11: PERFECT or anything but.

When I first told my friend, X, that I got accepted early decision to Cornell University, her first words, “AHHH! I’m so proud of you, and I have the PERFECT roommate for you. She just got in early too, and I know you two will LOVE each other.”

Now, sitting at my computer 3 years later, the words PERFECT and LOVE seem beyond ironic. You see, after living in a way too small of a dorm room with my roommate whom I will call Y, it seems that even if we lived in the largest room in the world, she would still be, perhaps, anything but perfect for me.

My feelings, however, were not always this way towards Y. In fact, PERFECT and LOVE would be two words I too would have used to describe her when we first started talking through AIM. We both loved Laguna Beach, Grey’s Anatomy, and Desperate Housewives. We both had the same favorite restaurant, and loved the same dish from it. We both did similar things in high school, and it seemed that we both wanted the same things out of college. To sum it all up, it seemed that our interests were perfectly aligned, so when she asked if I wanted to room with her, I of course was not hesitant about starting what I wanted to be a PERFECT college experience with a PERFECT roommate.

After Y and I decided to be roommates, we attempted to set up multiple face-to-face meetings. Yet, with the end of senior year craziness and with me going away for the summer prior to freshman year, that plan just never worked out. So, when I walked in to my dorm room on that Thursday, August 18, 2005, there she was, for the first time in front of me, Y.

From the way too loud screech of Y’s “LAAAUUUUUUURENNNNN!!!!!” when I walked in the door, I had doubts that my PEREFECT roommate would be less then PERFECT. Yet, I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt. Then, when her way too strange study, hygienic, eating, and communication tactics started becoming things that began affecting my life and happiness, I knew that this PEREFECT mixed-mode relationship was anything but. I would constantly be woken up at 4am by a printer or the lights, would have to step through piles of her clothes and garbage and food just to get to my side of the room, and even found a cockroach in my fridge one day because of her food supply.

Leaving the virtual world and entering the real world with Y is best described by Walther’s Hyperpersonal Model. The Hyperpersonal Model is made up of:
1. The over-attribution process: Few cues lead to a stereotype
2. Developmental aspect: Given time, we adapt our cues to the social channel
3. Selective self-presentation: In CMC, you select what you present to your partner. When leaving the virtual world, you have less control over your information sharing
4. Re-allocation of cognitive resources: When you talk in face-to-face settings, you have to worry about many different things. Because in CMC you have less to worry about, you can devote more resources and time to what you are saying
5. Behavioral Confirmation: We end up trying to behave how people think we are (Walther 1997)

The two aspects, however, of this model that apply to Y and mine's mix-mode relationship are the over-attribution process and selective self-presentation.
The Over-Attribution Process
The fewer cues present in CMC allowed me to over attribute the few cues I had of Y. Because we both seemed to have similar interests, our mutual likes of Laguna Beach and the restaurant “Joes” created an inflated impression of Y that was completely inaccurate.
Selective Self-Presentation
Y most definitely was a victim of selective self-presentation; she managed her impression by only telling me things on AIM that she knew I would find attractive. For obvious reasons, Y completely neglected to tell me that she worked best at all hours of the night and slept most of the day and did not share with me that she was a total slob, yet had we met and built a relationship in a face-to-face setting, these cues would have been visible, as it is apparent that Y is perhaps not the with it, put together, and PEREFECT after spending just a mere five minutes in a face-to-face conversation with her.

Comments:
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/stalkers.html
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-myself-have-never-experienced-online.html

assignmment 11

Back in 8th grade, one of my first boyfriends asked me out over AIM. I had many classes with him, so he had the opportunity to ask me out in person. The fact that he chose to use CMC to communicate with me falls right in line with McKenna’s Relationship Facilitation Factors. One factor is identifiably, which includes the concept of visual anonymity. Visual anonymity can lead to increased private self-awareness as well as decreased public self-awareness. This boy felt more comfortable communicating with me online because he was less aware of how I was viewing him. This led him to behave in a more disinhibited manner, and was able to ask a question that was embarrassing to him (asking me to be his girlfriend).

