Yu-Ling Chou
Yi-Hsiu Lin
ABSTRACT
We investigate instant-messaging (IM) users’ sense-making and practices around read-receipts: a feature of IM apps for supporting the awareness of turn-taking, i.e., whether a message recipient has read a message. Using a grounded-theory approach, we highlight the importance of five contextual factors – situational, relational, interactional, conversational, and personal – that shape the variety of IM users’ sense-making about read-receipts and strategies for utilizing them in different settings. This approach yields a 21-part typology comprising five types of senders’ speculation about why their messages with read-receipts have not been answered; eight types of recipients’ causes/reasons behind such non-response; and four types of senders’ and recipients’ subsequent strategies, respectively. Mismatches between senders’ speculations about un-responded-to read-receipted messages (URRMs) and recipients’ self-reported explanations are also discussed as sources of communicative friction. The findings reveal that, beyond indicating turn-taking, read-receipts have been leveraged as a strategic tool for various purposes in interpersonal relations.
Supplemental Material
- [n.d.]. Here’s how you can secretly check anyone’s WhatsApp status without sending Read receipt. https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/story/whatsapp-whatsappstatus-anonymous-whatsapp-tricks-facebook-162472-2019-01-31Google Scholar
- [n.d.]. How to Turn Off Read Receipts on iMessage. https://www.alphr.com/imessage-turn-off-read-receipts/Google Scholar
- 2015. Message read. But what kind of weirdo keeps read receipts on?https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/17/message-read-but-what-kind-of-weirdo-keeps-read-receipts-onGoogle Scholar
- 2021. How to read a WhatsApp secretly without being online or double blue check. https://marketresearchtelecast.com/how-to-read-a-whatsapp-secretly-without-being-online-or-double-blue-check/94732/Google Scholar
- Naresh Kumar Agarwal and Wenqing Lu. 2020. Response to non-response: How people react when their smartphone messages and calls are ignored. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 57, 1 (2020), e260.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ian A Apperly. 2012. What is “theory of mind”? Concepts, cognitive processes and individual differences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 65, 5(2012), 825–839.Google Scholar
- Janet Wilde Astington and Jodie A Baird. 2005. Why language matters for theory of mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Daniel Avrahami, Susan R Fussell, and Scott E Hudson. 2008. IM waiting: Timing and responsiveness in semi-synchronous communication. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 285–294.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Daniel Avrahami and Scott E Hudson. 2006. Responsiveness in instant messaging: predictive models supporting inter-personal communication. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. 731–740.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nicole Blabst and Sarah Diefenbach. 2017. WhatsApp and Wellbeing: A study on WhatsApp usage, communication quality and stress. In Proceedings of the 31st International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference (HCI 2017) 31. 1–6.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Johnston Casey. 2013. Why I hate read receipts. https://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/07/why-i-hate-read-receipts/Google Scholar
- Yung-Ju Chang and John C Tang. 2015. Investigating mobile users’ ringer mode usage and attentiveness and responsiveness to communication. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. 6–15.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kathy Charmaz. 2014. Constructing grounded theory. sage.Google Scholar
- James W Chesebro. 1985. Computer-mediated interpersonal communication. Information and behavior 1 (1985), 202–222.Google Scholar
- Karen Church and Rodrigo De Oliveira. 2013. What’s up with WhatsApp? Comparing mobile instant messaging behaviors with traditional SMS. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services. 352–361.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maureen A Coyle and Cheryl L Carmichael. 2019. Perceived responsiveness in text messaging: The role of emoji use. Computers in Human Behavior 99 (2019), 181–189.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Allison P. Davis. 2014. Turn Off Your ’Read Receipts’ Now: A Plea. https://www.thecut.com/2014/08/turn-off-your-read-receipts-now-a-plea.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Martha Davis. 1982. Interaction rhythms: Periodicity in communicative behavior. Human Sciences Press.Google Scholar
- India Today Web Desk. 2020. How to disable or enable twitter direct message read receipt: Step by step guide. https://www.indiatoday.in/information/story/how-to-disable-or-enable-twitter-direct-message-read-receipt-step-by-step-guide-1663563-2020-04-05Google Scholar
- Leyla Dogruel and Anna Schnauber-Stockmann. 2021. What determines instant messaging communication? Examining the impact of person-and situation-level factors on IM responsiveness. Mobile Media & Communication 9, 2 (2021), 210–228.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nicola Döring and Sandra Pöschl. 2017. Nonverbal cues in mobile phone text messages: The effects of chronemics and proxemics. In The reconstruction of space and time. Routledge, 109–135.Google Scholar
- Starkey Duncan and Donald W Fiske. 2015. Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods, and theory. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Stanley Feldstein. 1982. Impression formation in dyads: The temporal dimension. Interaction rhythms (1982), 207–224.Google Scholar
