Term Paper: Our Impressions on Others Matter, In-Person and Online
Melinda Fern
Tufts University
EM52: Technical and Managerial Communication
Professor Amy Hirschfeld
December 22, 2021
I wrote this final paper in fall 2021 for my Engineering Management 52 course, Technical and Managerial Communication, taught by professor Amy Hirschfeld at Tufts University in Medford, MA.
The purpose of this paper is to educate readers on the importance of our interactions on impression formation, how impressions are formed in different means of communication, and finally, how to improve these impressions to reach a common understanding, deeper connection with others, and future success.
Using psychological theory, I discuss (1) impression formation through the emotional response center in the brain, (2) the different forms of communication and their effects on impressions, and (3) the use of boundary and impression management to regulate the impressions one makes on others.
Although online communication has expanded and eased human connection internationally, it lacks social cues like facial expression and body language that are essential for the emotional response centers to be activated. In person, the emotional response center allows understanding and deeper connections to be formed between two people, leading to positive impressions.
Often communication isn’t limited to either online or in person. For some this presents an issue as people have different identities in professional, social, and personal contexts. Online connections made through social media could allow personal information to reach unintended audiences which can either help or hurt one’s impression, especially in professional environments. Using online boundary management techniques like privatizing one’s profile or censoring one’s posts to protect your different identities in different contexts can give users some control over the impression they want to make on certain audiences.
Honest impression management tactics can also be used to positively influence one’s formed impression. Impression management includes proactive self-promotion, flattery and compliments of the other, and/or providing evidence to justify any possible negative attributes or situations that come up. Impression management is especially important in professional interviews.
In both professional and social interactions, maintain a positive self-image. Being confident allows one to spend more time and attention on others in conversation which will likely lead to positive impressions.
With all of this in mind, for the best possible impressions, I recommend using face to face interactions whenever possible. As became apparent in the COVID-19 pandemic, being in person isn’t always possible so if needed try to mirror a face to face interaction while online by using video calls, increasing eye contact and incorporating natural body language into the conversation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary 2
Table of Contents 3 Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Initialisms 4
1.0 Introduction 5
1.1 Purpose 5
1.2 Scope 5
2.0 Background 6
2.1 Basic Concepts of Impression Formation 6
2.2 Basic Concepts of Computer-Mediated Communication and Face-to-Face 6
Interaction
3.0 The Brain and Creating Connections 8
3.1 Emotional Response and Effect on Impressions 8
3.2 Social Cues and Context Effect on Impressions 8
4.0 Comparing Computer-Mediated Communication and Face-to-Face Interactions 9
4.1 Outcomes of Computer-Mediated Communication and Face-to-Face Interactions 9
4.2 Using Multiple Forms of Communication and Boundary Management 10
5.0 Improving Impression Formation for More Positive Outcomes 12
5.1 Social Phobia and Self-image Effect on Impression Formation 12
5.2 Impression Management 13
5.3 Positive Boundary Management in Professional and Personal Spaces 14 5.4 Improving Impressions Formed with Computer-Mediated Communication 14
6.0 Conclusions 15
References 16
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND INITIALISMS
CMC Computer-Mediated Communication
FtF Face-to-face
IM Impression Management
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I wrote this term paper in Fall 2021 for my EM52 Technical and Managerial Communications course, taught by Professor Amy Hirschfeld. The purpose of my term paper is to highlight the impact of online versus face-to-face (FtF) interactions on impression formation. I want to educate my readers on how impressions are formed and the differences between online and in-person interactions. I want readers to learn how to improve their self-image and manage the impressions they make on others in both online and in-person spaces. Through managing and improving one's impressions on others, people can make lasting impacts, create better connections, and even find future success and happiness.
I use a psychological perspective to explain the process of impression formation and the effects on self-representation. In the second section, I will go over the brain’s limbic system and emotional response to in-person interactions. I address the role of social cues in the process of impression formation.
