"Hunting" or identifying the leviathan online refers to identifying what behaviors are, and are not acceptable. Obviously there are is a continuum of acceptability, ranging from illegal, to socially frowned upon. In the online community there are certain standards to which chat room participants must adhere to. In my brief encounter with the chat room community, i quickly learned that a majority of chat rooms have a predominantly sexual undertone. Therefore, conversation with someone you were meeting for the first time was generally much more inappropriate than it would be in a face to face conversation with a stranger. However, it was also my impression that there were unspoken guidelines in order to maintain the social harmony of the chat. Making other people feel uncomfortable was not the name of the game, and albeit not illegal, most definitely frowned upon. For example, criticizing, or asking extremely personal questions prematurely, violates the leviathan.
People come to recognize this norm, mainly from the reactions of others when it is violated. Nobody wants to disrupt the harmony of a conversation, because they will get the so called "raised eyebrow" from others. Violating norms may lead to being ostrasized from the group, and that is typically something to be avoided. Fitting in, and being accepted by peers is a natural need, therefore this leviathan facilitates that innate desire.
These ideas directly relate to Wallace's theories on conformity. The standards for conforming to this particular leviathan are not written down, but learned through experience. The advantages of conforming to these unspoken agreements include the general acceptance from the other members of the chat, and possibly even forming a group identity, if you frequent the same chat room often. Wallace also details the effects virtual communities have on group polarization, stating that since conversation is all that exists in online spaces, (no visual or social cues) individuals are more likely to have an extreme view point from the other members of the group, than if the argument took place in an actual setting (instead of a virtual one.) The leviathan discussed above may aid in keeping the peace during a heated discussion in a chat room. Since according to Wallace, the tendancy online is for group polarization to occur, then this unwritten code of conduct may encourage people to express their views honestly, with out being rude or disrespectful. Just as these invisible guidelines exist in face to face communication, they are just as prevelant and essential in the virtual world.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Assignment 5, Option 1
Near the end of last semester I met my current boyfriend. We met through mutual friends and instantly got along. Although we both had a great time, after the initial meeting there was a degree of uncertainty. Like the Impression Management Model suggests, our next few interactions were based in CMC environments, where we found that we had a lot in common. We then saw each other more in person, until the beginning of summer. Having jobs in two different places forced us to rely on CMC and telephone during the beginning of our relationship.
My long-distance relationship experience can be described with some of Wallace's attraction factors. One such factor, common ground played a huge part in our CMC interactions. Throughout the summer we found a long list of common beliefs assumptions, and attitudes, such as our similar religious, social, and political thoughts. Wallace states that we are attracted to people we share common ground with.
I believe Wallace's disinhibition attraction factor, which deals with increased self-disclousure and sharing, was the most important part of our relationship forming in CMC. Once we moved the bulk of our relationship online, I remember noticing how much closer we were getting. We would talk on aim every night, picking up where we left off the day before. When he shared a personal story, I would share a similar one with him. It was almost like bartering, story for story, telling each other things we probably wouldn't tell anyone in any sort of rich medium. Undoubtedly, some of these intense feelings can be due to aspects of the hyperpersonal model, which suggests that I could have over-attributed my boyfriends personality based on what he was selectively presenting to me online.
Making the transition from mostly CMC communication back to mostly FtF communication was not seamless. Seeing him face to face felt a little weird at first, remembering things I told him online that I wouldn't have shared face to face. Also, we disagree more than we ever did through CMC communication where we rarely disagreed. One thing that seemed to carry over from our CMC communication is a high degree of openness and self-disclousure, that I don't think would have happened had we spent the summer together.
My long-distance relationship experience can be described with some of Wallace's attraction factors. One such factor, common ground played a huge part in our CMC interactions. Throughout the summer we found a long list of common beliefs assumptions, and attitudes, such as our similar religious, social, and political thoughts. Wallace states that we are attracted to people we share common ground with.
I believe Wallace's disinhibition attraction factor, which deals with increased self-disclousure and sharing, was the most important part of our relationship forming in CMC. Once we moved the bulk of our relationship online, I remember noticing how much closer we were getting. We would talk on aim every night, picking up where we left off the day before. When he shared a personal story, I would share a similar one with him. It was almost like bartering, story for story, telling each other things we probably wouldn't tell anyone in any sort of rich medium. Undoubtedly, some of these intense feelings can be due to aspects of the hyperpersonal model, which suggests that I could have over-attributed my boyfriends personality based on what he was selectively presenting to me online.
Making the transition from mostly CMC communication back to mostly FtF communication was not seamless. Seeing him face to face felt a little weird at first, remembering things I told him online that I wouldn't have shared face to face. Also, we disagree more than we ever did through CMC communication where we rarely disagreed. One thing that seemed to carry over from our CMC communication is a high degree of openness and self-disclousure, that I don't think would have happened had we spent the summer together.
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1_5305.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1_1468.html
Who said relationships were easy?
Some say “distance makes the heart grow fonder.” I agree, well that is, if you are so committed to the person to the point of marriage. If not, then well, I feel that you just end up expending too much unnecessary energy. Regardless, in my case I know that I would not be able to do a long distance relationship; it’s probably a timing issue; I’m only 19 and well, frankly speaking, I don’t need to be held down- not at this age at least. Furthermore, this is more so relevant if your significant other is in a completely different country. Well that is my friend's story. Summers are usually like that, and well starting December, after he graduates, it will be like that for good. At the end of the day, for the most part, being constantly responsive in a long-distance relationship is the key.
Wallace’s four attraction factors (physical attractiveness, proximity, common ground, and disinhibition) play a huge role into how my friend's relationship evolved over the past years. Let’s take the first factor: physical attractiveness. They first met face to face, so that initially played a role in it. After sometime, physical attraction was not an issue. Afterwards, it was common ground and proximity that made their relationship stronger. I guess common ground is the most important thing to a relationship. My friend and her significant other are both business majors, so they always discuss business ventures and ideas. Furthermore, having similar backgrounds added to their relationship- in terms of foods, experiences, etc. Understanding each others viewpoints and perspectives and seeing eye to eye with them, made their relationship strongest. This idea of relating to each other, by sharing some common ground is what makes any relationship strongest.
To add to that, proximity became everything for sometime. In the most trying period of his life, physical proximity was important. Having him right next to my friend reinforced in her mind that he was okay, and if he was not, she was there, so it was fine. He became so familiar to her, so predictable; it was perfect. Furthermore, having that constant support and nearness in such a time, made him realize that he was not alone on this. It was proximity in this trying time that meant the world to him.
CMC proximity in the context of internet frequency refers to the times you run into that other person on the net. Once summer hit, that internet frequency between them was never present. Because of time zone differences and other things that needed to be settled, they never met online. I guess for the first 2 weeks, my friends significant other expected an e-mail of some sort every so often. But then she stopped expecting anything. A person’s nearness makes you expect- and anticipate- future interaction. And without any computer mediated communication, she began to expect nothing.
In any ideal situation one would think that disinhibition or increased self-disclosure occurs in a CMC environment. And that is probably true, but my friends relationship is no ideal situation. Initially, talking on AIM was nice, she says. She was able to flood her emotions online, as she is not the person who is good at that stuff face to face. But afterwards, when one goes through such a trying period in life, in another country, without your significant other around, and you have so much more on your plate aside from the relationship, one cannot expend more energy. Internet frequency decreases as does that self-disclosure element. You begin to stop pouring your emotions, because you never see that person online, and if you do, it’s once in a blue moon. At that point, the conversation becomes casual.
Ever since getting back on the same soil, their relationship is stronger, but in a few months time, upon his leaving, she doubts this will last.
So basically Wallace’s 4 attraction factors definitely sums up my friend's relationship. To me, I would say common ground is most important because it is what makes the relationship stronger. Proximity is important as well, but without common ground, a relationship might as well not be.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1_7649.html
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=6547054256472270834
5: Cheating via Second Life?
I came across a description of a particularly interesting online relationship for this week’s post. It comes from an August 10 article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Is This Man Cheating on His Wife?” Here’s a link if you’re interested in the whole story.
To sum things up: the article tells the story of Phoenix, Ariz. resident Ric Hoogestraat, a 53 year-old man with an eclectic background. According to the article, Hoogestraat is an avid participant in Linden Labs’ virtual reality game Second Life, in which he controls the character Dutch Hoorenbeek, “a younger, physically enhanced version of him: a biker with a long black ponytail, strong jaw and thick handlebar mustache.” While playing Second Life, Hoogestraat met another character named Tenaj Jackalope, controlled by Canadian widow Janet Spielman. Eventually, the two players became so enamored with each other that they decided to have their characters marry in-game. The catch? Hoogestraat himself is actually married in real life.
