Online relationships generally seem to get a bad rap. As we’ve learned this semester, it’s not hard to lie about your interests, hobbies, age, and even gender in computer-mediated communication. From CFO to Media Richness Theory to O’Sullivan’s theory there are many reasons why online relationships should fail. However, there are people who have found true love through CMC. Suzie Robinson shares,
“I met my fiancé online and we are getting married in May this year. We only ever seem to hear the negative stories about online dating, giving the impression that its dangerous. I think we need to hear the success stories, too.”
Suzie looked around before deciding which online dating agency to join. Ultimately she picked one that required a few details about age, hobbies, what kind of relationship she was interested in, and pictures. Suzie recalls getting numerous messages from guys and e-mailing ones she was interested in. Eventually she saw a picture of Andy (her fiancé) and decided to go on a date with him. Suzie follows the chain presented in class last Thursday (photo assessment, survey of attributes, contact, and so on).
McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors agree somewhat with Suzie and her fiancé’s relationship. There was identifiability in that they were subject to self-disclosure, which led to a relationship. Gating features such as social awkwardness were removed, and interactional control was involved in that they could choose who to and when to respond. As far as common ground, Suzie said she only responded to those messages who she was interested in. Lastly, getting the goods, is not mentioned, but it would be entirely possible for any user to get information on users using outside sources.
As far as deception goes, there are many self-presentation goals that one attempts. Suzie doesn’t mention deception in her story but it is likely that she and her fiancé attempted to appear attractive and honest. Therefore, they may have lied frequently but subtly so that they would not be able to tell a difference when they met in person. Also, depending on how long they thought the relationship they may have acted differently. For example, Suzie comments that Andy didn’t fall for her on the first date, which may have affected his amount and depth of self-disclosure.
Link to Article
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hey Gretchen,
I enjoyed your post. It's true that online relationships often carry a negative connotation, so finding one that seems to be very healthy is a nice change. It seems that in this case, the online world closely mirrored the real world in that physical appearance gating features played a major role in the decision to initiate contact. This form of realism may allow the general public to relate to this kind of story more than those in which online "couples" never see what each other actually look like.
Gretchen,
Your post was interesting, and it actually seems like I hear more and more success stories of couples meeting online. Maybe it's just on the ads for match.com that I hear these stories, but I feel like more "normal" people are willing to give online dating a chance these days, and that makes it more plausible for two like people with similar interests (common ground) could meet and eventually be attracted to each other in a deeper way. I can see how a lot of different factors could bring people closer through using CMC, maybe even closer than face to face. Great job!
Post a Comment