In 2004, the second International Association of Language and Social Psychology Task Force focused on relationships involving language and emerging communication technology, culminating in a Special Issue of the Journal of Language and Social Psychology (Vol. 23, No. 4). The present article reviews the topics and conclusions of that work and traces the continuation of study on those topics as they have evolved and influenced language and social psychology research to the present. Communication technology research offers views on the central question of how individuals adapt language to communicative action in the presence or absence of various nonverbal cue systems. This question is reflected in topics such as the expression of affect and immediacy online, the virtual presentation of self and gender, the management of online conversations, adaptation via visual grounding in electronic collaboration, and the employment of online interaction technology to reduce intergroup prejudice. As communication systems have evolved, interfaces offer new cues and representations of users, which continue to propel inquiry into these central questions about language and its usage within various technological contexts.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
2.
Amichai-HamburgerY.McKennaK. Y. A. (2006). The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Interacting via the Internet. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 825-843.
3.
AustinR. (2006). The role of ICT in bridge-building and social inclusion: Theory, policy and practice issues. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29, 145-161.
4.
AntheunisM. L.ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2010). Getting acquainted through social network sites: Testing a model of online uncertainty reduction and social attraction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 100-109. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.07.005
5.
BaronN. S. (2004). See you online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 397-423.
BazarovaN. N.WaltherJ. B. (2009). Attribution of blame in virtual groups. In Lutgen-SandvikP.SypherB. D. (Eds.), The destructive side of organizational communication: Processes, consequences and constructive ways of organizing (pp. 252-266). New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
BergerC. R.GardnerR. R.ParksM. R.SchulmanL.MillerG. R. (1976). Interpersonal epistemology and interpersonal communication. In MillerG. R. (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 149-171). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9.
BlairJ. P.LevineT. R.ShawA. S. (2010). Content in context improves deception detection accuracy. Human Communication Research, 36, 423-442.
10.
BurgoonJ. K.BonitoJ. A.RamirezA.KamK.DunbarN.FischerJ. (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52, 657-677.
11.
ClarkH. H.BrennanS. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In ResnickL. B.LevineR. M.TeasleyS. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12.
CouplandN.CouplandJ.GilesH. (1991). Language, society, and the elderly. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
13.
DeAndreaD. C.WaltherJ. B. (2011). Attributions for inconsistencies between online and offline self-presentations. Communication Research, 38, 805-825.
14.
DonohueW. A.DiezM. E.StahleR.BurgoonJ. K. (1983, May). The effects of distance violations on verbal immediacy: An exploration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dallas, TX.
15.
EllisD. G.MoazI. (2007). Online argument between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Human Communication Research, 33, 291-309.
16.
FoxA. B.BukatkoD.HallahanM.CrawfordM. (2007). The medium makes a difference: Gender similarities and differences in instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 389-397.
17.
FussellS. R. (2002). The verbal communication of emotion: Introduction and overview. In FussellS. R. (Ed.), The verbal communication of emotions: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 1-14). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
GanayemA.ShonfeldM.HoterE.WaltherJ. B. (2011, November). Virtual groups and the reduction of intergroup prejudice using CMC: A controlled, longitudinal field experiment among Jews and Arabs in Israel. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
19.
GasiorekJ.GilesH.HoltgravesT.RobbinsS. (2012). Celebrating thirty years of the JLSP: Analysis and prospects. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31.
20.
GergleD.KrautR. E.FussellS. R. (2004). Language efficiency and visual technology: Minimizing collaborative effort with visual information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 491-517.
21.
GrinterR. E.EldridgeM. A. (2001). y do tngrs luv 2 txt msg? In PrinzW.JarkeM.RogersY.SchmidtK.WulfV. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 219-238). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
22.
HancockJ. T. (2004). Verbal irony use in face-to-face and computer-mediated conversations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 447-463.
23.
HancockJ. T.CurryL. E.GoorhaS.WoodworthM. (2008). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45, 1-23.
24.
HancockJ. T.GeeK.CiaccioK.LinJ. M.-H. (2008). I’m sad you’re sad: Emotional contagion in CMC. In BegoleB.McDonaldD. W. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Work (pp. 295-298). New York, NY: ACM.
25.
HancockJ. T.LandriganC.SilverC. (2007). Expressing emotion in text-based communication. In RossonM. B.GilmoreD. (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2007; pp. 929-932). New York, NY: ACM.
26.
HarwoodJ. (2010). The contact space: A novel framework for intergroup contact research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 147-177.
27.
HerringS. C.MartinsonA. (2004). Assessing gender authenticity in computer-mediated language use: Evidence from an identity game. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 424-446.
28.
