Paper: Interpersonal Communication & the Metaverse

I wrote this paper in fall of 2021 after Facebook’s conversion to ‘Meta,’ which adds a whole new dimension to digital communication that has yet to be researched.

This paper is a conglomerate of theories of interpersonal relationships, the psychology of social organization, and mass media studies that all lead back to human relation to social media.

I hope this demystifies the metaverse and gives you a little glimpse into the future of human interaction.

:P

Natalie Ward

College of Communication and Information, The University of Tennessee Knoxville

CMST 680: Communication Theory

Dr. Mike Kotowski

December 7, 2021

In Fall 2021, Mark Zuckerberg announced the birth of Meta, a brand-new form of social media created with the intention of completely altering the way we as humans use the internet. USA Today describes the metaverse as a combination of multiple elements of technology, including virtual reality, augmented reality and video where users “live” within a digital universe. It is described on Meta (previously known as Facebook)’s website as:

“The next evolution of social connection. Our company’s vision is to help bring the metaverse to life, so we are changing our name to reflect our commitment to this future.” (Meta, 2021)

Unless the metaverse can provide an avenue for interpersonal communication in a way that other forms of computer mediated communication such as video conferencing, Facetime calling, and texting or e-mail cannot, it may not be widely accepted by its intended audience. This is important to consider because the metaverse is projected to work as the next step in social media. It is an abstract idea that is practical, but if nobody sees a reason to adopt this innovative form of communication, it will cease to exist. Social media platforms are upheld by its users. Someone can create a brand-new social media site today, but if no one creates accounts on that new platform, it will cease to subsist.

The research questions posed here are:

What would it take for the metaverse to provide interpersonal communication in a way that the other forms of computer mediated communication listed above cannot?

What interpersonally is lost in the metaverse?

What interpersonally is gained in the metaverse?

How likely are people to adopt this new form of communication?

There are numerous variables with advantages and disadvantages to communication within this new metaverse. In this proposal, I plan to take a grounded theory qualitative approach to investigate how the metaverse will impact interpersonal communication. This research is significant to examine for a society that is looking to facilitate a brand-new process in information sharing, as well as the future of relationship cultivation.

Literature Review

This study takes a closer qualitative interpersonal examination into the metaverse. I will explore what interpersonal communication qualities cannot be ignored within this new innovative platform. This is significant research because for this virtual platform to subsist, it must have qualities that exceed the convenience and social presence of previously adopted innovative information and communication technologies (ICTs).

The Metaverse

To have a better grasp on the metaverse, we must conceptualize it. For clarification, “Meta” and the metaverse are not the same phenomena. The metaverse is a concept created by a science fiction author in 1992:

“Author Neal Stephenson coined the term “metaverse” in his 1992 science-fiction novel “Snow Crash,” which envisions a virtual reality-based successor to the internet. In the novel, people use digital avatars of themselves to explore the online world, often as a way of escaping a dystopian reality.” (Huddleston Jr., 2021)

It is significant to note that though the word “metaverse” has yet to be defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term ‘meta-’ is a prefix defined as “situated behind or beyond.” (meta-, n.d.). “Verse” used in this sense refers to the etymology of the word “universe” which is defined as “the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated.” (universe, n.d.). This is important to comprehend, as the word “verse” on its own takes on a completely meaning.

Neal Stephenson’s literary brainchild manifested itself over a decade later via an online application entitled Second Life. Founded by artist Phillip Rosedale in 2003, Second Life was an expression of his dreams of creating a masterpiece that symbolizes our world in a microcosm (Rymaszewski, 2007). Rosedale makes it very clear that the platform is not a “game,” but a 3D virtual world, or metaverse. (Goman, 2011) This metaverse gives users complete autonomy that extends past the limits of reality. The various simulated regions of Second Life are populated by 3D avatars that are virtual representations of each member. (Rymaszewski, 2007). These avatars are simulated beings made in the image of real humans, but can run, fly, create other 3D objects, socialize at actual locations in virtual cities, and even travel using instant teleportation (Rymaszewski, 2007). These virtual cities have meeting spots that make interpersonal and group communication with other users across the globe more efficient than ever before. Users can socialize at clubs, malls, festivals, art galleries, and even a planet mimicking a base in the Star Wars series. (Rymaszewski, 2007). In the metaverse, creative possibilities are God-like and endless. If you can think of it, it can be created.