Another theory that can explain why this boy chose to ask me out over the internet rather than FtF is the Impression Management Model, which shows that people sometimes pick a leaner media for ambiguity. Asking difficult questions is hard to do in person because one has to state and present the question perfectly to get a desired response. If the response is not desired, it is difficult to hide embarrassment and devastation in the form of facial expression. It is much easier online to hide disappointment because only verbal cues that are voluntarily presented are seen by the other person.

In my mind, at the age of 13, I thought he was a big scare-dy cat because he didn’t have the guts to ask me out in person. This was the only thing I was able to base his personality on because I didn’t know who he was prior to this conversation. After our brief AIM convo (that ended in me saying I would think about it, aka no way ever), I created a view of this person. The Hyperpersonal Model describes why my views about this boy were made so quickly. The Hyperpersonal Model states that an over-attribution process will occur in an online texted based space, where there are fewer cues to judge someone with. As a result, you exaggerate those few cues and therefore create generalized beliefs that may not be true. So, after this conversation I didn’t want to go out with this boy because he wasn’t acting tough because he wasn’t able to confront me in person (and I didn’t know him at all). As the weeks went on, I suppose he started getting desperate and began talking to me in classes. I could tell he was shy but he was very persistent at becoming a part of my life. After a few weeks, we actually became friends and I started to see him in a different light. We ended up “going out” for the rest of the school year. This example shows that by meeting someone online, the lack of cues may lead you to falsely identify another. The only way to truly test if you like someone is to meet and interact with them face-to-face.

Assignment 11

I, myself, have never experienced an online relationship. While I feel that the medium of cyber space is beneficial in facilitating many examples of communication, I personally feel as though dating and building relationships is something that should be done face-to-face, in a non-mediated medium. Nonetheless, I am fascinated by relationships that have been able to grow and prosper online.

Rather than write about my non-existent experiences with online dating, I decided to discover those of others in the media. I began by searching “online dating” on nytimes.com and was quite surprised by the number of wedding announcements referencing that the couples met online.

Aside from the abundance of wedding announcements that chronicled the experiences of couples that met their matches online, there were also a number of in-depth features on the failures of online dating sites. An article written on Sept. 30, 2007, quotes 33-year-old Jennifer Silver, who stated that she had a number of terrible experiences with dating services such as JDate and Match.com. According to Silver, people were very dishonest on their profiles and often did not bear any resemblance to they image they portrayed on their profile.

A second article, written in Dec. 2004, cited how the online dating industry had began to plateau due to a number of instances in which people lied about their identity. Allison Gold, quoted in the article, likened her initial experiences with online dating to being a kid in the candy store, where there are a number of great options to choose from. However, Gold soon found that when she met the men she thought were going to be straight out of Ocean’s Eleven, they were nothing like she thought they were going to be like. She said she felt “jerked around”, after being lead to believe she was finding a perfect match, when in reality the men had lied about their appearance, career, or marital status.

Such experiences support the SIDE and Hyperpersonal theories and reject the SIP and URT theories. Both SIDE and Hyperpersonal predict negative outcomes of relationships that begin online and then leave virtuality. SIDE attributes negative outcomes to the fact that face-to-face interaction fosters individuation and differentiation, which weaken social attraction. Hyperpersonal, however, states that inflated perceptions developed online detract from social attraction when the relationship leaves virtuality. Both theories provide accurate explanations for the experiences of both Silver and Gold, who, upon meeting online dates in real life, were turned off by the inaccurate self-descriptions provided online.

Cited articles:
Williams, A. (2004, Dec. 12). E-dating bubble springs a leak. The New York Times.
Fischler, M.S. (2007, Sept. 30). Online dating putting you off? Try a matchmaker. The New York Times.

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

Assignment 11

For this assignment, I chose to analyze an experience that my friend had while he was approaching his freshman year in college. Prior to going to school, many freshmen are prompted with Facebook as a means of networking with fellow students at their respective university. Some people develop relationships that they start online (through this medium), yet I believe most fail due to initial Facebook friendships being very superficial.

