Talk:Social information processing (theory)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Peer Review[edit]

The first section does a good job of succinctly explaining the theory. I would consider re-ordering some of the sections so it has a better flow. Right now, it seems that the page is all over the place. I agree with my classmate's suggestions below. I also think "Online Communication" is a vague name for a sub-heading. I would also consider just linking and adding one line to explain about "social presence theory" and "media richness theory" instead of giving them their own sections. I like the examples of the blind date and viral marketing, but would move them down later in the page and create one "examples section." There is a lot on this page to work with. I would stick with making SIP the main focus and making it accessible to a non-academic audience. Good luck! (Ntb2016 (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC))

Hey CCTers! I found the content of this page to be good overall, but the organization to be a bit jarring. First, I didn't find a lot of the section headings to have very useful, straightforward names, which made the content more difficult to navigate. For example, "Online Communication" is a vague name for the first section. Additionally, the sections did not flow in a logical manner. I think CMC vs Face-to-Face (which is also a strange section title) should be moved up and Examples of SIP should be moved to later in the article, as that would flow more naturally. New Technologies should also be incorporated earlier in the article, with criticisms at the end.

As far as content, I think the Online Communication section should should include more about how SIP relates to these other theories and how it fits into the broader framework of communication theories. While the summaries of other theories that SIP responds to is somewhat helpful, I think that this could be done in a more concise, easy to understand manner (ie. every theory does not need a subsection; if people want to know more, they can just read those links!). Also, the voice is off in the Warranting Section, as it starts referring to "you" at some points. Good luck! Mb1809 (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I feel like the introduction to this page is very helpful. I also think the theory section needs a little work - describe how previous electronic media theories relate to SIP. Dating comes up two different times as an example of SIP and this is kind of weird. I would suggest reorganizing so that the theoretical discussion comes first (including CMC v. FTF and Criticisms) and move examples of intimacy to the bottom. I found myself thinking that Walther was the only one who talked about SIP? Maybe include justification as to why his opinions are the most credible for the discussion and list other people who have talked about it. Change headings to reflect a very clear organization with maybe 2 or 3 main sections.JWardle1231 (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Generally, the order of the content is well organized. The criticism part should be more well-developed, adding new theories in the field after this theory was established. In online communication part, it should explain what “impersonal, individualistic and task-oriented” means in longer phrases to enhance understanding and why the conversation is one-sided. For media richness theory, it might confuse people not familiar with the theory by using phrases like “complexity of the message”. Explanation of what “complexity” means might help. Also, terms like “now” should be replaced by more specific time because people will still be reading this after that time period. From the criticism part, the context mentioned that if CMC wants to get the same result as FtF, it requires more time. However, I think that compared to FtF, CMC is much more often interrupted during the process and cannot guarantee a continuous talk for a long time. This should also be mentioned in the text. Katherinebai (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The content of this page is good, but the section could be organized better. I felt like I'm kinda lost while reading through the whole page. And I think you could add some structure graph to this page to make all the theories more accessible to the readers. And samples you gave, like "blind date", could be more specific and elaborated. Besides, I think you could add a section called "Criticism", adding the different thoughts from other scholars on this theory, so it could be more unbiased. In all, it's a great wiki page with a lot of valuable information. St798 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I will be working on further improving this page in my sandbox. Please leave comments, suggestions, thoughts, etc. on my talk page! Js967 (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be working on improving this page in my sandbox - feel free to leave me comments or suggestions on my talk page! Rk384 (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Example Addition[edit]

Viral marketing was added as an example of use of social information processing theory. Js967 (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction of the "Other uses" header[edit]

The "Other uses" header of this article said the following:

Reading the article, one can see that this heading is incorrect. I therefore changed it to the following:

-- Slatteryz (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Further investigation reveals that there does indeed exist yet another meaning of "social information processing" which has to do with cognitive development. It there seems necessary to add a third article, which could be called [Social Information Processing (Cognition)]. In this case, the header should become:

Peer Review[edit]

Hi Lois! Your Wikipedia page of “Social Information Processing Theory” is a well – structured one. It not only covers all the key points in our textbook, but also involved some deeper research regarding this theory. It is easy for a nonacademic reader to understand the social information processing from the explanations and examples of the page. Compared to the illustration in our textbook, the page adds an “Intimacy” section. It talks about the different influence on people getting intimacy in their communication between CMC and FtF. It proposes a new type of element, the chronemic cue, which is original. What I found the most fascinating is the “A SIP Instead of a Gulp” section. It is so clever to use the double meaning of the word “SIP”. The name of this section also implies the slower rate of communication in CMC. It really helps the reader to have a clearer mind about the theory.