Setting aside the interesting question of whether or not Hoogestraat was actually cheating by marrying a woman in Second Life, let’s analyze his relationship with Speilman’s avatar. In terms of physical attraction, games like Second Life provide a perfect opportunity for players to control how others perceive them. Hoogestraat was able to give himself a more youthful appearance, while Speilman’s character looks radically different than herself. (The Journal provides photos if you’re curious; here’s the link again.) This type of interaction space supports the idea that familiarity follows looks, which we would expect from face to face communication more so than in other mediated channels.
Persistent world games like Second Life also allow players to simulate the concept of physical proximity in the game. The game provides locales such as shopping malls and housing complexes for players to congregate in. Then, after two people have met in these large gathering areas, the game allows them to go off and form their own spaces. This keeps the intersection frequency higher that it would be in a more heavily mediated space such as a text-based chat room, thus breeding the attraction between the two players.
The arguments for common ground may be a bit shakier here. Unlike other role-playing games, Second Life does not provide natural lines of segregation of the player base along lines of similar interest (e.g. into character classes or guilds). The fact that both Hoogestraat and Speilman were online looking for socialization in this world may constitute some sort of common ground that facilitated their common bond.
The role of disinhibition is clearly important in this relationship. This quote from the article underlines the great degree of self-disclosure that Hoogestraat and Speilman shared:
The question raised by the article’s headline is worth considering: in a simulated reality, where does the character’s persona stop and the player’s persona begin? According to the Journal, Hoogestraat rationalized his virtual relationship to his wife with the brusque statement, “it’s just a game.” The article mentions that neither of the two had any plans to ever meet in real life, so we would expect a high degree of deception here. Considering this, the level of openness is somewhat startling. Claiming infidelity would be much easier if we were talking about a relationship between a real-life married man and a real-life woman, but the presence of the online personas complicates matters here. What’s your verdict here?
Comments:
To sum things up: the article tells the story of Phoenix, Ariz. resident Ric Hoogestraat, a 53 year-old man with an eclectic background. According to the article, Hoogestraat is an avid participant in Linden Labs’ virtual reality game Second Life, in which he controls the character Dutch Hoorenbeek, “a younger, physically enhanced version of him: a biker with a long black ponytail, strong jaw and thick handlebar mustache.” While playing Second Life, Hoogestraat met another character named Tenaj Jackalope, controlled by Canadian widow Janet Spielman. Eventually, the two players became so enamored with each other that they decided to have their characters marry in-game. The catch? Hoogestraat himself is actually married in real life.
Setting aside the interesting question of whether or not Hoogestraat was actually cheating by marrying a woman in Second Life, let’s analyze his relationship with Speilman’s avatar. In terms of physical attraction, games like Second Life provide a perfect opportunity for players to control how others perceive them. Hoogestraat was able to give himself a more youthful appearance, while Speilman’s character looks radically different than herself. (The Journal provides photos if you’re curious; here’s the link again.) This type of interaction space supports the idea that familiarity follows looks, which we would expect from face to face communication more so than in other mediated channels.
Persistent world games like Second Life also allow players to simulate the concept of physical proximity in the game. The game provides locales such as shopping malls and housing complexes for players to congregate in. Then, after two people have met in these large gathering areas, the game allows them to go off and form their own spaces. This keeps the intersection frequency higher that it would be in a more heavily mediated space such as a text-based chat room, thus breeding the attraction between the two players.
The arguments for common ground may be a bit shakier here. Unlike other role-playing games, Second Life does not provide natural lines of segregation of the player base along lines of similar interest (e.g. into character classes or guilds). The fact that both Hoogestraat and Speilman were online looking for socialization in this world may constitute some sort of common ground that facilitated their common bond.
The role of disinhibition is clearly important in this relationship. This quote from the article underlines the great degree of self-disclosure that Hoogestraat and Speilman shared:
"There's a huge trust between us," says Ms. Spielman, a divorced mother of two who works in office sales in Calgary, Alberta, and began logging on to Second Life in January. "We'll tell each other everything."Just as any real-life marriage (at least in theory) must be built on such self-disclosure, Hoogestraat and Speilman’s virtual marriage was certainly built on the same thing, even if the selves being disclosed may not have been entirely honest.
The question raised by the article’s headline is worth considering: in a simulated reality, where does the character’s persona stop and the player’s persona begin? According to the Journal, Hoogestraat rationalized his virtual relationship to his wife with the brusque statement, “it’s just a game.” The article mentions that neither of the two had any plans to ever meet in real life, so we would expect a high degree of deception here. Considering this, the level of openness is somewhat startling. Claiming infidelity would be much easier if we were talking about a relationship between a real-life married man and a real-life woman, but the presence of the online personas complicates matters here. What’s your verdict here?
Comments:
Assignment 5: Option 1
My relationship with my friend, who I’ll call “Short” (and usually do, much to her dismay), is almost entirely through mediated communication. She has been one of my closest friends since freshman year of high school, but it is difficult to maintain the same relationship now that we’re far apart in college. We see each other for maybe one month total out of the whole year, as she goes to school in Ohio, our breaks don’t always line up, and we’ve both spent breaks working or traveling in other states. As a result, our relationship depends on phone calls, instant messaging, and (cell-phone) text messaging.
Wallace’s four attraction factors (physical attractiveness, proximity, common ground, and disinhibition) fit very well with how my relationship with Short has changed as we have had to depend on different communication mediums. The first factor, physical attraction, doesn’t have a significant role in our relationship as I’ve known her for 7 years, the first 4 of which included seeing her daily at school. At this point, physical appearance isn’t something either of us consider. Proximity, on the other hand, accounts for almost all the changes our relationship has gone through. We no longer see each other nearly daily. At first in college we would speak on the phone and online very frequently, for short periods of time. We tended to keep similar schedules and could see each other frequently on AIM. This maintained a sense of proximity as despite being far apart physically. The biggest change was when she studied in Europe for a semester last year. We couldn’t talk on the phone any longer. While skype was an option, it required much more planning to be around at the same time. Since she was 6 hours ahead, we were rarely on AIM at the same time. As a result we encountered each other infrequently. Despite talking for longer periods of time when we could, not having the same proximity certainly put some distance in our relationship.
I’ve found that disinhibition also shapes our relationship. Increased self-disclosure is most prominent when talking over the phone, as it is as synchronous a communication medium as we have available. Being able to speed up communication results in more in-depth discussions and encourages more self-disclosure. When we are limited to just instant messaging, our conversations tend to be more basic “What were you up to this weekend?” or “Did you see the newest episode of Veronica Mars?” questions. It becomes apparent that when we get the chance to speak on the phone, our relationship seems stronger. McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors (Identifiability, removal of gating features, interactional control, connecting to similar others, and getting the goods) seemed to not explain the changes in my relationship with Short as well as Wallace’s attraction factors. The relationship facilitation factors seemed like they would apply more significantly to relationships that began from a distance and explain how a relationship can develop. Short and I already had a very developed relationship, and Wallace’s factors, despite being named “attraction factors”, described how that existing relationship gradually changed with different communication mediums.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-long-distance.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1-from-union-square.html
Wallace’s four attraction factors (physical attractiveness, proximity, common ground, and disinhibition) fit very well with how my relationship with Short has changed as we have had to depend on different communication mediums. The first factor, physical attraction, doesn’t have a significant role in our relationship as I’ve known her for 7 years, the first 4 of which included seeing her daily at school. At this point, physical appearance isn’t something either of us consider. Proximity, on the other hand, accounts for almost all the changes our relationship has gone through. We no longer see each other nearly daily. At first in college we would speak on the phone and online very frequently, for short periods of time. We tended to keep similar schedules and could see each other frequently on AIM. This maintained a sense of proximity as despite being far apart physically. The biggest change was when she studied in Europe for a semester last year. We couldn’t talk on the phone any longer. While skype was an option, it required much more planning to be around at the same time. Since she was 6 hours ahead, we were rarely on AIM at the same time. As a result we encountered each other infrequently. Despite talking for longer periods of time when we could, not having the same proximity certainly put some distance in our relationship.
I’ve found that disinhibition also shapes our relationship. Increased self-disclosure is most prominent when talking over the phone, as it is as synchronous a communication medium as we have available. Being able to speed up communication results in more in-depth discussions and encourages more self-disclosure. When we are limited to just instant messaging, our conversations tend to be more basic “What were you up to this weekend?” or “Did you see the newest episode of Veronica Mars?” questions. It becomes apparent that when we get the chance to speak on the phone, our relationship seems stronger. McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors (Identifiability, removal of gating features, interactional control, connecting to similar others, and getting the goods) seemed to not explain the changes in my relationship with Short as well as Wallace’s attraction factors. The relationship facilitation factors seemed like they would apply more significantly to relationships that began from a distance and explain how a relationship can develop. Short and I already had a very developed relationship, and Wallace’s factors, despite being named “attraction factors”, described how that existing relationship gradually changed with different communication mediums.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-long-distance.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1-from-union-square.html
Assignment 5, option 1
My boyfriend and I have been dealing with the notorious LDR for over two years. While I have never really considered us part of the 17 million people who date online annually, due to physical distance, our relationship is mostly CMC. We talk multiple times during the day on the phone, text message, AIM, and webcam. I think the CFO theory has some merit because whenever we argue over these mediums, it’s quickly exaggerated because of lack of cues. If we are disagreeing, inability to see facial cues or hear tones causes us to view the other person negatively. You assume the other person is being sarcastic or mean if the conversation is in disagreement. So with this negative influence, how do we make it work?