The primary intention of the virtual social interaction within Second Life seems to be playful and even slightly hedonistic. However, there is a whole community of researchers, scientists, students, and instructors that use this platform as a venue for real-world programs even though in the real-world they may geographically be hundreds of thousands of miles apart (Rymaszewski, 2007). This virtual world has been used by college professors to teach classes, Fortune 500 companies to create collaborative spaces connecting global employees, librarians constructing “islands” of literary resources for students, and more (Goman, 2011). Second Life was the first platform of its kind to allow people to use the global village of the internet to communicate not only through audio and text, but within a 3D social presence that incorporates communicative cues like body language (Goman, 2011). Rosedale’s innovation of virtual interactivity has added a brand-new dimension to interpersonal and computer mediated communication that eventually set the foundation for Mike Zuckerberg’s company, Meta.

Interpersonal Communication

Interpersonal communication is an umbrella term in communication studies that has gone through many variations of conceptualization. This field examines the nuances in social exchanges between people interacting with one another and even in small groups. Interpersonal communications research dating back to the 1960s focused heavily on persuasion and social influence, while also displaying interest in small-group processes. (Berger, 2005). “We communicate to influence — to affect with intent.” (Berlo, 1960). This ideation of communication makes sense and sets acceptable foundations to expand upon but is outdated. It discusses communication as a mere tool for manipulation and persuasion, when it offers much more than that. The subdiscipline of interpersonal communication underwent many shifts between the 20th to 21st century due to the major cultural changes happening. New concepts emerged that questioned and even sometimes rebelled against past research such as: aversion to social manipulation, authentic self-presentation, & self-disclosure to name just a few (Cozby, 1973; Giffin & Patton, 1971; Jourard, 1964, 1971; Parks, 1982).

In 2005, communication studies researcher Berger conceptualized interpersonal communication as a theory divided up into six distinct areas of study: verbal and nonverbal adaptations made during face-to-face communication, message production processes, uncertainty organization and reduction, deceptive communication, dialectical theories, and finally new-age communication technologies that defy traditional distinctions between interpersonal and mass communication. For purposes of this paper, we will focus on these new-age technologies that turn traditional ideations of interpersonal communication on its head.

Computer-Mediated-Communication

During face-to-face interaction, a person uses verbal and nonverbal cues to adapt to shared messages. Perceptions and message processing change constantly and instantly during the reciprocal communicative exchanges between each person involved. (Burleson, 2010). Nonverbal cues such as vocal cues, eye contact, smiling, shifts in body language, etc. reinforce validity in verbal messages. Communicators can develop more complex understandings of one another that in turn determine the trajectory of the interaction (Christen, Scott A., 2013).

However, in computer-mediated communication, with social cues like nonverbals and tone of voice being lost, there are several factors that may alter how messages are sent and received. Computer-mediated communication research typically focuses on how channels and media affect individuals’ ability to connect with one another (Parks, 2009; Walther, 2010). Within computer-mediated communication, the media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), and channel expansion theory (Carlson & Zmud, 1994) discuss the significance of the channel’s “richness” or ability to preserve nonverbal messages, and that people choose a channel that matches the equivocality potential of the message so that the social exchange can be most effective (Carlson & Zmud, 1994; Daft & Lengel, 1984; Kock, 2004; Walther & Parks, 2002).