I have a suggestion to the Wikipedia page. The “online dating” part in the “Intimacy” section seems a little irrelevant to the prior illustration. I suggest either remove this part or give more explanation to the “online dating”. Xingjiaxi (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lois! You are doing a wonderful job on re-structuring this whole page and adding some more content to it. You added the cues filtered-out theories, including Social Presence Theory and Media Richness theory, as the root and theoretical foundation of SIP. Also I think the restricting process was totally necessary since the current layout of the Wikipedia page was clearer, more concrete and easier to understand.

As for some suggestions, I agree with Jiaxi that the “online dating” part under the “Intimacy” section seems to be a little irrelevant. I think maybe you can combine this part with the example of online dating you gave in the “Example” section. Also, I think you could probably elaborate a little more on the two theories in the “online communication” section, or add some links to their own Wikipedia pages. Henan Hs726 (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Feedback from Dayton University[edit]

Hello! As the other reviews suggest, this page is well put together. It touches upon all of the main points of the theory and also brings in important explanations using other theories. One suggestion I have is to include more present day research on Social Information Processing Theory. I do like the mention of new social media, but I think there is room for expansion. Because this is a theory about managing relationships in an online world, I think it is important to look at today’s society, specifically at the increasing amount of technologically savvy generations. This era has made it possible for the Internet to be utilized by many younger children than ever before. I think it would be interesting to look into some studies of children using CMC. How has SIP changed with the addition of young people building relationships online? Would these results support the optimistic nature of Social Information Processing Theory by showing healthy relationships being formed or would they show a more pessimistic nature with certain issues such as cyberbullying in today’s society? Videkam1 (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi CCTer, I found the content on this page is rich and helpful. However, I agree with Megan's opinion that the titles of this page do not work well. Many titles have only one word or one phrase, such as "Online Communication", "Intimacy", and "Warranting." It is not easy for readers to understand how those section interact and relate with the main topic "SIP." I think one efficient way to fix that is to reorganize the whole page into a clearer structure. For example, put "Online Communication" into a section "Theories before SIP or History of developing SIP." Organize "Intimacy", "Warranting", and "Hyperpersonal model" into one section "Concepts of SIP." Have "Examples of SIP" after explaining the concepts of SIP. Yidizhang (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

≈== Changes Overview & Questions ==

Hi! Everyone. Last week, I made some changes of my theory. Here is the overview of changes and some of my questions. First of all, I added the "Cue Filtered-Out Theories" section which is followed by the Hyperpersonal and Warranting Perspectives section. This part was missing in the original Wiki page. But it is highly relevant to SIP because SIP was conceptualized, in part, by addressing the shortcomings of other theories that addressed communication mediums, which are named as "Cue Filtered-Out theories". My question: Do I need to explain in detail how the two typical cue filtered-out theories (Social Presence Theory & Media Richness Theory) are related to SIP and what their shortcomings are? Meanwhile, the Wikipedia does not have a "Cue Filtered-Out Theories" page, is it necessary for me to add one about it.

Secondly, I changed the "Evaluation of SIP: Intimacy" section into a sub-section of "Hyperpersonal Model". Because I think it is the hyperpersonal perspective that explains the process of intimacy development. It would be more logical to organize in this way. The original organization is like jump to Warranting Perspective from the Hyperpersonal one and then jump back to Hyperpersonal-related topic again. Do you think so?

Thirdly, I added the definition and basic explanation of Impression Management in the Hyperpersonal Model section. Becasue, as mentioned in our textbook, it is directly associated with the SIP. The original version only lists impression management in the "See Also" section, which does not give enough weight to the concept.

Finally, I will use the full name of the professors and scholars mentioned on the Wikipedia page. Although Wikipedia is not academic paper, I still believe that use the full name can make the article more authentic and facilitate my audience's following research on the theory. My question: Is it necessary to add links of other scholars, or the link of Joseph Walther, the originator, is enough.

One last thing I am still working on is about the new references. There is not any real-world examples included in the original version. Social Information Processing theory focuses on online communication, which is a very crucial part of our daily life. Therefore, I think adding some case studies as example would help my readers gain a vivd impression of the theory and then could relate the theory to their daily life much better and easier.

