Fox & McEwan Perceived Social Affordances of Communication Channels Measure
|
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS - COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS
|
Perceived Social Affordances of Communication Channels Scale Supplementary Materials
The following information constitutes the supplementary materials to the following publication:
Fox, J., & McEwan, B. (in press). Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The Perceived Social Affordances of Communication Channels Scale. Communication Monographs.
Validation Scales - Perceived Social Affordances of Communication Channels
The following scales were used to validate the factors of the Perceived Social Affordances of Communication Channels Scale (paper citation here). For each, we have provided a citation and link to the original material as well a brief explanation of why the scale was chosen.
Accessibility - Ease of Use subscale of the MOCA (Ledbetter, 2009)
Ledbetter, A. M. (2009). Measuring online communication attitude: Instrument development and validation. Communication Monographs, 76, 463-486. doi: 10.1080/03637750903300262
We validated the Accessibility factor with the Ease of Use subscale of Ledbetter’s (2009) Measurement of Online Communication Attitudes (MOCA). The Ease of Use subscale is designed to measure users’ attitudes towards how easy it is to use a particular channel. We adapted the measure to reflect the specific channel assigned to participants in the PSACCS development. The Ease of Use subscale was chosen because channels that users perceive to be accessible, or easy to reach or achieve communication through, are also likely to be perceived as easy to use.
Bandwidth - Clarity Subscale of CMC competence scale (Spitzberg, 2006)
Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer‐mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 11, 629-666. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x
To validate the Bandwidth factor we correlated our scale with the Clarity subscale of Spitzberg’s (2006) CMC competence subscale. Bandwidth refers to how many verbal and nonverbal cues can be expressed through a channel whereas clarity measures if channel users feel understood while using a particular channel. We argue that when users have access to a greater number of message cues to encode their message they are more likely to perceive that they can make themselves understood.
Privacy - Online Privacy Concern (Buchanan et al., 2007)
Buchanan, T., Paine, C., Joinson, A. N., & Reips, U. D. (2007). Development of measures of online privacy concern and protection for use on the Internet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 157-165. doi: 10.1002/asi.20459
The items measuring the affordance of Privacy measure how much a channel user perceives that the channel will keep messages from being received beyond the intended receivers. Buchanan, Paine, Joinson, and Reips’s (2007) Online Privacy Concern scale measures how concerned interactions and messages can be observed by others. We expected that the amount participants were concerned about channels being received would be inversely related to how much privacy they felt the channel afforded.
Network Association - Connectivity Subscale of the Superdiffuser scale (Boster, Kotowski, Andrews, & Serota, 2011)
Boster, F. J., Kotowski, M. R., Andrews, K. R., & Serota, K. (2011). Identifying influence: Development and validation of the connectivity, persuasiveness, and maven scales. Journal of Communication, 61, 178-196. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01531.x
Network association was validated with the Connectivity subscale of Boster, Kotowski, Andrews, and Serota’s (2011) superdiffuser scale. The Connectivity subscale measures how well potential superdiffusers are able to connect with others in their networks and provide linkages to different network clusters. We adapted the Connectivity measure to reflect the ability of channels (rather than people) to make these connections. Association, or how well a channel brings disparate network segments into the same audience, should be correlated with the channels ability to connect others and provide linkages.
Persistence - Deep Profiling (Suh & Wagner, 2013)
Suh, A., & Wagner, C. (2013, January). Factors affecting individual flaming in virtual communities. In 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3282-3291). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2013.230
Persistence refers to channels that allow messages to be recorded and stored for future reception. We validated this factor by correlating it with Suh and Wagner’s (2013) Deep Profiling measure, which assessed how well virtual community members can identify others’ rankings, activities, and search for past postings. We adapted these items for specific channels and argue that one’s ability to identify and search traces of past online communication should be correlated with the level of persistence that channel affords.
Editability– - Preparation and Control (Kelly & Keaten, 2007)
Kelly, L., & Keaten, J. A. (2007). Development of the Affect for Communication Channels Scale. Journal of Communication, 57, 349-365.
doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00346.x
Kelly and Keaten’s (2007) Preparation and Control subscale measures how well people like a channel because of how well it allows users to organize their thoughts and ideas before sending messages. The original Kelly and Keaten subscale is double-barreled, measuring both how well a channel allows for organization of ideas and thoughts as well as how much these features appeal to the user. Thus, we adapted the scale to reflect simply how well the channel allows for preparation and control removing the affective content. We posited that control should be highly correlated with the affordance of Editability, the ability of a user to change, adjust, and edit a message prior to sending it.
