Meeting someone at the bar and giving them...your email?

Internet capabilities coupled with improvements in technology is creating new communication avenues that were unfathomable just a few years ago. If someone told me when I was younger that one day I would be able to send someone a letter while sitting on a bus, I would think they were crazy. The newest and soon-to-be problematic addition to the communication world is synchronous email. By adding email features to cell phones, others will be able to reach you all the time in any location. PDAs (Personal Digital Assistant) are phones that come outfitted with the internet and an application that acts as your email mailbox. You can be sitting in the middle of the woods or on a beach and have the same capabilities as if you were sitting in front of your home computer.

Email has always been seen as a limiting factor in CMC because of its asynchronous nature. According to the Feature-based approach, deception is easier with email because it reduces non-verbal cues. The Media Richness Theory states that people choose to use email when they have a difficult task, such as lying or telling someone “bad news”. Sending email used to be a good strategy to use if talk FtF with someone is feared due to a potentially intense and immediate reaction.

Communicating over the internet has become a much richer media due to its increasing synchronicity. However, this may not always be beneficial as many problems arise when you are always available. When someone would send an email, a response would not be expected for a few days. For many, it was a less frequent task then checking physical mail (if you don’t remember, mail is delivered to your house in envelopes). After hitting the send button, who knew when it was delivered, realized, and read. Now, when someone sends an email if there isn’t a response in less than 3 hours they feel personally insulted.

Another problem with asynchronous email capabilities is its new nature of fast-paced communication. When you get an email regardless of where you are or what you are doing you must respond immediately. Interruptions through-out the day from the virtual world are creating a stressful reality. Where is the Leviathan telling society the appropriate times to answer a phone call or email? It is easy to examine Leviathans online, and even those observed in person. But wouldn’t it be a breech to privacy if people were told when and when not to use their telephones? This is going to become a big issue in society because it is the equivalent of telling people when they are allowed to speak.

Through the development of social norms relating to PDA usage, a Leviathan will develop and people will learn the respectable techniques of checking and responding to emails. People will adapt their communication skills so that they can use this technology to its greatest advantage.

Bonus Assignment - The Crystal Ball

"Technology is neither good nor bad, nor even neutral. Technology is one part of the complex of relationships that people form with each other and the world around them; it simply cannot be understood outside of that concept." Samuel Collins

I would agree with this quotation. There is no need to debate whether the internet is a good or bad force. Our generation can’t live without it. It is simply an integrated part of our daily lives and shapes our world. But how will our online interactions change, if at all? I think it’s safe to say some phenomena are permanent. Internet addiction is here to stay and will probably worsen. Studies show that between 5-10% of internet users will become addicted. With more people becoming users everyday, this means we will see more problematic internet use. Another issue I see becoming more profound is the Proteus effect. As we begin to represent ourselves more online (games, virtual classes, online work, forums, blogs) and avatars become more prevalent, it seems inevitable that these virtual versions of ourselves will influence our offline selves. In fact, as we interact more online and less in real life, I’d argue that eventually our online personalities will shape our offline personalities more than the traditional other way around.

Theories such as hyperpersonal, impression management, and media richness theory will remain the same. The aspects of the internet that make these theories true will not change. The internet has fewer cues than the real world, making it a leaner medium used for ambiguous tasks. Even if we are able to sense more cues in CMC through improved visual or audio technology, CMC will never be as rich as face to face interaction. Depending on the locus and valence of the situation, people will choose the medium that suits their needs since CMC and FTF will maintain their opposite qualities. This also means the social distance theory will last and people will continue to choose to lie online, rather than in person. As long as there are fewer cues in CMC, the hyperpersonal model will also be true. People have no choice but to overattribute what they know, use selective self-presentation, and act accordingly to behavioral confirmation. These are psychological responses that are human nature in any situation with limited cues.

I think visual anonymity will become less prevalent online as new technologies emerge. It is a lasting trend to see the people with whom you interact with online: updates pictures, camera phones, video blogs, streaming webcams, etc. Visual identity will become more important as we use the internet for more purposes, as it alleviates deception and distrust issues. This is important as the internet becomes the main venue for romance, business, social support, social networking, and other relationships. It will also lower barriers to communication and impression formation. We will sacrifice some privacy for greater security and other benefits, proving the Leviathan will live on.

I think it would be interesting to discuss how the internet is playing an increasing role in business communications. From video conferencing to virtual work spaces to instant messaging, computer mediated communication is changing the way people work by making information exchange easier and faster. It is not even necessary for us to be on-site anymore giving those who take advantage of the internet great flexibility. However, the internet is also a deterrent to workflow, causing companies to start monitoring employee usage. Also, what information there is about you online is now a factor in your job search. These would all be interesting topics to cover as all of us will need to deal with CMC in our future careers.

Another topic I think is interesting is bridging the digital divide: how technology is helping third world countries improve socio-economic conditions. As the chart below illustrates, there is a striking gap in computer/internet access across the modernized and un-modernized regions. However, government and corporate initiatives are bridging this divide, bringing our world closer and closer together. Organizations such as bridges.org are teaching people how to use the internet and maximize its potential at a grassroots level. What impacts will this have on poor nations? How will this increased access to knowledge and resources change world economics, education, communication, and politics.

South Korea is a great example of how much the internet can shape a country. 80% of households have fast internet connections (over 20mbps) and all offices and apartment buildings have fiber connections. Fast internet is increasingly easy to obtain and economical to maintain; one may wonder if the world will soon become completely broadband connected. America prides itself on often being the pack leader, but we are behind in modernizing our country’s technological infrastructure.

Lastly, I would have liked to learn about career options and research opportunities for those of us interested in social computing, information systems, etc. I’m glad to have taken this class—I feel like I understand my world a little better in terms of how social computing affects my everyday life.

Assignment 12: The Future

While accurately predicting the future is impossible, it is still possible to make decent guesses as to what tomorrow will bring to the world of Internet communication. The field is evolving astonishingly quickly; theories valid today might be obsolete tomorrow. It is thus all the more important to make predictions about the future, because unlike with some other fields, "the future" of CMC is quite literally every day.

No theory can be considered totally safe from eventual invalidation, but of all that have been discussed, the hyperpersonal model in particular seems likely to remain relevant, at least in part due to the fact that it's really more of a synergy of other theories. The phenomenon of over-attribution isn't likely to change anytime soon, barring a sudden advancement into the sorts of technologies and invasion of privacy of 1984, where absolutely everything about a person is known from the get-go. Behavior confirmation is a phenomenon that extends beyond CMC and isn't necessarily reliant on computers at all, so it too would have little cause to change.

Selective self presentation is another phenomenon that occurs both in real world and computer mediated interactions, but on computers it is even more pronounced, since it is obviously easier to hide aspects of yourself than it is in person. Even so, this component of the hyperpersonal model is less stable than the others, for the simple reason that so much information is available on the Internet that the "getting the goods" phenomenon may circumvent people's attempts to conceal certain information when they overlook the fact that it may be available elsewhere to somebody skilled at looking. This affects the developmental aspect too: accurate impressions will likely be formed more quickly thanks to this abundance of information. And of course, the reallocation of cognitive resources will change in accordance with selective self presentation; if somebody finds things out about you that you don't want him to find out, you'll have less control over where your cognitive energy is being exerted.

