Review of Communication Research https://www.rcommunicationr.org/index.php/rcr <p><strong><em>Review of Communication Research</em> (RCR) publishes literature reviews and meta-analyses</strong>. RCR is an <strong>open-access</strong> academic journal that publishes an annual volume with comprehensive and authoritative reviews of the current state of the main topics and the most significant developments in the field of communication. These comprehensive critical reviews summarize the latest advances in the field, but also will root out errors and will provoke intellectual discussions among scholars.</p> <p>The journal seeks both evaluative (systematic literature reviews, narrative literature reviews, state-of-the literature articles) and quantitative (meta-analyses) papers that make a state of the art of issues in scientific communication. Integrative review articles that connect different areas of research are of special interest.</p> en-US <p>The philosophy of the journal is to be open and to make all articles accessible. It is our belief that open access is a must in the future of science.</p><p><span>Authors who publish with RCR </span>accept a slightly modified Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.</p><p>You, as author, retain the copyrights for your paper, but the <em>Review of Communication Research</em> is granted exclusivity for publication of the article. The agreement allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and publication in this journal. We do not want third parties to make a commercial use of the article, unless we agree it with authors.</p><p>The journal will run an open review process as well as a traditional peer review process.</p><p>When the manuscript is accepted for publication, it will get a doi number and get available online to facilitate early citation.</p><p>The journal will post the published article to many public repositories for further diffusion and permanence.</p><p>You, as author, are permitted and encouraged to post your work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on your website), as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.</p><p>If you have any doubts, please, contact the editor: editor@rcommunication.org</p><p> </p><p>Many thanks for submitting your work to this journal.</p><p> </p> editor@rcommunicationr.org (Giorgio P. De Marchis) alerts@rcommunicationr.org (Pedro-José León) Thu, 09 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0000 OJS 3.2.1.0 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 Do women and men use language differently in spoken face-to-face interaction? A scoping review. https://www.rcommunicationr.org/index.php/rcr/article/view/77 <p>Although the question whether women and men speak differently is a topic of hot debate, an overview of the extent to which empirical studies provide robust support for a relationship between sex/gender and language is lacking. The aim of the current scoping review was therefore to synthesize recent studies from various theoretical perspectives on the relationship between sex/gender and language use in spoken face-to-face dyadic interactions. Fifteen empirical studies were systematically selected for review, and were discussed according to four different theoretical perspectives and associated methodologies. More than thirty relevant linguistic variables were identified, e.g., interruptions and intensifiers. Overall, few robust differences between women and men in the use of linguistic variables were observed across contexts, although women seem to be more engaged in supportive turn-taking than men. Importantly, gender identity salience, institutionalized roles, and social and contextual factors such as setting and conversational goal, seem to play a key role in the relationship between speaker’s sex/gender and language used in spoken interaction.</p> Ilona Plug, Wyke Stommel, Peter Lucassen, Tim Olde Hartman, Sandra Van Dulmen, Enny Das Copyright (c) 2020 Ilona Plug, Wyke Stommel, Peter Lucassen, Tim Olde Hartman, Sandra Van Dulmen, Enny Das https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 https://www.rcommunicationr.org/index.php/rcr/article/view/77 Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Monitoring, Creeping, or Surveillance? A Synthesis of Online Social Information Seeking Concepts https://www.rcommunicationr.org/index.php/rcr/article/view/75 <p>Affordances of Internet sites and Internet-based applications make personal information about romantic partners, friends, family members, and strangers easy to obtain. People use various techniques to find information about others, capitalizing on online affordances by using search engines to find relevant websites and databases; scouring the target’s social media or social networking site presence; accessing information about the target via their links or network association with others on social media; or asking questions or crowdsourcing information through online channels. Researchers have coined an assortment of terms to describe online social information seeking behaviors, such as <em>interpersonal electronic surveillance</em>, <em>social surveillance</em>, <em>monitoring</em>, <em>patient-targeted Googling</em>, <em>cybervetting</em>, <em>websleuthing</em>, <em>human flesh search</em>, <em>lateral surveillance</em>, <em>Facebook surveillance</em>, and <em>Facebook stalking</em>. Although considerable research has examined these behaviors, there has been little effort to clarify the concepts themselves. As a result, the literature is currently full of inconsistent and overlapping conceptualizations. To synthesize these concepts for future research, this review examines 73 online social information seeking concepts extracted from 186 articles. Specifically, the concepts are reviewed in light of their scope; the information seeker or target of information seeking (e.g., romantic partners, parents, children, employees, criminals); motives for information seeking (e.g., uncertainty, threat, curiosity); and the intensity of the behavior. Recommendations are provided for future research, such as employing clear conceptualizations and incorporating affordances. Finally, we offer a decision tree that researchers can use to help select appropriate terms to use in their work moving forward.</p> Jessica R Frampton, Jesse Fox Copyright (c) 2020 Review of Communication Research https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 https://www.rcommunicationr.org/index.php/rcr/article/view/75 Thu, 09 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Self-Presentation in Social Media: Review and Research Opportunities https://www.rcommunicationr.org/index.php/rcr/article/view/71 <p>This paper reviews existing research on self-presentation in social media in order to inform future research. Social media offer seemingly limitless opportunities for strategic self-presentation. The composition of an impression manager’s audience from one platform to the next varies across social media platforms, impacting and often complicating the attainment of self-presentation goals in the midst of context collapse. Social media users can employ a variety of strategies in an attempt to reach their goals and successfully influence how others perceive them. Although we have learned much from this body of literature, a more comprehensive theory of self-presentation in the hypermedia age is needed to further advance this area of research. Recommended variables to consider in online self-presentation include individual variables, culture/group membership, motivations, channel-specific variables, self-presentation content generated by self and others, as well as effectiveness of self-presentation.</p> Erin E. Hollenbaugh Copyright (c) 2020 Erin E. Hollenbaugh https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 https://www.rcommunicationr.org/index.php/rcr/article/view/71 Thu, 24 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0000