11: Meeting Someone Online

When I was looking for examples of online relationships moving to FTF, I asked one of my friends (J) if he knew of any examples. As it turns out, he met his current girlfriend (A) online and eventually moved on to FTF, so I am going to use him as an example. The relationship eventually started when J met A on Myspace and began to talk to her on AIM. The relationship stayed strictly online for about a month, and they mostly talked about standard things like movies, music, books, likes and dislikes, etc. Eventually they met FTF and started going out.

As it turns out, my friend’s relationship supports a few theories we have learned about in this class. The first is the Social Information Processing (SIP) theory. This theory explains that although initial interactions online might seem cold at first, given enough time they will warm up and catch up in warmth to near those of FTF interactions. When I talked with J about him talking with A, he said that they did not even have a ton in common. They kept talking/flirting on AIM, however, and once they felt pretty familiar with each other they decided to meet FTF. J told me that the comfort they had learned to feel with each other in the online environment translated pretty well into the real world.

A similar theory in this situation would be the Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT). This states that the more information is shared between two people in CMC would lead to greater liking and intimacy. So, like I said, J and A spent a long time talking to each other and learning more and more about each other before they ever met FTF. URT would tell us that this would lead to increased liking and attraction. This makes sense, because when meeting someone FTF for the first time, it would make anyone feel more comfortable knowing more about the other person than less. Also, even though J and A did not share the same views and tastes on every subject, they at least knew what the other felt. URT does not specify that the information shared between two people has to necessarily coincide with both persons’ views, only that they have to share the information in general. Like the name of the theory implies, it is the reduced uncertainty of the interaction that helps, not the specifics of the information.

My friends experience leaving virtuality does not support the hyperpersonal model, though. The hyperpersonal model would say that when communicating in a CMC environment people’s perceptions of others might become exaggerated and blown out of proportion. If this were the case, when people end up meeting each other FTF, they would probably feel some disappointment when reality ends up different than their perceptions.

comment 1

comment 2

11: A Class of Success Story

Everyone remembers sending in their Cornell acceptance and receiving their invitation to the lucrative “Class of” website. For this assignment, I asked my friend “Katie” about a relationship she had formed through the online community, which led to an FtF meeting. Katie was first contacted by “Jenna” through AIM, having made her screen name available on her class of 2010 profile. Originally, Katie thought it was really weird and sketchy that someone would get her screen name and message her, but she was also kind of excited to talk to someone before going to Cornell. They talked online for a few months through the summer, usually about typical pre-frosh Cornell stuff like housing and shopping for dorm rooms. They found out they had a lot in common and were interested in a lot of the same kinds of activities. They ended up meeting before Cornell even started because Katie was going to a protest in New York City with some of her friends and invited Jenna to come along with them because she had no one else to go with.

Katie describes being very nervous to meet Jenna because she thought Jenna was so cool online and was afraid she wasn’t going to live up to her expectations. She was very uncertain about meeting her FtF because she was thought they wouldn’t have as much in common as they talked about online. They ended up meeting on the train on the way to the protest and got along great! In fact, they grew to like each other even more because they are now best friends at Cornell.

Katie and Jenna’s experience of “leaving virtuality” fits well with the Uncertainty Reduction Theory. They had a very positive outcome meeting in person after talking online, and the FtF meeting reduced any uncertainty Katie had about how much she would get along with Jenna. When talking online, most of their conversations were about more superficial topics such as what kind of refrigerator to buy for their dorms or which meal plan to get on. After they met in person, they got to know each other on a deeper level. However, I don’t think their experience was in line with Ramirez & Wang’s expectancy violation theory perspective on modality switching. Katie talked to Jenna for a few months before meeting her in person, which would constitute a long-term online association. Ramirez & Wang predict that this would result in a negative and uncertainty-provoking outcome, which is the opposite of what happened. I feel like in this situation, my friend would have been even uneasier had she only talked to Jenna for a few days before meeting her considering how she thought it was weird a random person was instant messaging her. But hey, sometimes random, sketchy online friendships work out for the best!

Comment 1
Comment 2

11. Roommate Virtuality

During the summer before my freshman year of college, I had exchanged emails with the person who was going to be my roommate for the upcoming year, whom I will call Aaron. We had never met each other before and neither of us was on Facebook at that time, so our communication was visually anonymous. Our online conversations consisted of a mix between information exchange and small talk. We discussed what we were going to bring to the dorm, what sports we were playing and other interests. We found that we had a lot in common and I began to think we could be good friends some day. I was very excited to meet this guy, because he seemed like such a genuinely interesting and outgoing person. For instance, his very first email to me had an animated subject line of “Roommate!!!” and contained some lighthearted humor. Before Aaron first contacted me, I was worried that I might get stuck with a bad roommate and have an unfavorable living experience my first year of college. However, after we started sending each other emails, I felt more comfortable about the upcoming year and was convinced of the effectiveness of those roommate surveys they make you take to measure compatibility. Boy was I in for a surprise.

When August came around and we finally met each other face to face, Aaron was a much more shy and reserved person than he seemed in the emails. Online, he also seemed like such a fun, interesting, and upbeat person when in reality, he was much more quiet, subdued, and quite frankly less interesting. This may have been a result of selective self-presentation on his part or perhaps a Hyperpersonal effect created by me, or maybe a combination of both. The Hyperpersonal model suggests that impression formation is more exaggerated and extreme than in FtF interactions based on a smaller amount of available cues from which to form a well-rounded impression. I believe the Hyperpersonal model applies to my experience because of how I created this idealized version of a person with such great personal attributes based only on a small amount of cues. I had such a high expectation for Aaron’s personality that when I actually met him, it was almost inevitable that he could not live up to such high standards I had set for him. In reality, he may have had many of the traits I had attributed to him, just not to the extreme degree with which I expected before meeting.

The timing of the relationship likely played a role in the modality switch. We had begun emailing each other in the first half of July and overall we had exchanged about 10 messages, so I would consider this relationship to be long-term (based on the fact that Ramirez and Wang suggested long-term to be about 6 weeks in their experiment). Ramirez and Wang found that modality switches after a long-term CMC relationship were uncertainty-provoking and resulted in a negative outcome. I found this to be true in my experience, especially since our online communication lasted for so long before meeting and my initial impression took such a long time until it was adjusted for reality during the modality switch. The MS caused a negative outcome, as I explained above, and provoked uncertainty about Aaron’s character especially since I thought I knew the person he would be before meeting, yet he turned out to be someone completely different than I had imagined.