In the next section, I will compare computer-mediated communication (CMC) and face-to-face interactions and psychological theories developed on the differences between these interactions. I will also discuss the possible outcomes of using multiple forms of communication and the boundary management needed for this in personal and professional relationships.
In section five, I will discuss ways that one can improve their impressions on others. I will discuss the effect of social phobias and self-esteem issues on one’s self-image and in turn impression formation. From a professional perspective, I will discuss impression management (IM) techniques. Lastly, I will discuss how to improve impressions formed through CMC.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Impressions can be formed through many different channels. Whether through a brief conversation, a public or work presentation, a social media profile, a text, an email, or anything else, the impressions made on others do matter. First impressions allow people to form a perception of who someone is, guiding social interactions. Within seconds of an interaction, humans can make valid judgments with some degree of accuracy. According to one study, participants were able to accurately assess a person’s personality from just a minute or two of video recordings (Okdie et. al. 2011).
Self-presentation influences people’s perception and judgments, which has an effect on future interactions. Many aspects go into making judgments about another person, including the context in which the impression is formed, the person’s perceived competence and warmth, and nonverbal cues like physical appearance, facial expression, and body language (Ollier-Malaterre et. al, 2013) (Sprecher & Hampton 2016).
In different contexts there are different levels of information one can collect in an interaction, which affect the accuracy of one’s impression formation (Okdie et. al. 2011). For example, since the COVID-19 pandemic began, FtF interactions were limited. Even when FtF interactions became possible, masks were mandated in most indoor spaces, obscuring facial expressions and affecting the information one can receive in an interaction. Later in this paper, I will discuss in depth the role and impact social cues have on impression formation and how this functions specifically in online spaces.
In the 21st century, people are more connected than ever before. Online communication, whether over text, video calls, or through social media, connects people from all over the world. CMC shrinks borders and diminishes issues of time differences allowing classes to continue online, businesses to run, and family members to stay in close contact internationally. Clearly, online communication is not going anywhere; therefore, it is important to recognize the effects online interactions have on impression formation.
Modality richness, the amount of information or context provided in a certain communication form, can be used to describe the differences between CMC and FtF interactions. Compared to CMC such as video call or texting, where nonverbal cues are often obscured, in-person interactions include more information. Thus, FtF is known as the richest form of interaction while texting is the leanest form (Sprecher & Hampton, 2016).
Overall, CMC is a leaner form of communication because it often allows users to remain anonymous. In CMC, physical appearance and demographic information can be concealed making other aspects of interactions more pertinent. This shift in salient information allows for increased and reciprocated self-disclosure without fear of consequences or judgments (Okdie et. al. 2011). Nevertheless, the lack of visual information increases the opportunity to deceive another person and create a fabricated self-representation.
On the other hand, FtF interactions push visual information to the forefront as people innately use their sense of sight to perceive others. Demographic and nonverbal cues help people form accurate impressions of each other. This visual information is very useful for perceiving the dynamics between warmth and competence, two key dimensions in making a positive impression (Ollier-Malaterre et.al., 2013). While nonverbal cues can provide key information, these cues can also distract the receiver from the sender’s actual verbal message (Okdie et. al. 2011).
3.0 THE BRAIN AND CREATING CONNECTIONS
The human brain works with the five senses to perceive others, make connections, create judgments, and react. The brain contains many connected parts that complete different tasks. When it comes to making connections with others, the limbic system of the brain plays a big part. The limbic system controls and interprets behavioral and emotional responses and natural bodily functions. The limbic system is constantly checking and regulating one’s internal state such as body temperature, blood pressure, and bodily expressions. While this internal check is occurring, the limbic system also observes and interprets the surrounding external context through the use of the senses (Meyer, 2003).
