The world of technology never sleeps. With the ongoing advancements being developed on a daily basis, it is bound that the internet will too change to a more modernized level. Nevertheless, the theories that have been made will still apply. For instance, the Social Presence Theory by Short, Williams, and Christie that states that no matter what, CMC compared to FtF communication will lead to decreased social presence and impoverished impression formation being that there is a lack of nonverbal clues available to make judgments from. Despite the changes with internet, CMC will never be the same as FtF communication. However, the Hyperpersonal Model and SIDE factors will also be applicable being that there are always a small amount of cues available, so inflated perceptions, either positive or negative, of one will be made. The theory of Problematic Internet Use will also still hold and more than likely increase as a problem amongst users. With added features and increase attractiveness, users will only develop more of a preference and attachment to the internet causing them to prefer on line interaction even more than now.
Some theories will have to be modified to fit the circumstances. New technologies with computers certainly have enhanced visuals whereas people will be able to communicate as if they are talking FtF. Although technology will not allow perception of cues as FtF would, overtime the gap will be bridged closer together. In the age of having built in cameras and virtual pictures as necessities for online networks, overtime the use and development of these visual aids will only increase. Thus theories such as the Reduced Social Context Cues will not hold as strongly as it does not under these circumstances because there will be more nonverbal cues available. It will not be as easy for one to focus on the negatives and base judgments solely on that. The Social Presence Theory will have to be modified as well being that with more visuals, in CMC social presence will increase and social distance will decrease.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
Bonus: Predicting the Future
It’s mindboggling to think that 20 years ago the Internet was barely in existence. Today the Internet governs mainstream culture. We do our homework on blogs, conduct business meetings through video chat, meet future spouses on social networking sites, and find information on virtually any topic of interest we could ever think of. It’s hard to imagine that it is possible for the Internet to become any more a part of our lives than it already is, but it is an inevitable progression of continually developing technology. How will the theories we learned in COMM 245 develop with it?
The increased use and advancement of Internet communicative technologies such as video-chat, Skype, and entire virtual-based worlds will significantly change the use of some of the theories we learned about. Certain theories like SIDE will stay constant, regardless of how open or detailed the Internet becomes. Whether someone is on the Internet talking over a live video feed or chatting on AIM, group identities and social categories will remain salient. That’s how it is in real life too.
Other theories that relate more to how a person chooses to present themselves, having the medium of the Internet in between to mask certain elements of their personality, will lose strength. It won’t be long before we are all communicating with each other in crystal clear digital video over the computer. The Hyperpersonal model and the Proteus Effect rely heavily on the idea that people can selectively self-present. Hyperpersonal says that people will latch on to the few cues that are given and exaggerate them. However, in the future, I don’t think CMC will have that much fewer cues than FtF. Concepts such as Social Distance Theory will continue to hold, because people will always want to choose the leanest media to lie, but the extent of its power will undoubtedly decrease. I don’t think that purely text-based CMC will be around for much longer. As the Internet becomes more advanced, there will be greater avenues for us to connect with other people and as we become more and more familiar with them, the gap between CMC and FtF will shrink. It will be interesting to see how this is analyzed with new theories.
Something I think will become more prevalent is the issue of Problematic Internet Use. With more advanced and new types of Internet technologies, there is greater likelihood for PIU. We rely on the Internet so much already, it is scary to think how much more is possible. However, I think after a point in time, such a high level of Internet use may become the normal, and even expected, at which point PIU may no longer be considered a problem.
I think this class did a great job of keeping up with the latest research and developments in social computing, but this is a continuously developing field, and therefore requires a continuously developing class. In the future, I think there will be even more emphasis on video and voice based CMC as opposed to text-based. I think that more attention will be given to the effects of Internet regulation once even more people are on it, even more regularly, exploring the ever-growing things that it offers. We talked a lot in COMM 245 about deception, particularly towards and from the people we interacted with online. More cues will make deception between people harder, but the greater problem will be deception by the owners and moderators of technologies and networks on the Internet, such as Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. The recordability of the Internet will become a much bigger issue, and it will be interesting to see how that effects the way people interact over it. This class has introduced me to aspects of the Internet I did not even know existed. As dorky as it sounds, I find myself analyzing everything people do on the internet through the scope of COMM 245. I guess that means I learned something!