Comment 1
Comment 2

11: Do Yourself a Favor – Don’t Use Myspace to Find a Roommate

For this assignment, I chose to analyze my experience with my roommate from freshman year. After getting my acceptance letter here, there were a few months between the times everybody who got in early decision and the time we could access Cornell Facebook. During this time, many early decision-ers were populating Myspace, and this is where I met my roommate.

She (we’ll call her Lauren) seemed like the sweetest girl when I first met her. Lauren was from upstate New York, went to a private catholic school, played field hockey, and didn’t drink. We had a lot in common and hit it off right away. After a few weeks of talking on Myspace, and then on AIM, she brought up the awkward topic of rooming. We seemed to get along really well and she seemed like a really cool girl (despite the fact that she had applied to the engineering school), so I agreed and we decided to put in a room request together.

Eventually, we started talking on the phone, and I met up with her in New York City twice. I couldn’t have been happier with my decision; she was everything that she portrayed herself to be. When we got up to school, we had a great first month rooming together. After a month, Lauren started dating a guy down the hall who I really disliked. Dating him changed her completely, and she alienated everybody in our suite, including me. She transformed into this awful, nasty person, a person who I never knew online. Looking back now, my relationship with Lauren was clearly superficial; she ended up being a completely different person than who she portrayed herself to be online, and I complete regret rooming with her. I almost ended up moving out of the room because she was such an awful roommate (and person, for that matter).

My experience with my (thankfully) ex-roommate is not an uncommon one – I know plenty of people who ended up regretting rooming with someone they met online prior to school. The Hyperpersonal model fits best in analyzing my experience. I overattributed information I got via short conversations and connections on Myspace profiles to the type of person Lauren actually was. People lie constantly and mask their true personalities on the web, making it difficult, in retrospect, to make a good decision about whether or not a stranger is actually a kindred fit. While Lauren and I worked as roommates for about a month, in the long term, my overattribution to some of her (only) good qualities clouded my judgment, and allowed me to make a mistake in rooming with her.

Lesson learned here: be weary of a person’s true personality before rooming with them.

11- But Really though, Do I know you?

I am taking it back to the days when Facebook was special. When access to Facebook was exclusive and it was the prime means of communication amongst college students and only college students. It was the social network that my friends and I awaited to join upon receipt of that official college e-mail address. Once registered, hands were privy to finding old elementary school friends and getting to know others as much as possible before classes started.

I was one of those who did not appreciate or accept the random friend requests from those who sought out my friendship before we met Ftf. My roommate, a friend from high school, was however very open to meeting others and establishing friendships via CMC. One such friendship that initiated over the summer before freshman year began was with a basketball player who would reside in the same dorm as us. He facebooked her in aid to make friends with those he would lived with. They began small talk during the summer, learning about each other’s home towns, future majors, and of course the dating relationship status. Messages were sent sparingly between the two being that both relied heavy on the notion that they would become closer once they met in person. Regardless, by the Uncertainty Reduction Theory they only began to like one another increasingly because they were able to exchange personal information and moreover became more open from the good impressions formed of one another.

As soon as school commenced she dragged me with her to meet her facebook friend. Under URT, being that I had no prior communication with this guy, no uncertainly was reduced about him. Rather, I over attributed all the negative aspects possibly tied to him, making me view him as a sketchy desperate guy who sought out my roommate because he is into weird online dating. I was basically just a bystander there to protect my dear roommate in case he turned out to be crazy. Their interaction definitely corresponded with Ramirez and Wang short term analysis which states that meeting Ftf after CMC would lead to a positive reaction and enhancing to the relationship between the two. Immediately they both got along well, continuing the small talk where they left off in facebook. Being that they already had a sense of one another’s social identity, they easily made a connection with one another. From my observation these positive outcomes where supported by their perception formed of one another through the Hyperpersonal Model. According to Walther, the model demonstrates that through CMC communication, partners select certain cues and overattribute them in relation to the individual. I know that my roommate thought highly of the basketball player being that foremost he was an athlete and second, he thought she was special enough to seek out friendship with. His affinity grew of her on basis of the only picture she portrayed on herself which eloquently showed off her tan and her Brazilian background. After leaving virtuality, they lived up to each others expectations allowing the relationship to be easily enhanced.

Now, we are all good friends up to this day regardless of my roommate’s eager anticipation of the friendship versus my negative stance on the whole situation.

COMMENTS:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=1648919944414577749

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=3481822173196543734

11: Hint: my name starts with an R

Once upon a time, in Cornell University, lived the neighbors R and C. Despite being neighbors, R and C rarely see each other due to their class schedules and the fact that neither R nor C comes over to the other’s dorm.
About a month into the semester, while procrastinating, R found C on Facebook and added her as friend. They chatted a couple of times on the wall and learned about things they have in common (e.g. BEE, masters of procrastination, gamers, having royal screw-ups during preenrollment, etc, etc). R even found out that C is somewhat psychotic (iconoclastic according to C), much like R himself, who C caught doing Tai Chi at 2am in the morning.
A week or so before Thanksgiving, R asked C out to a movie. While walking to and coming back from the movie, R and C chatted FtF for the first time. They learned that they have a mutual interest in art history (a subject which R doesn’t really have a clear memory of), things about each other’s families and friends and that C recently developed a medical condition of which C had an episode during and after the movie (scared the crap out of both of them).
During Thanksgiving break, R and C, being the only person left in their respective dorms, hang out. They watched funny clips (e.g. whose line is it anyways) and Rush Hour 3. They chatted more and ate homemade noodle soup. They learned that they are both fans of philosophies, comedies and Chinese movies and TV series. As for the issue of neuroticism, R concluded that C is more “psychotic” than previously observed and that they are on par in this category, although R remains somewhat superior as he is still able to weird her out.
This relationship fits well into the Social Information Processing (SIP) theory. The SIP states that relationships and impression formation develop more slowly online as all the cues are adapted into verbal channel, which must be typed and read. R’s initial impression of C was that she is just a pretty girl next door whom he wants to get to know. As they interacted online, R found out that they have a lot in common. After they interacted FtF, R found C’s attributes are more exaggerated than previously observed online (namely neuroticisms) and learned more details of C’s interests, but R’s general impression of C didn’t change.
Finally, Ramirez & Wang’ result states that short-term interactions in CMC would lead to positive effect when leaving virtuality, and long-term interactions would lead to a negative effect. This case is consistent with Ramirez & Wang’s result (assuming that 2 months of loose Facebook wall posts and messages counts as short term CMC interaction). However, I have a feeling that in this case, even a longer CMC interaction previous to FtF interaction wouldn’t affect the result very much.
PS: if you want to know who R and C are… Sore wa himitsu desu. =D

