gone into the part played by channels in the communication process despite advancesin new communication technologies. In response, thispaper considers the channel characteristics most suited to explaining in use and effect. They are (1) social cueing, (2) feedback, and (3) user control opportunity. The various combinations of these three characteristics are considered here as systems of tradeoffs and are further considered within the rubric of exchange theory. Not only does exchange theory provide a rationale for selecting different channels for different purposes but it also offers an aegis for studying the effects of those channel characteristics by applying learning theory or reinforcement principles to channel selection and use study (1987)."
The importance of this angle on the special case of conversational narcissism in hyperpersonal interaction is that prior to engaging in conversational narcissism, the narcissist has the ability to watch a conversation unfold on IRC and control her entries and exits into that conversation. In other words, she has a significant advantage as a result of the limited capacity of CMC in what Vanleuven calls "user control opportunity." She may choose not to answer questions directed to her, and once the question scrolls past the screen it is arguably not a concern for anybody except the one who asked the question. The narcissist therefores uses Vanleuven's social cueing, feedback and user control opportunity to accomplish successful acts of conversational narcissism. Why this is significant is that it has not been established that conversational narcissism is a detriment to hyperpersonal interaction. It is quite possibly the desired form of interaction in cyberspace. This has implications for defining hyperpersonal interaction and in what exactly to observe once it is defined, so that assumptions in interpersonal communication theory are not directly transferred to assumptions in hyperpersonal communication.
If basic assumptions in interpersonal communicatin do not readily transfer over to the same for hyperpersonal communication, then the paradigm of self-disclosure - both in and out of cyberspace - may change. In his paper, "The Internet, Electric Gaia and the Rise of the Uncensored Self," Michael Strangelove describes his views of how the Internet will give birth to "a new form of human behavior and new form of human consciousness--the uncensored self" (Strangelove, 1994). Also, according to a longitudinal study comparing CMC to FTF interaction, Walther found that it is not clear from social presence theory whether media characteristics are the causal determinants of communication differences or whether the users' subjective perceptions of media influence their behavior. In other words, while there are inherent media characteristics, it is equally possible that users' perceptions of these characteristics may be subjective and socially constructed (Walther, 1992).
Another imporant area of CMC to research further is hypersonal intercultural interaction. As was stated before, it is not the norm in IRC chat channels for their to be only Americans present. There does seem to exist a limitation to English-only so far observed, however. The internet offers an excellent opportunity to observe the processes by which the relative status of different languages are negotiated in contact situations, both because extensive contact between groups is taking place, making negotiation necessary, and because the discourse by which language status is negotiated can be readily collected,archived and analyzed. How frequently are languages other than English used on-line? What patterns of use, such as codeswitching and functional specialization of languages -- are evident in the on-line discourse of bilinguals, and what motivates these patterns? What subtle differences in communication management show up in an analysis of CMC between English-speaking cultures?
While this new form of communication is growing in use and popularity, its growth is accompanied by scientific interest in regard to how this hyperpersonal interaction is affecting its users and longstanding paradigms of communication management. While early studies in CMC focused on usage patterns (Hiltz, 1981), more recent work reflects an interest in the effects of the medium on group dynamics and decision-making (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984), and the use and effects of emoticons (Asteroff, 1987). In the realms of person perception and relational communication, although DeSanctis and Gallupe (1987) speculated that CMC would reduce interpersonal attraction and group cohesiveness by increasing the perceived distance between participants, a study by Lim and Facciola (1988) obtained greater attractiveness and credibility ratings via computer conferencing than with FTF interaction.
How does this relate to conversational narcissism? Derber found that conversational narcissism in FTF interaction had a negative effect on interpersonal interaction (Derber). Perhaps conversational narcissism has the opposite effect in hyperpersonal interaction. Nancy Baym has shown that wit and humor play a more decisive role in hyperpersonal communication that in FTF interaction with strangers. (Baym, 1995.) Vangelisti found that there were some situations in which conversational narcissism was "an appropriate social strategy" (Vangelisti et al, 1990). In such cases, narcissistic talk elicted favorable evaluations. There might be a correlation between a narcissistic approach to conversation in CMC and the reduction of face-saving behavior required in cyberspace due to the inherent anonymity in the medium.
