In my opinion, the pinnacle of synchronous online interaction is via instant messaging, video chatting, and chat rooms. Thus, I decided that I wanted to do a little chat room experiment; I decided to log into the 20 Singles chat room sponsored by AIM.com. I would like to tell you all what the actual chat room was like, but literally the second I entered it, (under a fake screen name: sweetipie38242), I was bombarded with three private chat requests. I barely had time to accept one of them when I received five more. I attempted to accept them all and begin to chat with each, I kept getting more requests. I had no less than fourteen requests when I decided to log off and log back on to try to form a game plan. I decided to only accept the first two requests I got. When I logged back in, mlsxsl86 and hog4life75 sent me private chat requests, and I obliged.
My story is as follows: I’m a 22 year old named Chrissy. I just graduated from
Hog4life75 was the typical “a/s/l”, what do you look like, what are you wearing, are you a virgin, what’s your favorite position, kind of guy.
hog4life75 (
hog4life75 (
Hog4life75 personified the type of guys I imagined would be in these chat rooms; sex-crazed, sketchy, obnoxious guys who have way too much time on their hands.
Mlsxsl86 was definitely not what I was expecting him to be, probably partly because I was simultaneously conversing with Hog4life75. I might have been predisposed to expect Mlsxs186 to be a jerk as well. Despite my initial inclination, I had a very pleasant, normal conversation with Mlsxs186. He had a good sense of humor, and was very polite and nice (especially compared to Hog4life75).
mlsxsl86 (
sweetipie38242 (
sweetipie38242 (
mlsxsl86 (
mlsxsl86 (
He seemed to be genuinely interested in my life, which was defintely a nice contrast to Hog4life75’s idea of a conversation. He asked me questions beyond what my bra size was.
I would have to use the hypersonal model to analyze my impressions of both men. I think that I over-attributed Hog4life75’s comments towards me to being such a jerk. While I have no idea about the way this guy is in person, he might not be such a degrading person face to face. His comments certainly lead me to believe that he is a chauvanistic individual. With Mlsxsl86, I over-attributed his polite comments to him being a nice individual. He might have just been putting on an act. With computer mediated communication, it was difficult to tell what kind of person I was truly talking to. Everything that I concluded was based on reduced social context clues, so while I did have potential insight to each guy’s personality, I don’t believe it was as rich as a face to face interaction might have been.
6 comments:
Rachel, you've revealed a new dimension in the hyperpersonal theory. By creating two conflicting impressions in the same chat room you compare the two men, only furthering the extremeness of your opinion. Your experience with mlsxsl86 seems to further your disdain for hog4life75. After realizing nicer guys exist in the chat room, you understand how irregular and rude hog4life75 is compared to his peer. At the same time, you appreciate mlsxsl86's politeness compared to your negative experience with hog4life75.
These two experiences repel one another by and may further the extremes you form through the hyperpersonal theory. At the same time, observing two similar people may dampen the extremes, as you may view the repeated behavior as normal.
It would be interesting to formally test this hypothesis by replacing the dependent variable in the Hancock experiment. Instead of altering the communication medium, the experiment could alter the number of partners worked with. As the number of trials increases, the ratings may become more or less extreme as the subject progresses and forms more standardized opinions. The subject may stereotype the progressive opinions to opposing extremes (as you have), or form more generalized opinions if the experiences are similar to one another.
Rachel,
First of all, GREAT choice of name :) Second of all, you really made some valid points and it seems like you had an experience that was very similar to my own. I was also shocked by how many private messages I got, and how many of them were so NOT interested in who I actually was. As long as I was female, they were good to go.
Also, when you alluded to the possibility that hog4life might be a more decent person in real life, you bring up a very interesting line of thought. It seems like people just don't see the same need to carry on a conversation in a CMC setting, and instead are blunt to the point of rudeness. I've just been wondering why people feel like making small talk is a waste of time in a CMC setting when it would be so inappropriate to speak that way in a FtF setting. I'll admit I even find it kind of pointless to have a genuine conversation with an online stranger.
While you applied the hyperpersonal theory well to your experience, I also think that you were able to recognize that you were over-attributing characteristics to the two guys, thus making your impressions a little less intense.
Great post!
Hi Rachel,
I think you've made some excellent points in this post. I was especially intrigued by your experience of chatting with two guys and getting two very different extreme impressions, and how your understanding of one could effect your impression of the other. I also think it is interesting that there is a strong gender component to the blunt questioning that goes on. It seems that most often when a screen name seems female, numerous males attempt a private chat and then often ask rude questions they wouldn't in real life. It doesn't seem like the same goes for females behavior in chat rooms towards males. I wonder if female to female interactions are more warm and conscientious of the other's feelings, or do they still form extreme hyperpersonal impressions.
Hey Rachel,
I am very impressed with your venturing into the chat room. I personally was not able to sum up the courage to face the bombardment of strangeness and disturbing questions in public chat rooms. That being said, I do agree with your attribution of the Hyperpersonal Model as well as reduced social context clues to your experience. I am sorry that you had to deal with people like hog4life75, and even mlsxsl86 seem (at least to me) fairly typical of a guy giving the “nice” image so he could make further advances – like you said, he may very well be simply putting up an act.
Your conversation with the two men is a great example of how difficult it is to not form an intense opinion of someone using CMC. The cues provided are simply too limited to allow you to gain a well-calibrated impression. Inappropriately used words and phrases can easily polarize one’s opinions that cannot be always balanced out by physical cues (e.g. a wry smile to indicate sarcasm, rolling eyes for disbelief). Also, the commonly accepted behavior in a chat room is simply too different than what we expect in real life. Fueled by the safety of anonymity as well as possible social-starvation in real life, people who act normal or reserved in an FtF setting may very well be outright rude and perverse on the Internet.
Rachel,
I too like the other writers really enjoyed your blog post. It was really interesting to see how you compared your two impresions. This really illustrated the Hyperpersonal Model well. I, like you, found that there is a wide variety of people in chatrooms, all the way from those who were extremely sexually explicit to those who were down to earth and just wanted to talk to people about everyday topics online.
I couldn't help but wonder what your behavior was like when you were chatting online. Part of the Hyperpersonal Model deals with selective self-presentation, and I wished you had talked a little bit more about whether or not you were inclined to reveal certain characteritics about yourself more than others. It also would have been interesting for you to comment on how your impressions of the two chatters changed over time when you were talking to them.
-Danielle Rosenthal
Post a Comment