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=4562285587592817662
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=3915961408909863634

11 ::awkward silence::

About a week before Fall Break last year I had posted on my Facebook that “Samantha is sad because everyone is going home for fall break and she isn’t” or something along those lines. I ended up receiving a message from a Cornell student saying how they were spending break in Ithaca too and suggested hanging out. We messaged each other back and forth on Facebook, then eventually moved to AIM. Fall Break came and went and we never met up, but we continued to chat online. We talked about all different kinds of things (sports, movies, family, etc.). By being on the same social network, increased identifiability lead to increased self-disclosure, promoting relationship development (“stranger in the crowd”). In person, I come off as very shy until you get to know me; so the CMC removed that gate. We were able to control how often and what type of media to communicate through. Having a common ground (similar interests) aided in our pursuit of the “goods” prior to meeting. (hmm, McKenna much?) Anyways, our friendship gradually grew through CMC, and I learned more about this person – changing my sketchy perception to an overall positive impression (similar to the Social Information Processing theory – my impression developed overtime). About six months after our first encounter online, we ran into each other on campus. It was weird because it was unexpected. At first we both looked at each other and realized that we “knew” each other, but we hesitated to acknowledge it. (I mean the whole “Aren’t we friends on Facebook?”…awkward!). So, we ended up not saying anything and just walked our separate directions. Later that week we talked about it online, discussed how we both felt awkward and decided to officially meet face to face. The following weekend we met for coffee. It was nice to finally match a voice and figure to this person I chatted with, but the intro’s were awkward because we already “met.” Every once in a while we see each other, but most of our friendship still remains in CMC, in part due to the fact our schedules don’t give us much leeway. This is consistent with SIP because our friendship developed/is developing overtime, but the information FtF had no real affect on the friendship. I didn’t form any particular positive or negative impressions from our meetings, but that also may be because they are brief.

-----------------------------

Comments:

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-naked-roommate.html

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-pimp-namedgino.html

11: Bridging the Gap from CMC to FTF

A few months ago, I had the pleasure of meeting the son of some friends of the family for the first time in person. For the past year, Dan and I had been conversing online through AOL Instant Messenger and Facebook, although we had never met. After my brother had given Dan my AIM screen name, Dan initiated communication with me, and we investigated each other’s Facebook profile. After talking a short while, we discovered that we both had several things in common, including an enjoyment of similar movies and music. The instant accessibility of the CMC environment (especially the internet) allowed Dan to eventually “become a fan” of the videos I had made and uploaded to YouTube, while I enjoyed listening to some of the new artists that Dan had recommended.

The Uncertainty Reduction Theory states that one will like a person and have a better impression of another person as one gains more and more information about that person. Since Dan and I began to communicate more and more on a regular basis after discovering our common interests, the URT was initially supported in this case, before I met him, because I felt I knew a lot about him. The timing of the switch from CMC to FTF (approximately one year) would probably be considered long term; in my case the long-term period of “incubating” in CMC helped us to understand each other better before we actually met in person.

Ramirez and Wang determined that in the short run, going from CMC to FTF would result in a positive effect, while in the long run, going from CMC to FTF would result in a more negative effect. We were both looking forward setting up a meeting between my family/me and him/our family friends (his parents), but it seems like our families are seeing less and less of each other these days. Since we enjoyed each other's FTF company at first but later saw less and less of each other, these results tend to confirm Ramirez and Wang’s research. In the short run, SIDE Theory and the Hyperpersonal model were not confirmed by my initial experience meeting Dan and his family; in the long run they have been confirmed: our impressions of each other have become more negative, as we have initiated AIM conversations less and less in the recent weeks.

Comment 1

Comment 2

Hyperpersonal Personals

Erin filled out a personality profile to an online dating site whimsically at the provocation of a friend. It was mere hours before Chris, an experienced online dater sent her an IM. Though curt in her first replies, she soon opened up to him and their relationship grew over IM, emails, photo exchanging and phone calls. Sprinkle in a rondevue off the web and two months of incubation (dating) and the couple was engaged-- married within a year.

Over the course of the semester, we've developed many models for how relationships develop online. The hyperpersonal model for instance says that in mediated communication like emails, there are fewer social context cues upon which to base assumptions about a communication parter. This lack of cues lead to exagerations in perception. A slightly cheerful person may seem extremely bubbly online-- a sarcastic individual very negative. Also, the ability to selectively self-present by filtering information about oneself online only seeks to further these exaggerations of truths, as observers are given less cues about other aspects of a targets life or personality. But, what happens when the relationship moves offline?

In terms of Erin and Chris, if we view them in light of the this hyperpersonal model, we can assume that their self representations were skewed to reveal their fairer qualities and that their perceptions of one another were exagerrated (to the better, since they did agree to meet offline). Once, they move offline the gaps created by selective self-presentation and reduced social context cues would be filled in. Since we assume that they must have held eachother in high regard online, wouldn't we then find that their perceptions of eachother would be deflated once they met offline? According to the hyperpersonal model, this would in fact hold true. However, we know Erin and Chris began actively dating after meeting face-to-face. In fact, Chris even says, "She was prettier than I remembered from the picture" (meaning one shared online). Their relationship flourished where the hyperpersonal model might have predicted floundering.

