3
Seeing Is Believing: Effects of Gendered Character Representation on Informational Social
Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)
Even though recent technological advancements support a wide array of communication
channels beyond the exchange of simple texts between remotely located individuals, one of the
most obvious differences between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and face-to-face
(FtF) interaction is the lack of social context cues in CMC. In fact, the relative deficiency of
social context cues, which range from non-verbal cues (e.g., facial expressions and gesture) to
paraverbal cues (e.g., volume and pitch) to interpersonal cues (e.g., age, physical appearance) (
Adrianson, 2001; Daft & Lengel, 1986; Rice, 1992), has often been suggested as a plausible
explanation for differences between CMC and FtF. On the one hand, the absence of cues has been
considered to lead to uninhibited behaviors, such as strong and inflammatory expressions,
presumably by reducing the awareness of others’ presence in the immediate communication
environment (Kiesler & Sproull, 1992; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Siegel, Dubrovsky,
Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986). On the other hand, the potential of this “cueless” environment has
appealed to many researchers as a means to democratize communication by liberating individuals
from power differentials based on various status cues (e.g., Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991;
Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984; McGuire, Kiesler, & Siegel, 1987). Not only does CMC create
a low-risk environment for an opinion deviate (or a low-status individual) to publicly express his
or her unpopular opinion (Dubrovsky et al., 1991; McGuire et al., 1987; McLeod, Baron, Marti,
& Yoon, 1997; Siegel et al., 1986), it also allows ideas to be evaluated in terms of their merit and
worth, not on the rank of the members themselves (Jessup, Connolly, Tansik, 1990). This more
democratic environment leads to equalize participation and individuals’ influence over final
decisions (Dubrovsky et al., 1991; Hiltz, Johnson, & Turoff, 1986; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986).
Given that gender is one of the most salient visual cues that tacitly signal a
communicator’s status and power in FtF settings (see Ridgeway, 2001, for a review), it is not
Convention