Other related interests include how social cognitions may be affected by the medium, including such questions as whether the medium heightens users' focus on task dimensions due to the absence of nonverbal relational cues, or whether there is a heightened attention toward the "presence" of others since the conference records are permanent and retrievable, and if users compensate for this loss of nonverbal subtext through greater use of linguistic relational cues. In an examination of the key concepts of "telepresence" in cyberspace, it was suggested that further research was needed to determine "the complex variety of characteristics of medium and user" and how they contribute to "one identifiable type of perceptual illusion or experience"of presence (Lombard & Ditton, 1997). A reliable measure of telepresence would be very useful in determining features of the contrast between unwanted and wanted conversational narcissism. This may be related to Vangelisti's finding that conversational narcissism is sometimes warranted in a particular situation.
Additionally, scholars are discovering other interesting effects from their observations of CMC users, which beg further exploration and quantification. Widely divergent patterns of leadership emergence may be operating in FTF versus CMC discussion groups. It would be interesting to study, as well as informative for participants to learn, what criteria are used in leader nomination in either process; how are leadership functions differentially shared or centralized in either forum, and to what degree conversational narcissism plays a role in leadership selection.
Elsewhere, surprising findings have been made in computer-mediated brainstorming and decision-making sessions. In a recent study, the number of suggestions increases, reticence decreases, and better quality decisions are obtained under conditions of anonymity, i.e. when participants' names are not associated with their contributions. On the other hand, participants in these groups reported greater group satisfaction under non-anonymous/control conditions (Connolly, Jessup, & Valacich, in press). This latter finding would challenge Beebe and Masterson's (1986) claim that cohesiveness and group attractiveness are largely a function of task success.
Beryl Hoffman found that anonymity might promote more aggressive relational conflict statements under the guise of unaccountability (Hoffman, 1996) "More aggressive relational conflict statements" may be associated with conversational narcissism if it can be shown that flaming behavior is an identifiable weapon of the converational narcissist. The entire nature of conflict dimensions, interpretation, and management, as well as participation patterns, may be affected by this finding and its influence on social cognition.
Another important cognitive effect may pertain to learning. As IRC chat participants, students may process course content reviews differently than they would studying as FTFgroups. At best, increased cognitive effort in the review process may enhance knowledge acquisition. At the simplest level, the nature of the IRC system--in that it does not require the simultaneous presence of all users--overcomes the most common complaint of group members, that some members cannot meet at the same time as others.
Suggestions for Further Research
On the issue of conversational narcissism including and apart from hyperpersonal interaction, further research is strongly encouraged in devising quantifiable measures of narcissistic communcation behavior that is not essentially pathological. Rintel has made a step in this direction by investigating the interactional methods of entering and leaving an IRC channel - it is timely and in the best interests of CMC researchers to begin to fill in what conversational strategies are at work (or play) between entering and leaving a cyberchat.
Finally, Laura Garton, Caroline Haythornthwaite, and Barry Wellman (1997) point out the need for new ways of analyzing CMC. "Analysts want to know how third parties affect communications, how relations offline affect relations online, and how CMC intersects with the structure and functioning of social systems." Taking the social network approach to analyzing hyperpersonal interaction affords the researcher a look into such timely issues as how virtual communities rebuild social trust online, and how personal attributes so critical in FTF interaction become less relevant because, "on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.."
References
Asteroff, J. F. (1987) Paralanguage in electronic mail: A case study. Ed. D. dissertation, Columbia University Teachers College, Diss. Ab. Intl., 48/07-A, p. 1582.
Baym, N.K. (1995.) The Performance of Humor in Computer-Mediated Communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1, 2.
Beebe, S. A., & Masterson, J. T. (1986). Communication in small groups: Principles and practices (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co.
