I chose to observe the New York Time’s Diner’s Journal, a blog on dining and wine. As an avid reader of the Times’ weekly Dining Out section, I chose to analyze this blog because I knew I would find it particularly interesting. The most prominent blogger on the site is Frank Bruni, who is one of the Time’s most respected restaurant reviewers.
Upon reading Bruni’s posts I was able to develop an impression of him based on his truly unique writing style and voice. From his blog, many of Bruni’s personality traits become obvious in the initial impression making process. For instance, his writing suggests that he is not an amateur in terms of restaurant culture, and has quite a sophisticated knowledge of food. He knows what should be expected of a restaurant, and what sets certain restaurants apart from others. In terms of the “Big 5” personality traits, I think I would consider Bruni to be extraverted, in that he is has strong opinions that he makes sure are heard. In order to be a restaurant reviewer in a city like New York, I think this trait is necessary, due to the extraordinarily high standard set in what many would consider to be the restaurant capital of the world. Bruni is not afraid to criticize some of the city’s finest restaurants, as well as praise some of its least prestigious. In addition, he displays a level of openness. He begins one post stating that he found himself “choked-up and misty-eyed” one morning upon reading a column that considered the Upper West Side of Manhattan to be a restaurant Mecca. This opening reveals two things that suggest openness. Firstly, it reveals Bruni’s deep level of emotion that he can devote to a food related statement. Secondly, it openly announces to a broad array of individuals where he resides, which to most is an extremely personal detail.
As I went about forming such impressions, I felt as though the theory that most closely explained the process of impression formation was the Hyperpersonal Theory. I felt as though the lack of cues, such as age, gender, and race, allowed me to focus solely on Bruni and his opinions of the food and restaurants he was reviewing. While the breadth of the impressions I was forming was rather narrow, the intensity of such impressions was quite deep. For example, from reading the blog it became obvious that Bruni has a deep appreciation for New York City and its cultural in that he almost always injects a statement praising the city.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Surferdude85
Because, as discussed last week, the Internet phenomenon that I am most fascinated with is the concept of forming romantic relationships in chat rooms over the Internet, I decided to take this weeks assignment as a way to further discover what this phenomenon is all about. Thus, I decided to enter a variety of “looking for love” and “singles ready to mingle” type synchronous chat rooms, in hopes of meeting my target person whom would help me with this mini case study. After a series of way to creepy encounters, however, and after a handful of different PV (private chat as I soon learned) invites, I decided to switch to a 20’s chat room, and finally met the person whom I not only felt comfortable talking with, but whom seemed the most interesting as well: Surferdude85.
Surferdude85, or John, a 21 year old art student from Toronto as I later learned, stood out among the crowd of over a dozen of these private chat invites for a variety of reasons: his first question was not the A/S/L interpersonal probe, he asked me things other than what I looked like, and, most importantly, seemed to be a very interesting person. I got the impression, even from the brief 15 minute conversation we had, that John is a very warm, slightly introverted, good natured, easy going guy that is very laid back and interested in meeting many different types of people. I determined this mainly because of his interesting questions and apparent “artsy” personality, but also because of what John did when I told him that I had no artistic abilities whatsoever.
After reveling to John that I could not even draw a normal looking house, he immediately responded with words of encouragement and expressed a want to help. In fact, he gave me the best art lesson he could over CMC, and walked me through a step-by-step way of drawing a realistic human body. And while I’m not quite sure that my end result was as realistic as we both may have hoped, his patience and the way that John expressed that he really wanted to help me reinforced all of the immediate impressions described above. In fact, I got the overall impression that John was a really great guy.
Because John and I were able to exchange social information even in the absence of nonverbal cues, my findings are aligned with the SIP model. I do believe that if I had met John face-to-face, my impression formation would have been much quicker; it took a few minutes for me to learn that John was an extremely artsy male 21 year old Canadian, something that could have been accomplished in a few seconds had we not been communicating over the computer, thus further illustrating the SIP theory.
My findings are too aligned with the Hyperpersonal model, and I believe that more of my impressions of John are due to this theory, especially the over-attribution process. Because I quickly learned that John was an art student who was very focused on his studies, I immediately formed an impression of him in my mind based on stereotypes; I pictured the soft, introverted, easy going, artsy kid that is frequently portrayed in the media, and while my impressions changed slightly as more cues were revealed, I never really strayed from this main stereotype in my mind. Moreover, I feel that my findings are too more aligned with this theory because of the selective self-presentation subcategory of the Hyperpersonal Model. John revealed very little information to me other than things surrounding his art life. While I am sure that he is much more than just an art student, most of my impressions were formed around this idea because it was the only information that was presented to me. Had John not used selective self-presentation, I perhaps could have formed a different and maybe more in depth impression of John and his personality.