“Equivocality refers to the likelihood of a message being misinterpreted; communication behavior competent communicators attempt to minimize.” (Christen, 2013; Carlson & Zmud, 1999; Trevino et. al 1990)

The face-to-face medium is considered the “richest” form of interpersonal communication under the media richness theory. (Daft & Lengel, 1986). In contrast, computer mediated communications in general are not considered very rich due to their limitations in conveying nonverbal cues as well as giving asynchronous feedback to those involved (Daft et al. 1987, Lee 1994). I feel these 1980s and 1990s ideations still hold truth but are outdated due to the rapid changes in information and communication technologies since then. Past research has viewed computer-mediated communication as inferior to face-to-face communication, when there are situations where communication technologies can be inferior to face to face interactions. I.e., An individual communicating face to face in a group may need to share a confidential message via texting with the intent to instantly and only give that information to another individual of said group. Information that is time-sensitive and confidential may call for the exclusion of other group members in a face-to-face interaction. Another example is the use of video conference or Facetime calling during the Coronavirus pandemic. It was preferred that individuals carry face-to-face interactions via video calling in order to keep the spread of disease lower than it could have been. I have yet to see research that examines this transcendental form of communication that involves unequivocal usage of both computer mediated and face-to-face communication. Not to mention other anecdotal examples left unmentioned.

On the metaverse of Second Life, user’s human-like avatars can communicate using their own preference of nonverbal cues. It is even possible to immediately teleport to a new location in the middle of conversation or even create a brand new object during the conversation that can be used as a tool to bring more contextual dimensions to communication than in face to face interactions. This differs from other forms of computer mediated communication and is considered high in media richness, as well as gives users a chance to have a more vivid social presence than on other forms of computer mediated communication.

Psychobiological Model

In 2004, Kock introduced a new term that surpasses the media richness theory called the psychobiological model, stating:

“The psychobiological model does not relate low medium naturalness with certain types of behavior (e.g., medium avoidance) but with high cognitive effort, which in turn may or may not lead to certain types of behavior. Therefore, the psychobiological model is perfectly compatible with individuals perceiving a CMC medium as posing cognitive obstacles for effective communication yet deciding to use the medium for collaboration.”

The psychobiological model argues that media richness and social presence are not as important as the cognitive effort it takes to use the medium. In the metaverse, there could be more opportunities for dimensions of communication that are hard to fathom, but if the cognitive effort is too tedious to the user, the new platform may not be adopted my many.

Social Presence Theory

Short et al. (1976) coined the theory of social presence at a time before the world wide web was even implemented.

Short’s social presence theory categorizes differing communication media along a one-dimensional continuum of “social presence (Kock, 2004).” The main idea is that the degree of social presence matches the degree of “awareness” of the other person in a communication interaction. (Short et al., 1976) A question I like to pose when judging how strong a person’s social presence is via computer mediated communication is “How human does this interaction feel?”

“According to social presence theory, communication is effective if the communication medium has the appropriate social presence required for the level of interpersonal involvement required for a task. On a continuum of social presence, the face-to-face medium is considered to have the most social presence, whereas written, text-based communication has the least (Kock, 2004).”

The metaverse creates a virtual platform that creates social presence in a way that no other form of computer mediated communication has done in the past. The limitations in presence of computer mediated channels are seen as advantageous by users looking to minimize interactions that could threaten positive impressions of their perceived social presence. (O’Sullivan, 2000). Basically, the limits of technology allow users to create more impressive versions of themselves, or at least mask the parts of themselves they wish not to show.

Impression Management

Originated by Erving Goffman in 1959, impression management discusses the process of influencing others’ perceptions of an individual or group. He conceptualizes impression management as a performative or theatrical task used to guide others’ perception of self. An individual can use varying computer mediated channels to benefit their own desired self-presentation based on how they wish to be perceived (O’Sullivan, 2000). We see this in contemporary society with social media platforms like Instagram or Facebook, where users have complete autonomy over their virtual presence and can quite literally influence how their audience perceives them. Though social media and the internet were far from realized in 1959 when Goffman wrote The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, his approach to comparing self-presentation and impression management to elements of theater holds truth that can easily be applied modern day. Goffman writes:

“Since the vital secrets of a show are visible backstage and since performers behave out of character while there, it is natural to expect that the passage from the front region to the back region will be kept closed to members of the audience or that the entire back region will be kept hidden from them. This is a widely practiced technique of impression management (Goffman, 1959).”