Bonus Assignment
The Internet changes rapidly. Five years ago popular social networks sites like Facebook were in their infancy. Ten years ago chat rooms were actually popular (gasp!). Twenty years ago the world wide web as we know it was little more than a collection of telephonically connected system of text-based bulletin boards. Thirty years ago few people, but professors and scientists connected over the web. As the Internet continues to change, our use of it and especially, our familiarity and acceptance of it has increased. This continual interweavening of life and the web will mean new discovers for social computing psychology and rethinking of previously excepted beliefs. Some theories will changes, others will continue to hold, and new issues will need to be addressed.
We already saw in our studies, that some psychology of social computing theories are beginning to lose their value. The Cues Filtered Out perspective may be becoming harder to apply as the breadth of communication channels on the web increases with photo and video sharing sites. New friends can immediately access a vast array of information (albeit likely self-representatively managed) on sites like Facebook and MySpace. Further, our knowledge and understanding of social norms and interaction practices on the web affects the way many of the CFO theorums suggest we might. The Hyperpersonal model says we should view new encounters as hyperboles of their real selfs; however, continued use of the Internet often builds target understanding and people come to expect these exaggerations-- perhaps, overlook them.
Other theories seem to stand up better to the advancement of the Internet. O'Sullivan's discussions of Impression Management relate that people will present themselves in the best light by holding back what they percieve less than ideal characteristics. We often studied how people use Facebook and how truthful their profiles are to their life. We found that consistently small lies are told to form a better self-representation. Some newer theories, such as the Proteus effect, which discusses the effect of online avatar use on personality and behavior stating a person will act as he percieve his or her online avatar would act based on its characteristics, seem to have created solid foundations that will be true on the net for years to come. Many of these theories, including the Proteus effect, are based off decades old research and ideas that held true offline and then are brought onto the web for new understanding. Frank and Gilovich dressed up study participates in black uniforms found them to more aggressive than subjects in white twenty years ago; now, Yee and Bailenson perceived similar results noting confidence with taller online avatars when they were forming the Proteus Effect.
As technology on the Internet continues to develop, new theories will have to be created to understand how people will use them to interact with one another and what implications these might have on society on the web. While our class has generally been on the cutting edge of technology and research (even reading scientific papers not yet in print), what is new is constantly changing and the web is so vast some things are bound to be overlooked. The online economy and commerce is one big aspect of social computing that this class didn't seem to delve into. While business and commerce may not seem like prime topics for social interaction studies, it is a major use of the internet and often an axis of interaction. People spend hours shopping on the web, writing reviews, trading experiences with products and merchants on discussion boards, comment chains, and chat. It is an excellent way to build common ground by finding people with similar tastes and creating shared experience purusing the same goods and wares.
Yet, even as we miss some things now, new and exciting developments on the web will come to change many of our current understandings. Currently, we are able to self-representation manage by creating personal profiles on social network sites or choosing our own avatars in 3D worlds like World of Warcraft. What if we come to a point were our whole lives are documented, recorded, and posted on the web. Every moment captured, every success detailed, and every failure displayed. Theories such as the Proteus effect and Impression Management, which I think are so enduring, might become completely obsolete. There was an article in the New Yorker (sorry no citation) about an old player at Microsoft who sought to put his entire world onto his computer. He carries a camera that snaps thousands of pictures a day-- every five seconds, when light changes, on demand, and when it senses motion. All his legal documents, childhood drawings and schoolwork, every email, consumer goods manuals, etc. everything has been uploaded to his computer. The goal of the project is to find ways to use all this information such as computer programs to automate biography and memoir writing. But, what if everyone's life was recorded in such a way and posted publicly? Then many of our ideas would cease to hold. We could no longer manage self-representations nor be affected by avatars (the avatar would be our true form 3D modeled). Online (gulp), we'd have to be ourselves.
We already saw in our studies, that some psychology of social computing theories are beginning to lose their value. The Cues Filtered Out perspective may be becoming harder to apply as the breadth of communication channels on the web increases with photo and video sharing sites. New friends can immediately access a vast array of information (albeit likely self-representatively managed) on sites like Facebook and MySpace. Further, our knowledge and understanding of social norms and interaction practices on the web affects the way many of the CFO theorums suggest we might. The Hyperpersonal model says we should view new encounters as hyperboles of their real selfs; however, continued use of the Internet often builds target understanding and people come to expect these exaggerations-- perhaps, overlook them.