Connolly, T., Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (in press). Idea generation using a GDSS: Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone. Management Science.
Crump, E. (1993). Wild child: IRC as the subversive cousin of ENFI. University of Missouri-Columbia, delivered at the 9th Annual Computers & Writing Conference, Ann Arbor, Michigan; part of a panel with Michael Day and Rebecca Rickly.
Derber, C. (1979). The Pursuit of Attention: Power and Individualism in Everyday Life. NY: Oxford University Press.
DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33, 589-609.
Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., Wellman, B. (1997). Studying online social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3, 1.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. NY: Anchor.
Hellerstein, L., (1985). The Social Use of Electronic Mail at a Major University. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Computers and Society, June 1985.
Hiltz, S. R. (1981). The impact of a computerized conferencing system on scientific research communities. National Science Foundation Research Report No. 15. Newark, NJ: Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center.
Hoffman, B., (1996). Word Order, Information Structure, and Centering in Turkish. Centering in Discourse. eds. Marilyn Walker, Ellen Prince, and Aravind Joshi. Oxford University Press.
Jakobson, R. (1970). Concluding statement: Linguistics and poetics. Style in language. Ed. by T. Sebeok, 350-377. New York: Wiley.
Kiesler, S., Siegal, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
Kolb, D. (1996). Discourse across links. Philosophical Perspectives on Computer-Mediated Communication. Charles Ess, ed. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.
Lim, P., & Facciola, P. C. (1988). Social cognition on ICOSY: An examination of computer conferencing attributes and human perceptions. Unpublished paper, University of Arizona.
Lombard, M. & Ditton, T., (1997). At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Telepresence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3, 2.
Peterson, L.L., and Davie, B.S. (1996). Computer Networks: A Systems Approach. NY: Morgan-Kaufmann.
Reid (Steere), E. (1992). Electropolis: Communication and community on Internet Relay Chat. First published in Intertek, Vol. 3.3, Pp. 7-15.
Reid (Steere), E. ( 1994). Cultural formations in text-basedvirtual realities. First published as "Virtual Worlds: Culture and Imagination" in CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. Edited by Steven G. Jones. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. Pp. 164-183.
Rheingold, H. (1993). Virtual Communities. NY: HarperCollins.
Rice, R.E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated network. Communication Research, 14, 85-108.
Rintel, E.S. & Pittam, J. (1997). Strangers in a strange land: Interaction management on Internet Relay Chat. Human Communication Research, 23, 507-534.
Shank, G., (1994). Abductive Multiloguing: The Semiotic Dynamics of Navigating the Net. Electronic Journal of Virtual Culture 1,1. [Retrievable in electronic form under the name SHANKV1N1 by e-mailing EJVCL@kentvm.kent.edu]
Simmel, G. (1950). The Sociology of Georg Simmel, K. Wolff (ed.) NY: Free Press.
Sproull, L. S.; Kiesler, S.; and Zubrow, D. (1984). Encountering an Alien Culture. Carnegie Mellon University Press.
Steinfield, C., (1986). Computer-mediated communication in an organizational setting: explaining task-related and socio-emotional uses. In M. McLaughlin (ed.) Communication Yearbook 9, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Strangelove, M. (1994). "The Internet, Electric Gaia and the Rise of the Uncensored Self,". Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine 1, 5.
Vangelisti, A., Knapp, M., & Daly, J. (1990). Conversational Narcissism. Communication Monographs, 57.
Vanleuven, J. K. (1987). Toward a Theory of Channel Effects. Presented to Conference on Communication Theory in Public Relations, Normal, IL, Illinois State University, May 1987. Also published in Communication Theory In Public Relations, C. Botan and V. Hazelton, eds., NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal and Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research. 23, 1.
Walther. J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
Walther, J. B. (1992) A longitudinal experiment on computer-mediated and face to face interaction. Proceedings of the twenty-fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.
Walther, J.B. (1988) Research questions in his Research Proposal for CMC. #152 issue of CRTNET Edited by Tom Benson.