Note: Berger & Calabrese's Uncertainty Reduction Theory holds more true here, because indeed these two seemed to have benefitted from information shared online, so when they met offline it was like they already knew one another intimately. Their attraction was greater.

An article about Erin and Chris's love and online dating can be found here.
http://news.research.ohiou.edu/perspectives/archives/0402/love.html

11| Don't Take It Hyperpersonally...

Towards the end of last semester, I was briefly introduced to a friend’s friend, let’s call her “Pat.” You know that feeling when you sort of know someone, but not really, and then you see them EVERYDAY? Well, that was the situation with Pat and I in the dining hall (I guess we had similar eating schedules). Our maximum exchange in face-to-face (FTF) was “Hey, how’s it going?” One time briefly she mentioned a project she was working on, and over the summer, randomly asked me to look at it. That request led to an onslaught of communication that summer, and, due to the fact that we are from different states, that communication was done in the computer mediated environment of AOL Instant Messenger (AIM). I found our exchange witty and entertaining. Due to the semi-asynchronous properties of AIM (you can have pauses in an AIM conversation that would seem unnatural and awkward in FTF), our conversation seemed a bit more clever. I suppose the extra minute to process your thoughts allows you to come up with an even better retort that you would have found in real life. Also due to the semi-asynchronous properties of AIM, talking on AIM is an activity that can be done while multi-tasking. Talking to someone else is not done at the exclusion of other activities. This may have led to more interesting conversation in that we were both not tied down to a phone cord, unable to move or concentrate on other things. On AIM, you can look down and type at your convenience, as well as choose to click that flashing orange bar on your menu when you’re good and ready.

After the summer, I’m sure we both returned with a rosy forecast of our on-campus interaction. However, when we did see each other, despite our best efforts to be interesting, we were unable to achieve that same level of fun attained online. Part of this may be explained by the fact that there was more social pressure to focus exclusively on the conversation and block out all other aspects of our life momentarily, or the high expectations we had of one another. This fits in with the Hyperpersonal Model’s approach to relationships that leave virtuality. The Hyperpersonal Model predicts negative/positive outcomes for leaving virtuality based on the direction of the initial overattribution. Reduced cues in a computer mediated environment lead to inflated perceptions of partners, and upon leaving virtuality, the lack of control over information sharing leads to disappointment or enhancement of initial views.
Since we had over-attributed each other’s ability to be funny/sarcastic at the drop of a dime, increased pressure to live up to those expectations may have led to our failure to do so, and so our over-attribution of a good quality ultimately led to disappointment.

Comments:
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-naked-roommate.html
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-meeting-irl-is-shocking.html

11. “As you’ll likely find out, I’m strage”

As some of the posts from my classmates illustrate, meeting one’s college roommate is a great example for this assignment. Like many others, my freshman roommate and I had never met prior to coming to Cornell and our first interaction took place online. I was the first to make contact, emailing him in late July, and he responded by admitting that he had been putting it off because he was a bit shy. He also explained that he was an engineer and said, “As you will most likely find out, I'm strange; so I don't have a cell phone or use IM.” I was immediately getting the feeling that he wasn’t a very social person and he’d probably be a bit of a hermit. However, in our second messages we did find that we had a few things in common, including our interest in outdoor activities, and even our favorite color (green). So after exchanging a few emails I was expecting that we’d get alone just fine.

The somewhat uninteresting nature of our conversation and the lack of other means of communication (see: no cell phone or screen name) led to a very brief conversation between us. Therefore the interaction is too short to analyze with SIP. The Uncertainty Reduction Theory says that as you gain more information about someone, you will develop a greater liking of that person. My roommate’s and my interaction over the Internet was brief, but within only two messages my impression of him got better when I learned of the interests that we had in common so the URT could potentially be supported.

Ultimately when we met, despite our similarities, we turned out to be very incompatible. We didn’t necessarily dislike each other (well, I should say I don’t dislike him, he probably hates me) but we simply didn’t have much in common. I enjoyed going out periodically, and he preferred staying in and tended to avoid socializing with anyone new. I tended to stay up very late at night, and he was always in bed by 10pm. So the URT, which predicted a positive outcome from meeting in real life, was incorrect, and both the SIDE theory and the Hyperpersonal model, which both predicted a negative outcome from meeting in real life, were correct. As both theories predicted, I took our similarities into account and tended to dismiss our differences.

Finally, my experience was not consistent with Ramirez & Wang’s results. They predicted that short-term interactions in CMC would lead to a positive effect when leaving virtuality, and long-term interactions would lead to a negative effect. However in my case, our interactions were short-term and turned out negative in real-life. I believe the length of our online interaction was somewhat of a predictor of our real-life relationship in that we didn’t particularly find each other interesting enough to talk for very long.

Comments:
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/virtuality-insanity.html
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-meeting-irl-is-shocking.html

11 - Entering Reality

Back in 8th grade, I had a friend who was dating someone he had known when he was younger and who went to a different middle school than me. I got to know his girlfriend through aim, but more importantly, I was introduced to one of her friends (A) online. I quickly became good friends with A and for many months we would talk online almost daily. Yet all this time we never met in person. Finally, one night at a local dance, A came up to me and introduced herself. Shortly thereafter we began dating, but being 8th graders, our relationship was still mostly confined to the internet. We basically talked online daily and still almost never met in person. However, we continued to date until high school when we entered the same high school and had a few classes together. From this point on, our relationship was based in person. We talked a lot during the day in person and we hung out on weekends. We would still talk online, but it wasn't out main way of communicating anymore. Seeing each other in person helped our relationship, but later that year we broke up.

Looking back on our relationship, it was consistent with the Social Information Processing theory. This theory states that relationship development takes longer in CMC, but given enough time, impression formation should be the same as in FtF. Because we had talked online for so long before meeting, I knew A very well and I had a very good idea of what she was like. Then when I finally met her, my idea of what she was really like was confirmed and and my impressions were accurate.