In the real world, the sender and receiver both experience a limbic response. Limbic response is the mutual exchange of internal and external monitoring, regulating, and interpreting that creates a deeper connection between humans. Input from the limbic response center is then sent to the cortical brain, which controls attention, memory, language, and conscious thought. The cortical brain constructs logical and rational thought using information from the emotional limbic brain, often allowing emotions to override actual rational thought (Meyer, 2003).
Limbic response has a direct effect on impression formation. With a focus on emotion in the limbic system, one monitors their internal and external states, sending this information to the cortical brain to craft conscious thoughts and actions (Meyer, 2003).
When in the right contexts, strong emotional connections can be created through two people’s simultaneous limbic response. However, this connection between the two brains relies heavily on perceiving nonverbal cues such as eye contact, body language, and facial expression that allow each person to come to a common understanding of each other and react accordingly. One theory proposes that FtF nonverbal communication contributes to many purposes of human interaction including intimate, emotional control of the interaction and its goals (Okdie et. al., 2011). In FtF interactions, nonverbal communication impacts one’s physical, cognitive, and emotional states.
While nonverbal cues in FTF interactions promote connection, in CMC social cues are often concealed, especially in forms of online communication without video. Even with online video communication, eye contact is still hard to attain, body language to indicate a natural flow of conversation is impossible to interpret, and an uncontrollable internet lag makes hearing and seeing others difficult. Although people can come to a common understanding through the sharing of language either in written or verbal form, this connection is different from the one that forms in person using limbic response.
4.0 COMPARING COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION AND FACE-TO- FACE INTERACTIONS
When it comes to comparing the outcomes of CMC and FtF interactions, there are many conflicting theories. As previously discussed, the differences between CMC and FtF interactions have serious effects on impression formation.
Even without nonverbal cues in CMC, intimate relationships can still be formed online. Due to the lack of social cues typically available in human interaction, in CMC, people tend to overcompensate by disclosing more personal information. As physical information is often concealed online, CMC can allow for ideal, strategic, and selective self-presentation (Okdie et. al., 2011) (Sprecher & Hampton 2016). While the lack of synchronicity in CMC allows more time to craft responses in the most understandable way, it also allows the sender more time to focus on themselves, which can lead the receiver to form self-centered perceptions of the sender (Okdie et. al., 2011).
Psychological theory suggests that despite the lack of social cues and synchronicity, the compensation of intimate written and verbal information in CMC could actually lead to more positive impressions and interpersonal outcomes over a longer time period (Okdie et. al., 2011) (Sprecher & Hampton 2016). Still, while positive impressions can be attained over time in CMC, these interactions lack the natural nonverbal cues that help to form and regulate connections and impressions. Another theory suggests that the lack of nonverbal and context cues in CMC reduces one’s social presence in the interaction, diminishing the desire and ability to create connections (Sprecher & Hampton 2016).
Many studies show support that FtF interactions will lead to more positive outcomes and impressions. Due to the immediacy of FtF interaction, a higher cognitive load is required, leading to more focused attention on the other. Possibly as a result of the modality richness in FtF interactions, studies have shown that FtF interactions lead to more likable impressions and perceived similarity outcomes (Okdie et. al., 2011).
Communication does not have to be limited to either CMC or FtF. Nowadays, people often use and switch between multiple mediums of communication. Modality switching is known as the shifting of the primary form of communication (Sprecher & Hampton 2016). With the ability of modality switching and increased channels of communication, setting boundaries to maintain one’s intended perception becomes especially important in professional settings.
In different contexts, people adapt to different identities. They share different pieces of who they are depending on who they are surrounded by, where they are, and what is expected of them. In professional relationships, perceiving competence and warmth are highly desirable and essential to forming a good impression. Sharing one’s personal identity in a professional setting can affect professional relationships and career success in a positive or negative way (Ollier-Malaterre et. al, 2013).