Wallace’s idea of common ground plays a smaller role in our mutual attraction because of our Ftf relationship prior to CMC. Wallace suggests sharing ideas and beliefs increases the attraction to another person, and that this is exaggerated in CMC because of selective self-disclosure, increase private self-awareness, and decreased public self-awareness. The Law of Attraction, which states the proportion of common ground based on interaction rather than the quantity is key, still applies to us. Given our communication techniques, the amount of information to be exchanged is limited. We cannot say everything possible in a text or IM message so, in a way, we present selective information. It’s natural that we will focus on things the other person can relate to, such as sharing similar experiences. For example, if he were to tell me about something that made him angry that day, I’d respond with support and agreement. We might think we have a large proportion of things in common, when in fact if we were in a Ftf relationship, this would be untrue.
We might not share common ground as much in Ftf where more information would be shared, which is explained by McKenna’s identifiably factor. McKenna suggests that identifying with someone increases attraction. This ability to identify is aided by visual anonymity, which increases self-disclosure—since we have to get to know each other through lean mediums, we put more effort into bonding and expression. We don’t have the option of spending time Ftf and observing the other person. We need to tell each other things about ourselves in order to get to know one another better and are able to do so across space and time. I don’t have to wait until I see him, I can send him a text or email at any time. If I were with him and upset, I might expect him to read my body language and understand my emotions. In CMC, I am forced to display interactional control and vocalize all feelings if I want him to know something I feel. This allows us to identify with each other, which has definitely played a role in our attraction.
comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=6547054256472270834
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=5135641610536412735
Assignment 5, Option 1
The idea of leaving for college for the first time is daunting and exhilarating. But in all the excitement also lies dread for leaving the comfort of home, family, and especially friends. When I left for Cornell, I worried about the sister-ly bonds that I had built up over my long years in high school and whether they would hold up in the tumult of long-distance communication. Would daily AIM messages and Facebook wall posts be enough to hold our relationships together until winter vacation? There was no choice but to test these modes of communication and to hope for the best.
McKenna’s five relationship facilitation factors provide good ground structure for communication, especially CMC interaction. Two of these factors held especially true for the long-distance relationship I had with my best friend (we'll call her Aubrey). The first, identifiability, simply states that the more you feel you can identify with someone, the more attracted you will be to them. Of course Aubrey and I are able to identify with each other, just as we had done for the past four years. However, the identifiability factor goes deeper than just sharing common ground with someone. Via the Joinson model, it is shown that visual anonymity will lead to either increased private self-awareness or decreased public self-awareness, which in turn leads to increased self-disclosure. Not only will identifying with another person make you feel more attracted to them, but the “visual anonymity” factor will also make you want to disclose more information about yourself. By using AIM more and more often, we were able to disclose our anxieties about school, our homesickness, and our exciting news with more honesty. Our mutual increased self-disclosure about our private thoughts and worries led to increased relational development. In other words, we became surprisingly close within the five months we spent apart.
The second factor that related quite well to my situation with Aubrey was the “removal of gating features”. Gates are considered ideas or concepts that tend to block a relationship from developing like it should. Examples are physical attractiveness, race, disabilities, shyness, and/or social anxiety. Though Aubrey and I don’t judge each other on the master status cues (i.e. race, stigma, disabilities), she knows that I have difficulty expressing my personal thoughts to anyone in person, and I know that she prefers to speak with few words when around other people. In McKenna’s “gating features” factor, unlike the real world, gates are not apparent on the web. I feel much more inclined to express myself and be open while I’m talking to Aubrey online, just as she feels more compelled to speak more about what’s on her mind and expand on her thoughts.
Naturally, the basis of McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors seems to be based on self-disclosure. Relationships will continue to develop if there is a mutual desire to self-disclose and if the self-disclosure is taking place in an accommodating environment (e.g. on the internet where you are able to stay anonymous and you have access to information not readily available in real life).
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/5-opt-2-murder-story-for-electronic.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/5-cheating-via-second-life.html
Assignment 5, Option 1
For a computer nerd like me there could be no better fairytale meeting than what actually happened in the summer of 2005. I was attending the National Youth League Forum on Technology in
For all its perfection the end of the trip brought forth a sad realization, he was from
The strength and length of our relationship can be explained through three of Wallace’s attraction factors. While Wallace describes four different attraction factors physical attractiveness does not apply to my example. Wallace states that usually in computer mediated communication people get to know one another and then judge them based on their looks, which is the opposite case of when people meet each other face-to-face. Since I met Blue face-to-face the physical attractiveness factor is not relevant to this scenario.
Another of Wallace’s attraction factors is the idea of proximity. Proximity is described by the idea that familiarity breeds attraction (Zajonc, 1980) and that in mediated communications familiarity is determined by intersection frequency. For example, the more two people interact online the more familiar they become and the more attractive they seem to one another. This was true to my relationship with Blue. Although we met face-to-face the
Common ground is another attraction factor. It illustrates the idea that you are attracted to people with whom you share common interests, attitudes, beliefs, etc. (“Birds of a feather flock together”) Blue and I were once called “matching bookends” and it’s true. The more we communicated the more we realized how much we had in common: gaming, movies, sports, music, even religious beliefs. There was hardly anything we didn’t agree on and this large proportion of similar interests led to greater attraction as explained by the law of attraction described by Wallace in The Psychology of the Internet.
Lastly, disinhitibion is Wallace’s fourth attraction factor. Wallace states that in computer mediated communication “you may reveal more about yourself to them, feel more attraction to them, and express more emotions” because “you can concentrate only on yourself, your words, and the feelings you want to convey” (151, The Psychology of the Internet). Simply, there is increased self-disclosure in mediated, especially online, communications. I believe that disinhitibion played a crucial role in my relationship with Blue. Being able to communicate with Blue through media like text and instant messaging allowed me to talk to him and reveal things about myself with greater ease. Because in face-to-face and even voice conversations I often become shy and refuse to say something if it might even cause me the littlest embarrassment. Since our mediated communications allowed me convey my thoughts and feelings without worrying about anyone else or how I appear our relationship was able to continually develop.
While Blue and I are no longer in a romantic relationship we still keep in touch and so far there hasn't been anyone who's known me as well or been as similar. I feel that the intensity of our relationship can be partially credited to the long periods of computer mediated communication that let us be ourselves.Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1_1806.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1-long-distance.html
Assignment 5, Option 1
In the spring of 2006, I visited Cornell to decide if it was the place I wanted to spend the next four years of my young adult life. During what is called “Cornell Days”, prospective incoming freshmen are encouraged to experience the campus by sitting in on classes in their intended major. So I walked into an introductory communications course, terrified of the older students and looking for a place to hide. I found a spot in the back row, next to a boy that also seemed slightly out of place. We started talking, and I discovered he was also a prospective communication major. We spent the class passing notes and playing tic-tac-toe instead of listening to the professor, and in the end we exchanged AIM screen names.
When I officially decided I was going to Cornell, I sent an AIM message to Joe, as I’ll call him, to let him know. He also decided on Cornell, so we spent the summer getting to know each other better through AIM and Facebook. In The Psychology of the Internet by Wallace, Wallace outlines four attraction factors that contribute to the formation interpersonal relationships on the internet. The first, physical attractiveness, does not apply in an online context for my situation. Although I found Joe physically attractive in an f2f setting, Wallace believes the online sequence of attractiveness is reversed because you cannot actually see the person. Instead you rely on their textual clues and build upon them.
Wallace’s other three attraction factors, which include proximity, common ground, and disinhibition, all apply to my CMC interactions with Joe. Proximity states that relationships will grow when people intersect at the same online spaces. With Joe, I saw him often on my buddy list whenever he signed on. After I talked him through the steps to creating a Facebook profile, I often saw him signed onto the site as well. Next, common ground includes beliefs, opinions, and interests that are mutually shared. Wallace includes in this factor that those with whom you share common ground will be more attractive to you. Joe and I were both Cornell communication majors, and we found we had a deep obsession for the same band. The last factor, disinhibition, is an extension of the fact that online anonymity leads to increased self-disclosure. During that summer, we spent many nights talking online about our hopes, dreams, and fears for the upcoming year even though we barely knew each other.
I’m pleased to say that Joe and I are still best friends. Through proximity, common ground, and disinhibition, we developed our relationship online and continue to find new dimensions to this day in a f2f setting.