Thanks! Meng Li

tj80's reply[edit]

Such an interesting theory you have Meng! I do really like your "Cues filtered out theory" section. As to your question, a little background on the Social Presence Theory and Media Richness theory would be helpful. Just a sentence on each theory would help readers who do not want to click and find out more for themselves understand your point.

The way you have layed things out give a really good flow. Great job on that! There is not too much added information but just enough to understand the different aspects of SIP. Linking to any scholars or authors that have a page already doesn't hurt I think. Wikipedia, in my opinion is used because it is easy to click on people or other things connected to the page and learn more information. Linking to more authors would add into it so my vote is yes, add links to them.

Case studies helped me with my theory. I am one of those learners that understand with examples and I find many people appreciate that too. It helps to see how this theory is really used in the real world. Showing one or two examples will build on your theory and your wikipedia page.

Leyi's Reply

I like this theory so much. I feel like it is talking about me. As to your question, I don't think it is necessary to explain in detail about all the information those two theories. Instead, you can simply point out how they are related. And I think you don't have to create a whole new page for the Cue Filtered-Out theories, but you can link a hyperlink that explains it.

I also like the way you organize you page, it seems clear to me and easy to read. Just a small suggestion about the fronts of the subtitle and titles, given that it seems a bit confused to me. Maybe bold it can make it clearer.

I really appreciate that you want to add the application part. It is the application part that links the academic and the real world together. For this theory, I can think of the real life example would be dating app, online forum about specific fandom, and suprisingly, there is online psychological threapy. I hope all these mentioned above can help you figure out your application part.

Justifications for MOS edits[edit]

@Ml1462: This is a really minor thing, but I just wanted to note that "cues-filtered-out theory" (uncapitalized) appears to be the most common form, which is why I keep changing the heading to the lowercase form per MOS:HEAD, which states that articles should use sentence case in their headings, and MOS:CAPS, which states that "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization". Forgive my meddling, and keep up the good work. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The links removed in this edit and this one were all linked at least once in the body of the article, so I removed them per WP:NOTSEEALSO. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Testing addition for Com Theory[edit]

The introduction is easy to understand and easy to read.

Jhenae (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review for Zach[edit]

Wow, Zach! This is a super rich theory you have on your hands! I think your initial ideas for edits (visual, self-presentation section, Synchronous & Asynchronous Communication section, Academic integration section, and expanding the criticisms) are extremely on point. To be honest, it is overwhelming to the user when they first get to the page so I think a visual of some type up near the top would be extremely helpful. As for the section you created already on Synchronous & Asynchronous Communication, it is so well done! It sounds extremely academic but you can tell it was done in your own words as it is easy to follow. One thing in this section to make it even better, would be to separate that first paragraph when you are talking about the two communication types. This will make it easier and faster for the reader to digest the information. Regarding your idea to create a new section on actual, ideal, and ought self, I applaud you on the ambition! I also think that new section will help the user understand the key concepts of the theory. Is this where you are planning on placing this new section? As for Academic Integration, I think your intent to add Communication Tradition, Communication Context, and Approach to Knowing will be much better in this section as it will break apart and break down more how this theory is used in academia. Finally, regarding the criticism section, good luck! It seems there is already so much information there but I’m sure in your research you’ve discovered some more points that have yet to be covered. One thing to keep in mind is that it may be helpful to provide some common medias (TV, movie, YouTube, etc) materials that are about or relate to this theory so it’s even easier for the user to understand. Take it out of the ivory tower and into the streets, kind of thing. All in all, you are off to an incredible start and have a wonderful, rich theory to be working with. Congratulations!

--Mgmaliska (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

peer review for Zach CCT[edit]

This page on SIP is very thorough and contains a lot of useful information. I just have a couple of thoughts on how it could be improved. One, I fixed some minor grammatical issues on the page as I was going through it just now, but I'm sure there are still a couple other issues, so that's always an easy fix. The academic integration section is obviously quite short as of now, but it seems like you plan on expanding that section as you continue your edits, which I think is a great idea. In the cues filtered out theories section there is a link on the phrase "cues filtered out theories" even though there is no wikipedia page for that. You should probably remove that link. Lastly, the section on warranting has loads of information and I think it might be a little too long. It would benefit by being more concise. I think you could fix this by maybe eliminating a few of the quotes in the piece and rather explain what the communication theorists said in your own words instead. The third paragraph especially needs some work. Best of luck!

Johnjaha13 (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)