Also, after talking to A online for the first time, I had some strong impressions of her. I thought she was a little uptight and nerdy. These strong negative impressions are consistent with the hyperpersonal theory. However, because I did talk to A much more in the near future, my impressions of her changed to my more accurate impressions later on.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=1648919944414577749
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=8679799686736040208

11 - Leaving Virtuality

I am a junior. When I was a sophomore one of my best friends from back home asked me talk to talk to his cousin who was thinking of coming to Cornell. She had no idea what she wanted to study and had a lot of questions she wanted to ask me about Cornell. She started asking endless questions on Facebook about how hard the school was, what the dorms were like, and how the parties were. I tried to answer her as truthfully as possible.

As it turned out I most likely scared her away from coming to Cornell because she ended up at the University of Maryland. Even though she ended up not coming to Cornell I talked to her a lot at the beginning of first semester last year. We seemed to get along and have a lot of the same interests even though I had never met her in person. As the semester went on, we talked less and less. We barely talked after first semester until one day during last summer she messaged me. Apparently she had decided that she did not like UMD and was transferring to Cornell. Suddenly with the possibility of face to face contact, we started talking to each other a lot more. We talked all summer and weirdly enough when we got to school, we did not see each other for the first 2 months here. Neither of us was ever able to make time to meet up with the other. Once we met in person, we became much better friends. She introduced me to a bunch of other transfers she had met here and we all started hanging out a lot.

My experience best fits with the Uncertainty Reduction Theory. Before we had met in person, our conversations were fairly superficial and we only talked about random things at school. Once we met and got to know each other in person, we became more comfortable with each other and much better friends. Before we met in Ftf, our conversations fell somewhere between CFO and SIP, while we did get to know each other better over time, it never compared to Ftf. Once we met in person we were much closer.

Assignment 11 and I'm posting at 11:11

When people as me if I knew my roommate before coming to Cornell, I always feel a little bit creepy as I reply, "well, we met on facebook...". As a matter of fact, we didn't just discover that we were randomly assigned and THEN look each other up on Facebook, but we met first through a group, then decided since to request each other, even though we had never met face to face. Of course, we talked a lot via facebook and AIM, and eventually on the phone. However, because we live so far away (about 600 miles I think), we never actually met until move-in day. It ended up working out great, and I'm not just saying that because I think she might read this (she won't).

Perhaps because we knew we would eventually meet face to face, were were really open and honest in our early conversations, and both genuinely wanted to get to know each other, both before and after deciding to room together. In general, I think our experience fit most with URT, or Uncertainty Reduction Theory. We had a positive impression of each other when we met face to face because there was a good amount of uncertainty that had been dispelled by our CMC conversations. While we did fear that it would be awkward to finally met face to face, it really wasn't. I think that we were definitely able to become closer more quickly because we had already addressed a lot of key issues to our friendship and living situation before meeting on move-in day. We also avoided the unpleasant possibilities of randomly-assigned rooming, and we knew that as long as we knew ahead of time that we were rooming with another "normal" person who shared a lot of the same interests. I think now we have the ideal rooming situation because we're very close, but not attached at the hip. We've become really comfortable with each other, and I'm glad we found each other on Facebook, even if it does make us seem a bit like Facebook stalkers.

11: Ultima Romance Turned Marriage

For this assignment, I analyzed the relationship Debra and Dean Morell, featured in a NY Time article. Dean and Debra met online playing Ultima. They were immediately attracted to each other; Dean to Debra’s intelligence and altruism and Debra to Dean’s generosity. Their relationship became serious after a mutual friend told Debra that Dean was soon planning on leaving the game. The same mutual friend told Debra that she wanted to marry him off before his departure.

Debra thought that was a great idea and asked Dean to marry her. Dean, however, misunderstood Debra’s proposal. Instead of taking it as an invitation for their two avatars to marry, Dean thought Debra was asking him to marry her in real life. Dean’s reaction was positive. He “was so shocked and amazed… [because he] had always had feelings for Deb…it was just what [he] wanted to hear.”

That night, the two spent nine hours talking online. Additionally, they spent the next few days talking for countless hours online and sharing personal aspects of their lives. During that time, Deb’s character moved into Dean’s online house. Soon after, Dean and Deb met face to face. Because Deb had already planned to attend an Ultimate players’ luncheon in Seattle (Dean’s home town) she flew out a few days early to meet him. After their meeting, the two continued their online romance. Ultimately, they wed in an online ceremony attended. Shortly thereafter, Dean went online and asked Deb to marry him in real life. They have been happy together ever since.

Deb and Dean’s online-turned-offline romance is best explained in terms of SIP Theory. SIP rejects the view that the absence of nonverbal cues restricts the capability to exchange social info. Instead, according to SIP, nonverbal cues are adapted to the verbal channel. Because these cues must be typed and read, the transmission of information takes longer in CMC. Therefore, although slower, relational development should be sufficient in CMC over time, and face-to-face information should be superfluous.

This theory conforms to Dean and Deb’s experience. As the two spent more time online, they grew closer and more attracted to one another. Therefore, by the time they met offline, the transition was smooth and natural (each already had a solid grasp on the other’s personality.) Dean notes that “when you’re dealing with a virtual person, you’re building up a fantasy in your mind,” however, “as soon as [he] saw Deb, [he] knew the fantasy matched the reality.” Although their first impressions were limited, he communicated with Deb enough online that eventually their offline and online impressions were synonymous.

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/hyperpersonal-personals.html

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-awkward-silence.html

11 | A Pimp Named...Gino?

I have been told that you can meet anyone on the internet, but I did not expect to ever encounter a character as incredulous as the self-proclaimed pimp named Gino. I first came across Gino during senior year summer, when my friends and I were looking for people to buy Warp Tour tickets together as a group for special discounts. My friend Dan, while working at a take-out restaurant, met Gino who ordered food there fairly often. Eventually, somehow Dan convinced Gino to come to Warp Tour with us. I did not see Gino in person until the day we went to the Warp Tour, but we communicated with him regularly for a week or so before the Tour.