The latter description is what occurred to my friend at University of Florida. He would constantly tell me how many new friend requests he received online, and how many ‘hot girls’ accepted his friend request prior to actually getting on campus. Looking back on his decision to friend so many people, and additionally IM them, he regrets doing so as his actions were indeed a bit creepy, stalker-like, and do not truly reflect his own personality. The draw of Facebook and the excitement of college brought him to constantly check this online database and come in contact with anyone associated with the university. When he got to campus, he would creepily know surface level information about people and weird them out that he knew their name (and other information) beforehand. Time progressed during the first year, and my friend actually ended up disliking Florida. Since transferring, he has learned from his lessons of pre-campus ‘Facebooking’ and actually meets people first before ‘friending’ or messaging them online.

The example and description above fit with portions of the Hyperpersonal model made by Professor Joe Walther. Specifically, my friend overattributed information found on a person’s Facebook profile, to be true and endearing information about a person. As we have studied in class, people lie constantly about their profiles and can change any information they want (thus information should not be totally believed on a profile in Facebook). Moreover, as my friend would commit this overattribution error, people who my friend ‘talked to online,’ overattributed his traits to think that he truly is a stalker (which he is not). In addition, behavioral confirmation also can be found in this situation. As people found out that my friend knew information about people due to Facebook, my friend started to question himself and think that he possibly was being creepy because people thought those were his actions online. In thinking so, he changed his actions and made a change with his Facebooking life.

It is apparent from the facts stated above, that through the Hyperpersonal Model, this example of Facebook can be theoretically confirmed. I’m glad that my friend learned his lesson, and hopefully by reading this post, others will reevaluate their own Facebooking ways.

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

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

Assignment #11

Not having experienced an online relationship that blossomed into a face to face relationship, i explored the web for examples of such a relationship. I came accross Laura who submitted her story of how she met her husband via Match.com. Her profile name was "Your SearchIsover" and his was "handybunk." She had been on match for quite a while, to no avail, until she came across "handybunk's" profile. After reviewing his information, she sent him an email, and he responded. After corresponding through email, they evolved to phone conversations until one day Laura needed a broken window in her house fixed. Obviously, the first person she thought of to mend her window was "handybunk." They went out to dinner, and the rest as they say, is history.

Of the theories we have examined, after assessing the story, the Hyperpersonal model of communication really outlines Laura's experience. All five aspects (over-attribution process, developmental aspect, selective self presentation, re-allocation of cognitive resources and behavioral confirmation) are incorporated in her scenario. Particularly since the medium in which Laura met her mate was match.com, it can be assumed that when filling out their respective profiles, they exhibited selective self presentation- choosing to display information which they deemed attractive about themselves, and neglecting to include less attracitve information. When relaying the story, Laura also specified that she chose to go on match.com because she feels uncomfortable in bars and vibrant social scenes. It is possible that because Laura did not have to concern herself with excess non-verbal cues, through re-allocation of her cognitive resources, she was able to more efficiently and successfully find "handybunk." Laura also mentioned in the story that she was the first to send an email to "handybunk" expressing an interest in him, and telling him she believed they had a lot of similar interests. After hearing that positive feedback, it is possible that "handybunk," anxious to find a mate himself, reacted according to how laura perceived him, making his reactions a product of behavioral confirmation. The nature of Laura and "handybunk's" relationship displays signs of developmental progress, as they started exchanging emails, and then phone calls, and eventually met face to face, getting to know one another better with every increased mode of communication. It can not be said definitivey after reading Laura's story whether either her or "handybunk" participated in the over-attribution process, but it would not be unlikely, again considering their initial medium for meeting as match.com.

As can be seen through the anlaysis of Laura's story, her online relationship that extended beyond the virutal world closely displays the characteristics of the Hyperpersonal model.

Asignment 11

Early this semester my group of friends from home decided that we wanted to surprise our friend Courtney, whose twenty first birthday was the first week in November, with a visit. Courtney goes to Fairfield University in Connecticut and the rest of us are scattered around from up here in Ithaca to down in DC. To make sure we were welcome I contacted one of her housemates (through facebook, of course). From September to November we exchanged many messages, setting up logistics, sharing excitement, and some small talk.