When sharing personal information online, the issue becomes even more complicated as this information cannot be tailored to a specific context and person. While in person, on a phone call, or over email, one can share personal information over time and with the necessary background information. However, when connecting with a professional contact online, that person receives the entire history of the sender’s online existence without the sender’s ability to tailor the information (Ollier-Malaterre et. al, 2013). The lack of necessary information online can cause misunderstandings, which could be detrimental to one’s professional reputation.
To combat these unintended consequences, online boundary management can be used to control what is shared online. Online boundary management includes self-censoring posts and information shared online, adjusting profile visibility, changing privacy settings for different posts, and creating separate profiles for different identities. There are limits to the effectiveness of online boundary management as one cannot control friends’ interactions on posts and information another person shares online about themselves (Ollier-Malaterre et. al., 2013). Even if the sender chooses to share only with seemingly trusted individuals, information shared online can still be screenshotted and shared with others that were not intended to receive the same information. There are clearly limits to the amount of control the sender can maintain in their online presence, but online boundary management can help to control what is communicated and to whom.
5.0 IMPROVING IMPRESSION FORMATION FOR MORE POSITIVE OUTCOMES
Interacting with others takes a significant amount of work. One must be attentive to the needs of others while managing their own words, actions, and perceptions. For many, social interactions can be a very daunting task. Those who suffer from social anxiety or social phobia fear the possibility of judgment in social settings, which causes extreme nervousness and self-consciousness (Hirsch et. al, 2004). Social phobia often arises due to traumatic events or social experience, usually in childhood, creating a negative self-image that doesn’t match one’s actual self-portrayal.
This negative self-image due to social phobia has a poor effect on the way someone presents themselves in social settings. A negative self-image or belief of low performance increases anxiety and the use of safety behaviors (Hirsch et. al., 2004). In a social interaction, people’s safety behaviors strive to inhibit one’s fears and anxieties from becoming true. Examples of safety behaviors include covering one’s face, avoiding eye contact, and practicing what one is going to say before saying it out loud. A study found that increased safety behaviors actually cause the sender’s feared outcome to come true; the receiver perceives a more negative impression when the sender has a negative self-image and in turn, uses more safety behaviors (Hirsch et. al., 2004).
To create more positive impressions, one should start by maintaining a positive self-image. A positive self-image will increase confidence and decrease the anxiety that goes hand in hand with using safety behaviors. Something as simple as maintaining good eye contact can significantly improve one’s impression.
According to a study, at least one impression management (IM) tactic is used by about 97% of applicants in job interviews. IM is a self-promotion device used in many professional and social settings to influence one’s impression on another person (Bourdage et. al, 2018). IM is essential for best possible evaluation after just a first impression, especially for job interviews, which usually last less than an hour. Even though IM can help attain positive impressions, there are forms of IM that can actually hurt one’s impression formation. IM must be used fairly and honestly for a positive result.
There are multiple kinds of IM. The most common kind used is assertive IM. Assertive IM tactics include proactive self promotion, describing examples of specific experience, providing evidence for one’s level of experience, and the use of flattery towards the receiver in the interaction. Less commonly used is defensive IM which helps to “defend” the sender’s reputation or impression with justification or excuses when negative aspects are brought up by the receivers (Bourdage et. al., 2018). Either form of IM, assertive or defensive, can be used strategically to accomplish the sender’s goal.
With the use of either assertive or defensive tactics, IM can be honest, deceptive, or a mix of both (Bourdage et. al, 2018). For example, one can establish their knowledge of a certain program like the Microsoft suite, but they can still exaggerate their experience level through the use of IM. One can even completely make up the fact that they have any experience with the Microsoft suite. If an interviewer or someone else detects dishonestly in the use of IM, it will result in serious damage to one’s reputation and impression; avoid deceptive IM.
For the best results in using IM in professional and personal spaces, rely only on honest IM. A study found that honest IM correlates with ratings of high conscientiousness, extraversion, and indicates that an applicant is well-prepared and motivated to present their best self (Bourdage et. al, 2018). Forming an impression as such can enhance one’s future success.
