Why Did You/I Read but Not Reply? IM Users' Unresponded-to Read-receipt Practices and Explanations of Them

10Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chou, Y. L., Lin, Y. H., Lin, T. Y., You, H. Y., & Chang, Y. J. (2022). Why Did You/I Read but Not Reply? IM Users’ Unresponded-to Read-receipt Practices and Explanations of Them. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517496

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free