Dramaturgy

The theatrical term for the impression management phenomenon is “dramaturgy,” a Shakespearian word defined as “the art or technique of dramatic composition and theatrical representation (dramaturgy, n.d.).” It has since become widely used in social sciences and was popularized by Goffman in 1959. The metaphorical usage of theater is fitting, discussing how each social situation is a scene and communicators are actors who perform different roles based on who is believed to be present (Goffman, 1959).

In his discussion of dramaturgy, Goffman considers how an individual in ordinary situations presents themselves and their own activity to others. He also notes that it is important to examine the ways in which an individual guides or even controls the impression others form of them, as well as what they may or may not do to sustain said performance in real-time (Goffman, 1959).

Within the metaverse, dramaturgy can be used to live within a world as one’s best self. I.e.: a person with physical disabilities would have the ability to have a human-like avatar that navigates a virtual world like their own. In the metaverse of Second Life, dramaturgical methods have already been used to role play as someone living in alternate realities and different historical eras (Rymaszewski, 2007). An online poll documented by Rymaszewski in 2007 found that 18.6% of male members confessed that they present themselves on the platform as the opposite sex. This form of dramaturgy is questionable, but still possesses some benefits.

Diffusion of Innovation & Resistance

Expanding on the notion that Mark Zuckerberg’s metaverse “Meta,” will only maintain sustenance if users feel inclined to use the platform, it is important to investigate the diffusion of innovation theory. Innovative communication technologies are not always quickly adopted or positively perceived. Communication studies professor Everett Rogers explains diffusion as the process in which innovation is communicated over time in any given social setting (Rogers, 2003). It is:

“The process through which an innovation (an idea, product, technology, process, or service) is adopted (usually in a S-curve form, from rejection through adoption, saturation, and reinvention), through a series of stages, influenced by interpersonal (such as an opinion leader or change agent), mass, and digital communication and networks, over time (at different rates), through a social system (from local to international), with a wide variety of consequences (positive and negative, intended and unintended, short-term, and long-term) (Rice, 2009; Rogers, 2003).”

Under the diffusion of innovations theory, Rice suggests that relationships among action possibilities to which users feel they can apply a new medium within its capabilities and constraints factors how well the innovation will be adopted. He calls these media affordances (2017). This is significant for those in charge of promoting the innovation that is “Meta,” which is currently in its own process of diffusion. The affordances of using the metaverse must be well communicated to the public for the platform to be adopted by the masses.

Other affordances such as accessibility, message visibility, nonverbal cues, and intrusiveness are significant in consumer’s decisions to adopt new media for social sharing, in which contexts to use them, and with whom they will use them with (Baym et al., 2004). Contemporary media can also give affordances that are not available through face-to-face communication, including searchability through extensive databases, or algorithms that generate awareness of news and others user’s activities (Rice, 2017). The metaverse has limits in interpersonal communication, but also has media affordances that can be very attractive for people who are quick to adopt innovations in communication technology.

In conclusion, in order to truly be successor of the internet, there are some aspects of interpersonal communication that the metaverse simply cannot ignore if it expects consumers to be motivated to use this forward-thinking social platform. All the grandiose ideas for the future of Meta are optimistic, but without actual users the platform cannot sustain. Navigating the metaverse using human-like avatars with God-like abilities provides more opportunities for dimensions of communication and impression management that could have unforeseen positive effects on the way people communicate, but if the cognitive effort is too tedious to the user, the new platform may not be adopted and cease to subsist.

