A passenger texts while on her commute in Beijing on Aug. 2. Photo: Chen Mirong/CSST

Sociology often investigates the relationship between micro and macro interactions, and WeChat’s function as a vast social networking platform and an archive of social interactions makes it an ideal platform for research. Many scholars believe that social interaction is a necessary process to (re) produce a grand social system, and that social structure is the pattern of repeated social interaction. People’s daily routines are rooted in an abstract world that they may not understand, but they generally know how to behave in this world by following embedded, shared rules that structure their reality. They use these social rules and, in doing so, the rules are further refined. Research on small, immediate face-to-face interactions are the basis for understanding and analyzing macroscopic social processes and are thus of great theoretical importance. This paper focuses on the social rule changes reflected via the selection of WeChat messaging methods, and tries to reveal the macro implications of WeChat interactions in the mobile internet era, adding a complex understanding of this social dynamic to the grand theory of social interaction.

Text vs voice message

Silent internet interactions, represented by text messages, are different from face-to-face chats. Apart from the thoughts and words selected, factors such as tone of voice, facial expression, and posture no longer affect the interaction process. As an alternative symbolic expression of emotions, emojis replace omitted physical social cues in digital interactions and have become an important means for individuals to convey information and express emotions. 

WeChat, like many instant messaging interactive platforms, provides users with a way to communicate beyond text—sending voice messages. This also greatly bridges the gap between WeChat messaging and daily face-to-face interactions. In order to have a more comprehensive understanding of the social cues and rules underlying people’s selection of WeChat messaging methods, this study sampled the general population by conducting semi-structured interviews with 33 WeChat users over the phone or on WeChat, and collected data on their habits and the rules they used for deciding whether to use WeChat voice message or text, as well as the reasons for their choices in different scenarios.

In interviews, we found that many interviewees did not think there were clear “voice-text” interaction rules in advance. Yet, they repeatedly made a conscious choice either to send a voice message or a text. The question of why they did so is one of the central concerns of this paper.

The reasons for voice-text selection can be divided into two categories: capacity and situation. Capacity is mainly associated with the user’s age and education level, whereas the situation is usually related to the interpersonal distance, which can be further divided into a horizontal or vertical distance. According to Confucius’s theoretical writing, renlun (human relationships) have a ripple-like effect created from circles of relationships that spread out from the self, an effect that produces a pattern of discrete circles. Horizontal distance can be understood as the degree of familiarity: estrangement or intimacy, which determines how far the other interactant stands in this circular ripple centered around the conversant. Vertical distance can be understood as a hierarchical relationship within the ripple, which is related to power dynamics. 

In theory, people send voice messages to others when they are very close socially, but this is not the case in hierarchical situations such as between teachers and students or superiors and subordinates in organizations, where many people will choose to adopt a more cautious approach to communication. Many people seem to think that the volume of voice messages may have the side effect of “troubling others,” although it is convenient for the speaker. 

In hierarchical social interactions, the greater the power difference, the more likely it was that WeChat interaction methods were based on the habits and preferences of those with more power. Even when typing was inconvenient for the less powerful interactant, they would still cater to the others’ preference. Moreover, they spent more time thinking over their choice of words, thus, the somewhat more convenient voice message becomes the privilege of those with higher status.

The choice of voice messaging or text is not completely arbitrary or led by free will. Though the “voice-text” rules are not formally articulated, or sometimes not even realized, many rules are still in the process of formation. People have different understandings and practices, in some cases these rules are mandatory and are followed either intentionally or unintentionally. The rules exert a practical constraint on users. So, what are the differences and similarities between micro interactions in the mobile internet era as represented by WeChat and traditional offline interaction?

Differential mode of association

Through interviews it became clear that many users are wary of voice messages because they prefer a more cautious approach to social interactions. In real life, this cautious approach would be expressed through meticulous word choice, a respectful tone, rehearsal before the interaction, and various interactive balancing replies, repairs, and amends upon mishaps and misunderstandings. These behaviors also have a place in WeChat interactions. 

In WeChat interactions, the opening and endings to conversations are sometimes similar to offline interactions, but in some occasions are more casual. This is often influenced by differences in power or status between the two speaking parties. With permission, we analyzed interviewees’ WeChat records, identifying different techniques in their WeChat interactions. It was evident that the word choice and tone varied in different conversations. 