Caplan's model for problematic Internet use is another theory unlikely to change. With the Internet becoming more and more prevalent, it stands to reason that more and more people will be drawn into games and communities that are really best described as alternate lives, thereby abandoning their real ones - the real world problems of people that first draw them into these games probably won't change, after all- and as computer technology becomes better, these worlds will only grow more appealing and more accessible.

One thing that will change - and indeed probably already has - is the fact that no longer is it true that online getting to know a person comes before seeing a picture. Facebook and similar sites have made it so that, much as in FtF interaction, now first impressions will still be based on looks: a fine example of a phenomenon made obsolete within only the past year or so.

As for new technologies, the wave of the future lies, at least to some extent, with video games. Playing games online through X-Box Live, using the Nintendo Wii as an Internet browser - these are all things that would have been considered unthinkable twenty years ago. The Internet is entering into more and more facets of everyday life. Who can possibly claim to be able to predict just how big it will be 20 years from now?

Life Without the Internet = Life in the Stone Ages?

Just visit this site (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/top25-internet.htm) to see how the internet has changed our lives forever. From the World Wide Web to EBay to Craigslist- it has changed us all. We would probably be lost without it. Here are some stats to toast to: approximately 747 million adults logged onto the World Wide Web in January and nearly 97 billion e-mails are sent out daily; quite a lot to say the least.

Yes, the Internet has changed our lives dramatically. We all agree that life without it can be likened to life in the stone ages. Let’s take a quick look at the origins of the internet. The internet was invented in the early 70’s by the Pentagon in order to create a ‘secret’ network where information could be shared via a computer throughout the building, in privacy, from the outside world. Today, that concept has expanded, including the world in sharing information in just about every category imaginable. From trading stocks, to purchasing merchandise, to looking up health information- the internet does it all. Some internet oriented theories will always hold through time. These include:

1. Social Support: Due to social distance, anonymity, interaction management, and access, social support on the Internet is extremely common.

2. Hyperpersonal Model: Walther’s Hyperpersonal Model is made up of the over-attribution process, developmental aspect, selective self-presentation, re-allocation of cognitive resources, and behavioral confirmation. Though the degree of cues will constantly change over time, the hyperpersonal model will always be relevant.

3. Law of Attraction: Attraction is a result of shared attitudes, beliefs, and interests across different parties, and this will always remain the case.

4. Fundamental Attribution Error: Behavior is attributed to personal traits, as well as situational constraints.

There are a few theories or phenomena that will change in response to the passage of time. These include:

1. Digital Deception: With more and more cues available to the public, it will be harder to deceive on the internet.

2. Anonymity: As real-time video messaging takes a solid rooting, the theories connected to anonymity will change drastically, as anonymity will be harder to come by.

In terms of future technologies, I feel that the PDA and Blackberry sector will grow in size. Just as labtops are pretty much the norm these days, I feel that the PDA device will become the norm across all people. Also, we will see an increased reliance on video messaging. With low-cost to free phone services such as SKYPE becoming popular everyday, home landlines will become more and more obsolete.

We covered many topics in Comm245. I however would have enjoyed a greater exposure to movie and music piracy. Internet piracy constitutes obtaining movies and music before they are even released on DVD by cracking codes and ripping music. These internet pirates may feel that the “information should be free” and so ripping the music and redistributing it is permissible. Also, if we actually map internet’s fruition through time, we come to see that it has a long and twisted history. Perhaps learning of the internet’s history would have been a good way to set the stage for the semester. Discussing how the internet has changed, what people thought it would be like, and where people think it will be in the future are some ways to mull over the constant evolution of the internet.

Crystal Ball: Piracy and Memes

While we’ve covered a great deal in Comm/Info 245, I thought that there was a lot that we could have still covered. First of all, music, game, software, and movie piracy has become ubiquitous today, and it has a lot to offer as a psychological subject. While it’s common to see a community help each other, as inter-group interactions would predict, Internet pirates spend countless hours obtaining RAWs of movies, cracking the increasingly sophisticated games and software, and ripping music from CDs – and then they share it with everyone. These select knowledgeable few spend their efforts to benefit everyone (assuming said “everyone” has an internet connection), often without any sort of benefit to themselves. It may be the “information should be free” mantra that ruled the early days of the hackerdom, or it may be individuals or groups looking for fame and attention, but without a “real world” equivalent of this phenomenon, the reason for their actions may be more complex than this.

And the public reaction to the pirates’ efforts has been mostly positive (excluding the corporations that produce the goods being pirated). Many eagerly download the latest version of Windows Vista or the new releases like American Gangster, and think nothing of it despite not having paid a cent for it. It isn’t like paying for DVDs or music is a novel idea; people have been used to it for years now. Yet, it becomes very easy to justify what is essentially stealing. Downloading off the internet has made many goods into public goods. Is it simple greed and selfishness? Is it because corporations are easier to steal from, being that they are large, faceless institutions? The reaction of many companies, namely blame and punish the people, certainly doesn’t endear them to the public. It would be interesting to explore psychological aspects of internet piracy and how they have influence public consciousnesses and conscience.

Another phenomenon that I would like to see addressed is the Internet memes that get circulated so quickly. Although we briefly covered activities such as Youtubing as problematic internet use, the way that internet memes, particularly phrases and videos, influence culture is particularly fascinating. Fads are one thing, but Internet memes are on an entirely different level. I’ve once seen an entire thread where the only reply for 2 pages was “Cool story, Hansel”, a la Zoolander. Are they only a passing wave in the sea of the Interweb, or are there memes that have a more lasting effect on the thinking and actions of the users? The “shock factor” videos that have been passed around have done a remarkably thorough job about desensitizing the public. What effects might that have in the long term?

It’s been good blogging with all of you. Good luck to everyone on their finals!

Bonus Assignment 12: Final Hurrah and the Crystal Ball

The Final Hurrah

For the amusement of all I must start off this final hurrah with a musical send-off from our very own Professor Hancock!

With laughter and fondndess in our hearts let us proceed to my last blog for Psychology of Social Computing.

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

The Crystal Ball

Unfortunately, I am not a gypsy fortune teller and cannot gaze into my crystal ball and reveal the future of the Internet and Psychology of Social Computing. Because of this I resorted to the predictions of an online crystal ball (http://predictions.astrology.com/cb/) and asked “What is the future of the Internet?” and the answer I received was “Think long and hard about that one.” And so I think I must.

While people’s behaviors may change and adapt for interactions more suited for CMC there are a few theories that I feel will always hold true. The first one is Goffman (1959) and Jung’s (1953) notion of “selves”. These selves include the ideal self (a self with qualities we strive to have), ought self (a self with qualities we feel we should have), actual self (the self we are now with the present qualities we express), and the true self (our inner self that has been yet fully revealed itself). I feel that this theory will not change because I believe that there are certain inherent traits that human beings have and I feel that this expression of “selves” is one of them. Everyone has a self that they present to the world, a self that no one sees, a self they thinks society wants them to be, and a self that we want to be.


Another theory that will hold true is the Self-Presentation Tactics. These tactics are the way in which people present themselves online and consist of self-descriptions, attitude expressions, nonverbal behaviors, social associations, and sets, props and lighting. These tactics are described below in an excerpt from class on September 6, 2007.