Conversation Control - Information Control (Feaster, 2010)
Feaster, J. C. (2010). Expanding the impression management model of communication channels: An information control scale. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 115-138. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01535.x
We used Feaster’s Information Control scale which measures how well communicators can present, plan, and regulate their messages to validate our Conversation Control factor. Conversation control, which we conceptualized as how well a channel allows communicators to regulate message transactions and flow, should be correlated with Feaster’s concept.
Personalization - Attentiveness Subscale of CMC competence scale (Spitzberg, 2006)
Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer‐mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 11, 629-666. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x
Personalization measures how much a person can tailor a message sent through a channel for a specific receiver. We validated this factor by correlating with the Attentiveness subscale of Spitzberg’s (2006) CMC competence measure. Attentiveness measures the degree to which the communicator can show interest and concern to their co-interactant.
Social Presence - Social Richness Subscale of the Temple Presence Inventory (Lombard, Ditton, & Weinstein, 2009)
Lombard, M., Ditton, T. B., & Weinstein, L. (2009, November). Measuring (tele)presence: The Temple Presence Inventory. Presented at the Twelfth International Workshop on Presence, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Both our measure and parts of the Temple Presence Inventory were derived based on the conceptualization of social presence by Short, Williams, and Christie (1976). We validated our subscale with the Social Richness subscale given its items are specific to social interactions in mediated environments.
Anonymity - Online Anonymity Subscale of Cybersexual Harassment Scale (Ritter, 2014)
Ritter, B. A. (2014). Deviant behavior in computer-mediated communication: Development and validation of a measure of cybersexual harassment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 197-214. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12039
Ritter’s (2014) Online Anonymity subscale measured the amount that people felt there would be accountability for their online actions. We correlated this subscale with our affordance of Anonymity subscale which measured how much people felt that they could conceal their embodied identity in a particular channel. These two scales were only weakly correlated; however, the internal reliability of the Ritter scale was very low in our dataset.
The following information constitutes the supplementary materials to the following publication:
Fox, J., & McEwan, B. (in press). Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The Perceived Social Affordances of Communication Channels Scale. Communication Monographs.
Validation Scales - Perceived Social Affordances of Communication Channels
The following scales were used to validate the factors of the Perceived Social Affordances of Communication Channels Scale (paper citation here). For each, we have provided a citation and link to the original material as well a brief explanation of why the scale was chosen.
Accessibility - Ease of Use subscale of the MOCA (Ledbetter, 2009)
Ledbetter, A. M. (2009). Measuring online communication attitude: Instrument development and validation. Communication Monographs, 76, 463-486. doi: 10.1080/03637750903300262
We validated the Accessibility factor with the Ease of Use subscale of Ledbetter’s (2009) Measurement of Online Communication Attitudes (MOCA). The Ease of Use subscale is designed to measure users’ attitudes towards how easy it is to use a particular channel. We adapted the measure to reflect the specific channel assigned to participants in the PSACCS development. The Ease of Use subscale was chosen because channels that users perceive to be accessible, or easy to reach or achieve communication through, are also likely to be perceived as easy to use.
Bandwidth - Clarity Subscale of CMC competence scale (Spitzberg, 2006)
Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer‐mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 11, 629-666. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x
To validate the Bandwidth factor we correlated our scale with the Clarity subscale of Spitzberg’s (2006) CMC competence subscale. Bandwidth refers to how many verbal and nonverbal cues can be expressed through a channel whereas clarity measures if channel users feel understood while using a particular channel. We argue that when users have access to a greater number of message cues to encode their message they are more likely to perceive that they can make themselves understood.
Privacy - Online Privacy Concern (Buchanan et al., 2007)
Buchanan, T., Paine, C., Joinson, A. N., & Reips, U. D. (2007). Development of measures of online privacy concern and protection for use on the Internet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 157-165. doi: 10.1002/asi.20459
The items measuring the affordance of Privacy measure how much a channel user perceives that the channel will keep messages from being received beyond the intended receivers. Buchanan, Paine, Joinson, and Reips’s (2007) Online Privacy Concern scale measures how concerned interactions and messages can be observed by others. We expected that the amount participants were concerned about channels being received would be inversely related to how much privacy they felt the channel afforded.