Our primary method of communication was MySpace, and that is also where we learned of Gino’s “pimp” lifestyle, which was surprising as according to Dan, Gino dressed and acted normal (albeit not very respectful toward women) at the restaurant. He in fact listed “pimping” as his interest. Unfortunately, most of his photos were cell phone-quality and the faces were difficult to discern. However, Gino’s friends list was an impressive array of attractive women, and his journal posts often boasted his latest outrageous adventure with one woman or another. Later we messaged each other and I got to know Gino somewhat better – although I was sure that he lied about most of his stories with women. Gino turned out to be an all-around nice person otherwise, in spite of his sexist views. However, on the day of finally meeting with him, I was rather disappointed. Gino turned out to be a somewhat lanky Mediterranean man of about 5’8” height, and his “companion” was a middle-aged, completely apathetic lady who was actually taller than he. He did have a hat (but not purple, no feather either!) and a white overcoat, but the image certainly did not live up to my expectation. (No “bling”, other than an unadorned gold necklace)

The Hyperpersonal Model is definitely the best theory to describe the outcome. Because I had such a strong expectation of Gino’s “pimp” image, my CMC impression of him was vastly inflated. I envisioned a commanding figure with a cane and suit, but as the Hyperpersonal theory correctly predicts, I was indeed disappointed. Ramirez and Wang’s study, on the other hand, concluded that a short-term CMC relationship usually builds up to a positive impression after modality switching to FtF. Although this is not precisely true for my case, I believe that, had we talked longer over CMC, I would have had even higher expectations. So, while the result of modality switching was not positive, it was better than it would have been if the CMC relationship were long-term.

Comment 1

Comment 2

11 Leaving Virtuality

The summer before freshman year, Cornell provided incoming students with the names of their future roommates. Having already activated a Facebook account by the time my roommate assignment arrived, it was easy for me to take the first step in getting to know the girl with whom I’d soon share a recycling bin. Once we were Facebook friends, I was able to see her profile, which prompted me to quickly form a fairly exaggerated impression. Her profile told me that she loved classic rock, exclamation points, and working out. Taken together, her interests seemed to indicate that my future roommate was energetic and very athletic. While most people don’t view physical fitness as a character flaw, I was a little worried that we would have trouble relating to each other, given my lack of athletic competence and minimal interest in sports. I gained further information when she sent me a Facebook message. From the message, I surmised that she was friendly, though the letter-like format of her note led me to think she might be a little less easy-going and fun than I had previously assumed. We exchanged messages for a week and finally met on move-in day.

When I met my roommate for the first time in person, she was very friendly and I immediately felt comfortable talking to her. My prior sense that she might be a little too tightly-wound yielded to an updated impression of her as being a fun, spontaneous person. Furthermore, it seemed that her love of physical activity would not get in the way of us developing a friendship; we had other things in common. Because my impression of my roommate became more positive once I met her, my experience seems most consistent with Uncertainty Reduction Theory. This theory states that as we gain more information about a person, we come to like them better. While my online-based impressions led me to feel uncertain that we would become friends, my real-world social interactions with her allowed me to gain a better appreciation for her personality and to form a positive impression.

Ramirez and Wang have shown that in-person meetings following short-term online interactions tend to be evaluated positively and also tend to reduce uncertainty. Since my online interactions with my roommate were brief (one week), my experience further bolsters Ramirez and Wang’s findings. My limited online interactions were insufficient in forming a realistic impression. However, this impression became much more positive and less equivocal once social interactions were available to me.

11: Meeting “IRL” is Shocking

For this week’s post, I decided to ask around for stories of relationships that left virtuality. I found that not many people have had this experience, but one of my friends, who I’ll call Mark, remembered meeting with a girl (Stacy) he first met online around 9^th grade. One of Mark’s friends gave him Stacy’s screen name and they chatted online for a week or two. Mark described his initial impression of Stacy as quite positive, she was funny and seemed to have a good sense of humor. Blonde haired blue-eyed Stacy was the same age as Mark, but attended a different high-school. Online, Stacy was a “cool” girl he felt some romantic attraction to. Because of their initial positive interaction and attraction, they agreed to meet up “in real life” to see a movie. Upon seeing Stacy, Mark was immediately disappointed because she was much less physically attractive than he had imagined given the limited information he had gathered about her appearance from their conversations. During the movie, his impression deteriorated further since she chatted with her girlfriend throughout about “stupid girly stuff”. Mark pointed out that he had perceived her to be unique and interesting online but in person she just seemed to be a ‘typical girl’ he didn’t have much in common with. After the movie Mark described how he “felt awkward being around a person I couldn’t stand” and decided not to meet up with Stacy again or even continue chatting online.

Certain aspects of Mark’s experience seem to fit with some of the theories we have discussed in this class. First of all, there was some effect of the Hyperpersonal model given Mark’s elevated impression of Stacy as being very physically attractive and possessing a good sense of humor given the limited cues available from their online conversations. Also, at least one of McKenna’s Relationship Facilitation Factors, “Removal of Gating Features” seemed to play a role in his initial attraction. Since Mark couldn’t see right away that Stacy was physically unattractive, he continued to chat with her and became attracted to aspects of her personality that he would never have known if he had met her in real life first. These “Gating Features” in FtF interactions would probably have caused Mark to immediately dismiss any chance of a romantic attraction. Mark’s experience with Stacy seems to contradict the Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) that Professor Hancock described in class. URT predicts that the process of learning more about another person (reducing uncertainty) should lead to increased liking and attraction—however, this doesn’t fit with Mark’s jarring experience with taking a relationship outside of virtuality.

Comments: http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-light-my-fire-matchcom-and-modality.html

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=7187845171834919362

11: Leaving Virtuality

In the months prior to receiving my Cornell email address, the “Class of” website served as a means through which I could stalk my future classmates, roommates, and friends. It was through this very website that I began my friendship with Justine, the person who drives me to and sits next to me in class every Tuesday and Thursday. Judging solely from our “Class of” profiles, Justine and I had a lot in common-- our major, our taste in music, and our birthday—all of which are still very relevant in our friendship today. We must have communicated for a few months via the Internet before arriving at Cornell at which point we decided to meet face-to-face. Although communicating FTF is inherently much different than CMC, our commonalities have helped us maintain a friendship throughout our time at Cornell.

My experience “leaving virtuality” was ultimately a positive one, supporting the findings of the Uncertainty Reduction Theory. This theory states that reducing uncertainty about a person increases attraction, which definitely holds true in this scenario. Having “met” Justine online prior to meeting face-to-face, I was already aware of the fact that we had some common interests, reducing uncertainty and increasing social attraction.