Other theories seem to stand up better to the advancement of the Internet. O'Sullivan's discussions of Impression Management relate that people will present themselves in the best light by holding back what they percieve less than ideal characteristics. We often studied how people use Facebook and how truthful their profiles are to their life. We found that consistently small lies are told to form a better self-representation. Some newer theories, such as the Proteus effect, which discusses the effect of online avatar use on personality and behavior stating a person will act as he percieve his or her online avatar would act based on its characteristics, seem to have created solid foundations that will be true on the net for years to come. Many of these theories, including the Proteus effect, are based off decades old research and ideas that held true offline and then are brought onto the web for new understanding. Frank and Gilovich dressed up study participates in black uniforms found them to more aggressive than subjects in white twenty years ago; now, Yee and Bailenson perceived similar results noting confidence with taller online avatars when they were forming the Proteus Effect.
As technology on the Internet continues to develop, new theories will have to be created to understand how people will use them to interact with one another and what implications these might have on society on the web. While our class has generally been on the cutting edge of technology and research (even reading scientific papers not yet in print), what is new is constantly changing and the web is so vast some things are bound to be overlooked. The online economy and commerce is one big aspect of social computing that this class didn't seem to delve into. While business and commerce may not seem like prime topics for social interaction studies, it is a major use of the internet and often an axis of interaction. People spend hours shopping on the web, writing reviews, trading experiences with products and merchants on discussion boards, comment chains, and chat. It is an excellent way to build common ground by finding people with similar tastes and creating shared experience purusing the same goods and wares.
Yet, even as we miss some things now, new and exciting developments on the web will come to change many of our current understandings. Currently, we are able to self-representation manage by creating personal profiles on social network sites or choosing our own avatars in 3D worlds like World of Warcraft. What if we come to a point were our whole lives are documented, recorded, and posted on the web. Every moment captured, every success detailed, and every failure displayed. Theories such as the Proteus effect and Impression Management, which I think are so enduring, might become completely obsolete. There was an article in the New Yorker (sorry no citation) about an old player at Microsoft who sought to put his entire world onto his computer. He carries a camera that snaps thousands of pictures a day-- every five seconds, when light changes, on demand, and when it senses motion. All his legal documents, childhood drawings and schoolwork, every email, consumer goods manuals, etc. everything has been uploaded to his computer. The goal of the project is to find ways to use all this information such as computer programs to automate biography and memoir writing. But, what if everyone's life was recorded in such a way and posted publicly? Then many of our ideas would cease to hold. We could no longer manage self-representations nor be affected by avatars (the avatar would be our true form 3D modeled). Online (gulp), we'd have to be ourselves.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
12 | Trusting the Information Overlords?
Google has taken online advertising to a previously unimaginable level. Registered users for Google services, including the popular iGoogle feature, freely give away their search history and online behavior to the information giant. GMail users provide Google with personal email messages, which are read by machines to guess their interests and preferences. No, the good folks at Google aren’t watching you 24/7, but their machines are. Ads become tailored to people’s specific behavior, arguably helping the user by providing more relevant offers. However, there are times when information can go sour, as a man was convicted of murder after Google turned over his search activity for how to kill his wife. Just know that if it hasn't happened already, the time may come where Google will sell your search activity and interests to interested parties. Facebook has also been implicated in selling information to student’s employers and keeping tabs on people’s online behavior.
Although Google and Facebook have been responsible, or good at coverups, so far, the question still remains as to why we freely provide registration-based sites with so much personal information. Marketing and corporate impression management play a role in developing a trusting user base. Google’s colorful and kindergartenesque logo would never hurt a fly. Facebook manages a hip and youthful culture, allowing users to give friends naughty gifts and freely socialize with others, making it cool to be on Facebook. The Hyperpersonal Theory clarifies why we form such positive opinions; we form more intense impressions from very limited corporate branding information. Reallocation of cognitive resources dictates that we pay attention to the most obvious parts of a website, such as overall look and feel. Most web surfers know very little about the online economy, and retain their first impressions of a website based on looks and features. The over-attribution process also plays a role in impression formation; knowing Facebook was like MySpace turned me off a little at first, as I was quick to make a generalization. However, once the initial impression is formed, if the user likes the service, he or she will progressively continue to like it through the developmental aspect of the Hyperpersonal Theory, or quickly leave the site if he or she doesn't like it. Thus, just as the Hyperpersonal model applies to personality assessment, most users will make intense impressions about a website from initial interaction with limited cues. People either love the online service and stick with it for years to come, or simply click the back button.
