Indirect effects of video chat on outcomes of receiving support: Uniting theorizing about supportive communication and computer-mediated communication

ABSTRACT

This study integrates theorizing about supportive communication and computer-mediated communication to investigate how features of the interactional context, social presence, and evaluations of supportive messages shape recipients’ emotional improvement. Participants (N = 139) reported to the lab with a friend, where they were randomly assigned to experimental conditions that varied the lighting quality of the physical setting and screen size of the device for a video-mediated supportive conversation, which are relevant and impactful features of video chat interactions. Results were consistent with theorizing: Lighting quality exerted a positive serial indirect effect on receivers’ emotional improvement because of its influence on social presence, which in turn influenced evaluations of support. Findings are discussed as they relate to the role of social presence in explaining how contextual features shape video-mediated supportive conversations.

KEYWORDS:

• Video-mediated communication
• social presence
• supportive communication
• emotional improvement

Acknowledgements

A version of this article was presented virtually at the 2020 Annual Convention of the National Communication Association. The authors would like to thank the undergraduate research assistants who helped facilitate data collection.

Notes

1 Data were collected before the global COVID-19 pandemic.

2 Upon reviewing the video recordings of all dyads to confirm the proper execution of the experimental conditions, nine dyads were removed from analyses due to irregularities in the experimental manipulations (e.g., participants adjusted the lighting). Another 10 dyads were removed because either the support provider's or support receiver's rating of social presence was more than 2 standard deviations above or below the mean for social presence in their assigned condition. Nine dyads were removed because of missing data.

3 We ran an alternative model in which both of the evaluations of support (i.e., explicitness and elaboration) were entered as mediators in parallel. This model did not fit the data: χ²/df = 15.843, p = .000, CFI = 0.771, RMSEA = .328, 90% CI [.250, .413], PCLOSE = .000, SRMR = .0966.

4 In consideration of other possible relationships among the variables, we ran two alternative models in which the mediators (i.e., each evaluation of support and perceived social presence) were entered in parallel. One model included perceived explicitness of support as a mediator entered in parallel with social presence, and the other model included perceived elaboration of support as a mediator entered in parallel with social presence. These models did not fit the data (explicitness: χ²/df = 9.269, p = .000, CFI = 0.815, RMSEA = .245, 90% CI [.167, .332], PCLOSE = .000, SRMR = .1139; elaboration: χ²/df = 5.125, p = .002, CFI = 0.865, RMSEA = .173, 90% CI [.094, .263], PCLOSE = .008, SRMR = .0836). Based on both our theoretical rationale and the lack of fit among the alternative models, we gained confidence in reporting our hypothesized model.