Network Association - Connectivity Subscale of the Superdiffuser scale (Boster, Kotowski, Andrews, & Serota, 2011)
Boster, F. J., Kotowski, M. R., Andrews, K. R., & Serota, K. (2011). Identifying influence: Development and validation of the connectivity, persuasiveness, and maven scales. Journal of Communication, 61, 178-196. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01531.x
Network association was validated with the Connectivity subscale of Boster, Kotowski, Andrews, and Serota’s (2011) superdiffuser scale. The Connectivity subscale measures how well potential superdiffusers are able to connect with others in their networks and provide linkages to different network clusters. We adapted the Connectivity measure to reflect the ability of channels (rather than people) to make these connections. Association, or how well a channel brings disparate network segments into the same audience, should be correlated with the channels ability to connect others and provide linkages.
Persistence - Deep Profiling (Suh & Wagner, 2013)
Suh, A., & Wagner, C. (2013, January). Factors affecting individual flaming in virtual communities. In 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3282-3291). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2013.230
Persistence refers to channels that allow messages to be recorded and stored for future reception. We validated this factor by correlating it with Suh and Wagner’s (2013) Deep Profiling measure, which assessed how well virtual community members can identify others’ rankings, activities, and search for past postings. We adapted these items for specific channels and argue that one’s ability to identify and search traces of past online communication should be correlated with the level of persistence that channel affords.
Editability– - Preparation and Control (Kelly & Keaten, 2007)
Kelly, L., & Keaten, J. A. (2007). Development of the Affect for Communication Channels Scale. Journal of Communication, 57, 349-365.
doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00346.x
Kelly and Keaten’s (2007) Preparation and Control subscale measures how well people like a channel because of how well it allows users to organize their thoughts and ideas before sending messages. The original Kelly and Keaten subscale is double-barreled, measuring both how well a channel allows for organization of ideas and thoughts as well as how much these features appeal to the user. Thus, we adapted the scale to reflect simply how well the channel allows for preparation and control removing the affective content. We posited that control should be highly correlated with the affordance of Editability, the ability of a user to change, adjust, and edit a message prior to sending it.
Conversation Control - Information Control (Feaster, 2010)
Feaster, J. C. (2010). Expanding the impression management model of communication channels: An information control scale. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 115-138. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01535.x
We used Feaster’s Information Control scale which measures how well communicators can present, plan, and regulate their messages to validate our Conversation Control factor. Conversation control, which we conceptualized as how well a channel allows communicators to regulate message transactions and flow, should be correlated with Feaster’s concept.
Personalization - Attentiveness Subscale of CMC competence scale (Spitzberg, 2006)
Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer‐mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 11, 629-666. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x
Personalization measures how much a person can tailor a message sent through a channel for a specific receiver. We validated this factor by correlating with the Attentiveness subscale of Spitzberg’s (2006) CMC competence measure. Attentiveness measures the degree to which the communicator can show interest and concern to their co-interactant.
Social Presence - Social Richness Subscale of the Temple Presence Inventory (Lombard, Ditton, & Weinstein, 2009)
Lombard, M., Ditton, T. B., & Weinstein, L. (2009, November). Measuring (tele)presence: The Temple Presence Inventory. Presented at the Twelfth International Workshop on Presence, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Both our measure and parts of the Temple Presence Inventory were derived based on the conceptualization of social presence by Short, Williams, and Christie (1976). We validated our subscale with the Social Richness subscale given its items are specific to social interactions in mediated environments.
Anonymity - Online Anonymity Subscale of Cybersexual Harassment Scale (Ritter, 2014)
Ritter, B. A. (2014). Deviant behavior in computer-mediated communication: Development and validation of a measure of cybersexual harassment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 197-214. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12039
Ritter’s (2014) Online Anonymity subscale measured the amount that people felt there would be accountability for their online actions. We correlated this subscale with our affordance of Anonymity subscale which measured how much people felt that they could conceal their embodied identity in a particular channel. These two scales were only weakly correlated; however, the internal reliability of the Ritter scale was very low in our dataset.
Supplemental Table 4: Correlations between PSACCS factors by channel
|
|
Supplemental Table 5: Study One Channel Comparisons on Perceived Affordance Factors
|
Supplemental Table 6: Study Two Channel Comparisons on Perceived Affordance Factors
|
|
|