“Self-descriptions - Describing oneself in ways that convey a desired impression

Attitude expressions - Expressing attitudes that connote that one possesses certain attributes

Nonverbal behaviors - Facial expressions, gestures, body positions and movement

Social Associations - Publicly associating oneself and dissociating oneself with particular others

Sets, props, and lighting - Using aspects of the physical environment for self-presentation purposes”

Even if in the future people become more adept at online interactions I think that people will still use these self-presentation tactics to make themselves appear in a favorable light. As long as people feel the need to impress others or desire others to feel a certain way, people will resort to these tactics to help achieve their sought after goal.

The one theory that the future may bring a change to is the Social Information Processing Theory by Walther (1993).This theory states that sharing information takes longer in CMC because of the lack of cues. SIP also supports that over time the transmission of information in CMC can reach the same level of FtF. This theory has the greatest ability to change because as things become more of the norm in society then people adapt to that particular new style of living and such. Electricity was once uncommon, but as its usefulness and convience increased so did its usage. The same can be said for the internet. And it is my belief that when larger amounts of people are accustomed to CMC interactions then people will find a way for these interactions to mean or convey more. By adapting to CMC I feel that the amount of time it takes for the transmission of information in CMC to equal that of FtF would shorten dramatically and or eventually become obsolete.

A new issue with the use of technology and the internet that society has been beginning to experience are the legal issues involved with it. I do not mean issues like music piracy, but rather more similar to the articles we have shared in class where people inflict emotional abuse and such over the internet. An example of this is one we discussed in class when a mother in the same neighborhood played as a boy to spy on the daughter of another family. Said mother eventually broke off the relationship and the daughter committed suicide. The girl’s family looked for some punishment for the mother, but there were no laws that applied to this situation. I believe that these situations will only increase, not decrease, for the immediate future and I feel that these issues will have to be addressed. As these issues are dealt with I think it is something that the class should begin to cover. Other than occasional articles our class did not talk much about Internet crime and I think it might be an interesting topic to include in the class.

Well, that’s it. I had a great time in Psychology of Social Computing and hopefully will have another class just as informative and enjoyable!

Thanks for reading my last blog!

Lauren McLemore

The very last blog post!

The future of online communication is a growing phenomenon and FtF communication in certain areas, such as business deals, is becoming more obsolete. Our lives revolve around the use of the internet. Think about it, how would we communicate to friends, family and professors and do research for assignments without it? We would be lost not being able to converse online.

With this said, many of the theories we discussed in class will hold for years to come.
Using text based CMC communication, like chatting or blog writing, theories such as the Hyperpersonal model, the Goffman and Jung “multiple possible selves” idea, social support, and the idea of online community (Gemeinschaft) will still apply to such usage.

The Hyperpersonal model has five contributing factors which are the over attribution process, the developmental aspect, the selective self presentation, the re-allocation of cognitive resources, and behavioral confirmation.
· Over attribution process: people apply certain characteristics and hold certain impressions about people based on those over attributions
· Developmental aspect: as time increases, better impressions will too
· Selective self presentation: present yourself in a certain way based on what channel used
· Re-allocation of cognitive resources: people are able to focus on and analyze what the other person said and time allows them to do this
· Behavioral confirmation: behave as others see you

Goffman and Jung’s “multiple possible selves” include the ideal self, ought self, the actual self, and true self. With reduced cues available in text based mediated communication, people are able to use these self presentational tactics to portray any image of themselves that they want.
· Ideal self: qualities we strive to possess
· Actual self: qualities we express at present
· True self: inner self that has not yet been fully expressed
· Ought self: qualities we feel we should possess

Social support will be present whether in a text based or video based CMC environment. In either case, people are always looking for help or willing to give it. The advantage of social support online is that there is an exchange between strangers where no relationship is necessary to receive advice. And although people don’t know the person who they are receiving help from, they still engage in high self disclosure.

Finally, the idea of an online community will be present. Even though the internet is growing tremendously every year, and one may think that the community aspect of it will disappear. Perhaps certain aspects will but I believe a majority of the community atmosphere will still stay as it is. Sites such as advice websites and social networks like Facebook for example.

On the other note, the social presence theory will tend to not hold true for future CMC communication. I say this because as mentioned earlier by a few people, video usage will become more and more popular. With the use of webcams, the hypothesis given about the SPT won’t be accurate. Having a visual image of the other person will provide more nonverbal cues and thus impressions won’t be impoverished ones but more accurate ones.

I don’t think we could have discussed anything further in class expect maybe talking about the growth of the internet and the implications that it will have on society. I would also suggest, in agreement with a previous blog comment, that a more updated textbook should be used. This will be useful as it will be more relevant and more closely related to what we are discussing in class.

I really enjoyed this class and have learned a great deal not just about psychology of the internet, but about life as well. This wouldn’t have been possible if we didn’t have these weekly blog assignments. The internet is a crucial part of our lives and without it, we would be lost! That’s a scary thought but it’s true.

crystal ball

I think that the internet is so versatile and multi dimensional that its uses and functions will change and continue to change exponentially. I think that all of the theories and phenomenons that we reviewed in class will still be important with the changing virtual world, but some may be built upon, and considered old, outdated counterparts to their future extensions. As we have already recognized the CFO model of communication as dated, and have more or less replaced it with varying other theories addressing impression formation via CMC, including the Hyperpersonal model and O'Sullivan's Impression Management model, i predict that will happen to a number of other theories as the internet evolves in its multiplicity of functions. CFO's assumptions that the internet fosters cold, neutral impressions because of the lack of nonverbal cues, was thought to be accurate at the time, until future research was done, and explanations for a possible initial neutral impression were formed. In terms of which theories in particular stand to be foundations for future more updated theories, the dimensions of Social Support may expand, as the internet becomes even more prevalant in society, therefore increasing the likelihood that people will look to the internet for an array of support. Braithwaite uses information, tangible assistance, esteem support, network support and emotional support to currently code degrees of social support, however future experiments conducting concerning social support may include a filter question specifying whether or not the targeted support forum does indeed supply social support at all. This would eliminate an abundance of support groups overly coded for information.

As the internet grows and expands, it is likely that people will predominantly use their computer for all multi-media. This happens today, as computers offer: music, information, television and film, however people still mainly use their television for watching tv and movies, and an ipod or separate music player for listening to music. It is my prediction that the internet will become the most common go-to place for any individual searching for a multi-media need. Screens can be marketed as bigger with a better quality picture, and the internet can be a TV, a radio and a computer all in one, eliminating the need to even have the original mediums. If this were to be the case, i would imagine that future research would need to be done on the effect of watching tv and movies on your computer vs. watching them on the tv. The ability to watch television on your computer also enables you to multi-task while watching your favorite shows. Writing a paper, chatting online, and watching Grey's Anatomy could all be done at the same time. There would have to be ramifications of that ability on the individual, and research would have to be done to describe that.

245 satisfied such a broad array of internet-related information, i hesitate to think of suggestions for more material, because i wouldnt want any existing material to be replaced. Possibly as an addition to digital deception and detection, internet crime could be expanded on. With the internet being used more frequently for so many things, it might be interesting to learn about various relevant internet crimes.