Methods

Participants and Procedures

To determine the extent to which a general collegiate population may feel about adopting a new form of communication using the metaverse, a list of student emails will be attained by combining four public university email listservs of students attending a large southeastern university. Each listserv altogether gives me access to over 400 students. I chose the demographic of college students out of convenience and because this age group is typically at the forefront of computer mediated communication trends. I felt these attributes only strengthened my research. The participants will be asked to participate in research about interpersonal communication and the metaverse. Upon agreeance to participate, I will execute the following interview script inspired by Castillo-Montoya’s qualitative research interview protocol in 2016.:

“Thank you for being willing to participate in the interview aspect of my research. My study seeks to gain understanding of college students experienced in using varying computer mediated communication technologies feelings towards the metaverse as a new communication tool. This research also aims to understand how likely this new communication platform will be accepted and adopted by college students. Our interview today will last approximately 20 minutes, during which I will be asking you about your age, sex, history of social media usage, favorite and least favorite mediums to communicate, how often you adopt new forms of communication technologies, and your understanding of Meta by Mark Zuckerberg. Are you okay with me recording (or not recording) our conversation today? ___Yes ___No.

If yes: Thank you! Please let me know if at any point you want me to turn off the recorder or keep something you said off the record. If no: Thank you for letting me know. I will only take notes of our conversation.

Before we begin, do you have any questions for me? If any questions arise at any point in this study, you are welcome to ask at any time. Let’s get started.”

Participants will be asked a list of open-ended questions related to my research questions stated earlier in this paper. The questions are meant to better understand users’ current usage of computer mediated communication, likelihood of adopting a new form of computer mediated communication, feelings of impression management within computer mediated communication, and overall feelings towards the new platform, Meta.

Examples of potential questions are:

1. How old are you?

2. What is the last year of college you have completed?

3. Which two computer mediated communication platforms do you feel are the MOST effective in maintaining interpersonal relationships? Why?

4. Which two computer mediated communication platforms do you feel are the LEAST effective in maintaining interpersonal relationships? Why?

5. Which of these platforms do you enjoy using the most and why?

6. What is the first computer mediated communication platform you remember using & how did it shape your perception of interpersonal communication?

7. Communication technology is constantly changing. What are some factors that interest you in trying new social media platforms? Think about what lead you to adopt the social platforms you use today.

8. What are some factors that keep you from wanting to try a brand-new social platform?

9. What do you know about Mark Zuckerberg’s new platform “Meta?”

10. Do you think people in your demographic will be quick to join and use “Meta?” Why or why not?

Limitations

A huge limitation in the interview process is the participant’s conceptualization of what the metaverse is. The concept is still very new and ambiguous, with differences in semantic understanding amongst the masses. This is also why I feel this research needs to be qualitative. Even my understanding of the metaverse is heavily based on past computer mediated communication platforms and foundational interpersonal communication theory.

Another limitation in my research is that my sample size is based on who responds to my email requesting to interview. College students are interviewed due to their likelihood to stay ahead of computer mediated communication trends as well as for convenience sampling. This convenience for the sake research can lack “real world” perspectives. The interview questions are also derived from the assumption that participants are active users of computer mediated communication platforms, which may not always be the case. Participants who are not active on these platforms and/or never have been active on these platforms may respond with answers that could be used for a completely different study.

Future Research

Aside from the various limitations of the research, the knowledge gathered from this paper contributes to the overall conglomerate of information on contemporary media of interpersonal communication to be studied. In the future I would like to see this same research done with larger sample sizes. I would also like to see the answers from study participants discussed and translated into testable hypotheses for a quantitative study. Future research should ask similar interview questions to people who are already using Meta. These findings could be used to understand the diffusion of computer-mediated communication platforms that you or I have yet to even fathom.

References

Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., & Lin, M. C. (2004). Social interactions across media: Interpersonal communication on the Internet, telephone and face-to-face. New Media & Society, 6, 299–318.