Comments:
When I officially decided I was going to Cornell, I sent an AIM message to Joe, as I’ll call him, to let him know. He also decided on Cornell, so we spent the summer getting to know each other better through AIM and Facebook. In The Psychology of the Internet by Wallace, Wallace outlines four attraction factors that contribute to the formation interpersonal relationships on the internet. The first, physical attractiveness, does not apply in an online context for my situation. Although I found Joe physically attractive in an f2f setting, Wallace believes the online sequence of attractiveness is reversed because you cannot actually see the person. Instead you rely on their textual clues and build upon them.
Wallace’s other three attraction factors, which include proximity, common ground, and disinhibition, all apply to my CMC interactions with Joe. Proximity states that relationships will grow when people intersect at the same online spaces. With Joe, I saw him often on my buddy list whenever he signed on. After I talked him through the steps to creating a Facebook profile, I often saw him signed onto the site as well. Next, common ground includes beliefs, opinions, and interests that are mutually shared. Wallace includes in this factor that those with whom you share common ground will be more attractive to you. Joe and I were both Cornell communication majors, and we found we had a deep obsession for the same band. The last factor, disinhibition, is an extension of the fact that online anonymity leads to increased self-disclosure. During that summer, we spent many nights talking online about our hopes, dreams, and fears for the upcoming year even though we barely knew each other.
I’m pleased to say that Joe and I are still best friends. Through proximity, common ground, and disinhibition, we developed our relationship online and continue to find new dimensions to this day in a f2f setting.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1_5305.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/my-boyfriend-and-i-have-been-dealing.html
Assignment 5: Option 1
Hi,
For this assignment I’m choosing to write about a relationship that formed in CMC and then turned into an Ftf relationship. Before coming to college students are able to create facebook accounts with their school e-mail and can start adding other prospective students as friends. Like many other students I entered into one of these long-distance relationships with a girl who would be in my graduating class.
Wallace’s Attraction factors include physical attraction, proximity, common ground, and disinhibition effects. The factors that played the most important role with my long distance relationship over facebook were the roles of physical attraction in cmc, proximity, and common ground. A girl who I will call Abby sent me a message over facebook saying that she liked a band I had listed in my favorite music section and pointed out that we were in the same major, and this was the start of our cmc communication. This first interaction is made possible by the common ground theory which states that people are attracted to people with whom they share common interest. Also falling under this category is the law of attraction which states the better proportion of things you share in common the more attracted you will be to a person. Thus having to things in common is a good thing. Next me and Abby continued sending messages back and forth nearly every day thus keeping in CMC proximity. Wallace states that online familiarity flows from intersection frequency, which is the amount of times you bump or talk to each other online. Looking at this me and Abby formed a very close relationship over CMC by continuous messages. Lastly physical attractiveness works backwards in CMC. In Ftf you see someone whose physically attractive and you then get to know them better, but in CMC you get to know someone and find out physical attractiveness first. Because this was a long distance relationship I was only able to see a few pictures provided by facebook before actually getting to know about her.
Analyzing this relationship through Mckenna’s relationship facilitation factors I find some similar findings. Three of these factors, removal of gating features, connecting with similar others, and getting the goods played major roles in the development of our relationship. Firstly getting the goods, which is the ability to get information about others before meeting, played a crucial role in our initial interaction. Before I had ever known who this person was, she was able to look at my profile and extract information about me from it before communicating with me. Next there is the removal of gating features which states that CMC allows you to over come gates of physical attractiveness, important status cues, and shyness. Of course being on facebook we had limited access to all of this information. Abby had even told me that in public she is much more shy, thus CMC facilitated her interaction. Then lastly connecting with similar others is the same result as the common ground principle of Wallace’s theory. Examining all of this I find that my long distance relationship coincides with both theories perfectly.
Assignment 5 Option 1
When I was a freshman in high school (seems like such a long, long time ago) one of my friends introduced me to a girl who was in some of my classes and that I sorta knew. She had this weird propensity for carrying around large amounts of candy so I knew her in the back of my head as “the candy girl”. She and I were in vastly different social groups. She tended to flock to the more intelligent folks while I enjoyed the comforts of the behind-the-high-school smokers crew. For whatever reason or another, we ended up instant messaging each other and ended up maintaining a rather close internet relationship, although not really in person. Not because we avoided each other but really just because we never crossed paths. There are a few reasons related to McKenna’s notes that I feel allowed our relationship to progress. The first would be identifiably. This idea of hers relates to the notion that since people are anonymous, they relay more information than they would if they were close friends with you. Even though me and this girl had met before, 99% of our relationship was conducted online and we exchanged more detail than I think we would have if we were in person. I believe this was due to our relative anonymity. Second, I think the “removal of gating features” had an impact on our friendship. The removal of gating features implies that in online spaces items such as physical attraction and shyness are not as apparent. This girl happens to be rather shy and the abilities of CMC allowed this to not shine through so she was much easier to talk to. Finally, I believe interactional control impacted the relationship. This step refers to the fact that people will choose the channel where they have the most control. I feel than in her case, her relative shyness allowed to her have the most control in an online environment. This also allowed her to present herself in the most effective way. Overall I found Mckenna’s steps more relevant in CMC to many of the lessons we have learned so far. Almost all of them are applicable to the online environment.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Assignment #5: Long Distance Relationships
Over the past two years at Cornell, I’ve spent the majority of my time doing one of four things (in no particular order); sleeping, studying, socializing, and talking with my girlfriend by phone, and internet. I’d like to focus on the fourth topic for the purpose of this assignment. Since coming to Cornell, I’ve been faced with the task of trying to make a long distance relationship work. While the phone and internet are no substitute for face to face communication, these media have allowed the relationship to flourish in a seemingly unfavorable situation.
Our relationship varies from relationships that McKenna and Wallace have looked at because our relationship began before going away to college. We spent a few years getting to know each other and dating in FtF before moving to much more CMC. For this Assignment I’ll be looking at whether or not Wallace’s hypotheses for interpersonal attraction through CMC apply to relationships that start in FtF and move to CMC. Wallace takes a look at CMC on the internet. She separates this into four categories: physical attraction, proximity, common ground, and disinhibition effects.
The first component Wallace looks at is physical attractiveness. This is the most influential category as the stereotype is so strong. In the words of Wallace, “The physical attractiveness stereotype is so pervasive and potent that it affects our attitudes about others in almost every setting.” In FtF, people meet based on looks, and then get to know a person. This is the opposite in CMC where there are no images attached, as the people get to know each other and then meet and see each other’s looks.
This subject is very interesting, yet somewhat dated as Wallace’s work was published in 1999. Prior to 2000, the internet was still in its infancy, and, with dial-up connections, the thought of uploading photos and streaming video was still mostly a thing of the future. Thus, when Wallace is describing CMC meeting, she isn’t referring to social networking sites of today such as Myspace and Facebook which allow users to post videos and photos of themselves. This phenomenon re-introduces the attractiveness leading to getting to know another into CMC. My relationship also follows this new phenomenon closely as we met in person (physical attractiveness) and then began to get to know each other intimately later on.
Turning our attention to proximity, the common thought on FtF proximity is that familiarity flows from location. This means that the closer together you are to each other, the more likely you will become close to the other person. CMC is slightly different, stating that familiarity flows from intersection frequency which is the amount of times you meet or bump into each other online. This could come in the form of wall posts on Facebook mixed with instant messaging or interaction in chat rooms.
With regards to my relationship, since it began with FtF, it originated through familiarity through common location. For example, we shared the same homeroom and saw each other every morning. Now that we’re an hour apart, we rely on intersection frequency, such as phone communication and instant messaging to keep our proximity close. In conclusion, while Wallace’s opinions don’t all necessarily apply to today’s online world, they still create foundations for others to build upon and apply to different situations.
Assignment 5, Option 1
I like to think of myself as a person who uses CMC to enhance his existing friendships and relationships, instead of developing new ones. While I enjoy messaging old friends at school, I don't think it is any replacement for a phone call to keep in touch. My freshman year, however, I had a close friend who was studying in India for the entire semester. In this case phone calls were essentially impossible, and we kept in contact exclusively through CMC.
Wallace's attraction factors were already in place before my friend even got on the plane to India. She and I had grown up in the same town and dated briefly about a year before, but we never really got to know each other very well. This pre-established attraction and a familiarity stemming from our shared hometown. This reversed Wallace's order of events where people get to know each other before finding physical attractiveness in online relationships. During the previous year we had barely spoken at all, but that all changed when I got my first email from India. Our first exchanges started out as a form of e-procrastination. Within two weeks though, it became clear that my friend was homesick and hoping to develop our relationship as a connection to her world at home.
My friend quickly opened up, and the disinhibition effects of CMC were obvious. She began sharing not only stories about her adventures in India, but her thoughts, emotions, and feelings. Despite being in a public internet cafe for all our exchanges, my friend clearly felt an increased self-awareness and visual anonymity that led to her increased self-disclosure. I responded with increased self-disclosure of my own. Our discussions ranged widely, but from our previous knowledge of each other we knew we had common ground, the final attraction factor.