While this does support the Uncertainty Reduction Theory, my experience does not coincide with the findings of Ramirez & Wang. The study predicts that a transition from CMC to FTF that spans a time period of 3+ weeks will lead to disappointment and negative effects. As I said before, Justine and I communicated for a few months before we met FTF, so our transition would be considered long-term and negative effects would be expected. Based on the fact that Justine and I are still friends, I am fairly certain that was not the situation.

Comments!!
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-roommate-virtuality.html
&
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-once-upon-time-07.html

11: Virtuality Insanity

In high school, I used to post on a particular Internet forum dedicated to video games and other various topics. At one point, one of the other members and I realized that we lived pretty close to one another and even went to the same nearby mall. We decided to meet up one day to hang out and see a movie.

Although we both posted on the forum, I hadn't actually had a great deal of interaction with this person (we'll call him Mark). Because of our limited interaction, the Hyperpersonal Model lends itself well to an analysis of my experience. The Hyperpersonal Model predicts that impressions formed over CMC will have less breadth and more intensity than those formed in FtF. Thus, when an online relationship leaves virtuality, the theory asserts that one of two things can happen. First, if someone forms a negative impression of another person online, he will react positively when meeting the partner in FtF because he will conclude that his initial reactions were too negative. On the other hand, if his initial impressions were positive, he will be disappointed because his partner will not live up to his exaggerated expectations.

Online, my impressions of Mark were quite positive. He seemed very outgoing, friendly, and talkative. In fact, he was the one who proposed that we meet each other. This led me to believe that he was a very open person. However, although he was not exactly unfriendly when we met in person, he was definitely a bit more quiet and unassuming than I anticipated. This somewhat negative reaction, relative to the impressions I had formed about him online, gives support to the Hyperpersonal Model. Because of the various aspects of the Hyperpersonal Model, such as the fact that Mark was able to use selective self-presentation online, I had formed an inflated positive impression of him. With the introduction of visual cues in FtF, my impressions became less intense.

Comments:

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-how-did-you-know-my-name.html

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-awkward-silence.html

11 | Meeting a Computer Genius

Over the summer I was approached by a small corporation looking for programmers to help develop a startup social networking site. For privacy reasons, I’ll call the person who contacted me “John.” He sent me a few emails outlining the basics of the project and we talked on instant messenger as well. We both talked about our respective experiences and seemed to have the same expertise in complimentary fields within web development. From this impression I trusted that he chose a successful startup to work for and recruit me to join. Within a few days I met his team for a face-to-face presentation, learning further specifics behind the idea and implementation. Despite my positive virtual impression of this corporation, I found their business plan and professionalism severely lacking. John was at a loss for an implementation strategy and asked me for ideas instead. I expected him to be much more on top of things from our online discussions. For fun, I patronized the idea a few days to hear more of their “brilliant” ideas, until John finally caught on to my cynicism and terminated our partnership.

The hyperpersonal theory best explains how I formed such inconsistent impressions of John. Online, we talked about general programming practices, from which I extrapolated that he also had a good hold on practical implementations. Behavioral confirmation also played a role in my impression. Before I interacted with John, I hoped that he was a true genius and that I might be working for such a great group. Before interacting with him, I expected him to know a lot about programming, which he initially did and caused me to be more impressed and reinforce his knowledge. Therefore, by focusing on such a limited subject matter and already holding high exceptions, I allowed a limited amount of evidence to push my impression of him to a high extreme, providing a bloated impression.

Our online interaction was definitely short-term, lasting only a few days. Hypothesis 3 of the Ramirez study predicts that our FtF interaction should have been evaluated more positively and provide more uncertainty reduction. Our meeting reduced uncertainty, but not in a good way! Thus, I believe the problem lies in the uncertainty reduction theory. Although I agree that reducing uncertainty makes someone more attractive to interact with, in this case its effect was minimal and outweighed by the new information I learned at the meeting. Additionally, the modality switch caused me to forget about the online impression and focus only on our meeting. To be fair, this was more of a business than personal relationship, and may explain why my experience differed from those in the Ramirez study.

Comment 1
Comment 2

11 | How did you meet your girlfriend?

One of my friends (lets call him “G”) had a very unusual relationship that started online and left virtuality. G spent countless hours playing Maplestory. Because he was a higher level, he encountered many other players, who would ask him how to get better skills/items. He was annoyed by the amount of people who bothered him and with novice questions. It was uncommon for G to come across another player with similar items and skills. However when he finally did come across a player on the same level he was, there was a strong attraction between the two players.

First, they strictly talked about their lives inside the game. Eventually, they began talking about real-life interests/hobbies. They were both interested in similar sports, television shows, and video games. They also found out that they were about the same age and lived in the same city. After two months of online interaction, they finally decided to meet each other in real life. They did not want the meeting to be too awkward, so they decided to meet each other in a group setting. G invited her to go to the park with his other friends.

G still remembered just how awkward their first face-to-face encounter was; he thought that she was another person. She barely said a sentence that whole day. G was very disappointed that she did not turn out the way he expected, and he was afraid that the meeting would destroy their online relationship. Later that day on Maplestory, she told him how much she enjoyed being with him. It turns out that she is an extremely shy individual. He did not realize this before because she was talking to him non-stop when they were online. G was relieved to learn this, and their relationship strengthened even more: they are both currently dating each other both in real life and in Maplestory.

This instance of leaving virtuality does not fit any of the theories discussed in class perfectly. First of all, this does not fit the Social Information Processing theory because this theory suggests that over time people interacting online will eventually get to know each other just as well as people interacting face-to-face. After interacting with each other for two months, G still did not realize a large part of her personality—her shyness. This suggests there are certain cues that are not apparent online, and virtual cues can not replace certain real-life cues, even with time. The Uncertainty Reduction Theory does not apply either because G had a very negative outcome for leaving virtuality. He described her as another person. He did not feel attracted to reducing the uncertainty with her; instead, he was ready to give up on their relationship after their meeting. The SIDE theory most closely describes the relationship between these people. It can be argued that shyness is an individuating characteristic that is hidden in CMC. When they finally met, this characteristic was revealed, which led to a negative impression for G.

