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:
Monday, December 3, 2007
Moving Forward...
As I look back on all I have learned this semester about the psychology of social computing as a legitimate, complex field of study, I am amazed. I'll be the first one to admit that I thought this class was going to be one of those "common sense" classes where as long as you take a look around you once in a while and know what's going on in the world, or in this case, what's going on on the internet, you'd be fine.
However, I found that the more theories I learned, I was not only able to apply those theories to my own life and the life of those around me, but that - surprise - I actually had to study! The great thing was, I didn't really mind. I'm not trying to sound like a total brown-nose, but one of the best things about this class was how current the curriculum was. For that same reason, I feel like the field of study will be growing and changing by leaps and bounds in the future. At the same time, I think some theories will be able to be applied even as technology and research advance. For one thing, a lot of more current theories seem to have roots in the Hyperpersonal Model. The idea that because we have fewer cues, we rely more heavily on those cues and thus attribute stronger characteristics to the person 'across the screen' is, I think, one that will persist even as more current theories develop.
As for what will change in the future, I have already alluded that the types of technology that connect us will most likely evolve. Already, since the publishing of Wallace's book, there have been several changes, such as the text-message craze, and the invention of the video chat. I have a feeling that more "arcane" (if that word can even be used in this context) forms of CMC, such as discussion forums, where time is irreparably asynchronous, will fade out, and more advanced forms of CMC, such as the previously mentioned video chat, will become more popular. With the advances in technology will come different theories because new cues will be introduced, and I think the CFO-perspective will eventually be entirely rejected.
Overall, I think the class covered a wide variety of topics, from social norms to gender differences and internet addiction. One thing I would have liked to have delved a little deeper into was exactly why people feel compelled to spend hours of time on the internet, with nothing to show for it. Perhaps in the future there will be more convincing research on the topic of internet addiction, or whatever it may be deemed. Also, I would have also been interested to learn about research concerning how people are affected by communicating more by CMC, and if a lack of what I deem to be 'real personal connection' caused their overall well-being to deteriorate. My intuition is that the more time people spend away from each other, staring at a screen or with their ear pressed against a phone, the less warmth they are able to derive from the person they are communicating with. I feel like humans are designed to depend on the presence of, and interaction with others on a daily basis.
Thanks for a great semester, I really enjoyed the class. :)
That's all!
However, I found that the more theories I learned, I was not only able to apply those theories to my own life and the life of those around me, but that - surprise - I actually had to study! The great thing was, I didn't really mind. I'm not trying to sound like a total brown-nose, but one of the best things about this class was how current the curriculum was. For that same reason, I feel like the field of study will be growing and changing by leaps and bounds in the future. At the same time, I think some theories will be able to be applied even as technology and research advance. For one thing, a lot of more current theories seem to have roots in the Hyperpersonal Model. The idea that because we have fewer cues, we rely more heavily on those cues and thus attribute stronger characteristics to the person 'across the screen' is, I think, one that will persist even as more current theories develop.
As for what will change in the future, I have already alluded that the types of technology that connect us will most likely evolve. Already, since the publishing of Wallace's book, there have been several changes, such as the text-message craze, and the invention of the video chat. I have a feeling that more "arcane" (if that word can even be used in this context) forms of CMC, such as discussion forums, where time is irreparably asynchronous, will fade out, and more advanced forms of CMC, such as the previously mentioned video chat, will become more popular. With the advances in technology will come different theories because new cues will be introduced, and I think the CFO-perspective will eventually be entirely rejected.
Overall, I think the class covered a wide variety of topics, from social norms to gender differences and internet addiction. One thing I would have liked to have delved a little deeper into was exactly why people feel compelled to spend hours of time on the internet, with nothing to show for it. Perhaps in the future there will be more convincing research on the topic of internet addiction, or whatever it may be deemed. Also, I would have also been interested to learn about research concerning how people are affected by communicating more by CMC, and if a lack of what I deem to be 'real personal connection' caused their overall well-being to deteriorate. My intuition is that the more time people spend away from each other, staring at a screen or with their ear pressed against a phone, the less warmth they are able to derive from the person they are communicating with. I feel like humans are designed to depend on the presence of, and interaction with others on a daily basis.