In this instance, the disinhibition effects of CMC were the most important attraction factor. I already knew the other three factors were present in our relationship. The fact that we had a previous relationship had established this, but our increased sharing of personal feelings and beliefs over CMC brought us closer than we had ever been when we saw each other face to face. Now that my friend is back, we still talk, but interestingly enough, not as much as when she was away. Now that a richer medium is available to us, we see no reason to use email or IM, despite it's importance in facilitating our relationship. It would be interesting to see what would happen in a similar situation where the two people had no previous knowledge of each other.
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1_1468.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1_25.html
assignment #5 : option 1
Long distance relationships are very difficult and with the use of mediated communication this uneasy feeling of discomfort is alleviated. Without the freedom and ability to physically see and touch that person, the next best alternative is through the use of mediated communication. I personally am involved in a long distance relationship and knowing that my boyfriend and I are able to use webcam, chat online, and talk over the phone allows for our relationship to still be intact and grow. McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors provide ways in which people, such as myself, use different means to communicate to our significant others, how we chose these means, and the outcomes that are associated with them. Although my boyfriend and I did not meet in a chat room, a social networking site, or any other online site, we now rely on such sites to keep in touch with one another. Like any person in a relationship, whether online or in person, people have the ability to choose what they self-disclose to others and how they selectively present themselves. McKenna describes this as Interactional control. Joinson believes that self disclosure is greater in computer mediated communication as opposed to being face to face. Online, people are in “visual anonymity”, not in the same space as the other person, and have the time to think of what they want to present and how they want to present it (which is also supported by the Hyperpersonal model). In addition, Joinson states as public self decreases and private self increases, a person’s degree of self disclosure will be greater. I personally use webcam a lot and by doing this I am experiencing public self awareness as I am being watched and thus have an increased awareness of how my boyfriend is viewing me. Here I am less likely to have higher levels of self disclosure as there are more visual cues to be seen which ultimately affects what is said. On the other hand, I am privately self aware when we are just chatting online. I am aware of myself and not pressured with nonverbal cues. Even if I wasn’t in a long distance relationship and was at home, I would tend to still use mediated sources first to make sure I get all my feelings out, especially when dealing with a bad situation. McKenna also describes people connecting to similar others. We tend to be attracted to people that we share common beliefs with, share the same goals with, and share similar interests with. Even if you and this person are hundreds of miles from each other, this doesn’t matter as a connection doesn’t always need to be a physical one in order to share these commonalities. Social networks, like Facebook, Myspace, chat rooms, or by instant messaging, people are able to build and keep relationships. Wallace’s “common ground” principle also applies here as people are attracted to one another through shared beliefs. By chatting online, my boyfriend and I are still able to share our common interests with each other and sometimes new ones are developed. Although long distance relationships, online relationships, or what have you are sometimes hard, people are able to maintain them through the use of mediated sources like the internet. :)
Assignment 5 Option 1
Long distance relationships are a double-edged sword. If you can make them work, they are great. If they fail or become too hard to deal with, the relationship could ruin your life. I have experienced the former. After thinking long and hard about whether or not to post my thoughts on this matter to the world, I have decided to give my own experiences a twist with analyzing them with communication theory. In particular, I have thought about them based on Wallace’s attraction factors entitled ‘proximity’ and ‘common ground.’
The long-distance relationship I have experienced does not include a significant other. Rather, it describes a camp friend of mine, whom I rarely saw due to being distant from each other, but talk(ed) on a consistent basis. At first the online friendship was small (both in content and breadth), but it grew into what is now a friendship that I consider one of the best I have in the world. The first factor that I have chosen to analyze this relationship by, is proximity. Proximity, as stated by Wallace, refers to the closeness, familiarity, and intersection frequency online. Specifically, it, “reflects how often you run into that other person on the net” (Wallace, 1999). The online proximity I experienced (and still experience) during this online relationship is very unique. I first want to state that I know this person from going to camp, so I have knowledge of this person in a physical sense, not just a mirage or fallacy that people can experience by meeting someone online. I feel as though I am very close to this person due to the fact that we connect on the same level during Face to Face, as well as CMC. With that being said, the proximity of our relationship online is strong online due to the high frequency of interactions, the quality of conversations that we are able to hold in a CMC medium, and also due to our personality similarities. We were able to become close and want to ‘intersect’ online because of the fact that we held similar interests and values (conversations would not result in disagreements, and we would both remain engaged with conversations).
The fact stated above brings up another factor stated by Wallace: common ground. This factor contains two parts, being both conversational and categorical. Common ground holds that individuals are attracted to those who have similar interests, beliefs, assumptions, morals, values, and propositions. It makes logical sense that people would want to be around those who hold similar beliefs and likings. The levels of comfort and attraction are high when people with similar personalities interact. In the long-distance relationship I have described, the factor that created such a great friendship was common ground, because we were able to express ourselves freely without being judged, unafraid of what was said because we knew we had similar beliefs. I believe that proximity, the first factor I discussed, comes secondary to common ground. If someone realizes that they have similar interests and beliefs as another person, they will want to ‘intersect’ and interact with that person more frequently. This was certainly the situation that presented itself with the friendship I described above.
From the two factors I have explained (proximity and common ground), I hope you were able to understand how online relationships can and do happen. I believe the foundations for having a strong online relationship lie on those two factors, as well as others that Wallace has described in her book.
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1_7649.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1_5305.html
Assign #5: My long distance relationship
McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors have played a big role in a long distance relationship of mine. My freshman year of college, I was engaged in a very long distance relationship. While I was attending school here in Ithaca, my (then) boyfriend was going to school up in Montreal, Canada. We were nervous that the large physical distance between us would pull us far apart from each other, but we found that we became closer as the year went on. We continually communicated over the phone and online, either through E-mails or Instant Messages. McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors illustrate how we were able to not only uphold our bond but make it stronger. McKenna states that increased identifiably will lead to increased self-disclosure. Through various mediums discussed earlier, my ex-boyfriend and I began disclosing very personal information to one another. One example is how he started writing me poems. Of course the first few were about me but then he began writing about his feelings pertaining to missing his family and insecurities about succeeding in life. The fact that he was opening up to me caused me to open up to him. Even though it was in poetic form, I still wrote him E-mails that exposed my inner thoughts and feelings. McKenna’s also states that increased self-disclosure leads to increased relationship development. Our self-disclosure towards one another led to a very large increase in our relationship development. When we returned home the summer after our Freshman year, I felt closer and more in tune with his emotions that ever before.
I feel that the development of my long distance relationship can also be explained through the Social Penetration Theory. The four steps of this theory include orientation (initial introduction), exploratory affective exchange (sharing some emotional ideas), affective exchange (disclosing more personal information), and lastly stable exchange (ongoing consideration for another). Although we had already reached the affective exchange period, our self-disclosure (poems and emails) caused us to move into the next stage of stable exchange. Perhaps these two theories work together, since it would be difficult to increase self-disclosure without first having positive affective exchange with another.
I feel that the development of my long distance relationship can also be explained through the Social Penetration Theory. The four steps of this theory include orientation (initial introduction), exploratory affective exchange (sharing some emotional ideas), affective exchange (disclosing more personal information), and lastly stable exchange (ongoing consideration for another). Although we had already reached the affective exchange period, our self-disclosure (poems and emails) caused us to move into the next stage of stable exchange. Perhaps these two theories work together, since it would be difficult to increase self-disclosure without first having positive affective exchange with another.
Assignment 5 option 1
Around four years ago an old friend of my mom's was coming to New York from Florida to visit family, and she and her daughter would be staying at my house for a few days. As it turns out she was really coming to New York to have a doctor she was good friends with perform plastic surgery on her daughters nose. Truthfully I didn't expect this girl to be very attractive considering her reason for coming to new york. I was blown away when I saw her for the first time because she was gorgeous. I didn't think there was any need at all for the surgery, as minor as it was. Turns out she was very intelligent and we had a lot in common. After her surgery we chilled on the couch and watched movies for two days because she was of course not feeling very well, and it was really dreary and cold outside. During those 2 days we really got to know each other. Since then we've only seen each other once, so all of our correspondence has been through aim, email, and recently facebook. Even though we really barely knew each other, we were able to exchange very personal information and become quite close friends.
I think Wallace's factor of physical attraction has an effect here because I obviously have a liking for this person. What facebook has added to our cmc communication is a higher level of familiarity. Its nice being able to see my friend online especially since we don't see each other very often. I'd like to be able to see a familiar face when I talk online as opposed to just text. Seeing that familiar face can make a cmc conversation feel as close as ftf in some ways. The familiarity/personality added to cmc communication by the addition of images can be considered a disinhibition effect under Wallace's attraction factors. Because we could in effect see each other through online media, our conversations had a level of eagerness and trust normally not seen in cmc. The combination of physical attraction and the ease of conversation due to the disinhibiton effect of online images is what lead to our getting to know each other so well over cmc despite living in Florida and New York.
