What is Social Presence Theory?
Social Presence Theory (SPT) was originally defined by Short, Williams, and Christie (1976) as, “the
degree of salience of the other person in the interaction and the consequent salience of the
interpersonal relationships.” A more modern definition of social presence theory was refined by
Gunawardena (1995) to state, “the degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in
mediated communication.”
Lowenthal (2010) feels that definitions of social presence tend to lie on a continuum where a
focus on interpersonal emotional connection between communicators is on one end and a focus
on if someone is perceived as being ‘present’, ‘there’ or ‘real’ at the other end. Lowenthal (2010)
also goes on to state that most researchers tend to lie in the middle of the road, with both ends of that
continuum retaining some focus.
In an influential article (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997), social presence was found to be a significant
predictor of audience satisfaction within a computer-mediated form of communication, contributing
about 60% of the variance. Richardson and Swan (2003) also found that overall perceived learning was
predicted by perceived social presence in online courses.
Key Concepts and Dimensions
According to Short, Williams, and Christie (1976), social presence as a construct was primarily
composed of two main concepts: intimacy (Argyle & Dean, 1965) and immediacy (Wiener &
Mehrabian, 1968).
Intimacy
Argyle and Dean (1965) posited that intimacy in a communication medium is influenced by a number of
factors, such as: physical distance, eye contact, smiling, and personal topics of conversation.
Immediacy
Immediacy was conceptualized by Wiener and Mehrabian (1968), as paraphrased by Cobb (2009), as
a measure of psychological distance that a communicator puts between himself and the object of his
communication.
Academic Technology Services
A Division of Information Technology Services
Memorial Library, Room 3010 • Mankato, MN 56001
Phone 507-389-6654 (V) • 800-627-3529 711 (MRS/TTY) • Fax 507-389-6115
An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity University.
Measurements
There is still little agreement on how to measure social presence (Lin, 2004; Stein & Wanstreet, 2003).
Below we provide three examples of instruments:
The Social Presence Scale (SPRES) was developed by Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) to measure
the “immediacy” concept. On this scale, the respondents were asked to complete fourteen Likert
items to indicate their perceived social presence at an inter-university “GlobalEd” computer conference.
The scale can be found in Table 2 of the article. The instrument has been found to be both valid and
reliable and is continually used in research today (Cobb, 2009).
The Social Presence and Privacy Questionnaire (SPPQ) was developed by Tu (2002),
distinguishing three dimensions: social context, online communication, interactivity. SPPQ was
created based on two instruments: CMC attitude instrument (Steinfield, 1986) and perceived privacy
(Witmer, 1997). The content validity and the construct validity of SPPQ was tested with factor analysis.
The final version of SPPQ contains 17 social presence items and 13 privacy items, rated on a five point
rating scale. However, specific items were not listed in the paper.
A self-reporting Social Presence Scale was developed by Kreijns, Kirschner, Jochems, and Buuren
(2011). The scale consisted of five items with an internal consistency of .81. The scale can be found in
Table 1 of the article.
References
1. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye contact and distance affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289-304.
2. Cobb, S. C. (2009). Social presence and online learning: a current view from a research
perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 241-254.
3. Cui, G., Lockee, B., & Meng, C. (2012). Building modern online social presence: a review of
social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends. Education and
Information Technologies, 18(4), 661-685.
4. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction
collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147-166.
Academic Technology Services
A Division of Information Technology Services
Memorial Library, Room 3010 • Mankato, MN 56001
Phone 507-389-6654 (V) • 800-627-3529 711 (MRS/TTY) • Fax 507-389-6115
An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity University.
5. Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a
computer mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3),
8-26.
6. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W., & Buuren, H. (2011). Measuring perceived social
presence in distributed learning groups. Education and Information Technologies, 16(4), 365-
381.
7. Lin, G.-Y. (2004, October). Social presence questionnaire of online collaborative learning:
Development and validity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology, Chicago, IL.
8. Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online
learning. Online Education and Adult Learning: New Frontiers for Teaching Practices, 124-139.
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
9. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to
students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1),
68-88.
10. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.
London: John Wiley & Sons.
11. Steinfield, C.W. (1986). Computer-mediated communication in an organizational setting:
Explaining task-related and socioemotional uses. In M.L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication
yearbook 9 (pp. 777-804). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12. Tu, C.-H. (2002b). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment.
International Journal on E-Learning, 1(2), 34-45.
13. Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal
communication. New York: Appleton.
14. Witmer, D.F. (1997). Risky business: Why people feel safe in sexually explicit online
communication. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2(4).
Academic Technology Services
A Division of Information Technology Services
Memorial Library, Room 3010 • Mankato, MN 56001
Phone 507-389-6654 (V) • 800-627-3529 711 (MRS/TTY) • Fax 507-389-6115
An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity University.