Thanks for a great semester, I really enjoyed the class. :)
That's all!
Sci Fi for the Next Millenium? (Bonus Blog)
Thirty years ago, the world wide web was a subject of science fiction, some all-knowing being that stored and retrieved endless amounts of information and which connected everyone across the world, perhaps even throughout the galaxy. Today, most of that outrageous fan fiction has come to pass (minus the galaxy part), and yet, we have not yet reached a status quo. Internet content is constantly being added, removed, or edited, resulting in an ever-evolving tool that has a great deal of social utility, but may also cause some public detriment. The internet, in this constant state of upheaval, still has some defining characteristics that will always hold.
No matter how many interactive features the internet adopts (text, voice, facebook walls, videoconferencing, etc.), it will never match the richness of the face-to-face communication experience. This will result in those who feel inept in face to face social situations and those suffering from loneliness and depression using a medium with fewer cues to try to selectively self present themselves. Upon positive feedback from this approach, behavioral conditioning may eventually lead to problematic internet usage. Futhermore, there will always be marketing schemes to hook internet users onto a given site, game, etc. This will further lead to problematic usage that rivals some of the addictions of Halo or Everquest on their gamers.
On the other hand, due to reduced cues, digital deception will no doubt be a permanent factor in the online world. Emails asking you to confirm your bank account pin number or convincing you that a rich widow in Britain has left you as the executor of her estate are rampant, and likely to continue. Furthermore, misrepresentation of age, sex, or location in online chat rooms will continue as a manifestation of curiosity or the human inclination to role-play.
In highlighting the “public good” aspect of the internet, as the web does become more interactive and a hub for people of diverse backgrounds and interests, those with similar issues and interests will no doubt continue to band together in special interest groups or support sites. Support will continue due to the individualizing effect of the net on problem solving. In a crowded room, one is less likely to help an individual (figuring that someone else will do it) than if you were the only other person there. With the internet, you don’t know if that message calling out for help is being overlooked by all other internet users and so you are inclined to provide some help yourself. Furthermore, with the removal of physical barriers to communication, it is easier to find that special someone on the other side of the world who shares your interest in Japanese toilet seats or Pretty Princess Wedding Cakes.
Furthermore, the internet will always have a leviathan of sorts, even if it is composed of all of its users. There must be social norms in place that cannot be violated without public ostracization or punishment. A tool of such great power must be kept in check by someone, if not everyone.
The social networking phenomenon will probably also continue, although perhaps at a less extreme extent. Now that its new, it probably has a lot more appeal than it will in a decade or so, although people will probably go on occasionally for information gathering purposes or to stay in touch as we society globalizes.
One issue that will need to be addressed before social networking can continue, however, is the harvesting and sale of personal information to potential employers or any other interested party. In order to not deter users from networking online, this potential threat must be removed.
One aspect I think this class could further address is the psychology of ethics online. Why do people feel abhorrence for stealing a CD from a store while they feel less responsibility or threat at illegally downloading songs/movies/software? I feel this would be an interesting field to explore in more detail.
No matter how many interactive features the internet adopts (text, voice, facebook walls, videoconferencing, etc.), it will never match the richness of the face-to-face communication experience. This will result in those who feel inept in face to face social situations and those suffering from loneliness and depression using a medium with fewer cues to try to selectively self present themselves. Upon positive feedback from this approach, behavioral conditioning may eventually lead to problematic internet usage. Futhermore, there will always be marketing schemes to hook internet users onto a given site, game, etc. This will further lead to problematic usage that rivals some of the addictions of Halo or Everquest on their gamers.
On the other hand, due to reduced cues, digital deception will no doubt be a permanent factor in the online world. Emails asking you to confirm your bank account pin number or convincing you that a rich widow in Britain has left you as the executor of her estate are rampant, and likely to continue. Furthermore, misrepresentation of age, sex, or location in online chat rooms will continue as a manifestation of curiosity or the human inclination to role-play.