Berger, Charles R. (2005). Interpersonal Communication: Theoretical Perspectives, Future Prospects. Journal of Communication, 55(3), 415–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02680.x

Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Burleson, B. (2010). The nature of interpersonal communication: A message-centered approach. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (pp. 145–163). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1994). Channel expansion theory: A dynamic view of media and information richness perceptions. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 8, 1, 280–284.

Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 153–170.

Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for Interview Research: The Interview Protocol Refinement Framework. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811–831.

Christen, Scott A. (2013) “Creating and Maintaining Social Presence via Computer-Mediated Communication: Measuring the Self-Rated Behaviors that Lead to Social Presence. “ PhD diss., University of Tennessee.

Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 73 –91.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior 6 (pp. 191–233). Homewood, IL: JAI Press.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.

Daft, R. L., R. H. Lengel, L. K. Trevino. 1987. Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quart. 11(3) 355–366.

Dramaturgy. (n.d.) In Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dramaturgy

Giffin, K., & Patton, B. R. (1971). Basic readings in interpersonal communication. New York: Harper & Row.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.

Goman, C. K. (2011, October 21). Body language in second life. Forbes. Retrieved December 4, 2021, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkinseygoman/2011/10/21/body-language-in-second-life/?sh=30536bc2fb9d.

Huddleston Jr., Tom. “This 29-Year-Old Book Predicted the ‘Metaverse’ — and Some of Facebook’s Plans Are Eerily Similar.” CNBC, CNBC, 3 Nov. 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/03/how-the-1992-sci-fi-novel-snow-crash-predicted-facebooks-metaverse.html.

Jourard, S. M. (1964). The transparent self: Self-disclosure and well-being. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Jourard, S. M. (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent self. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Kock, N. (2004). The psychobiological model: Towards a new theory of computer-mediated communication based on Darwinian evolution. Organization Science, 15, 327–348.

Lee, A. S. 1994. Electronic mail as a medium for rich communication: An empirical investigation using hermeneutic interpretation. MIS Quart. 18(2) 143–157.

Meta. (n.d.) In Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/meta

O’Sullivan, Patrick B. 2000. What You Don’t Know Won’t Hurt Me:: Impression Management Functions of Communication Channels in Relationships, Human Communication Research, Volume 26, Issue 3, 403–431

Parks, M. R. (1982). Ideology of interpersonal communication: Off the couch and into the world. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5, 79 –108. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Parks, M. (2009). What will we study when the internet disappears? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 724–729.

Rice, R. E. (2009). Diffusion of innovations: Theoretical extensions. In R. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Handbook of media effects (pp. 489–503). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rice, R. E. (2017) Intermediality and the Diffusion of Innovations, Human Communication Research, Volume 43, Issue 4, 531–544.

Rogers, Everett M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, 12.

Rymaszewski, M. (2007). Second life : the official guide. San Francisco, Calif. Chichester Hoboken, N.J: Sybex John Wiley distributor.

Short, J., E. Williams, B. Christie. 1976. The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. John Wiley, London, England.

Snider, Mike, and Brett Molina. “Everyone Wants to Own the Metaverse Including Facebook and Microsoft. but What Exactly Is It?” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 15 Nov. 2021, https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/11/10/metaverse-what-is-it-explained-facebook-microsoft-meta-vr/6337635001/.

Trevino, L. K., Lengel, R. H., Bodensteiner, W., Gerlof, E. A., & Muir, N. K. (1990). The richness imperative and cognitive wtyle: The role of individual differences in media choice behavior. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 176–197.

Universe. (n.d.) In Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meta

Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filter in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Walther, J. B. (2010). Computer-mediated communication. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff & D. R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Eds.), The Handbook of Communication Science (pp. 489–505). London, UK: Sage.

“Welcome to Meta: Meta,” Nov. 2021, Welcome to Meta | Meta, https://about.facebook.com/meta/.