Looking back at the messages in my facebook, the first thing I notice is how friendly she was. She messaged me back almost immediately, saying she has heard about us and knew Courtney would be so excited for a surprise visit. The messages seem to closely follow the hyperpersonal model. Initially we had a positive exchange, and from there we seemed to become more and more friendly. In the second message, she noticed our similar majors and we exchanged more messages about that. We also brainstormed ideas for exactly how to surprise her, what to bring, party ideas, etc. The messages were always upbeat and included a lot of explanation points, making me feel friendlier towards her, in line with the hyperpersonal theory. The little bit of her personality I observed through our messages and the parts of her profile that made us seem similar were amplified due to the CMC communication. By the time we were ready to head to Fairfield, I was also looking forward to meeting her.

According to Ramirez and Wang, the hyperpersonal theory predicts that after an extended period of time communicating in CMC, the participants would likely “fill in” missing details about the other, likely contradicting already formed impressions. However, due to the relatively short term nature of our contact, I believe this effect was minor in our meeting face to face. There were small things I thought would be different about her, for example, I thought she would be more outgoing from our message exchange than she was in reality. Ramirez and Wang state that modality switching gives access to new social information, filling in the blanks from CMC, enhancing partner perceptions and furthering relationship growth. This applies to my experience, I had a glimpse of who she was and since our contact in CMC was relatively short, meeting in FTF solidified my impression. They also state that modality switching diminishes communication process and social outcomes when FTF is different than what was perceived in FTF. I only noticed this slightly and it didn’t have an affect on our meeting. By the time we left, I felt like I was saying goodbye to another friend!

A girl from heaven: Assignment 11

I was always very skeptical about the use of online dating sites because they seem to run perilously close to a cold, industrialized sort of romance-- who can honestly use the medium of a webpage to fully represent themselves and gauge the attractiveness of a partner who could potentially require a big investment of time and resources? While I was skeptical, I acknowledged that it was also very convenient and allowed for easy interactions. I eventually found myself staring at an online banner for match.com featuring an incredibly attractive woman. I thought to myself, "This woman is waiting for me on match.com!? SIGN ME UP!" and immediately signed up.

I made an account and then waited like all good fishermen must. One day I got an e-mail from someone asking about my music interests. I wrote back talking mostly about the same music she had listed in her page. Although this selective self-presentation (predicted by the Hyperpersonal Model/ Conversational Common Ground (Clark 1996)) would come up later, we continued to correspond via e-mail. Eventually, I asked her to meet me for a game of scrabble and to listen to some awesome music. When we met in person, I was first disgruntled to see that she was a little heavier and older than advertised, but at first we hit it off pretty well.

Then my all time favorite song, The Dugout, by Ladyhawk came on, and my date said, "I thought you listened to good music..." to which I responded, "Yea, I didn't even say that I listened to great music." But she was not amused. And slowly, we each became more and more cold. I said, "Hey, this band has a member that is brothers with one of my professors," and she just shrugged and I looked longingly at my "The Psychology of the Internet" book. With all my deeply-rooted internet knowledge, why was this still going so poorly? Pat Wallace would know what to do.

Meanwhile, it turned out that the majority of music we liked was completely different, and the few artists that had been the subject of our many e-mails, were actually appreciated for very different reasons. This outcome is predicted by the Hyperpersonal model in that, once we left the virtual environment, we had much less control over the information we were sharing. When online, we were able to talk about only things we had in common; face-to-face we were forced to talk about the many, many things we did not, including the fact that Mitch Hedberg is the greatest comedian of all time. I also had an inflated perception of her since our CMC interactions exaggerated the things we had in common, so I was primed to be disappointed. My experience contradicts the prediction by Ramirez & Wang that a short term CMC relationship would lead to an enhanced interaction in FtF. Needless to say, the closest I got to H-E-A-V-E-N on that date was my triple letter score on the 'V'.

http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11_27.html#c933909972979937154
http://comm245yellow.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11_2183.html#c3607110776969821211