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
1 comment:
Hi, Christina. Great post. I especially love the title. It's interesting that you have met the person in real life first before getting to know her more on CMC.
Personally, I haven't really noticed anything hyperpersonal when I contact my friends on CMC and compare with FtF, but I suppose that's because I'm dull.
Hyperpersonal effect is actually quite common, since we don't take into account certain changes to the factors when we go on CMC. And I don't know many people who are Whose Line Is It Anyways? level (I do know some, of course).
Post a Comment