In highlighting the “public good” aspect of the internet, as the web does become more interactive and a hub for people of diverse backgrounds and interests, those with similar issues and interests will no doubt continue to band together in special interest groups or support sites. Support will continue due to the individualizing effect of the net on problem solving. In a crowded room, one is less likely to help an individual (figuring that someone else will do it) than if you were the only other person there. With the internet, you don’t know if that message calling out for help is being overlooked by all other internet users and so you are inclined to provide some help yourself. Furthermore, with the removal of physical barriers to communication, it is easier to find that special someone on the other side of the world who shares your interest in Japanese toilet seats or Pretty Princess Wedding Cakes.
Furthermore, the internet will always have a leviathan of sorts, even if it is composed of all of its users. There must be social norms in place that cannot be violated without public ostracization or punishment. A tool of such great power must be kept in check by someone, if not everyone.
The social networking phenomenon will probably also continue, although perhaps at a less extreme extent. Now that its new, it probably has a lot more appeal than it will in a decade or so, although people will probably go on occasionally for information gathering purposes or to stay in touch as we society globalizes.
One issue that will need to be addressed before social networking can continue, however, is the harvesting and sale of personal information to potential employers or any other interested party. In order to not deter users from networking online, this potential threat must be removed.
One aspect I think this class could further address is the psychology of ethics online. Why do people feel abhorrence for stealing a CD from a store while they feel less responsibility or threat at illegally downloading songs/movies/software? I feel this would be an interesting field to explore in more detail.
Idk my bff crystal ball?
I am not well known for my clairvoyant abilities, but I would be glad to take a few stabs at what the future will hold, and what it will drop. Which theories will survive, with bits and pieces still intact to provide a moderate living for researchers and professors, which will crumble like the life of a World of Warcraft player, and finally, which will cling on to a semblance of validity, bouncing up and down in the academic limbo until some new comer finally puts it out of misery?
While scientific theories are rarely permanent, there are some that tend to last for a while before kicking the bucket. I believe that the Proteus Effect as supported by Yee and Bailenson’s research is yet to approach the bucket; in fact I think it will be a very long time before someone would approach it with any container of a cylindrical nature. As the virtual world grows more complex and become more reflective of reality, people will further adapt to their virtual persona, thus allowing their online personality to mirror closely to their avatar. The new generations of online games, for example, tend to allow more and more customization for the characters, so players would feel even more immersed in the virtual world and take on the expected behavior of their avatars. This naturally leads to the next phenomenon that will undoubted thrive in the future – online addiction. With the number of WoW users approaching the population of Sweden, it would not be absurd to claim that in time the trend of online gaming, will expand to even more Internet users. “Logging in” to a virtual world may become easier and even more accessible, fueling the addiction and people’s need for escape to a fantasy world, eventually abandoning their grim reality:
The Hyperpersonal Model, however, will not fare as well. As online interaction become more open and advanced, exchange done through CMC may very well reach the same intimacy offered by FtF. Even now we can communicate online using video conferencing, which greatly increases the number of cues offered through CMC. It is not out of the line to presume that future online communications will be so similar to face to face that people will no longer form different breadth/depth of impression in different media. Likewise, the Uncertainty Reduction Theory will no longer be relevant as future CMC interaction, with more available cues and detail, will not leave much uncertainty in the minds of the users. When the users finally leave virtuality, the modality switch won’t be apparent and thus there will not be an increase in attraction. On the other hand Impression Management Model (by O’Sullivan) will likely retain some usefulness for a period of time (stay in limbo), because it would take a long time before CMC can become as transparent as FtF, so people will still try to regulate their behavior to form specific impressions, however limited the control may be.
Some new issues and technologies that need to be addressed are: online addiction (as mentioned previously), privacy, and social networks. Privacy will be a significant concern. As more information becomes available online, people start to lose the veil of anonymity and may be threatened by all types of identity theft. Social networks will experience a large growth as a result of ubiquitous internet access and the ease of online interaction, but also face the problem of privacy loss due to the inherent lack of security in a virtual network (which may or may not be improved in the future).
While I personally thought that COMM 245 was very comprehensive and covered an interesting and wide array of subjects, I wish that we could have discussed more on the contemporarily political issues circling the virtual environment, for example, the controversy regarding government agencies demanding information from internet service providers and the fight over the legality of P2P programs and online gambling websites.