12- A trip down memory lane

The internet is something that we surely take advantage of. My parents have told me on numerous occasions, that if us college students did not have the internet or a computer, we would not be able to function on a daily basis. I actually believe this is true. How are we submitting work for Comm 245? Simply, the internet, and features that it provides.

In 10 years, I believe the following theories/facets of this course will hold true:

a. Social Support- people are always looking for a convenient way to interact with others, and the internet is at almost everyone’s fingertips. People can gain support from the convenience of their own home which is convenient and mostly confidential

b. Fundamental Attribution Error- people will continue to believe that negativity or setbacks are due to situational occurrences, not due to personal traits or hardships

c. Hyperpersonal Model- this model by Professor Joe Walther is multifaceted and generalized enough into 5 steps that it can apply to the internet in 10-15 years. The parts of this model that will remain the strongest will be overattribution effect (as the internet becomes more involved and convoluted, people will believe that it has a greater affect on people’s actions), and behavioral confirmation (more online interaction allows people to believe that they believe in a certain way, due to increased interaction time online).

I believe that the following parts of Comm 245 will change, or have to be altered over time:

a. PIU- Problematic Internet Use will become much greater as people will be able to have the internet even more conveniently brought to them. Further, more corporations will advertise online, which will make the internet more addicting. A counter to this argument, is that more regulations will be put in place in order to prevent further PIU

b. SIP- it will take people even less time and effort to relate/understand information in CMC

In the future, as PDA’s and other handheld digital devices come about (which relate to CMC), people will have to deal with less interaction FtF. This will take a toll on one’s ability to interact, one he or she is in a FtF moment. Children growing up in such an era, could experience social/emotional problems because they do not have the social exposure to people. This will create an anti-social environment, dictated by how many friends one has on his/her handheld device. This is not a beneficial direction for a society that has been based on personal interaction for so long. If there are studies on PDA’s and text messaging, this should also be a focus of the class (if time permits). Text messaging has gotten to be a bit ridiculous, and replaces media richness such as phone calls.

12: The Future Ain't What It Used To Be

When the World Wide Web was created in the early 1990s, few predicted how successful and important it would become. Who would have thought that we could make a phone call to someone and see the person on the other end of the screen? Who would have thought that emails would become such a vital part of our every day lives, and that we could check them whenever and wherever we may be in the world? Who would have thought that we could buy whatever we wanted or needed, from clothing, to gifts, to groceries, all from the comfort from ones own home? And, who would have thought that we could type a word in to a search engine, and find absolutely anything we would have ever wanted on that subject, all by the click of a button?

Yes, the Internet has changed our lives dramatically; almost everyone could agree that they would be lost without it. Yet, ten years ago, if one was making a prediction about our use of the Internet and its role in our lives, most would have predicted something much different than what its function is today. There are some theories or phenomena, however, that will always hold, and they include:

1. Hyperpersonal Model: As described in detail in a previous blog post, Walther’s Hyperpersonal Model is made up of 5 components, the over-attribution process, developmental aspect, selective self-presentation, re-allocation of cognitive resources, and behavioral confirmation. Although, the increased amount of cues through the use of videos and pictures in CMC will change this theory slightly, this theory, in general, will always hold true.
2. Fundamental Attribution Error: Attributing how someone behaved to their personal traits, but believing that our negative behavior reflects situational constraints. No matter how the Internet changes, this theory will always remain.
3. Law of Attraction: The proportion of shared attitudes, beliefs, and interests leads to attraction, and this is something that will forever be accurate.
4. Social Support: Due to social distance, anonymity, interaction management, and access, social support on the Internet is extremely common. Although some of these factors, such as anonymity, may change, turning to the World Wide Web for social support is a phenomenon that is sure to remain in the future.

Although nothing is certain, there are a few theories or phenomena that are most likely going to change. These include:
1. Problematic Internet Use: As more and more things become Internet based, and as new technologies and games develop, PIU will become a much larger problem.
2. Digital Deception: As more and more cues and information become available on the Internet, it will be much harder to use deception. The nonverbal cues that are usually lost in CMC will become available.
3. Anonymity: As video is becoming an extremely common phenomenon on the Internet, anonymity, and all the theories associated with people being anonymous to each other on the Internet are certainly going to change.

In predicting what I think the future issues and technologies that will need to be addressed are, I will begin with what I like to call the “crackberry craze.” More and more people are turning (and are becoming glued) to their blackberry’s or other PDA devices, and I think the future will make these items a necessity for all. Furthermore, as noted earlier, I expect the use of video in CMC to grow. Although technologies such as SKYPE are popular among college kids, I predict that hard telephone lines will eventually become obsolete, and that all computer mediated conversations will turn to videophone calls such as these. As also mentioned earlier, this will largely transform many of the current theories that center around anonymity.

***
No one can predict where the Internet will be in the future, but it is very interesting to speculate and see where our predictions take us. While I did truly enjoy every subject covered in COMM245 this semester, I have one suggestion for future classes. Because the evolution of the Internet is so interesting and is changing so rapidly, perhaps 245 could cover a little bit of the Internet’s history: how it has changed, what people thought it would be like, and where people think it will be in the future. Although no one can know for sure what the future holds in regards to the Internet, it would have been interesting to see how it has changed, how and why it is different than people thought it would be like, and what experts believe is to come.

Assignment #12: Back to the Future

On my last blog, I left some heartfelt goodbyes to the blogosphere, but as it turns out, that wasn’t quite my last. So, since I think this blog will really be my last, I’d like to say goodbye to all of you blog readers out there, and extend my thanks to everyone who commented on my blogs. I had a lot of fun reading your comments. I’d like to take a few moments in my final blog to take a look forward, perhaps into a “glass ball” and let you know what I see in store for the future of computer mediated communication.

While this is no easy task, the speculation about the strength of different theories depends on the assumptions of where technology will evolve. I feel the internet will continue to grow in its speed and reach. Soon people will be able to wirelessly connect to the internet wherever they are. Whether it be though cell phones or small portable computers, computer mediated connections (CMC) will continue to grow in number. I personally feel that the video component of CMC will increase as well, leading to more FtF through CMC. This hasn’t happened yet, and has been attributed to people’s desire for anonymity (prefer phone over video on the computer). I feel that as the internet grows, video will become integrated and instead of picking up the phone, one will pick up a videophone and make a call.

Now that I’ve outlined what I see in the future technologically, what implications does this have on the popular theories that discuss CMC? First and foremost, the increase of video use online will lead to a decrease in the ability of the hyperpersonal model. This is because the other person can see about you; the less able one would be to selectively self present themselves. The hyperpersonal model is based on strictly text-based communication and with the shift to video, this model will be lost. If video does begin to grow in usage, I feel that studies that look at the effects of leaving CMC and moving to FtF will become obsolete. If people are interacting via video on the computer, the amount of self presentation will decrease, allowing CMC to almost become an extended form of FtF. Because of this, leaving virtuality will simply be removing the computers, but will in effect be the same as before.

With regards to this year’s class and the topics covered, I feel as if some of the work we looked at was slightly dated. For example, Wallace’s examples using MUD’s were pretty obsolete. While the examples are interesting and add historical context, they are hard to apply to today’s world. I also would have liked to have seen if there were any studies involving people who grew up on the internet and those who did not. I feel that this may become an interesting topic in the future. As a growing percentage of the population grows up using CMC, I wonder if the effects and behaviors with regards to CMC will change. Well, that’s about it for my look into the future. I’ve had a great time with these blogs and thanks again for reading and commenting on mine!

