Qualitative analysis of 10 logs from two public Internet Relay Chat channels, #penpals and #australia. It compared how chat users opened and closed conversations with frameworks for face-to-face talk.
Two public channelsTwo primarily English-speaking Internet Relay Chat channels with no fixed topic.
10 chat logsEvery opening and closing phase in each of 10 logs of naturally occurring chat.
Independent readingBoth authors read the transcripts independently several times.
Compare with face to faceStrategies were grouped and compared with face-to-face frameworks by Laver, Kendon and Ferber.
BWhat the study found
Opening a conversationgreetings and joining in, in these chat logs
•In these chat logs, a user's chosen name, or nick, was the first impression.Only the nick is visible when a user joins a channel. In these logs, users with nicks that suggested a woman received high levels of attention.
•In these chat logs, users typed out greeting gestures, such as virtual hugs.Users wrote repeated exclamation marks, capitals and stretched letters, and used action commands. Unlike face-to-face greetings, typed gestures came after a first word or two.
•In these chat logs, strangers new to a channel found it hard to start conversations.Risky tactics to grab attention, such as flooding the channel with greetings, mostly failed and sometimes provoked retaliation.
•In these chat logs, experienced users wrote fast abbreviations in personal styles.The authors argue these writing styles did some of the work of nonverbal behaviour.
Closing and comparingfarewells, and how chat compares with face to face
•In these chat logs, farewells were often cut short.The face-to-face pattern of brief greetings and long goodbyes became more fluid, even reversed. Experienced users and acquaintances did not seem to treat abrupt exits as hostile.
•The paper argues chat openings and closings kept their relational work in new forms.Interaction did not become impersonal in plain text. The authors aimed to show a range of possibilities, not to generalise about Internet Relay Chat.
CKey takeaway
Text chat need not be impersonal. People can adapt the greetings and farewells of phatic communion from face to face talk, though strangers may struggle when only a name shows.
Made for this site with AI assistance from the verified research brief. It is not the paper's own figure.
Abstract
This article examines a set of interactions (logs) taken from the form of computer-mediated communication known as Internet Relay Chat (IRC). The authors were particularly concerned with the interaction management strategies adopted by the participants in the logs during the opening and closing phases of the interactions to develop interpersonal relationships and communicate socioemotional content, as illustrated by their attempts to initiate and/or close interactions with others using the medium. The article compares these strategies and their structure with those proposed for face-to-face (FTF) interactions and proposes an explanatory framework for the interaction management of opening and closing phases on IRC. It is suggested that interaction management in these phases of IRC logs is similar to that in casual group FTF interaction in terms of the general functions of the strategies used, but that the content, structure, and ordering of the strategies are subject to adaptation.
Research brief
By Sean Rintel and Jeffery Pittam.
Takeaway: Text chat need not be impersonal. Internet Relay Chat users adapted the greetings and farewells that build relationships face to face, typing out gestures like hugs, though in looser order. Strangers found it harder to start conversations, because only a name appears, so some resorted to risky attention-getting.
Why this matters
What was known
Early research on computer-mediated communication held that text-only media strip out social cues and so make interaction impersonal. Later work suggested users adapt over time. filter out most social-context cues and therefore greatly limit the interaction management possible for this type of social and interpersonal communication(Introduction, p. 1)
What this paper adds
A close analysis of how real IRC users open and close conversations, compared with face-to-face frameworks, and a proposed stage framework for IRC openings and closings. We then propose an explanatory framework for this type of interaction management.(Introduction, p. 1)
Who it matters to
Researchers of online and interpersonal communication, and designers of communication media. it is of paramount importance that the designers of future programs, computers, and networks take into account the consequences that media structure has on interaction management(§Conclusions, p. 26)
Research questions
How do IRC users manage the opening and closing phases of interactions, and how similar are their strategies and functions to those of casual group face-to-face (FTF) interaction?
What explanatory framework describes interaction management in IRC openings and closings?
Method and data
Design
Qualitative analysis of naturally occurring IRC logs, compared against face-to-face frameworks for openings and closings (Laver. Kendon and Ferber).
Setting
Two public, primarily English-speaking IRC channels with no fixed topic: #penpals and #australia.
Participants / data
10 logs of IRC interactions. Every opening and closing phase in each log.
Analysis
Both authors read the transcripts independently several times. Strategies were grouped as interpersonal goals, level of experience and acquaintance, and medium-imposed strategies.