Predicting the Future (Bonus Assignment)
In the past ten years, the internet has already affected so many business models, relationships, and the flow of information. With so much multitasking and other behaviors affected by the internet, it seems that the internet will continue to influence our behaviors, self-image, and decision-making. COMM 245 has influenced the way I analyze and interpret how we manage ourselves online, how social networking affects us, and how the psychological spaces and their attributes have affected social computing.
There are two major theories that I believe will not change too much as the internet progresses (the impression management model and the hyperpersonal model). I would argue that some theories will not hold water in the future (especially the cues filtered out theory). I think we will continue to choose whether or not we want to mediate our communication based on locus and valence (O’Sullivan). I also think most people will continue to take active steps to manage their own image and engage in selective self-presentation and put their “best foot forward.” On the other hand, we will definitely not have poor, underdeveloped impressions of others just because there are reduced social context cues in a CMC environment (CFO perspective).
One of the major issues that will need to be addressed is the issue of weighing selective self-presentation with portraying an accurate version of oneself. Many of us maintain Facebook and other online profiles, but do not update them too regularly or do not provide enough detail to make them accurate. As more employers do online research about their potential hires, it will become more and more important in the future that one be portrayed of course in the best light, but weighing that portrayal with accurate facts.
I have enjoyed COMM 245, as it is one of the most pertinent and practical classes for someone with my interests in media, technology, and the internet. As both a user and a scholar of the Internet and internet-related theories, I can now analyze internet usage from both perspectives and form more informed positions. My only suggestion for COMM 245 in the future is to make it even more applied and practical by focusing on how we can effect change in our online behaviors and how we can understand the effects of how ecommerce is now a social process.
Crystal Ball Blog
The Internet has changed the world in many ways. The fact that I can sit in my room in Ithaca, New York and be connected to billions of users all across the globe is mind boggling. Online shopping, games, chatting, downloading music and movies, blogs, and social networking sites are just a few of the endless options that the Internet has to offer. Psychology of Social Computing has been one of the most interesting classes I’ve taken at Cornell thus far because the theories and lessons apply directly to things going on in my life. It is important to have classes like this that change with the times. Many of the ideas that were presented this semester were not applicable ten years ago.
Three theories that stand out in my mind from this semester are selective self-presentation, SIP, and cues filtered out. I think that the first two theories will always be a part of the Internet. Humans will not outgrow the tendency to selectively present themselves because most of the time there is a certain way we want others to see us. As far as SIP is concerned, we have learned this semester that over time you will be able to get to know someone through CMC, it just takes longer. Humans will continue to adapt to others over time. Cues-filtered-out theory has been disproved again and again throughout the semester. We have learned that you can develop relationships through online communication and it may not always be negative. Even though this theory doesn’t hold true, it is important to learn about it so that we can see how the internet and our beliefs about it have developed.
One aspect of the Internet that seems to be up and coming is video chat. It would be interesting to see what theories apply to this since this method of communication involves visuals. Also, do people prefer talking to strangers through video chat or would they rather talk on IM and keep that sense of anonymity? Often I prefer talking on instant messenger so that I don’t have to worry about what I’m wearing or what my hair looks like. This would be an interesting topic to research.
Although the semester is over, I know that I will continue to use the principles and theories learned in Comm 245. I, of course, will continue to use the Internet and will be able to apply these ideas to other communication classes. Thanks for a great semester; I’ll miss the brown blog!
Three theories that stand out in my mind from this semester are selective self-presentation, SIP, and cues filtered out. I think that the first two theories will always be a part of the Internet. Humans will not outgrow the tendency to selectively present themselves because most of the time there is a certain way we want others to see us. As far as SIP is concerned, we have learned this semester that over time you will be able to get to know someone through CMC, it just takes longer. Humans will continue to adapt to others over time. Cues-filtered-out theory has been disproved again and again throughout the semester. We have learned that you can develop relationships through online communication and it may not always be negative. Even though this theory doesn’t hold true, it is important to learn about it so that we can see how the internet and our beliefs about it have developed.