Assignment 11

My personal example of an online relationship going to face to face was this past summer when contacting someone in the professional world. A family friend of mine had a brother who was rather high up in the world of finance. On her advice, she recommended I email rather than call him due to his travel schedule. This would allow him to get back to me at his leisure. Upon asking him in an email to possibly meet and discuss his career, he emailed me back a day or so later with a rather abrupt email. As I recall it went something like “plz to meet, call my secretary to arrange a lunch time”. At this point I was thinking “oh great this guy just thinks im wasting his time”. I called, setup a time, and got another email back a few more days later saying something like “see you at 12”. For a guy whose who has done very in well in the financial world, I was rather unimpressed with his lack of email professionalism

Eventually our lunch time arrived and his personality was completely different than expected. I had anticipated a rather bland executive who would be all business. I was actually completely wrong. He had an extremely bubbly personality with an almost boy-like exuberance to him. This example can be looked at under Walthers hyperpersonal model. Here, I was using the limited clues I had about this person to create an image in my head. I was over attributing based on the information I had. That image turned out to be wrong based on the lack of non verbal clues.

According to the Rameriz and Wang paper, a person having an online relationship can often have a negative view of the other person once they meet face to face. My case was exactly the opposite. I had a negative view going into the face to face meeting and came out with a completely positive view. I think this may have happened because of the limited emails I exchanged with the person.

Assignment 11

An example of a relationship that moved from CmC to real life is how I met my friend Armand. The summer after graduating high school I had joined the class of 2010' to meet people before school started. I saw that on his profile Armand had an awesome picture of him throwing a kid to his back in the county wrestling tournament. I had wrestled since fourth grade so I sent Armand a message and we ended up talking a decent amount online. It turns out that we were assigned adjacent rooms in low rise six so there was no doubt I would end up being friends with him in real life.

I would apply hyperpersonal theory to this online/real relationship; Because all I knew about Armand was that he wrestled, I definitely saw that as being a defining factor of his personality. Normally I wouldn't find hyperpersonal impressions to be very accurate, but in this case my impression was spot on. Because I had wrestled for so long I could guess exactly what kind of person Armand was. I eventually found out that he took third in counties in Nassau county Long Island. The sort of person that makes it to counties is one who eats, breathes, and lives wrestling. My impression of Armand being confident and outgoing was very accurate. I didn't need to prolong the CmC portion of our meeting because I quickly realized that we'd get along really well. In this case having a hyperpersonal impression made it easier to get a feel for my friend's personality and interests.

Having common ground definitely made it easier to accept the exaggerated impressions given by the heyperpersonal theory. Wrestlers tend to be a little crazy and their commitment can be considered hardcore. I expected Armand to be the typical county placewinner; somewhat overconfident yet obviously possessing great skill and dedication. Due to the effect of the hyperpersonal impression I in a sense knew Armand before I really got to know him.

11 - A Mutual Friend

Early in High School, a friend of mine from summer camp who lived in a different city introduced me to her friend Jamie through AIM. My friend thought we had musical tastes in common so she insisted we talk online. Jamie and I would instant message each other with varying frequencies. Some weeks we would talk almost daily, other times we would go multiple weeks without talking. For the most part we talked about music, we were both in the school band, and about general school-related topics. Jamie tended to be more talkative than me and came across as very outgoing. She had pretty strong opinions about things, which always led to interesting discussions. The next summer (about 6 months after we began talking on AIM) I returned to camp, and Jamie went as well.

The Hyperpersonal model correctly describes how through CMC I formed a strong impression of Jamie based on over-attributions and the conversation-style that developed over time between us. While I didn’t have a large breadth of impressions about her, certain traits were very exaggerated. As Ramirez and Wang found in their paper, after a long-term relationship through CMC, expectation violations in FtF were fairly negative and frequent. Though she was very talkative online, she tended to much quieter and less assertive in FtF. Certain interests that we frequently talked about online turned out to be less a part of her general life than it appeared through our CMC. She selectively self-represented herself (and I’m sure I did as well), such that in FtF I could see that a different set of traits were more prominent. My impression of her had to change significantly. In addition, through CMC I had always talked to her one-on-one. In person I was able to interact with her in the context of a group of people, where she also didn’t follow my expectation.

Over the summer, our relationship wasn’t as close as it was through CMC. Yet once we returned to our own cities, our CMC returned mostly to the way it was. Despite having new impressions from spending the summer FtF, our CMC was still very much rooted in our older impressions.

Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/place-for-friends-assignment-11.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11_2183.html

11 - A Concert Friend

I don’t consider myself the kind of person who seeks out relationships online, but sometimes it certainly has its benefits. During my freshman year I found out about a concert that my favorite band from home would be playing in Buffalo in a few weeks. First I tried to convince all my friends at school to come with me, but I found this to be unsuccessful since none of them had even heard of the band that was playing. In this case I turned to the bands website, specifically the message boards to meet someone else going to the show.

Eventually I met another college student from another upstate New York school who was also planning to attend the show, and we began to exchange emails. Granted, our mixed mode relationship was a short one, centered around a single event and a single shared interest, in this case a band. But through our email exchanges and then eventual meeting at the concert, we did develop a brief friendship.

I feel the model that most accurately describes my interactions with my new friend is Walther’s Hyperpersonal Model. Over-attribution was certainly an important factor in my views of my new friend. Because I met her in a specific band chat room and soon found out that she would be working the merchandise table for the concert, I thought of her as very into the local music scene. Also, since most of our conversations centered on these things, their importance to both of us surely seemed inflated. Walther’s developmental aspect, which says that over time we would adapt social cues to the verbal channel, did seem to be working as we got to know each other better and better through email. In the end though, a few weeks was not enough to truly get to know each other.

Re-allocation of cognitive resources, focusing ones control on the verbal channel since no others are available online, did have a moderate effect on our interactions, especially since email is an asynchronous form of communication, allowing the sender plenty of time to choose their words carefully. The two most important factors in our interactions, however, were selective self-presentation and behavioral confirmation. Because we had met each other for a specific purpose, we chose to talk mostly about our interests in music, and confirmed this single-minded view of each other with our responses.

When we finally met in person, my new friend was very much as I expected her. In this case, the fact that our meeting occurred under a similar premise to our online communications probably contributed to this. Even in FtF, I noticed that selective self presentation and behavioral confirmation continued because of the focus of our friendship remained towards the unfolding concert.

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/place-for-friends-assignment-11.html

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11-aspereta.html

Assignment 11 - Oscillating relationship from CMC to FtF and back

A good friend of mine randomly met his girlfriend (they went out for two years) through AOL. When I say AOL, I mean that literally. The girl was browsing through the AOL database and found someone with similar interests and decided to IM them and it took off from there. Talking about taking off, leaving virtuality, in this case provided a great deal of deflation and lowering of standards. I’m referring to the fact that during the CMC, my friend “expected a little more of her.” I’m referring to looks and intelligence. The word intelligence can be debated but she went to Harvard and was in an honor society. After they had met a couple of times, he chose to attend graduate school at Georgetown so they can both be together (among other reasons).