- Justine Gangneux. 2021. Tactical agency? Young people’s (dis) engagement with WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger. Convergence 27, 2 (2021), 458–471.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Angela Cora Garcia and Jennifer Baker Jacobs. 1999. The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on language and social interaction 32, 4 (1999), 337–367.Google Scholar
- Jack Gramenz. 2020. ’Sadistic’ way you could be ’torturing’ your partner. https://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/mobile-phones/why-leaving-your-partner-on-read-and-not-replying-to-messages-can-be-torturous/news-story/548450d9b0a2e3335318ee7313c966b8Google Scholar
- Susan C Herring. 1999. Interactional coherence in CMC. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers. IEEE, 13–pp.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bradford W Hesse, Carol M Werner, and Irwin Altman. 1988. Temporal aspects of computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior 4, 2 (1988), 147–165.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthew Heston and Jeremy Birnholtz. 2017. Worth the wait?: The effect of responsiveness on interpersonal attraction among known acquaintances. In CYTED-RITOS International Workshop on Groupware. Springer, 164–179.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Juan David Hincapié-Ramos, Stephen Voida, and Gloria Mark. 2011. A design space analysis of availability-sharing systems. In Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology(UIST ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, Santa Barbara, California, USA, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1145/2047196.2047207Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roberto Hoyle, Srijita Das, Apu Kapadia, Adam J Lee, and Kami Vaniea. 2017. Was my message read? privacy and signaling on Facebook messenger. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3838–3842.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chin Ming Hui, Jacky Chi Kit Ng, and Natalie Jane Shieh. 2020. Perceiving change in responsiveness from the relationship partner’s behaviors. Social Psychological and Personality Science 11, 6 (2020), 835–845.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sun Young Hwang, Negar Khojasteh, and Susan R Fussell. 2019. When Delayed in a Hurry: Interpretations of Response Delays in Time-Sensitive Instant Messaging. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, GROUP(2019), 1–20.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joseph Jaffe and Stanley Feldstein. 1970. Rhythms of dialogue. Vol. 8. Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Tatum A Jolink, Yen-Ping Chang, and Sara B Algoe. 2021. Perceived Partner Responsiveness Forecasts Behavioral Intimacy as Measured by Affectionate Touch. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin(2021), 0146167221993349.Google Scholar
- Yoram M Kalman, Gilad Ravid, Daphne R Raban, and Sheizaf Rafaeli. 2006. Pauses and response latencies: A chronemic analysis of asynchronous CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12, 1 (2006), 1–23.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yoram M Kalman, Gilad Ravid, Daphne R Raban, and Sheizaf Rafaeli. 2006. Speak* now* or forever hold your peace: Power law chronemics of turn-taking and response in asynchronous CMC. In 56th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany.Google Scholar
- Yoram M Kalman, Gilad Ravid, and Daphne R Raban Sheizaf Rafaeli. 2007. Are you still waiting for an answer? The Chronemics of Asynchronous Written CMC. In Chais Conference on Instructional Technologies Research, Raanana, Israel.Google Scholar
- Yoram M Kalman, Lauren E Scissors, Alastair J Gill, and Darren Gergle. 2013. Online chronemics convey social information. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 3 (2013), 1260–1269.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shogo Kato, Yuuki Kato, and Yasuyuki Ozawa. 2020. Reply speed as nonverbal cue in text messaging with a read receipt display function: Effects of messaging dependency on times until negative emotions occur while waiting for a reply. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI) 16, 1(2020), 36–53.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sara Kiesler, Jane Siegel, and Timothy W McGuire. 1984. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication.American psychologist 39, 10 (1984), 1123.Google Scholar
- Katharina König. 2019. Sequential patterns in SMS and WhatsApp dialogues: Practices for coordinating actions and managing topics. Discourse & Communication 13, 6 (2019), 612–629.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hao-Ping Lee, Kuan-Yin Chen, Chih-Heng Lin, and Yung-Ju Chang. 2019. Connecting IM pattern and selective perceived responsiveness to relationship: A cluster-based approach. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers. 1070–1074.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hao-Ping Lee, Kuan-Yin Chen, Chih-Heng Lin, Chia-Yu Chen, Yu-Lin Chung, Yung-Ju Chang, and Chien-Ru Sun. 2019. Does who matter? Studying the impact of relationship characteristics on receptivity to mobile IM messages. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rich Ling and Chih-Hui Lai. 2016. Microcoordination 2.0: Social coordination in the age of smartphones and messaging apps. Journal of Communication 66, 5 (2016), 834–856.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yuliang Liu, Dean Ginther, and Paul Zelhart. 2001. How Do Frequency and Duration of Messaging Affect Impression Development in Computer Mediated. Journal of Universal Computer Science 7, 10 (2001), 893–913.Google Scholar
- James Lynden and Teis Rasmussen. 2017. Exploring the impact of’read receipts’ in Mobile Instant Messaging. Tidsskrift for Medier, Erkendelse Og Formidling 5, 1 (2017).Google Scholar