HollingsheadA. B. (2000). Truth and deception in computer-mediated groups. In NealeM. A.MannixE. A.GriffithT. (Eds.), Research in managing groups and teams (Vol. 3, pp. 157-173). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
29.
HuffakerD. A.CalvertS. L. (2005). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), Article 1. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/huffaker.html
30.
HuffakerD. A.SwaabR.DiermeierD. (2011). The language of coalition formation in online multiparty negotiations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30, 66-81.
31.
KrautR. E.FussellS. R.SiegelJ. (2003). Visual information as a conversational resource in collaborative physical tasks. Human-Computer Interaction, 18, 13-49.
LaRoseR.WhittenP. (2000). Re-thinking instructional immediacy for web courses: A social cognitive exploration. Communication Education, 49, 1-19.
34.
LeaM.SpearsR.de GrootD. (2001). Knowing me, knowing you: Anonymity effects on group polarization in CMC within groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 526-537.
35.
LeeD.LaRoseR. (2011). The impact of personalized social cues of immediacy on consumers’ information disclosure: A social cognitive approach. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 337-343.
36.
MaozI. (2000). Multiple conflicts and competing agendas: A framework for conceptualizing structured encounters between groups in conflict—The case of a coexistence project of Jews and Palestinians in Israel. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 6, 135-156.
37.
MaozI.EllisD. G. (2001). Going to ground: Argument in Israeli-Jewish and Palestinian encounter groups. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34, 399-419.
38.
MollovB.LavieC. (2001). Culture, dialogue, and perception change in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 69-87.
39.
O’SullivanP. B.HuntS. K.LippertL. R. (2004). Mediated immediacy: A language of affiliation in a technological age. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 464-490.
40.
OttM.ChoiY.CardieC.HancockJ. T. (2011). Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp. 300-319). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.aclweb.org/anthology-new/P/P11/P11-1000.pdf
41.
PalomaresN. A.LeeE.-J. (2010). Virtual gender identity: The linguistic assimilation to gendered avatars in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 5-23.
42.
ParksM. R. (2010). Social network sites as virtual communities. In PapacharissiZ. (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community and culture on social network sites (pp. 105-122). New York, NY: Routledge.
43.
ParksM. R. (2011). Boundary conditions for the application of three theories of computer-mediated communication to MySpace. Journal of Communication, 61, 557-574.
44.
PolmanJ.D’AmicoL. (1994). “So many wack people”: Multiple voices and dialogues interanimating within electronic mail alias exchanges (Unpublished manuscript). School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
45.
PostmesT.SpearsR.LeaM. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 341-371.
46.
SchneiderT. T. (2011, November5). What I wish I’d done before deploying the iPads to 735 middle schoolers [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://tericeschneider.com/?p=11
47.
ShonfeldM.GanayemA.HoterE. (2006, September). Constructing bridges between cultures in conflict through an online teacher education course. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Role of ICT in Bridge-building and Social Inclusion, University of Ulster, Ireland.
48.
ThomsonR.MurachverT.GreenJ. (2001). There is the gender in gendered language?Psychological Science, 12, 171-175.
49.
TomaC.HancockJ. T. (2010). Looks and lies: The role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication Research, 37, 335-351.
50.
van DrielB.ChyrikinsM. (2008). Understanding diversity in local communities: A critical reflection on an international Internet-based project. Migracijske i etničke teme, 24, 389-401. Retrieved from http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/53417
51.
VignovicJ. A.ThompsonL. F. (2010). Effects of cultural cues on perceptions formed during computer-mediated communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 265-276.
52.
WaltherJ. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
53.
WaltherJ. B. (2004). Language and communication technology: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 384-396.
54.
WaltherJ. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2538-2557.
55.
WaltherJ. B. (2009). Computer-mediated communication and virtual groups: Applications to interethnic conflict. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37, 225-238.
56.
WaltherJ. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 443-479). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57.
WaltherJ. B.LohT.GrankaL. (2005). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 36-65.
58.
WaltherJ. B.SlovacekC.TidwellL. C. (2001). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Photographic images in long term and short term virtual teams. Communication Research, 28, 105-134.
59.
WaltherJ. B.Van Der HeideB.TongS. T.CarrC. T.AtkinC. K. (2010). The effects of interpersonal goals on inadvertent intrapersonal influence in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 36, 323-347.
60.
WienerM.MehrabianA. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
61.
WeisbandS. P.SchneiderS. K.ConnollyT. (1995). Electronic communication and social information: Status salience and status differences. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1124-1151.
62.
YzerM. C.SouthwellB. G. (2008). New communication technologies, old questions. American Behavioral Scientist, 25, 8-20.