If you are thinking “awww”, I am as well. This thought aligns with the Hyperpersonal model best in my opinion but has some URT since he was able to compromise with the few traits he was “disappointed” with after the uncertainty was reduced. In terms of Hyperpersonal, expressing his disappointment proved to me that he had an inflated perception of this woman in virtuality. This negative out-of virtuality impression aligns with the theory of Ramirez and Wang. He’d often boast about how beautiful and smart she was. Not to mention that this is before he met her. The word disappointed shows that he had a negative out-of virtuality impression of her. The bigger question is: How was he able to compromise? I think this question is out of the bounds of this class since this is deep out of virtuality but within the bounds of the class when it comes to SIP and Ramirez and Wang. In terms of SIP, they spoke after meeting online and from that, over time the impression (that was in my friend’s favor) was molded. They had similar views on a lot of topics and that factor probably overrode the attractiveness and intelligence factor since no one can be perfect. In terms of Ramirez and Wang, this aligns with the short-term vs. long term issue. In the short term, impressions were intense, then after meeting, they lost their intensity, then gained intensity after compromises were made and in the long term, the relationship was fantastic.
There goes to show you that time is a great factor when it comes to knowing someone to potentially have a relationship with. Patience is a virtue but at the same time, one can’t be too patient based on some intense impressions that may form and be confirmed when one goes out of virtuality.

Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=4052116819066943571

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=1050617315660317056

Assignment 11

Thinking back to the summer before arriving at Cornell for the first time, I can imagine my anxiety over being a freshman and having a social life. Of course any new student being plunged into a totally new environment would experience an initially utterly daunting society. Luckily for us, we have been provided with certain tools (a big one being Facebook) that allow us to begin our social networking before even seeing people face to face.

I had not been an avid Facebooker prior to arriving on campus. So the multiple friend requests that I received from people I was settled to dorm with (people I had never met before) pretty much shocked me. What was more was that these very same people had started groups based on minimal things that they had in common (Clara Dickson '06-'07! or Balch Hall 2010 or even Hotelies 2010, just to give examples). They seemed highly intent on creating a safe social web that they could fall back on before arriving on campus, and they seemed to be succeeding.

Though I generally have a "personal policy" (though not nearly as formal as it sounds) to only friend people that I have met, after receiving a friend request from one girl who was to live on my floor I decided to :gasp: accept her request. She was a Korean from close to where I lived and she seemed like a nice person to get to know. However, after stalking her profile for a bit, I wasn't so sure about her anymore. Her only available pictures seemed to be of her in her bikini at a beach vacation. Our music tastes differed greatly and the more I took in from her profile the less I felt the need or want to befriend her in real life. I had not realized then the severity of Walther's Hyperpersonal Model on my thoughts and behavior, mainly the two aspects concerning over-attribution and selective self-presentation.

I had over-attributed certain aspects of this girl's profile to developing my own idea of what her personality would be like. I had strongly felt that because she decided to make her profile the way she had, that I would no longer want to be friends with her. On the other hand, she had probably made her profile that way in order to attract certain friends or to appear more friendly and open. In the end, my initial reactions to her took a whole semester to melt away, and after getting to know her better (we were in the same writing seminar) I realized that I had been very wrong in my assumptions about her. It is funny how our opinions of others can be so wrong based on minimal cues, and how necessary it is to not shut off people who we could potentially be very good friends with based on a few interests.


Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/a11-meet-canadian.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-well-thats-unexpected.html

Assignment 11: Aspereta

An example of a relationship that started online and eventually left virtuality is my own. This came about because of an online role-playing game called Aspereta. It is while playing this game that I met another character, let’s call him Tom, who I instantly formed a connection with and we quickly became ‘online friends’. We enjoyed each others company while playing and often had a lot to talk about since we had many shared interests. For example we both enjoy designing and creating characters, items, and monsters for these online games. My brother who also played Aspereta met Tom and they too got along extremely well. The three of us often arranged online meeting times so that we could all play Aspereta together.

As we all maintained our friendship over an extended period of time we came to learn that we both lived in the same state, the same city, and frequented many of the same places. After time had passed we decided to meet face-to-face. My brother and I decided on the location, a mall, and we all planned a convenient time. I had seen his picture and he had seen mine and so it was not hard to spot each other. For all our closeness online I didn’t know what to expect in this new environment and was happy to find that only after a few moments of awkwardness we were soon browsing through the mall and chatting like old friends.

This positive experience of leaving virtuality, modality switching from Computer-Mediated Communication to Face-to-Face can be explained by the Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT). URT from Berger and Calabrese states that “the uncertainty reduction process leads to affinity or attraction” (Class, Slide 36, 11/21). More simply this theory states that when one has increased information about their partner, thus decreasing uncertainty, it leads to increased liking and intimacy. The friendship between Tom and me only strengthened after our meeting face-to-face and I believe that this is because I was able to learn more about him through a physical relationship. I gained more information about him from our encounter like his gestures, unconscious habits, and other little things that became apparent from this form of communication. Another reason that this experience was positive is that Tom was very honest to me about himself during our online communications and so when I met him offline there was nothing about him that shocked or disappointed me.

Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11-oscillating-relationship.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-well-thats-unexpected.html

A11: Meet the Canadian

Being an avid fan of fantasy literature, it was inevitable that I would learn about the role playing community online. As the insistence of a friend, I joined Castle Moonshadow, which consisted of a community of high schoolers and middle schoolers from New Jersey and Canada. I gradually became close friends with Sam, otherwise known as Aria, Lantaraana, Fuyu no Iki, and a multitude of other characters. After two years of playing games together, critiquing each other’s writing, and bouncing philosophical and absolutely whimsical ideas off each other, we finally met each other during a mutual friend’s birthday.

It was definitely a bit of a shock, seeing the girl that I had been talking to for two years. As the uncertainty reduction theory predicted, I knew a great deal about her and her me, so we liked each other from the get-go, and we definitely took to each other more quickly than if that was our first introduction to each other. However, I always saw her as a poet, a avid role playing gamer, a fantasy fiend, a writer, and a Canadian. In accordance to the SIDE theory, which says that I would have focused on those stereotypical characteristics while talking to Sam online, I didn’t or couldn’t see all of those things, but instead, when I saw her, I saw an individual, a person. I didn’t see her any less for it, but she did not quite meet all of the expectations that I had of her. To some degree, this also fits the hyperpersonal model, since, throughout our interaction over the two years, my impressions of her have been based on whatever information she has chosen to reveal to me. Although I didn’t have a negative impression of our first meeting, it certainly was not what I expected.

This also runs contrary to the SIP theory, which would expect that time would eventually equalize my online impressions with any offline impressions. Our first meeting was smooth, but definitely not the easy transition that the SIP theory would have foreseen. On the other end, the long term association did not lead to a negative or uncertainty provoking meeting, but instead, a rather pleasant and enjoyable time where we both learned more about each other, despite the two years we’ve known each other.