Because the face to face meeting with the CEOs of Google and Facebook never occurs for most people, the intense CMC impressions stand the test of time, allowing initial users of Google and Facebook to continue using the technology despite bumps in the road every now and then (eg. the Facebook newsfeed).
SIDE also explains why we’re wiling to trust large websites with our personal information. What attracted me to Facebook was the fact that everyone was doing it; it felt more like a group to me. Although we can see each others’ pictures, I would argue that Facebook is visually anonymous because we can select how much we want to share through our profile, keeping it private and anonymous to some people. Facebook also takes advantage of Cornell’s group salience, motivating users to identify themselves with the school. Visual anonymity and group salience predict that users will like the group more and become more willing to conform and trust the group’s standards. Hence, Facebook users are more willing to trust it through group influence. Google also takes advantage of the SIDE theory, explaining why so many people are willing to use it. Visual anonymity is present with Google since we obviously can’t see other users’ activity. I also believe that Google has a group identity as well; Googling something has become so prominent that the phrase is now a household term.
The Hyperpersonal Theory predicts that we will continue to maintain our intensely positive opinions of Facebook and Google, until more information and cues are made available as in a face to face meetings. Should the day come where Google takes privacy issues a bit too far and its leaders are derided through public media, then I’d predict more users would be less willing to trust Google with this added, more personal information. The same applies for Facebook, as long as they can avoid bad press, no one will know about nor care about its use of our private information. After all, ignorance is bliss!
Although Google and Facebook have been responsible, or good at coverups, so far, the question still remains as to why we freely provide registration-based sites with so much personal information. Marketing and corporate impression management play a role in developing a trusting user base. Google’s colorful and kindergartenesque logo would never hurt a fly. Facebook manages a hip and youthful culture, allowing users to give friends naughty gifts and freely socialize with others, making it cool to be on Facebook. The Hyperpersonal Theory clarifies why we form such positive opinions; we form more intense impressions from very limited corporate branding information. Reallocation of cognitive resources dictates that we pay attention to the most obvious parts of a website, such as overall look and feel. Most web surfers know very little about the online economy, and retain their first impressions of a website based on looks and features. The over-attribution process also plays a role in impression formation; knowing Facebook was like MySpace turned me off a little at first, as I was quick to make a generalization. However, once the initial impression is formed, if the user likes the service, he or she will progressively continue to like it through the developmental aspect of the Hyperpersonal Theory, or quickly leave the site if he or she doesn't like it. Thus, just as the Hyperpersonal model applies to personality assessment, most users will make intense impressions about a website from initial interaction with limited cues. People either love the online service and stick with it for years to come, or simply click the back button.
Because the face to face meeting with the CEOs of Google and Facebook never occurs for most people, the intense CMC impressions stand the test of time, allowing initial users of Google and Facebook to continue using the technology despite bumps in the road every now and then (eg. the Facebook newsfeed).
SIDE also explains why we’re wiling to trust large websites with our personal information. What attracted me to Facebook was the fact that everyone was doing it; it felt more like a group to me. Although we can see each others’ pictures, I would argue that Facebook is visually anonymous because we can select how much we want to share through our profile, keeping it private and anonymous to some people. Facebook also takes advantage of Cornell’s group salience, motivating users to identify themselves with the school. Visual anonymity and group salience predict that users will like the group more and become more willing to conform and trust the group’s standards. Hence, Facebook users are more willing to trust it through group influence. Google also takes advantage of the SIDE theory, explaining why so many people are willing to use it. Visual anonymity is present with Google since we obviously can’t see other users’ activity. I also believe that Google has a group identity as well; Googling something has become so prominent that the phrase is now a household term.
The Hyperpersonal Theory predicts that we will continue to maintain our intensely positive opinions of Facebook and Google, until more information and cues are made available as in a face to face meetings. Should the day come where Google takes privacy issues a bit too far and its leaders are derided through public media, then I’d predict more users would be less willing to trust Google with this added, more personal information. The same applies for Facebook, as long as they can avoid bad press, no one will know about nor care about its use of our private information. After all, ignorance is bliss!
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
12: Last but not least....