Eric
I think Wallace's factor of physical attraction has an effect here because I obviously have a liking for this person. What facebook has added to our cmc communication is a higher level of familiarity. Its nice being able to see my friend online especially since we don't see each other very often. I'd like to be able to see a familiar face when I talk online as opposed to just text. Seeing that familiar face can make a cmc conversation feel as close as ftf in some ways. The familiarity/personality added to cmc communication by the addition of images can be considered a disinhibition effect under Wallace's attraction factors. Because we could in effect see each other through online media, our conversations had a level of eagerness and trust normally not seen in cmc. The combination of physical attraction and the ease of conversation due to the disinhibiton effect of online images is what lead to our getting to know each other so well over cmc despite living in Florida and New York.
Eric
Assignment #5, Option 1: From Union Square to Our Dorm Room Desk Chairs
While at my friends birthday party in New York City at the very end of last summer, I met a guy, who, following last weeks post, we will call X. Knowing that we would get along very well, the host of the party introduced us, and X and I immediately hit it off. We chatted and laughed throughout the entire evening, and even extended our conversation following the party over coffee and French fries, at the posh late night establishment that Sex and the City made famous called Coffee Shop, located in NYC’s union square.
X and I exchanged phone numbers, acknowledged that we would obviously “friend” each other on Facebook when we got home, and even swapped AIM addresses in order to keep in touch. We tried to arrange another meeting time, but with the end of the summer approaching and both of us going away to our respective schools in just a few days, we just weren’t able to find time before the summer ended to see each other.
Because X and I had enjoyed such a lovely evening that summer night, we kept in touch while we both were at school. Even though X was in Durham, North Carolina and I was in Ithaca, New York, we talked pretty much every single day. This, however, was largely due to computer mediated communication, and the ease, comfort, and availability of instant messaging and e-mail.
After talking to X for a few weeks, I felt like I knew him better than I knew anyone else. Even though we had known each other for such a short period of time, we revealed to each other things that some of our best friends did not even know, and were not afraid to tell each other anything. While it was nice to have someone like this whom I could talk to, it was too weird how comfortable we were talking to one another after such a short amount of time.
This, however, can be described by McKenna’s relationship facilitation factor of “identifiability.” Because most of our relationship was built off of computer-mediated communication, visual anonymity (the fact that we could not see each others faces) lead to an increase in private self-awareness, which lead to more self-disclosure (a revealing of information about ourselves that is not publicly known). Although we did meet in person and knew what each other looked like, our increased self-disclosure was due to an increased awareness of how we saw ourselves. Moreover, computer mediated communication in general has high levels of self-disclosure, and my relationship with X illustrates this theory.
Furthermore, I additionally illustrated McKenna’s relationship factor of “getting the goods,” as I asked my friend who introduced us all the “dirt” on X before I decided to further our relationship. “Getting the goods” refers to the ability to get information prior to meeting a person, and my millions of questions that I asked about X truly exemplifies this idea. I quizzed my friend on his family history, past relationships, favorite foods, humor, intelligence, athletic abilities, and even his clothing style (as this is very important to me) before I decided to continue communication with X. Had she revealed information on these subjects that I had not approved of, I am unsure as to whether or not I would have continued communication with him.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/5-option1.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1_1468.html
X and I exchanged phone numbers, acknowledged that we would obviously “friend” each other on Facebook when we got home, and even swapped AIM addresses in order to keep in touch. We tried to arrange another meeting time, but with the end of the summer approaching and both of us going away to our respective schools in just a few days, we just weren’t able to find time before the summer ended to see each other.
Because X and I had enjoyed such a lovely evening that summer night, we kept in touch while we both were at school. Even though X was in Durham, North Carolina and I was in Ithaca, New York, we talked pretty much every single day. This, however, was largely due to computer mediated communication, and the ease, comfort, and availability of instant messaging and e-mail.
After talking to X for a few weeks, I felt like I knew him better than I knew anyone else. Even though we had known each other for such a short period of time, we revealed to each other things that some of our best friends did not even know, and were not afraid to tell each other anything. While it was nice to have someone like this whom I could talk to, it was too weird how comfortable we were talking to one another after such a short amount of time.
This, however, can be described by McKenna’s relationship facilitation factor of “identifiability.” Because most of our relationship was built off of computer-mediated communication, visual anonymity (the fact that we could not see each others faces) lead to an increase in private self-awareness, which lead to more self-disclosure (a revealing of information about ourselves that is not publicly known). Although we did meet in person and knew what each other looked like, our increased self-disclosure was due to an increased awareness of how we saw ourselves. Moreover, computer mediated communication in general has high levels of self-disclosure, and my relationship with X illustrates this theory.
Furthermore, I additionally illustrated McKenna’s relationship factor of “getting the goods,” as I asked my friend who introduced us all the “dirt” on X before I decided to further our relationship. “Getting the goods” refers to the ability to get information prior to meeting a person, and my millions of questions that I asked about X truly exemplifies this idea. I quizzed my friend on his family history, past relationships, favorite foods, humor, intelligence, athletic abilities, and even his clothing style (as this is very important to me) before I decided to continue communication with X. Had she revealed information on these subjects that I had not approved of, I am unsure as to whether or not I would have continued communication with him.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/5-option1.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1_1468.html
Assignment 5 Option 1: Mediated Communication in Relationships
Before the fateful day when all freshmen received Net IDs to create their facebook accounts, Cornell teased us by creating a Class of 2010 website. Although this site didn’t have all the features of facebook such as adding friends and writing on walls, it did allow each freshman to create a profile listing their major, interests, and other general information. Most importantly, the site allowed freshman to post one picture as their first assessment signal to the virtual Cornell community. I knew that this feature would open the floodgates for deception and superficial relationships. Still, I was not above the temptation to search profile pictures and judge some future classmates in a matter of minutes.
While browsing the site, I learned that John lived in the same town as many of my friends from summer camp. However, this was not the initial reason why I chose to message him. Wallace would have smiled at how easily I fell victim to the first principle of attraction online: physical appearance. It is human nature to desire interaction with people who we find physically attractive. Wallace argues that we are more likely to communicate with attractive people online because we associate physical attractiveness with flattering personality characteristics. We perceive attractive people as more sociable and more intelligent than others. Though this is clearly an illogical leap in a thought process, the limited cues online give more weight to the cues that you do provide. The one picture that John selected was a successfully executed assessment signal. By utilizing selective self-presentation, John portrayed himself in the most attractive light possible, and consequently, I initiated a dialogue.
Wallace’s principle of common ground states that we attracted to others with whom we share beliefs. Common ground certainly facilitated my online relationship with John. From his profile, I saw that we both like David Sedaris books and basketball. These shared interests were conducive to in-depth conversations. Our mutual friends created yet another connection between us. As we discovered more common ground, we disclosed more personal information and developed what was my first real online friendship.
Proximity is the last of Wallace’s online attraction factors that played a role in my relationship with John. Wallace states that a sense of familiarity is developed online through intersection frequency. He proposes that the more frequently two individuals encounter one another in an online medium, the more likely they are to form a favorable impression of one another. Because of the common ground and physical attraction, John and I talked on AIM almost every night. We would maximize our intersection frequency by going online around 10 PM since that time was convenient for both of us. This increased interaction enhanced the development of our relationship.
When John and I met face to face a few months later, our online relationship did not translate into instant friendship. He was not nearly as sociable as he represented online, nor was he as physically attractive. It amazes me how easily online relationships can form based on Wallace’s principles of attraction. Physical attractiveness, proximity, and common ground can greatly advance an online relationship , but have limited effects in a face to face relationship.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1-how-to-go-about.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assign-5-my-long-distance-relationship.html
A5.1 There's Something About CMC
It’s easy to imagine teammates in an online capture-the-flag game becoming close friends, but can a CMC environment sustain the highest pinnacle of all relationships? A romantic relationship requires a great amount of intimacy, of trust, of attraction, and the dynamics of such an online relationship differ greatly from real life. In terms of Wallace’s attraction factors, I aim to analyze a long distance relationship: my own.
Wallace’s first attraction factor states that in CMC, two people get to know each other before they ever see each other, while most relationships made in person are initially based on physical attraction. As we have known each other since high school, my girlfriend and I were friends attracted to each other prior to any online communication, and so our relationship, despite where it is now, started with more physical attraction than any sort of familiarity. Same applies for the common ground factor; since we knew each other in real life, any of our impressions of each other were categorical, not conversational. Regardless, we actually share only a handful of interests and opinions, and we were born and raised in different countries with differing cultures and customs. Although Wallace predicts that our proportionally small amount of mutual interests and beliefs should be a restricting factor, our flexibility allows us to be the exception to the law of attraction and instead allows us to use this opportunity to learn from each other.
