Imagine two people who begin exchanging messages in an online discussion about a shared interest. At first, they know little about each other beyond a username and a few opinions. Over several weeks, a familiar humor emerges. One mentions a difficult week at work; the other remembers and asks about it later. Eventually, a message from that particular person means something different from the many other notifications arriving on the same screen.

Joseph Walther’s social information processing (SIP) theory offers an account of how this familiarity can develop. People adapt their communication to the cues available through text, gradually forming impressions and responding to one another on the basis of what they have learned. The process makes meaningful online relationships possible, although it does not ensure that every exchange becomes close or that every impression is accurate (Walther, 1992, 2011).

Our discussion of Shallow Connections explores the limits of superficial engagement. Walther’s theory adds an important question: what happens when contact develops into an ongoing exchange between people who become increasingly significant to each other? Looking at that process helps us understand the difference between being connected to someone electronically and developing a relationship with them.

What Is Social Information Processing Theory

Walther introduced SIP in 1992 to explain interpersonal communication in text-based computer systems. The central question was how people could convey relational meaning when facial expression, vocal tone, and gesture were largely unavailable (Walther, 1992).

In person, we receive words together with expressions, gestures, vocal emphasis, and immediate reactions. Early accounts of computer-mediated communication often treated the absence of such cues as a reason to expect impersonal exchanges. Walther questioned whether brief encounters among strangers revealed the full interpersonal possibilities of the medium. A conversation observed only at its beginning might look different from one allowed to develop through repeated interaction (Walther, 1992, 2011).

Walther begins with the assumption that people are motivated to form impressions and establish connections. In text exchanges, those motives influence their questions, disclosures, and responses. People use the cues available to learn about one another, and their developing impressions shape what they communicate next (Walther, 1992).

How We Form Impressions Through Text

Interpreting language and context

A written message usually tells us something about its subject and something about the person communicating. Someone may disagree while taking care to understand our reasoning, or answer a personal concern with a remark that seems dismissive. We draw impressions from those choices. Language content and style are central sources of interpersonal information in Walther’s account (Walther, 2011).

As a conversation continues, new messages can change the meaning of earlier ones. A brief answer that initially seemed unfriendly may look different after we learn that the person was responding during a demanding shift. Familiarity provides context, although it can also encourage assumptions that need correction. Within Walther’s account, an interpersonal impression develops from information gathered across exchanges and then helps guide subsequent communication (Walther, 1992, 2011).

Showing attention through written messages

Consider the difference between a generic greeting and “Did the conversation with your manager go as you hoped?” The second message refers to something this person has already shared. In the imagined exchange, that small detail conveys continuing attention.

Message timing can acquire meaning too, but its meaning depends on context. An immediate exchange and a reply received the following day offer different opportunities for interaction. Neither interval, by itself, tells us how much someone cares. Walther’s discussion includes both the slower exchange of information through text and the gaps that arise when people communicate asynchronously, writing and reading at different times (Walther, 2011).

Time and Shared History

Time matters in SIP because it allows social information to accumulate. In the text systems the theory originally addressed, a given interval could carry less interpersonal information than a face-to-face conversation. Written messages convey information sequentially, while in-person partners can hear a statement and see a reaction at the same moment. The theory therefore predicts that comparable impression development may require more time through text (Walther, 1992, 2011).

Giving two groups the same number of minutes may seem like a fair comparison, yet those minutes may provide different opportunities to communicate. In their 1994 meta-analysis, Walther, Jeffrey Anderson, and David Park found more social communication when computer-mediated exchanges were unrestricted. The measure concerned the social content of messages, as distinct from communication directed toward a task (Walther et al., 1994).

Those findings did not establish that participants developed enduring trust or close friendships. The same meta-analysis did not support its hypotheses about hostile or uninhibited messages, so it also did not establish that allowing more time reduces online hostility (Walther et al., 1994).

In Walther’s later experiment, computer-mediated groups were already communicating more positively than face-to-face groups on some measures. Other expected changes over time did not appear. The findings resist a simple account in which text exchanges begin impersonally and steadily become closer (Walther, 1995).

For everyday relationships, the useful distinction is between time passing and a shared history developing. A month of contact may contain many exchanges that reveal interests, misunderstandings, and responses to one another. It may also contain little beyond repeated greetings. SIP directs attention to the information communicated and the relational meaning built across encounters. It provides no universal number of messages after which intimacy must appear (Walther, 1992, 2011).

Expecting Another Conversation

Expecting to speak with someone again can influence an exchange before much shared history exists. In a separate 1994 experiment, Walther examined anticipated ongoing interaction across computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. The expectation of future contact predicted several aspects of relational communication more strongly than the communication method did. This helps explain why a one-time exchange and the beginning of an expected continuing relationship may differ before many messages have accumulated (Walther, 1994).

“Let me know how it goes” leaves a conversation open for another encounter. In our example, asking about the difficult week follows through on that possibility. The phrase itself is less important than the continuing attention it expresses.