There were clear characteristics of a traditional Chinese ethical culture in digital interactions. Formal interaction social cues followed the principles of superiority and inferiority and estrangement and intimacy, which seemed to be an online reconstruction of the differential mode of association (cha xu ge ju), commonly seen in offline relationships. The technique was only different in its technical delivery and means, but the essence has not changed. As technology progresses and social structure changes, China’s differential association mode is also constantly updated and the pattern is reproduced. It is inherited and it evolves, sometimes in clear ways but sometimes the connection is vague. Therefore, it is necessary to explore changes in the unspoken interaction rules among Chinese people through WeChat interactions.

Copresence

New research has led us to reconceptualize the idea of copresence. Canadian-American sociologist Erving Goffman first proposed the defining features of copresence. First, individual actions are influenced by the contemporaneous physical presence of others. Second, actions are constrained by the different spaces where interactions take place and by social orders. Third, physical copresence creates a context that influences our relationships with others and corrects unwanted behaviors. Fourth, emotional states, relationships, and rules of interaction with specific actors are determined by the accumulated memory of situations that were once shared. 

We argue that the first two features of copresence continue in the mobile internet era, with a change to the form, but not the essence. However, the last two have greatly evolved. 

The internet’s popularity has changed the scope of time for human interactions, so that conversations are continuous and do not have the situational urgency of traditional offline interactions. It is impossible to completely frame an interaction on WeChat as one singular closed situation. An interlocutor can open multiple interactive chat boxes at the same time, or even blend online and offline interactions, and intentionally alter the interaction with delayed responses. In an online environment, no social correction mechanism kicks in, leaving some conversations in a state of dysfunction.

Next, the necessity to have accumulative interactions is in decline. In instant messaging interactions, sometimes it is possible to form a relatively mature, seemingly stable, and relatively safe interactive conversation between two people without the need for very specific and coherent accumulative situations or continuous interaction. It is especially true in interactions with “strangers.” 

Third, avoidance rituals require individuals to maintain a certain distance from others so as not to impose on others or compromise his or her dignity and privacy. There are two specific principles here: One is the principle of reciprocity, and the other is the principle of exposure for those with a lower social status. These two principles seem to have changed in the mobile internet era. The “voice-text” norm gives those in high status more of the freedom to express themselves. The principle of exposure that once applied mostly to those with low status has shifted to that of the high status.

On the whole, the reasons for not choosing voice messages can be roughly classified into two categories. Some do so for the sake of the other interactant, whereas some give vague excuses that mainly involve worries and concerns about exposing oneself too much.

At the same time, there is also a group of people who almost exclusively choose text messages in WeChat interactions, mainly because they are not used to voice messages, feel uncomfortable, and even fear it, which is also a phenomenon worth noting in today’s social interactions. Goffman pointed out that self-presentation in daily life is a performance that takes place in a synchronous or instant “situation.” In online interactions such as WeChat, the performance is asynchronous or non-instant and one of the most important changes is a process known as the interactive solid state. The solid state, and the fact that the messages people send are subject to permanent observation, make interviewees particularly sensitive to performative interactions on social media. They feel that their voices, as part of their bodies, are overly exposed and thus are adverse to increased exposure.

Concurrent vs non-physically collocated interaction 

In the mobile internet era, the evolution of time, space, and physical presence have given a makeover to the traditional face-to-face interactions between two people. In light of the changes to traditional ideas of copresence, where the bodies share the same physical space at the same time, some scholars have enriched the concept of “copresence” reframing it as “a sense of copresence.” This encompasses a range of situations, from making a phone call to interacting with bank machines as sub-types of “co-presence.”

However, the main purpose of this paper is to analyze the changes in rules to interactions in the mobile internet era by comparing traditional offline interactions with WeChat interactions. Therefore, the expanded definition listed above is too general. Rather, we want to label WeChat interactions as “delayed non-physical collocated interactions” to clearly distinguish them from traditional offline interactions, to facilitate further comparative analysis, and deepen people’s understandings of interaction rules and normative changes in the mobile internet era.

In summary, as a new social phenomenon, “non-physical collocated interaction” enriches the form and content of individual actors’ daily interactions. Meanwhile, it improves the efficiency of interactions, because individuals can engage in several conversations at the same time. WeChat also serves as an archive for the conversation to maintain the interactive nature of the discussion, to help concentrate interactants on fixed themes, and to reduce the risk of misunderstanding. The interaction process and the result are stored and solidified for both parties, making “evidence-preferred” interactions possible on important occasions.

Zheng Dandan is a professor from the School of Sociology at Huazhong Univerisity of Science and Technology; Dong Kehan is from the Department of Sociology at Peking University.

Edited by YANG XUE