Nor were we lacking things to learn and situations to adjust to. In our high school years, we would see our classmates on a daily basis (for better or worse), especially since our graduating class numbered to less than a hundred. Once college came around, though, our two hours a day of face-to-face time became a few days every two months. No relationship can thrive without regular contact, what Wallace called “proximity.” To compensate, we sent e-mails back and forth, left short notes over our Facebook walls, instant messaged each other while we studied at night. Despite the considerable distance between us, the bane of many a long-distance relationship (see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=50+mile+rule), our virtual proximity toward each other became closer and closer.
The greatest boon, however, stemmed from the reduction of inhibitions when talking online. Whether I happen to be the silent brooder in the group, or whether it’ll take a vicious blow from a pillow to shut me up, I rarely say much about myself in person. At least, that’s how it was until I began to talk more online with my girlfriend. Although it was a bit more disorienting for her, I found it very easy to communicate without having to worry about my facial expressions or my posture, and instead, I focused on what we had to say to each other. Communication, as cliché as it sounds, is easily the largest factor in any relationship, and the disinhibition of CMC helps that along rather well. In short, Wallace’s factors play an important role in making CMC, no matter how unusual it may be, a strong medium for a relationship.
Assignment 5, Option 1
A few years back I was involved in a long distance relationship with a girl who lived about three hours away. We had met through our parents (our moms had both gone to Cornell) on several occasions and eventually exchanged AIM screen names, so that we’d be able to keep in touch with each other more frequently than twice a year. Let’s call her S.
S and I used computer mediated communication vastly more often than we got a chance to see each other face-to-face, and this doubtless influenced our relationship heavily. When we first started talking via AIM, we were practically strangers, but before long we were confiding in one another as if we’d been friends for years. Wallace considers disinhibition to be one of the four primary factors in determining attraction through CMC. Disinhibition here refers to the progressively escalating self-disclosure inherent to developing relationships: as S and I talked more and more, we became more comfortable – less inhibited – around each other, and I am positive that this was a strong factor that led to our eventually dating.
Wallace’s other three factors are physical attractiveness, common ground, and proximity. The general CMC rule of physical attractiveness is that, in contrast to FtF interaction, people generally get to know each other online before they find out what these people look like, giving people a chance to form positive impressions of people they otherwise might have dismissed upon seeing them; but this did not apply to my situation, since S and I had met face-to-face a few times before ever talking through a computer, and also because she was certainly not unattractive.
Proximity refers to the phenomenon whereby people one encounters or interacts with frequently are generally looked upon more favorably. S and I did talk often, and I am fairly certain that the frequency of our interactions was integral in leading to our eventual mutual disinhibition.
Common ground speaks for itself, and indeed, S and I had plenty. In addition to knowing each other through our families, we found that we had extraordinarily much in common, in terms of interests, hobbies, and taste in books and movies. Again, this factor – along with proximity and disinhibition – was in all likelihood a major contributer to the fact that S and I started dating.
I find Wallace’s attraction factors to be an interesting way of looking at the formation of Internet relationships. It seems almost too easy to attribute something as complex as romantic feelings to four main phenomena, but as evidenced from my own example, the list is in actuality surprisingly comprehensive. I would be interested to see how many relationships fostered by the Internet can claim to have begun due to other circumstances.
Comments: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=8206651792988022582
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=6547054256472270834
S and I used computer mediated communication vastly more often than we got a chance to see each other face-to-face, and this doubtless influenced our relationship heavily. When we first started talking via AIM, we were practically strangers, but before long we were confiding in one another as if we’d been friends for years. Wallace considers disinhibition to be one of the four primary factors in determining attraction through CMC. Disinhibition here refers to the progressively escalating self-disclosure inherent to developing relationships: as S and I talked more and more, we became more comfortable – less inhibited – around each other, and I am positive that this was a strong factor that led to our eventually dating.
Wallace’s other three factors are physical attractiveness, common ground, and proximity. The general CMC rule of physical attractiveness is that, in contrast to FtF interaction, people generally get to know each other online before they find out what these people look like, giving people a chance to form positive impressions of people they otherwise might have dismissed upon seeing them; but this did not apply to my situation, since S and I had met face-to-face a few times before ever talking through a computer, and also because she was certainly not unattractive.
Proximity refers to the phenomenon whereby people one encounters or interacts with frequently are generally looked upon more favorably. S and I did talk often, and I am fairly certain that the frequency of our interactions was integral in leading to our eventual mutual disinhibition.
Common ground speaks for itself, and indeed, S and I had plenty. In addition to knowing each other through our families, we found that we had extraordinarily much in common, in terms of interests, hobbies, and taste in books and movies. Again, this factor – along with proximity and disinhibition – was in all likelihood a major contributer to the fact that S and I started dating.
I find Wallace’s attraction factors to be an interesting way of looking at the formation of Internet relationships. It seems almost too easy to attribute something as complex as romantic feelings to four main phenomena, but as evidenced from my own example, the list is in actuality surprisingly comprehensive. I would be interested to see how many relationships fostered by the Internet can claim to have begun due to other circumstances.
Comments: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=8206651792988022582
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2774598650119543771&postID=6547054256472270834
Assignment #5, Option 1 - A Long-Distance Friendship
Although it isn’t a long-distance romantic relationship, one of my best friends and I are in a long-distance friendship right now while she is at college in Europe. Our current relationship is 100% computer mediated and definitely displays some of Wallace’s attraction factors and McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors.
Wallace's (1999) attraction factors are as follows:
Wallace's (1999) attraction factors are as follows:
- Physical Attraction
- Proximity (familiarity breeds attraction)
- Common Ground (mutually shared beliefs, assumptions, and propositions foster attraction)
- Disinhibition Effects (which involves the hyperpersonal process)
My long-distance friendship with my friend strongly supports Wallace's idea of proximity as an attraction factor. The idea of proximity is that online-familiarity flows from intersection frequency (seeing the same person often in chatrooms, MUDs, blogs, facebook, forums, or the gaming world). A few weeks ago, my friend and I had not spoken much because of technological issues (first, she didn't have an international cell phone, then I discovered I couldn't dial out international numbers on my cell phone). I felt like I was drifting away from her because we only would send each other brief, vague messages on facebook. Recently, however, we both downloaded the program Skype, which allows us both to videochat and use synchronous chat at the same time. Being able to speak to her often and for extended periods of time (Skype to Skype is free!) has made me feel reconnected to her, and has reestablished our platonic attraction. The more often we speak, or intersect online, the closer I feel to her, which exemplifies Wallace's proximity attraction factor.
McKenna's (2007) notes the following as relationship facilitation factors:
- Identifiability
- Removal of Gating Features (In online-spaces, gates, like physical attraction, master status cues, and shyness, are not apparent)
- Interactional Control (People will choose the channel where they'll have most control [O'Sullivan] and they will use selective self-presentation [hyperpersonal model])
- Connecting to similar others ( people can connect across space & time and with social networks)
- Getting the Goods: (the ability to get info about others prior to meeting)
Within McKenna's idea of identifiability are two effects. The "stranger on the train effect" is when people feel more anonymous, so they disclose more about themselves, and relationship development increases. The "stranger in the crowd effect" says that when people are more identifiable (through blogs, social networking sites, or google), they will also disclose more about themselves, thus leading to relationship development.
Also, in relation to self-disclosure, Joinson (2001) states that computer mediated communication, in general, has high levels of self-disclosure. More specifically, one of his ideas are that with visual anonymity, you have increased private self-awareness, and are more likely to self-disclose.
Since my friend and I already knew each other prior to our online-relationship, Joinson's theory of identifiability is more relevent to our situation. When I am writing facebook messages or long chats to my friend, I am visually anonymous, meaning that at the time that I am communicating, nobody can see me. This leads to private self-awareness, which is reflection on the self. Ultimately, this self-awareness leads to increased self-disclosure, which facilitates relationship formation. When I am writing to her, I can write in a stream of concious format, and just type whatever I'm thinking as I'm thinking it. This leads me to come to my own personal conclusions (which is like the idea of "how can I know what I think until I see what I say?"), which in turn are sent to my friend. Since I disclose all of these feelings to her because of my private self-awareness, she, in turn, discloses a lot of her personal thoughts and feelings back to me, which goes along with the principle of social equity.
Finally, in class, we talked about how we like those to whom we self-disclose, and we like those who self-disclose to us. Since my friend and I shared intimate stories and feelings with each other, our bond tightened and we felt closer to each other.
Overall, my long-distance friendship with my friend supports Wallace's idea of proximity as an attraction factor and McKenna's (and Joinson's) idea of identifiability and self-disclosure.
Assignment 5, Option 1:
Upon receiving my roommate assignments, prior to my arrival at Cornell as a lowly Freshman over one year ago, I was unsure of where to begin. Staring at the three names and addresses of the girls I would be sharing a dorm room with for an entire academic year was quite daunting. Who were these people? Would we have anything in common? Would they sleep normal hours? Or stay away during the wee hours of the night?
