Impression Management in Chat Rooms: A Grounded Theory Model

Abstract

This paper investigates impression management and misrepresentation in chat rooms (a form of computer‐mediated communication, or CMC) from the vantage point of 10 chat room participants. The grounded theory approach was employed to derive a model firmly rooted in participants’ accounts. The resultant model reveals the motivations for engaging in impression management, the strategies used while in the chat rooms, as well as the goals achieved during this process. To illustrate the model, the experience of 1 chat room user is detailed. By producing a set of relationships among concepts, this study represents chat room participants’ experiences in a meaningful and coherent way. Findings are linked to extant theory and the value of this study is explored.

Keywords:

• Impression Management
• Misrepresentation
• Chat Rooms
• Computer‐Mediated Communication
• Grounded Theory

Notes

[1] One notable exception to theoretical work dealing with the socially constructed realities of CMC users is the model of on‐line support group participation developed by Query and Wright (in press). This model systematically explains the coping predisposition, coping style, and coping preferences within computer‐mediated support groups for older adults, individuals with cancer, and care‐givers.

[2] CMC encompasses various types of communication exchanges, such as chat rooms and email. Fundamental to all CMC technologies is the electronic transmission of messages, regardless of the geographic location of interactants (Walther, 1992). “Chat rooms” are a popular CMC technology by which people formulate, transmit, and receive text messages.

[3] Although there is no set number of participants for interview based qualitative research, 10 interviewees is often deemed sufficient to explore a topic in depth. Qualitative research (using interview data) within the communication literature having 10 or fewer participants includes Cissna, Cox, and Bochner (1990), Rawlins (1983), Sabourin and Stamp (1995), and Vaughn and Stamp (2003).

[4] Time spent chatting ranged from 1.5 to 60 hours a month, with a mean of 13.5 hours. At the time of the interview, Curt was aged 18; Richie, Ted, Todd, Wade, Natalie, and Rob were 19; Maria and Matt were 20; and Paul was21.

[5] The detailed interview schedule is available from the first author.

[6] The types of coding are artificially delineated for explanatory purposes, since they do not take place in a rigid sequence and flexibility is needed (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

[7] To protect their identities, participants were assigned pseudonyms.

[8] Flaming refers to CMC messages that involve verbal aggression. Such communication may range in severity of the criticism, the reciprocity of the communication, and the anonymity and the number of persons involved. Flaming can escalate into “wars” in which multiple parties verbally “pummel” one another with slander and libel.

[9] For examples of postulate and proposition development using the grounded theory method within the communication literature, see Browning (1978) and Stamp (1999, 2004).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jennifer A. H. Becker

Jennifer A. H. Becker (Ph.D., University of Oklahoma) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri. Glen H. Stamp (Ph.D., University of Texas‐Austin) is a Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Ball State University. An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association in New Orleans, LA, November 21–24, 2002. This manuscript was drawn from the first author’s thesis, which was directed by the second author. An Academic Research and Sponsored Programs Internal Grant from Ball State University supported this research. Special thanks to Editor Jim Query, three anonymous reviewers, and Jonathon Halbesleben for their valuable suggestions.