Comments:

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-perfect-or-anything-but.html

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-mutual-friend.html

Assignment 11

I had a friend who I met through a mutual friend. The thing is, I never actually met him. We met because the mutual friend gave me his screen name. He told me I’d like talking to this guy (we’ll call him John) because he was funny. I was wary of talking to a stranger online and even more doubtful that I’d find him funny. However, over the period of a semester, we chatted more and more on AIM. He would randomly send me links to funny videos or start a conversation with a joke. I found him to be quite entertaining and enjoyed talking to him. After some time, I decided it was ok to meet in person, with our mutual friend. When we finally met up, it was extremely awkward. He got into my car and didn’t say much for the whole ride. If it weren’t for our mutual friend, the whole day would have been filled with awkward silence. I was pretty disappointed and wondered how someone could be so funny online, but boring in person. Perhaps he was intimidated by face to face interaction or he takes longer to warm up in person.

Accordingly to Walther’s Social Information Processing theory, this is normal. In the absence of nonverbal cues in online communication, such as facial expressions and tone, individuals can still form rich impressions of each other. Although I didn’t see or hear him, I was still able to deduct his meanings and sense sarcasm/humor in his online communication. He had no choice but to transfer this cues into the written channel through emoticons, capitalization, punctuation, etc. My impression of him took time, but it did develop slowly in CMC. Another theory also helps explain our relationship. Walther’s hyperpersonal theory suggests that because I knew very limited things about John, I over-attributed those things to his overall personality. Since I knew for sure he knew some witty jokes, I expected him to be a funny individual even in person. The developmental aspect of this theory agrees with the SIP theory that people adapt cues to CMC over time. Also, it explains that John probably used selective self-presentation to choose what he wanted me to think about him. Thus, I knew he was capable of humor, but not that he was socially awkward and silent in FTF. My expectations of him to say something funny online (since this was the grounds we were introduced on) follow behavioral confirmation. He knew there was pressure to be funny so he behaved accordingly.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=3975223672035139746

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=3651188352028114580

Stalkers!

We all do it regardless of how sketchy it is: yup you got it, stalking our classmates on Facebook. Freshman year I came across this guy on Facebook- he seemed like a nice, handsome, intelligent guy. Through his quotes, I knew this guy was pretty insightful. Furthermore, he was well-read. I decided to add him as a friend, and once he accepted, I was able to access his conversations with his friends. He seemed to have a lot of substance and seemed very down-to-earth.

After scrutinizing his profile, I messaged him asking him if he wanted to meet for some coffee. Contrary to what I thought, his response was full of enthusiasm. Phrases such as “Hi!” and “Will see you soon!” made me immediately like him. I was so happy he was just as psyched as I was about meeting him in person. That following Friday we met up at Stella’s for some coffee. He was nice and friendly, but he was not as enthusiastic as showcased by his messages.

In Ramirez & Wang’s paper “When On-line meets Off-line: An Expectancy Violation Theory Perspective on Modality Switching” one’s expectations of a person can be at changed by switching from a CMC environment to a FtF environment and this can also yield a more negative view of the person. This occurs in relationships that are mostly CMC mediated. Being that I met this guy on Facebook, and communicated with him via Facebook for approximately 2 weeks before having met him, I felt that my perception of him was more negative in FtF than in CMC because he seemed more lively in CMC.

My experience with leaving virtuality and entering the real world is congruous with the Hyperpersonal Model proposed by Walther (1997). I had a highly inflated view of this guy before I met him because of my complete reliance on a few cues that formed a highly exaggerated perception of the guy. Since I had only received a few “full of life” e-mails before actually meeting him, I assumed that this was demonstrative of his real-life personality. This is an example of the over-attribution process, one of the five parts to the Hyperpersonal Model. Selective self-presentation was shown when the guy chose to present himself in this very enthusiastic and happy manner. Behavioral confirmation was shown when I responded to the highly enthusiastic messages, with enthusiastic messages as well, which caused him to reciprocate more enthusiastic message, creating a constant rush of enthusiasm.

Unfortunately, I decided to keep a distance from this guy, as his super-introverted personality fTf was incongruous with my first perception of this guy on CMC.

Comments:

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11_29.html#c7903440449072186265

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=7453375170792971277

11: Well, that's... unexpected

Mixed-mode relationships are becoming increasingly relevant in today’s information society. A great example of this is when my real-life friend decided to meet up with his virtual-world wife in real life. I was shocked he wanted to do this, not only for the obvious personal safety-related reasons, but because of the chance that this would destroy their relationship totally. Online dating sites would have us believe otherwise, but I’ve never personally known of a relationship that started online and successfully made the transitions to real life. To spoil the story, in the end I was right and the two of them never played together again (the wife left for another game and blocked him on the various instant messaging networks).

Unfortunately, this outcome is completely consistent with the theories we’ve discussed this term in class; namely, the negative results of switch from CMC to FtF are predicted accurately by the SIDE and Hyperpersonal theories.

SIDE says that after two people that have been interacting through CMC meet face-to-face, that individuating factors will assert themselves and cause a decrease in attraction. This loss of attractiveness happens because the participants no longer perceive themselves as “like” each other. In the case of my friend, both my friend and his virtual wife were players in the same game, members of the same guild, and partners in the same fake family. These group associations brought them together and caused the relationship to be strong. However, when they met in real life, they realized that they had very little in common and were thus repulsed by their differences.

In the same vein of thought, the Hyperpersonal model predicts that CMC causes each partner to gain “over-inflated” perceptions of one another. When the two of them meet face-to-face, the proverbial bubble is burst, creating disappointment and thus dampening attraction. My friend turned out to be very disappointed (to say the least!) when his wife, who in the worlds of Ultima Online played a scantly-clad, longsword-wielding warrior princess, turned out to be a (fellow) lanky, acne-riddled high school-aged male. How this had never come up before is quite beyond comprehension, but discovering the rather essential difference between the perceived and actual gender caused my friend to be massively disillusioned with his partner, and to put it bluntly, the relationship was never quite the same afterwards.

Well everyone, I think this is the last blog entry of the semester. Good luck with finals and have happy and safe holidays at home or wherever else you will find yourself this December.

Comments:

1. http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11_3132.html#c4375184605376884593


2. http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11-shifting-modality.html#c4440538589266224106

assignment 11

Meeting people online is becoming increasingly more popular and whether or not people believe these relationships will last is constantly questioned. Since I haven’t personally experienced meeting someone online, I chose to write about a couple who found love on the internet. Monica is 24 years old and went online one day in search of finding her prince charming. Almost immediately, two weeks after putting her ad online, someone responded. She describes her relationship with Brian as being wonderful and they “hit it off famously”. They had many things in common and after about a month of conversing online, they began to talk on the phone and send post cards to each-other. Monica soon insisted that they meet in person and that’s exactly what they did. Although her friends described her fascination and obsession with this person they believed to be a complete stranger ridiculous, she replied by saying that he has her heart and they were madly in love with each other. After meeting, their romantic fling “fizzled away” but they are now friends who talk occasionally online. She was in love with him and liked what she saw in person at first. Once they got comfortable with one another, Monica realized Brian wasn’t the man she envisioned him to be. His personality was somewhat more aggressive and less romantic in the FtF setting as opposed to the CMC setting. He also proceeded to tell her that they didn’t know enough about each other to be in love and should remain just friends.