In this course we have discussed a wide variety of theories that touch numerous issues that deal with online and mediated spaces. The internet and the online spaces we have discussed and the way we as individuals and groups use them seem to be ever changing. However, I feel that many of the theories and models that have been generated from studies and research will not change that much. I believe this because many of the theories deal with human tendencies and characteristics that seen innate. For example, the concept of gender signals being shown during CMC will remain the same because those are gradual socialized tendencies that we develop from a very young age and cannot just get rid of. Another theory that I believe will not go away is the Social Distance Theory because no matter the medium people feel uncomfortable when lying. In order to avoid that uncomfortable confrontation people will choose the leanest medium available to communicate in. No matter the time in history I believe people will always want to present the very best of themselves to other people therefore I think the concept of selective self presentation will remain steadfast as well.
However I think that aspects of Caplan’s model will intensify over time, because as the internet grows and more technologies emerge individuals who struggle with additions or have social problems in face to face will look towards mediated environment for interaction and entertainment. I also think that the theories about leaving virtuality will change, or at least will not be given much weight in the upcoming years because eventually I believe many relationships (friendship, personal, professional) will start in CMC and people will eventually learn what to expect when meeting someone in face to face.
In the future I think it would be interesting to do more research or have more discussions on the effects of merging media technologies, an example would be the iphone. The ability to connect at any moment to any piece of information will make people equipped to solve problems faster and reach people in theory networks instantaneously. All of this connectivity and information would be very a very powerful tool. However what would be the effects on family life, relationships or professional networks? Would they improve?
In coming semesters I would like to see COMM245 cover more on Blackberry and Iphones and the relationship between connectivity and productivity in the workplace.
Bonus Blog
Technology changes at a rapid rate. However, at some point the way we communicate can only change so much. Although it is hard to imagine what new methods of interaction can be developed in the near future, in many cases, certain means of communication have evolved as much as they will. The technology behind video phones has been around quite a while. However, they never caught on, because people do not want their media to that salient. They want to be able to limit the nonverbal cues that the person they are communicating with receives.
What I see as the significant change happening is the portability of communication. In just the past few years cell phones have become a part of every day life. The popularity of cell phones are rendering payphones obsolete. In fact, AT&T just announced that they will no longer be offering payphone services
Phones becoming wireless is just the beginning. Text messaging allows for short messages anywhere and developing data technologies allow for wireless internet everywhere. With wireless, people can be connected anywhere. They can use AIM portably or even facebook wherever they want.
The advancements that I see changing the way people communicate come through portability. The blackberry already allows people to email from wherever and whenever they want. As time goes on, computers will get smaller, work faster, and draw less power. If you want to go into concept theories in a few years mini fuel cell and wireless power should start coming around allowing for nonstop use of portable computers. Future technology could eventually shrink computer displays from glasses with a built in screen (which exist now) to a monitor built into a contact lens.
I think the class does a fairly good job of touching on most branches of social computing. To finish off I am detailing my new communication method for the future. I have decided that in the future there will be a system called moose. By using moose you can telepathically message anyone. It is an asynchronous system. When using moose you will have to check your telepathic messages by directly hooking your brain up to the internet. However since everything is wireless. This will not be a problem. You can connect anywhere. The beauty of moose is that it is not recordable. As soon as you receive a message, you forget it. This makes it a great medium for breaking bad news.
11: more than i expected
I came to Cornell as a transfer student last year but the summer before I actually arrived on campus I added the Cornell network to my Facebook profile. As soon as I added this network I started receiving and friend requests from other incoming transfers. There was one student in particular that messaged me frequently because after some initial conversing we learned that we would be living on the same floor in the transfer center. We learned that we had a lot in common (activities, interests), and so from our conversations online I felt as if I definitely knew this person well and was looking forward to meeting them in person. I definitely felt as though there was anticipated future interaction between the both of us.
When late August came around I actually was able to meet this individual, and unlike what Ramirez and Wang claimed, my online transfer buddy and I actually became great friends and still are. I was not at all disappointed or let down when we first had the chance to meet. It was not hard to move our friendship from CMC to offline/ face-to-face. One of the major claims that Ramirez and Wang make is that that “there is uncertainty- provoking relative to interacting via CMC”. In my response to that though, there may have been some slight awkwardness but it quickly dissipated once we “broke the ice” by chatting about the topics we had discussed previously online.
So then I believe this relationship with my fellow transfer buddy supports Berger & Calabrese’s Uncertainty Reduction Theory because the more we interacted and disclosed information about ourselves there was a greater sense of camaraderie, friendship and intimacy. I think overall meeting and becoming friends in reality actually made our relationship stronger because we are now able to learn more about one another through face-to-face interaction. Maybe leaving virtuality isn’t that bad after all.
COMMENTS:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)