Disclosure and Feeling Known

Getting acquainted involves some uncertainty. We wonder what another person values, how they see us, and whether a conversation will be welcome. Self-disclosure gives the other person information that would otherwise remain private. Questions invite information in return. In text communication, these exchanges can take on functions that other cues partly serve when people meet in person (Walther, 2011).

Tidwell and Walther studied people who were getting acquainted for the first time. Among those communicating through computers, a larger share of the exchanges involved direct questions and personal disclosures aimed at getting to know the other person. Compared with people meeting face to face, these participants also became more confident in their impressions as the conversation continued. Greater confidence, however, does not necessarily mean a more accurate understanding of someone (Tidwell & Walther, 2002).

Research does not support a general rule that people reveal more about themselves online. Kim and Dindia’s earlier review found mixed evidence. Ruppel and colleagues later combined findings from 25 studies and found more self-disclosure face to face overall. The pattern varied with how disclosure was measured and which forms of digital communication were studied. The experiments, considered separately, showed no statistically clear average difference. The review also found no reliable evidence that longer conversations changed the size of the disclosure gap (Kim & Dindia, 2011; Ruppel et al., 2017).

Sharing something personal gives another person an opportunity to know us, but feeling known also depends on how that disclosure is received. Perceived partner responsiveness refers to the experience of being understood, validated, and cared for. This concept comes from broader relationship research and offers a way to understand why disclosure alone does not fully explain the experience of intimacy (Itzchakov et al., 2022).

Suppose the person in our example explains that the difficult week involved feeling overlooked at work. A reply that recognizes the disappointment may show that the concern has been understood. An immediate change of subject may leave the person feeling unheard. Here, the possibility of emotional intimacy rests partly on how the disclosure is received.

Much of an established relationship also consists of ordinary contact. Tong and Walther’s discussion of relational maintenance examines how mediated communication helps people sustain relationships through continuing interaction. A familiar joke, a small update, or an acknowledgment may matter because it belongs to an ongoing connection. The modest content of a message does not, by itself, show that the relationship is shallow (Tong & Walther, 2011).

Closeness, Idealization, and the Limits of an Impression

The ability to form meaningful impressions through text leaves room for mistaken ones. Walther’s related hyperpersonal model explains how online impressions can become unusually favorable. A person can choose what to reveal and take time to polish a message. The reader may fill in what is missing with positive assumptions. A warm reply can then encourage the sender to continue presenting that appealing side. Together, these exchanges can strengthen an impression beyond what either person yet knows about the other (Walther, 2011).

This helps explain why felt closeness and knowledge of another person can develop at different rates. We may feel understood by an exchange while knowing relatively little about how the person behaves in other settings. Selective impression management is not necessarily deliberate deception, but it affects the information available for judgment. An impression formed through text remains open to revision as more of the person’s behavior becomes known (Walther, 2011).

Other people can also contribute to an online impression. In the 2008 Facebook experiment by Walther and colleagues, friends’ photographs and comments affected evaluations of a profile owner. The study offered a partial test of warranting theory, which proposes that information a person has less control over may seem more credible. It did not test whether friends’ comments outweighed the owner’s own profile information (Walther et al., 2008).

Communication Across Channels

Contemporary relationships often move among text, calls, video, and in-person contact. In two studies, 385 Spanish young adults reported on 10,203 everyday interactions. Compared with face-to-face encounters, text and social-media interactions received lower quality ratings overall, while phone calls received higher ratings. Video calls did not differ significantly. The pattern also varied with the situation, including location, familiarity with the other person, and the purpose of the interaction (Fernández et al., 2025).

Because participants were reporting everyday interactions rather than being randomly assigned to communication methods, those findings cannot tell us what would happen if every exchange were moved to another channel. They also concern the quality of particular interactions, rather than the eventual depth of a relationship. They encourage a contextual reading of Walther’s account: meaningful connection through text is possible, while the suitability of a channel depends on the people and circumstances involved (Fernández et al., 2025; Walther, 2011).

What This Means for Our Online Relationships

Make room for a shared history

Applied to everyday communication, SIP draws attention to the history that two people build together. Recalling an earlier concern, making room for clarification, and revisiting an initial impression can give a conversation continuity. The emphasis is on what people learn through an exchange and how they respond to it (Walther, 2011).

A follow-up about work might lead to a fuller account of what happened or bring a misunderstanding to light. The exchange may also reveal different needs or interests. Continuing contact gives the people in our example opportunities to learn whether and how they wish to develop the connection.

Let disclosure and responsiveness develop together

Knowing someone more closely involves responding to what they choose to share. The responsiveness literature suggests paying attention to whether a person feels understood and cared for, rather than treating disclosure as an achievement in itself. Principles of active listening can guide a written conversation, including checking an interpretation before responding or acknowledging why an experience was important. The relevant question is whether the exchange conveys attention to the person’s meaning (Itzchakov et al., 2022).