Findings
Your name is your first impression. On IRC only a user's chosen name (nick) is visible when they join, so self-presentation starts there. In our logs, the gender a nick suggested shaped how much attention its user received. #
“Our data showed that the choice of a female nick ensured that the user received high levels of attention”
Gestures typed out. Users turned the nonverbal side of greeting into text, with repeated exclamation marks, capitals, stretched letters and the /action command for virtual hugs or handshakes. Unlike face-to-face greetings, these typed gestures came after a first word or two, not before. #
“all such virtual contact gestures occurred after at least one or two linguistic tokens, not before as proposed by Laver”
Strangers struggled to break in. Strangers new to a channel found it hard to start conversations. Risky attention-grabbing tactics, such as flooding the channel with greetings, mostly failed and sometimes provoked retaliation. #
“New or relatively new users, particularly if strangers to the others on the channel, then, found it harder to initiate interactions”
Experience brings speed and style. Experienced users developed fast, conventional abbreviations and personal writing styles that did some of the work of nonverbal behaviour. #
“a style that acts much like nonverbal behavior while at the same time increasing the speed of delivery”
Goodbyes got shorter. Farewells were often cut short, so the face-to-face pattern of brief greetings and elaborate goodbyes became more fluid, even reversed. Experienced users and people who knew each other did not seem to treat abrupt departures as hostile. #
“If you cannot see another person, it may be that leaving the conversation abruptly is not as much of a face-threatening activity.”
Same functions, new forms. Comparing IRC with face-to-face frameworks, the relational functions of openings and closings were similar, while how they were carried out changed. #
“both the content and structure of these phases are subject to adaptation”
Questions this paper answers
How do people greet each other in text chat without body language?
They turn gestures into text. Users rely on chosen nicknames, repeated exclamation marks, capitals and stretched letters. They also use commands that display an action, such as a virtual handshake or hug, usually after an initial word of greeting. (See §Opening Phase, p. 8; §Opening Phase, p. 9.)
Is online text chat impersonal?
Not necessarily. In two Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channels, users adapted greetings and farewells (the relational ritual known as phatic communion) to do the same work as face to face. So interaction did not become impersonal as bandwidth narrowed. (See §Conclusions, p. 24.)
Why do newcomers struggle to join online chat conversations?
In a busy text channel there is no eye contact or approach to show you want to talk, only your name and words. Strangers new to the channel found it hard to start conversations, and attention-grabbing tactics such as flooding the channel with greetings mostly failed. (See §Opening Phase, p. 8; §Opening Phase, p. 16.)
Contributions and implications
A proposed framework of fluid, optional stages for IRC openings (server announcement, exploratory/initiatory tokens, textualised contact gestures, transition) and closings (transition signals, /action adumbration, phatic tokens, parting gestures, leaving).
Evidence against 'cues-filtered-out' accounts of computer-mediated communication. It is clear that, for IRC at least, as bandwidth narrows interaction does not become increasingly impersonal.(§Conclusions, p. 23)
Experience with the medium and acquaintance with other users are related dimensions that shape which strategies people use, and deserve further research.
Designers of future communication media should consider how media structure shapes interaction management.
Limitations
The aim was to show a range of possibilities, not to generalise about IRC. The aim, therefore, was not to make generalizations about interaction on IRC as such(§Method, p. 6)
Only public channels were studied. Private dyadic channels may overcome some of the difficulties found.
Time and user experience could not be controlled, and transition points between phases were not always easy to determine.
›
Concepts
Interaction management
The patterned, routine and conventional behaviour that regulates social interaction. [A useful] umbrella term used here for such regulatory features is interaction management(Introduction, p. 1)
Phatic communion
Following Laver and Malinowski, the ritual talk of openings and closings. ritual behavior functioning to establish and maintain interpersonal relationships(§IRC as Analogous to Casual Group FTF Interactions, p. 4)
Nick
An IRC user's chosen name, the first impression-making device in a text-only medium. On IRC, names are known as nicks, after nicknames, giving an insight into the ethos of name selection(§Opening Phase, pp. 7–8)
Opening-phase functions
Laver's propitiatory (defusing silence), exploratory (feeling out the relationship) and initiatory (getting talk under way) functions, used as the comparison point. (a) a propitiatory function-defusing the potential hostility of silence in situations where speech is conventionally anticipated(§IRC as Analogous to Casual Group FTF Interactions, p. 4)
Closing-phase functions
Mitigatory work (redressing the threat of leaving) and consolidatory work (affirming the relationship). Consolidation is addressed to positive face, showing enjoyment and a desire for the continuation of the relationship.(§Closing Phase, p. 18)
How to cite
Sean Rintel and Jeffery Pittam. 1997. Strangers in a Strange Land: Interaction Management on Internet Relay Chat. Human Communication Research 23, 507-534. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00408.x
This brief was prepared with AI assistance and published by Sean Rintel. It is not the authors' published text. Page numbers refer to this PDF.
BibTeX
@article{rintel1997strangers,
author = {Rintel, Sean and Pittam, Jeffery},
title = {Strangers in a Strange Land: Interaction Management on Internet Relay Chat},
year = {1997},
month = {June},
publisher = {Wiley},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00408.x},
journal = {Human Communication Research},
volume = {23},
pages = {507-534},
note = {Rintel, E. S. & Pittam, J. 1997. Strangers in a strange land: Interaction management on Internet Relay Chat. Human Communication Research, 23, 507-534.},
doi = {10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00408.x},
}