In Networked Interactivity by Sheizaf Rafaeli and Fay Sudweeks, the pair discuss what it means to participate in interactive conversations through Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). 

The authors define interactivity as a “theoretical construct that grapples with the origins of captivation, fascination, and allure that can be inherent in computer mediated groups.” In other words, for an individual to be fully interactive, whether it be CMC or in-person, they must acknowledge previous “messages” and the way in which those “messages” are reactive. 

The authors explain how most conversations, either CMC or in person, lack full interactivity. Interactive conversations typically display humor, self-disclosure, a higher preference for agreement, and more first-person plural pronouns (Rafaeli et. al). It is clear that conversations held over CMC are lacking these elements of interactivity because oftentimes people are communicating with complete strangers online. It can be quite difficult to implement self-disclosure or humor when interacting with someone you are unfamiliar with. Rafaeli and Sudweeks call CMC “cold and unsociable” in comparison to in-person interactions. 

Although I agree that CMC lacks friendly conversations and can give people a false sense of community, society has come to rely on conversations that are had in these cyber spaces. Online communities have proven to be extremely helpful not only during the pandemic but in other situations. For example, CMC can be quite advantageous for someone who has social anxiety and struggles to have in-person conversations. Despite there being a lack of interactivity over CMC at least this said individual is still receiving some form of social interaction. CMC is a great way for an individual like this to practice being interactive. 

The only flaw I found in this social experiment is that the authors did not find a concrete theory of interactivity. They were able to find data that supported their idea that interactive groups were more likely to continue to use CMC and that these groups produced outcomes “such as symmetry in contributions, creativity and productivity, agreement, humor, and sense of belonging.” Despite these findings the authors still had many questions like “Is there a negative correlation between group size and interactivity?” I too am curious about this question. Would there be less interactivity in a larger group because individuals and messages would get lost in the larger conversation?