One aspect of the Internet that seems to be up and coming is video chat. It would be interesting to see what theories apply to this since this method of communication involves visuals. Also, do people prefer talking to strangers through video chat or would they rather talk on IM and keep that sense of anonymity? Often I prefer talking on instant messenger so that I don’t have to worry about what I’m wearing or what my hair looks like. This would be an interesting topic to research.
Although the semester is over, I know that I will continue to use the principles and theories learned in Comm 245. I, of course, will continue to use the Internet and will be able to apply these ideas to other communication classes. Thanks for a great semester; I’ll miss the brown blog!
What the Future Holds (Bonus Blog)
I think many of the theories we have studied this semester will hold in the future, especially those of selective self-presentation. As the internet grows and becomes more complex it is likely that it will be easier for people to deceive other online. However, the possibility also arises that is will become easier to detect online deception. I think other issues that will need to be addressed will arise from social networking sites such as Facebook and the impact they are going to have on people’s future opportunities because of the selective self-presentation and impression formation opportunities they provide. Although we don’t know what Mark Zuckerberg has in store for Facebook’s future, it is likely that that the network will become more complex. The employers of my generation have already found ways to do background checks on interviewees and it is inevitable that what people have in their Facebook profiles now might come back to haunt them.
Although not directly studied in COMM 245, I think a major issue that will need to be addressed in the future is the impact of the internet on the television industry. Google has grown to be the one of the most powerful Fortune 500 companies in America within a mere ten years of being founded. Perhaps the company’s biggest accomplishment is revolutionizing one of the driving forces of the entire media industry—advertising. By only displaying ads that are relevant to customers’ search topics Google has raised billions of dollars in advertising revenue and has become more effective at advertising than traditional forms of media, especially television. It will be interesting to see how the television industry will deal with the ever-growing force of the internet, that is, if it is able to survive at all.
A subject I have always been fascinated with that I think COMM 245 should cover is intellectual property on the internet. Most people would never even consider stealing something, but for some reason when it comes to movies, music, etc. on the internet, peoples’ usual moral rules just don’t hold up. The internet makes music seem as free as air and the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has begun to fine people up to $250,000 for illegal downloading. Our own campus has even taken measures to address this issue with the introduction of Ruckus network back in October, which allows Cornell students to legally download music. I think COMM 245 should definitely explore the phenomenon of illegal downloads and what makes people push their ethical standards aside to break the law.
As a Comm. Major I have been studying the effect of the internet for years. COMM 245 has not only enhanced my previous knowledge, but has also opened my eyes to a lot of aspects of the internet I had never even considered. In addition to the possibilities the future of the internet holds, it is equally worthy to contemplate what lessons COMM 245 will teach in thirty years from now!
Although not directly studied in COMM 245, I think a major issue that will need to be addressed in the future is the impact of the internet on the television industry. Google has grown to be the one of the most powerful Fortune 500 companies in America within a mere ten years of being founded. Perhaps the company’s biggest accomplishment is revolutionizing one of the driving forces of the entire media industry—advertising. By only displaying ads that are relevant to customers’ search topics Google has raised billions of dollars in advertising revenue and has become more effective at advertising than traditional forms of media, especially television. It will be interesting to see how the television industry will deal with the ever-growing force of the internet, that is, if it is able to survive at all.
A subject I have always been fascinated with that I think COMM 245 should cover is intellectual property on the internet. Most people would never even consider stealing something, but for some reason when it comes to movies, music, etc. on the internet, peoples’ usual moral rules just don’t hold up. The internet makes music seem as free as air and the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has begun to fine people up to $250,000 for illegal downloading. Our own campus has even taken measures to address this issue with the introduction of Ruckus network back in October, which allows Cornell students to legally download music. I think COMM 245 should definitely explore the phenomenon of illegal downloads and what makes people push their ethical standards aside to break the law.
As a Comm. Major I have been studying the effect of the internet for years. COMM 245 has not only enhanced my previous knowledge, but has also opened my eyes to a lot of aspects of the internet I had never even considered. In addition to the possibilities the future of the internet holds, it is equally worthy to contemplate what lessons COMM 245 will teach in thirty years from now!
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
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.
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!
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
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
Eventually, we started talking on the phone, and I met up with her in
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
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
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
-----------------------------
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.
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
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
Monday, November 26, 2007
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)