Privacy boundaries and communication preferences are part of this process. People differ in what they wish to share and when, and a delayed reply can have many explanations. A difficult conversation may be easier to approach in writing for one person and by voice for another. Applying SIP means learning how communication works within the particular relationship, while leaving room to revise our assumptions (Kim & Dindia, 2011; Walther, 2011).

This perspective adds nuance to the concern raised in Shallow Connections. Casual contact can have value, and an established bond can be sustained through ordinary exchanges. A brief message may carry care because of the history behind it (Tong & Walther, 2011).

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

The follow-up about the difficult week may be only a sentence long. To someone else it could look unremarkable. To the person receiving it, it may recall an earlier conversation and the relief of having been heard.

The person who receives it may have much to say, or only a short update. Either way, the question makes room for a part of life that might otherwise have remained private. Between two people who began as strangers, it is a modest moment of being remembered.

Associated Concepts

• Social Penetration Theory: This theory describes how relationships deepen as people share broader and more personal aspects of their lives. It complements SIP’s explanation of how people communicate and interpret this information through text (Kim & Dindia, 2011; Walther, 2011).
• Self-Disclosure: Sharing personal thoughts, feelings, and experiences gives others an opportunity to know us. Within SIP, these disclosures provide information from which people develop interpersonal impressions (Kim & Dindia, 2011; Walther, 2011).
• Emotional Intimacy: Emotional intimacy involves feeling close to another person and personally understood. Perceived responsiveness helps explain why sharing an experience can become meaningful when another person responds with understanding and care (Itzchakov et al., 2022).
• Impression Management: Impression management concerns how people influence others’ perceptions of them. In online communication, choices about what to reveal and how to express it shape the information available for forming an impression (Walther, 2011).
• Interpersonal Communication Theories: These theories examine how communication conveys meaning and shapes relationships. SIP contributes to this broader field by explaining how people adapt their communication to develop impressions and relationships through computer-mediated exchanges (Walther, 2011).

References

Fernández, Aurelio; Elmer, Timon; Sádaba, Charo; García-Manglano, Javier; Vanden Abeele, Mariek (2025). The Quality of Face-to-Face and Digitally Mediated Social Interactions: Two Experience Sampling Studies Exploring the Moderating Role of Physical Location, Interaction Partner Familiarity, and Interaction Purpose. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 30(2), zmaf004. DOI: 10.1093/jcmc/zmaf004.
(Return to Main Text)

Itzchakov, Guy; Reis, Harry T.; Weinstein, Netta (2022). How to Foster Perceived Partner Responsiveness: High-Quality Listening Is Key. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16(1), e12648. DOI: 10.1111/spc3.12648.
(Return to Main Text)

Kim, Jinsuk; Dindia, Kathryn (2011). Online Self-Disclosure: A Review of Research. In Kevin B. Wright and Lynne M. Webb (Eds.), Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships (pp. 156–180). Peter Lang. ISBN: 9781433110818.
(Return to Main Text)

Ruppel, Erin K.; Gross, Clare; Stoll, Arrington; Peck, Brittnie S.; Allen, Mike; Kim, Sang-Yeon (2017). Reflecting on Connecting: Meta-Analysis of Differences Between Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Self-Disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 18–34. DOI: 10.1111/jcc4.12179.
(Return to Main Text)

Tidwell, Lisa Collins; Walther, Joseph B. (2002). Computer-Mediated Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting to Know One Another a Bit at a Time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 317–348. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x.
(Return to Main Text)

Tong, Stephanie Tom; Walther, Joseph B. (2011). Relational Maintenance and CMC. In Kevin B. Wright and Lynne M. Webb (Eds.), Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships (pp. 98–118). Peter Lang. ISBN: 9781433110818.
(Return to Main Text)

Walther, Joseph B. (1992). Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction: A Relational Perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90. DOI: 10.1177/009365092019001003.
(Return to Main Text)

Walther, Joseph B. (1994). Anticipated Ongoing Interaction Versus Channel Effects on Relational Communication in Computer-Mediated Interaction. Human Communication Research, 20(4), 473–501. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00332.x.
(Return to Main Text)

Walther, Joseph B. (1995). Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations Over Time. Organization Science, 6(2), 186–203. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.6.2.186.
(Return to Main Text)

Walther, Joseph B. (2011). Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication and Interpersonal Relations. In Mark L. Knapp and John A. Daly (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (4th ed., pp. 443–479). SAGE. ISBN: 9781506318950.
(Return to Main Text)

Walther, Joseph B.; Anderson, Jeffrey F.; Park, David W. (1994). Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction: A Meta-Analysis of Social and Antisocial Communication. Communication Research, 21(4), 460–487. DOI: 10.1177/009365094021004002.
(Return to Main Text)

Walther, Joseph B.; Van Der Heide, Brandon; Kim, Sang-Yeon; Westerman, David; Tong, Stephanie Tom (2008). The Role of Friends’ Appearance and Behavior on Evaluations of Individuals on Facebook: Are We Known by the Company We Keep? Human Communication Research, 34(1), 28–49. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00312.x.
(Return to Main Text)