IM can also include the sharing and concealing of one’s personal identities. As previously discussed, online boundary management can also assist with regulating self-presentation to different audiences. The sender’s ability to control shared information is essential as personal identities perceived as unprofessional can cause receivers such as one’s employer to lose the sender’s respect, which can even result in termination of employment (Ollier-Malaterre et. al., 2013).
While personal shared information can lead to a poor result, professional personal self-disclosure and frequent personal interactions that maintain one’s impression of competence and warmth can increase liking within a professional environment. FtF interactions makes succeeding in positive impression formation much easier as one can share personal information while maintaining social norms through visible cues. Nonverbal cues matching with verbal information allow the sender to maintain their perception of warmth and competence which is extremely hard to present online (Ollier-Malaterre et. al., 2013).
Overall, CMC cannot reach the same results as FtF interactions and most definitely not in the same amount of time. Although increased self-disclosure online can lead to positive outcomes such as increased liking and empathy, self-disclosure can also result in a reduction in enjoyment and similarity, and negative impressions like being self-centered (Okdie et. al., 2011).
To improve impressions formed with CMC, try to replicate Ftf interactions online as closely as possible. One must utilize the richest online modality to achieve a positive impression in CMC. For video calls, maintain eye contact by positioning the receiver’s video in the middle of the computer, by the camera. Instead of staring at one’s reflection in the video, try to look between the camera and the receiver’s video. Additionally, try to incorporate body movements, continue a natural flow of conversation, speak at an even pace, and use facial expressions to express interest. For a job interview, it is especially important that one prepares for the call by presenting professionally, tidying their space, and creating a note sheet to reference sparingly (Laker, et. al, 2021).
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Forming positive impressions in professional and social settings is essential for one’s future success. Although impression formation can occur through online and in-person interactions, the best outcomes occur in FtF interactions due to the richness of visible and verbal cues. Some tactics used to improve one’s impression includes impression management, online boundary management, and techniques to improve the amount of nonverbal cues present in CMC. Additionally, it is essential to maintain a positive self-image and confidence in one’s interactions. I recommend that these tactics and advice be used not only in professional interactions but social ones as well for the best possible outcomes.
REFERENCES
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1-44. doi:10.1111/1529-1006.01431
Bourdage, J. S., Roulin, N., & Tarraf, R. (2018). “I (might be) just that good”: Honest and deceptive impression management in employment interviews. Personnel Psychology, 71(4), 597-632. doi:10.1111/peps.12285
Hirsch, C., Meynen, T., & Clark, D. (2004). Negative self‐imagery in social anxiety contaminates social interactions. Memory, 12(4), 496-506. doi:10.1080/09658210444000106
Laker, B., Godley, W., Kudret, S., & Trehan, R. (2021, March 9). 4 tips to nail a virtual job interview. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved November 17, 2021, from https://hbr.org/2021/03/4-tips-to-nail-a-virtual-job-interview.
Meyer, K. A. (2003). The implications of brain research for Distance Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. Retrieved November 17, 2021, from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/meyer63.html.
Okdie, B. M., Guadagno, R. E., Bernieri, F. J., Geers, A. L., & Mclarney-Vesotski, A. R. (2011). Getting to know you: Face-to-face versus online interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 153-159. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.017
Ollier-Malaterre, A., Rothbard, N. P., & Berg, J. M. (2013). When worlds collide in cyberspace: How boundary work in online social networks impacts professional relationships. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), 645-669. doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0235
Sprecher, S., & Hampton, A. J. (2016). Liking and other reactions after a get-acquainted interaction: A comparison of continuous face-to-face interaction versus interaction that progresses from text messages to face-to-face. Communication Quarterly, 65(3), 333-353. doi:10.1080/01463373.2016.1256334
Tanis, M., & Postmes, T. (2003). Social cues and Impression Formation in CMC. Journal of Communication, 53(4), 676-693. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02917.x