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-meeting-computer-genius.html

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-leaving-virtuality.html

11: The Naked Roommate

The transition from high school to college is exciting, scary, fun, sad, and memorable all at the same time.Teenagers are eager to experience life away from home, without having anyone to tell you to clean your room or do your homework, while parents try unsuccessfully to keep their child from growing up and moving on. Perhaps one of the most nerve-racking aspects for both of these parties, however, is the roommate. Students wonder, what if I get stuck with the nerd, or someone who sleeps with the lights on? While parents worry about the kind of influence their child’s roommate will have on their precious child.

I remember sitting at home talking on AIM when I received an instant message from a screen name I didn’t recognize. I accepted, saw the words, “Hey, I’m your roommate!” and froze. I hadn’t been able to get on the website for a few days so I didn’t know that the assignments had been posted. My future-roomie and I chatted for a few minutes and exchanged email addresses and phone numbers (I’m still not exactly sure how she got my screen name…I’ll have to ask her about that).

I was a little hesitant because in her first email she said that she was going to be a Mechanical Engineer. I could only picture the stereotypical Cornell female-engineer, one who spent their weekends in the library and could care less about make-up, boys, or clothes. We did have some similarities, though, in that we are both the oldest child, with sisters who are two years younger than us. Because we were both the oldest, I felt like we could bond over being the first to leave home.
However, after browsing (okay, extensively analyzing) her Facebook over the next few weeks I decided that she seemed like a fairly normal girl. Facebook throws a curveball since it is not solely text-based. There are pictures to be viewed and wall posts to be read. This, more than e-mailing, allowed me to learn about my future roommate.

When I met my roommate on move-in day, she was a ball of energy. She was definitely the most talkative engineer I’ve ever met and we had a lot of common interests. We clicked right away and became really good friends. I think my experience best fits with the Uncertainty Reduction Theory because I liked my roommate a lot more after I met her and gathered more information about her. It also works with hyperpersonal because of the judgments I had made with what little information I had originally. Meeting her face-to-face allowed me to see the big picture.

11: How did you know my name?

When I graduated high school, my friends and I agreed that we would keep in touch through LiveJournal, a free blog service that was popular at the time. This was before Facebook was released. We agreed to post at least one blog a month that would update us on any new developments in our lives. For a while, this worked great (we've stopped doing it now), but I began noticing that strangers would begin posting comments on my friend's journals. Many of them were new friends my buddies had met while at college. One day, while reading a blog, I noticed a comment from one of these strangers, but had no idea that she actually knew my friend very well. For reasons I can't remember, I responded to this girl's comment and a day later, she began posting comments on MY journal. Soon enough, I was posting comments on her journal and we were LiveJournal friends. For a few months, we had a great online communication going - all with some random girl, so I thought. Online, this girl was fun and outgoing, and very funny. She had a very dark humor and seemed very intelligent, judging from the complexity of the language that she used in her journal. She seemed to put a lot of time into her comments and online communication with me, which led me to think her a friendly and warm person. I had guessed that from the amount of time she put into her online persona that she might be somewhat of a loner or introspective.

When I got a weekend vacation, I decided to go visit my friend, who goes to school about 4 hours away. When I got there, we decided to go out to coffee with some of her friends. As we meet her friends, one of the girls says, "Hey, you're RJ right?!" I think, What? Who is this random girl who knows me? Of course, it's the girl from LiveJournal, as I guessed. OhMyGod and ICantBelieveIt's follow for a few minutes and before I know it, I'm off into a 2 hour discussion with her. My previous assessment of her personality in CMC remained correct; she was fun, outgoing, energetic, and very smart. She wasn't a loner or introvert, as I had predicted, but just very sociable.

Ramirez and Wang's modality switching study predicts that social information from meeting in FtF violates previous CMC induced expectancy. The timing of the switch plays a large role in determining the valence of the FtF interaction. Their study predicts that after a long-term (3 weeks+) switch, there will be a negative response. This was not the case with my blog friend and I - the same connection that we shared in the virtual world seemed to translate perfectly into the real world. Too bad she wasn't single.

Comment 1
Comment 2

11: Leaving Virtuality

About a year ago I emailed a computer science professor (that I had neither met nor heard of). His personal page on http://www.cs.cornell.edu/ listed research subjects which interested me. I had wanted to take his class for years, but my required courses always conflicted with the timing of the computer science class. Hence, I sent him an email expressing my desire to take an independent study with his supervision. He responded after two weeks and then we continued to send a number of brief emails back and forth for two more weeks before finally meeting.

Originally I had only a slightly positive impression because he was polite in his emails; although, he seemed inaccessible and uncaring because of the brief and delayed messages. The uncertainty of his personality contributed to my uneasiness. Would he be too busy and distracted to help? Would he be too strict and not sponsor an independent study for someone he had just met with limited computer science knowledge? Upon meeting him I noticed he had an accent, I could tell his general age, and I had his undivided attention. He seemed humanized and much more generous and concerned about learning that I originally expected. He was not strict as I thought he might be, but flexible, and we found a way to combine the independent study with one of my other classes so that I could take it. During the modality switch from virtual to physical, many uncertain traits were delineated (through nonverbal cues and additional verbal cues); this contributed to a more positive impression. My experience coincides with Uncertainty Reduction Theory, which states that the reduction of uncertainty about a person increases attraction. Thus, URT predicts positive effect for modality switching.

According to the modality switching study done by Ramirez and Wang, social information from meeting in FtF violates previous CMC induced expectancy. The valence (positive or negative nature) of the experience depended on the timing of the switch. Short term switches (less than 3 weeks spent on CMC, before moving to FtF) yielded a positive evaluation, while longer term switches (greater than 3 weeks) yielded a negative evaluation.

My experience coincides with the study since we had a short term switch that yielded a more positive evaluation than if we had continued conversing in CMC. My impression at the time of the switch was also more relationally important (as predicted by Ramirez and Wang) in that it was more recent and had priority over the CMC impression.

COMMENTS
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=3421888517108549465
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=1648919944414577749