Fortunately, I had one resource that I would use to best answer the abundance of questions that were running through my head: Facebook. Over the remaining months of summer, I would devote time to trying to decipher my future roommate’s identities, and attempt to build a relationship via computer mediated communication with three individuals I had never met before.
The first factor that I considered when “meeting” my roommates online, was physical attractiveness. Wallace considers this factor to be the most important variable, stating “the truth is that physical attractiveness is an enormous advantage if you want to be liked…Our stereotypes about good-looking people extend far beyond mere appearance. We judge them as happier, more sociable, warmer, kinder, more likeable, more successful, and more intelligent, too” (136-167). The photo feature on Facebook would allow me to do just what Wallace states, judge my roommate’s personalities, based on their physical appearance.
Roommate A only had two pictures on her Facebook profile…a total letdown. Though she appeared to be pretty and friendly from her picture, the fact that there were only two led me to be quite suspicious. In a world where our friends tag an average of 20 pictures of us per weekend made me question what she could possibly be hiding? Roommates B and C seemed to have a substancial number of pictures of them, many of which were pictures of them with groups of friends. Based on the physical attractiveness factor, I made the assumption that I was going to be friends with B and C, while A would probably be quite reclusive. In retrospect, my assumptions were totally wrong, for roommate A turned out to be one of my closest friends.
Another factor that played an important role in my the development of my relationships with my future roommates was the factor of common ground. According to Wallace, the Law of Attraction acknowledges that people with similar interests, attitudes, and ideas tend to be attracted to each other when forming relationships. Wallace interestingly acknowledges that the internet makes judging this factor quite difficult and in effect, the law of attraction often leads to what he refers to as “false starts” in friendships.
When judging my roommates based on the personal information they diverged on their Facebook profiles, experienced a “false start” similar to the one that I encountered when I attempted to judge my roommates based on their pictures.
Once again, Roommate A had little to know information on her profile. She did not list any of her favorite movies or television shows, and did not belong to any groups. I immediately was hesitant to attempt to build a stronger relationship with her, based on the fact that I had no ground in common with her. In turn, roommates B and C both listed personal information that I found to be similar to my own. My actual experience of meeting my roommates that fall validated Wallace’s claim that the formation of relationships on the internet can lead to false starts, for it turned out that in actuality I had more in common with Roommate A, than I did with B and C.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1-how-to-go-about.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1_7649.html
Fortunately, I had one resource that I would use to best answer the abundance of questions that were running through my head: Facebook. Over the remaining months of summer, I would devote time to trying to decipher my future roommate’s identities, and attempt to build a relationship via computer mediated communication with three individuals I had never met before.
The first factor that I considered when “meeting” my roommates online, was physical attractiveness. Wallace considers this factor to be the most important variable, stating “the truth is that physical attractiveness is an enormous advantage if you want to be liked…Our stereotypes about good-looking people extend far beyond mere appearance. We judge them as happier, more sociable, warmer, kinder, more likeable, more successful, and more intelligent, too” (136-167). The photo feature on Facebook would allow me to do just what Wallace states, judge my roommate’s personalities, based on their physical appearance.
Roommate A only had two pictures on her Facebook profile…a total letdown. Though she appeared to be pretty and friendly from her picture, the fact that there were only two led me to be quite suspicious. In a world where our friends tag an average of 20 pictures of us per weekend made me question what she could possibly be hiding? Roommates B and C seemed to have a substancial number of pictures of them, many of which were pictures of them with groups of friends. Based on the physical attractiveness factor, I made the assumption that I was going to be friends with B and C, while A would probably be quite reclusive. In retrospect, my assumptions were totally wrong, for roommate A turned out to be one of my closest friends.
Another factor that played an important role in my the development of my relationships with my future roommates was the factor of common ground. According to Wallace, the Law of Attraction acknowledges that people with similar interests, attitudes, and ideas tend to be attracted to each other when forming relationships. Wallace interestingly acknowledges that the internet makes judging this factor quite difficult and in effect, the law of attraction often leads to what he refers to as “false starts” in friendships.
When judging my roommates based on the personal information they diverged on their Facebook profiles, experienced a “false start” similar to the one that I encountered when I attempted to judge my roommates based on their pictures.
Once again, Roommate A had little to know information on her profile. She did not list any of her favorite movies or television shows, and did not belong to any groups. I immediately was hesitant to attempt to build a stronger relationship with her, based on the fact that I had no ground in common with her. In turn, roommates B and C both listed personal information that I found to be similar to my own. My actual experience of meeting my roommates that fall validated Wallace’s claim that the formation of relationships on the internet can lead to false starts, for it turned out that in actuality I had more in common with Roommate A, than I did with B and C.
Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1-how-to-go-about.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-option-1_7649.html
5 opt. 2: A Murder Story for the [electronic] Ages
Once in a while, you read a story that is almost impossible to believe. This is one such story. A 14-year old boy (referred to as John) from the U.K. met a 16-year old boy (referred to as Mark) through a chat room under the persona of a 16-year old girl. John eventually created over 6 online personalities that he used to manipulate Mark into thinking that he was being recruited by the British secret service. John also developed an intricate plot that involved Mark needing to prove his secret service abilities by stabbing an assigned target. At this point, John used his female secret agent persona, "Janet" in order to describe the target: a terminally ill boy with brain tumors who desired to die. Although it seems almost too twisted to be true, John wrote himself into the plot as this target (although not terminally ill). "Janet" promised Mark 500,000 pounds and a visit with the Prime minister for committing the murder, as well as a full time position in the British secret service.
John's story was so convincing that he and Mark did meet, and Mark did stab him several times in an attempt to kill him. The police originally thought it was a robbery, and then a case of attempted murder... and then the online relationship(s) were all related back to John's computer and the story was fully uncovered. The 14-year old became the first British citizen to be convicted of inciting his own murder, and the judge presiding over the case commented, "Skilled writers of fiction would struggle to conjure up a plot such as that which arises here."
It becomes incredibly clear that John used the recordlessness, synchronicity, and lack of distribution associated with chat rooms (as defined by the Feature-Based model) in order to enable extensive identity-based deception. John built fictitious characters based on many conventional signals. Conventional signals are low cost displays that are conventionally associated with a characteristic such as stereotyped mannerisms that often imply gender, age or status. Online, conventional signals reign supreme because there are very few assessment signals (costly displays directly related to an individual’s innate characteristics) to ensure that someone is telling the truth.
When this level of deception is incorporated into the formation of an online relationship, things can easily get out of hand. The disinhibitory effects predicted by the Hyperpersonal Model would lead to increased self-disclosure by both John and Mark. This would be due to their increased sense of private-self awareness, and their decreased sense of public self-awareness. However, John’s self-disclosures were fabricated and ultimately spun the relationship out of deception. I think the combination of these two phenomena need to be examined more closely because it seems that the internet is the most common place for truly bizarre interactions to build themselves into a functional and dangerous reality. Relationships built from deception can be negated in FtF because assessment signals are more readily available, but online, relationships built from deception are often able to thrive, and in some cases kill. I only wonder what would have happened if John had not survived his stabbings to confirm that he had fabricated the plot!
Sunday, September 23, 2007
5 option1
McKenna would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in my suite last fall, as phone conversations with my boyfriend could have been used as direct examples for her relationship facilitation factors. Dating a self-labeled "shy" boy, it was sometimes annoying to try and have meaningful conversations face to face, since the presence of all social cues made him nervous and taciturn. However, after going away to school, i learned that through text based conversations, (via IM) or through phone conversations, he was much more comfortable sharing valuable information in a mediated environment. In terms of theories describing relationship formation, his tendency to self-disclose increased ten-fold, when i would share information with him via an instant message. Apparently, self-disclosure really does beget self-disclosure. Despite the fact that we were not strangers, the increased level of anonymity that mediated communication offers, increased his ability to disclose information about himself. Ironically, (and probably unhealthily) this helped our relationship evolve and develop. McKenna would have probably wanted to kidnap this boy for further observation and experimentation, since the removal of gating features such as shyness and social anxiety in especially a text-based environment, (IM) enabled him to engage fully in emotional conversations he otherwise would have avoided. Such an example powers McKenna's theory on how the removal of gating features affects relationships. Obviously when conversation takes place via the internet, interactional control exists concerning selectiviely self-representing oneself. This proves most convenient concerning any arguments that may erupt while chatting online. Even though selective representation gets inreasingly more difficult the longer you know someone, it is still a popular technique to evade disagreements. I would venture to say it is because people seletively present themselves that it can take upwards of 6 months to a year to genuinely get to know someone. This theory relates to the pre-existing concept on relationship formation stating that someone's ability to express the "real me" has everything to do with the development of a relationship. However helpful my long-distance relationship was to the field of computer mediated communication and relationship development, McKenna would be disappointed to find out that this boyfriend and i had met offline, so her theories on connecting to similar others and getting the goods are not really applicable. Also unfortunate for McKenna, a long distance relationship is a mistake i would just make once.. so she would have to look for a new subject to make further assumptions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)