- Lisa M Mai, Rainer Freudenthaler, Frank M Schneider, and Peter Vorderer. 2015. “I know you’ve seen it!” Individual and social factors for users’ chatting behavior on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 49 (2015), 296–302.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bertram Malle. 2003. Attributions as behavior explanations: Toward a new theory. (2003).Google Scholar
- Andy McKinlay, Rob Procter, Oliver Masting, Robin Woodburn, and John Arnott. 1994. Studies of turn-taking in computermediated communications. Interacting with computers 6, 2 (1994), 151–171.Google Scholar
- Margaret L McLaughlin. 1984. How talk is organized. Beverly Hills-London-New Delhi(1984).Google Scholar
- Anton J Nederhof. 1985. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European journal of social psychology 15, 3 (1985), 263–280.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Trena Paulus, Amber Warren, and Jessica Nina Lester. 2016. Applying conversation analysis methods to online talk: A literature review. Discourse, context & media 12 (2016), 1–10.Google Scholar
- Martin Pielot, Rodrigo De Oliveira, Haewoon Kwak, and Nuria Oliver. 2014. Didn’t you see my message? predicting attentiveness to mobile instant messages. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 3319–3328.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yasmeen Rashidi, Kami Vaniea, and L Jean Camp. 2016. Understanding Saudis’ privacy concerns when using WhatsApp. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Usable Security (USEC’16). 1–8.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johanna Rendle-Short. 2015. Dispreferred responses when texting: Delaying that ‘no’response. Discourse & Communication 9, 6 (2015), 643–661.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel M Russell and Mike Oren. 2009. Retrospective cued recall: a method for accurately recalling previous user behaviors. In 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, 1–9.Google Scholar
- Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1978. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. Elsevier, 7–55.Google Scholar
- In-geon Shin, Jin-min Seok, and Youn-kyung Lim. 2018. Too close and crowded: understanding stress on mobile instant messengers based on proxemics. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.Google Scholar
- Karlie E Stonard, Erica Bowen, Kate Walker, and Shelley A Price. 2017. “They’ll always find a way to get to you”: Technology use in adolescent romantic relationships and its role in dating violence and abuse. Journal of interpersonal violence 32, 14 (2017), 2083–2117.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stephanie A Tikkanen and Andrew Frisbie. 2015. When Bad Timing Is Actually Good: Reconceptualizing Response Delays. Debates for the Digital Age: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of our Online World [2 volumes]: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Our Online World (2015), 305.Google Scholar
- Joshua R Tyler and John C Tang. 2003. When can I expect an email response? A study of rhythms in email usage. In ECSCW 2003. Springer, 239–258.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joris Van Ouytsel, Michel Walrave, Koen Ponnet, An-Sofie Willems, and Melissa Van Dam. 2019. Adolescents’ perceptions of digital media’s potential to elicit jealousy, conflict and monitoring behaviors within romantic relationships. CYBERPSYCHOLOGY-JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOCIAL RESEARCH ON CYBERSPACE 13, 3(2019).Google Scholar
- Peter Vorderer, Nicola Krömer, and Frank M Schneider. 2016. Permanently online–Permanently connected: Explorations into university students’ use of social media and mobile smart devices. Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016), 694–703.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joseph B Walther and Lisa C Tidwell. 1995. Nonverbal cues in computer-mediated communication, and the effect of chronemics on relational communication. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 5, 4(1995), 355–378.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rob Woodgate. 2020. How to Turn Off Read Receipts in Microsoft Teams. https://www.howtogeek.com/706566/how-to-turn-off-read-receipts-in-microsoft-teams/Google Scholar
- Ting-Wei Wu, Yu-Ling Chien, Hao-Ping Lee, and Yung-Ju Chang. 2021. IM Receptivity and Presentation-Type Preferences among Users of a Mobile App with Automated Receptivity-Status Adjustment. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 640, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445209Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Why Did You/I Read but Not Reply? IM Users’ Unresponded-to Read-receipt Practices and Explanations of Them
Recommendations
Nobody Read or Reply Your Messages: Emotional Responses Among Japanese University Students
In text messaging via mobile devices, many users face pressure to rapidly exchange messages. This article investigates reply speeds in smartphone messaging, focusing on messaging with a read receipt function, which notifies the sender of whether the ...
Mining Interaction Behaviors for Email Reply Order Prediction
ASONAM '10: Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and MiningIn email networks, user behaviors affect the way emails are sent and replied. While knowing these user behaviors can help to create more intelligent email services, there has not been much research into mining these behaviors. In this paper, we ...
The Reappropriation of Instant Messaging: Texting Ourselves, Message Dumping, and Revisiting Conversations
MHCIInstant messengers (IMs) have created an unprecedented shift in interpersonal communication. This study explores how users reappropriate instant messengers, their motivations, and the associated factors behind this behavior. We conducted a survey, with ...
Comments