According to the Hyperpersonal model, the negative outcome experienced by Monica is a consequence of five factors. First off, Monica had over developed impressions about Brian due to the lack of cues available online. Brian and Monica were both engaging in selective self presentation and the over attribution process is thus likely to occur. Monica had false hopes about the man she thought she loved and had inflated perceptions of Brian’s charming character he presented himself to be online. Brain forgot to mention that he was married and had three children. Developing a relationship in CMC didn’t work out for Brian as there wasn’t enough opportunities present to really get to know each other. For example, people are not able to see the other person, they cannot analyze their mannerisms, and the availability for all other cues is not present. These reasons are why Brian told Monica that they didn’t really know each other. As stated in class, once a relationship leaves virtuality, there is less control over information sharing which, in this case, lead to “disappointment”.

Monica decided to give online dating another chance. As a result from the previous experience, Monica set guidelines for herself which consisted of not getting involved with anyone who is married, has children, or who is over 30 years old. Although this seems like unproblematic, there is no one controlling whether the other person is telling the truth or not. I guess this would be revealed when they met in a FtF setting. After no time at all, Monica met someone who was just about 2 hours from her home. This time, Monica spoke not only to this new man on the phone but also spoke with a few of his close personal friends before actually meeting in person. The aspect that is most intriguing about the internet is that relationships are developed and based on personality rather than physical appearance. In real life, these concepts are reversed. All in all, when they met in person, Monica described it as “they clicked very well online, but even better offline.” The impression she had of him was almost what she received when they met in person. They are still together and are very happy together.

The theory that supports a positive outcome once a relationship leaves virtuality is Uncertainty Reduction Theory. As described on the slides from class, “the uncertainty process leads to affinity or attraction.” For this theory, there is an entry phase where people are beginning to interact with one another, a personal phase where people are communicating more spontaneously and personally, and then there's the exit phase where people decide whether to keep persueing the relationship. Monica's exit phase had a positive outcome due to increased information and cues. Their uncertainty of one another decreased as time went on, as the more information one knows about the other person, the more "liking" they will have for them. Since real life provides the availability of various cues that are not present in CMC, people are able to get to know one another on a more personal level. And from there, people’s relationships will grow and prosper because of it.

Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11-aspereta.html

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-mutual-friend.html

After seeing the broadway show Spring Awakening several times, I decided to join an online fan site for it. The fans in this group call themselves "The Guilty Ones" (a reference to a number in the show). After posting in the forum a few times, I began to talk to someone who had seen a few of the same shows as I had (for his sake, we'll call him John). As we talked I found that the hyperpersonal model was very appropriate - I felt like I knew John very well even though I knew so little about him.

After a few months of occasional conversation, I found out that we were going to be attending the same show. When we met up in the city, I found that I was a little bit dissapointed in the real life John. I felt like I had so much in common with him online, but in person, he wasn't all that I had built up in my head. I also learned a lot about his other interests which didn't at all align with mine. Although John was very nice and friendly, I couldn't help but prefer him in virtuality. This aligns with what the hyperpersonal model predicts about leaving virtuality. I fyou have a really positive image of someone built up in your head, it is easy for the actual person to dissapoint in reality. John and I continued to talk for a bit about our love for the show, but in the end, that is all we shared in common.

Assignment #11

As summer was fast approaching last April, I was in desperate need of a summer activity. Having just gotten over a tough case of mononucleosis, I was in no state to apply to competitive internships and successfully complete the demanding applications. At the suggestion of my father, I contacted a friend of his who ran a small public relations firm a few minutes from my house. Although not my dream job, it was definitely something to do.

To contact the head of this company, I emailed him in a formal, professional manner asking politely if I could be a part of his workplace for a few weeks to learn more about public relations. To my surprise, his response was informal and full of excitement, using phrases like “Hi!” and “Can’t wait to hear back from you soon!”. Immediately I felt a liking towards him because of his friendly email. He made me excited to join his company and meet him in person. When we did finally meet in May, he was friendly, but did not speak in exclamations like in his email. He checked up on my progress every now and then, but also kept his distance most of the time.

My experience leaving virtuality and entering the real world fits with the Hyperpersonal Model proposed by Walther (1997). I had an inflated view of my boss before I met him because of my exaggerated perception of the few cues I received. Since I had only received a few enthusiastic emails before actually meeting him, I assumed that was consistent with his real life personality. This effect is called the over-attribution process, which is one of the five aspects of the Hyperpersonal Model. Another factor, selective self-presentation, was shown because my boss decided to present himself in a very specific enthusiastic way. Behavioral confirmation, another aspect of the Hyperpersonal Model occurred when I responded to my boss’ email with the same enthusiasm, causing him to reciprocate that attitude again, creating a cycle of excitement.

Ramirez & Wang write in their paper “When On-line meets Off-line: An Expectancy Violation Theory Perspective on Modality Switching” that expectations of a person can be violated by switching from a CMC setting to a FtF setting and cause a more negative view of the person. This typically occurs in relationships that spent a large amount of time in CMC. Having communicated with my boss for a month, we did not spend a significant amount of time in CMC, but my perception of him was still slightly more negative in FtF than in CMC.

Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11_29.html

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11_2183.html

Assignment 11: Shifting Modality

The Cornell Class of 2010 website was my gateway into forming online relationships. I used this social networking tool to look up friends of friends that were going to Cornell. Once Cornell distributed Net IDs, facebook became my network of choice. Facebook quickly transforms into a breeding ground of pseudo-relationships for pre-fosh, and yes, I was quick to indulge in the countless Cornell groups such as “Sarcastic People are fun” and “CU Jewish camp goers”. Still, I avoided the more intimate “I’m so excited to go to Cornell!” wall posts and private messages until I received my roommate assignment.

I remember analyzing Sara’s pictures and trying to deduce her personality from her interests list. She had many diverse other-directed identity claims ranging from her interests in naps and rain boots to her activities of track and Amnesty International. I interpreted this information to mean that she was well-rounded and social. When we started instant messaging, she was seemed fairly affable. I though it was cute how she would always insert “~*” at the end of her sentences, even though I initiated most of the conversation. When we arranged to meet up in New York City, I was excited to meet her.

Little did I know that our greeting hug would be the only hug Sara and I would ever share. Although sharing a frozen hot chocolate at a crowded Serendipity’s provided a social buffer, conversation with Sara was contrived and awkward. She would respond with one word answers to my questions and avoid eye-contact. I do have experience dealing with introverted people, but Sara would barely crack a smile and I suspect that she sensed my disappointment.

Shifting from CMC interaction to FtF interaction with Sara clearly supports Hyperpersonal Model. I committed the overattribution error when I decided that her “~*” symbol at the end of sentences meant that she was friendly. I developed an exaggerated impression of her personality based on limited information from her facebook profile. Perhaps I should have considered that Sara was utilizing selective self-presentation in her interests and hobby lists. Also, Sara clearly benefited from the reallocation of cognitive resources in CMC. She could present herself in a better light because the focus was only on the topic of conversation whereas face to face, her body language came into play and significantly tainted my impression of her.

Although the CMC to FtF transition of our relationship was far from ideal, it made wary of the deceptive powers of facebook and my tendency to idealize people based on conventional signals. After this experience, I was careful not to engage in the ever-popular activity of messaging my classmates before I actually met them.

Comments:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=342727884730111045

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11_882.html