Surferdude85, or John, a 21 year old art student from Toronto as I later learned, stood out among the crowd of over a dozen of these private chat invites for a variety of reasons: his first question was not the A/S/L interpersonal probe, he asked me things other than what I looked like, and, most importantly, seemed to be a very interesting person. I got the impression, even from the brief 15 minute conversation we had, that John is a very warm, slightly introverted, good natured, easy going guy that is very laid back and interested in meeting many different types of people. I determined this mainly because of his interesting questions and apparent “artsy” personality, but also because of what John did when I told him that I had no artistic abilities whatsoever.
After reveling to John that I could not even draw a normal looking house, he immediately responded with words of encouragement and expressed a want to help. In fact, he gave me the best art lesson he could over CMC, and walked me through a step-by-step way of drawing a realistic human body. And while I’m not quite sure that my end result was as realistic as we both may have hoped, his patience and the way that John expressed that he really wanted to help me reinforced all of the immediate impressions described above. In fact, I got the overall impression that John was a really great guy.
Because John and I were able to exchange social information even in the absence of nonverbal cues, my findings are aligned with the SIP model. I do believe that if I had met John face-to-face, my impression formation would have been much quicker; it took a few minutes for me to learn that John was an extremely artsy male 21 year old Canadian, something that could have been accomplished in a few seconds had we not been communicating over the computer, thus further illustrating the SIP theory.
My findings are too aligned with the Hyperpersonal model, and I believe that more of my impressions of John are due to this theory, especially the over-attribution process. Because I quickly learned that John was an art student who was very focused on his studies, I immediately formed an impression of him in my mind based on stereotypes; I pictured the soft, introverted, easy going, artsy kid that is frequently portrayed in the media, and while my impressions changed slightly as more cues were revealed, I never really strayed from this main stereotype in my mind. Moreover, I feel that my findings are too more aligned with this theory because of the selective self-presentation subcategory of the Hyperpersonal Model. John revealed very little information to me other than things surrounding his art life. While I am sure that he is much more than just an art student, most of my impressions were formed around this idea because it was the only information that was presented to me. Had John not used selective self-presentation, I perhaps could have formed a different and maybe more in depth impression of John and his personality.
Online Impression Formation
Genericjake1237 and I skipped the formalities entirely. Without knowing my name, my religious beliefs, or my ethnic background, the first thing he told me was that he believes life is meaningless. For all he knew, I could have been a devout Catholic or an orthodox Jew, but the high degree of anonymity made him feel protected. I developed a stronger impression of Jake in the ten minute CMC AIM conversation than I did of Jessica, my new housemate, who I met face to face just hours before.
Engaging in a highly synchronous chat with Jake emulated a face to face conversation; however, the lack of visibility and audibility let us each maintain a high degree of anonymity. Still, I developed a very strong impression. Out of the Big Five traits, I would rate him extremely high on openness. He felt comfortable enough with me, a complete stranger, to divulge his feelings about a girl that he liked. He asked me for advice on how to get her attention. He even confided in me that he tries to joke around in school to increase his popularity. This pseudo-relationship that we developed through CMC showed me just how powerful anonymity can be
Since Jake was so open with me, I consider him to be a warm person. He was very talkative and interested in my opinions. However, I would rate him low for agreeability because he struck me as very opinionated. From the start, he voiced his views on the purposelessness of life, his doubts about a higher power, and his dislike for people who try hard in school. He definitely came off as arrogant when he shared with me his 4.33 GPA and the list of girls that had crushes on him. Face to face, this probably would have deterred me from talking to him, but online, I think he was less concerned with the impression he made than with sharing his true opinions. Perhaps this was because of the recordlessness of our conversation. Jake is not the only person who feels less accountable for what he says on AIM than for what he says in person.
My impressions of Jake in the CMC AIM environment were definitely exaggerated and thus, more in line with the Hyperpersonal Model. Within the ten minutes that we talked, I decided that Jake was an opinionated, but very open person whose arrogance can easily be read as masked insecurities. This impression could be as a result of overattribution and lack of situational observation. When talking to someone for a limited amount of time in one environment, it is natural to fixate on certain aspects of the conversation and form an overstated impression. Because of reallocation of resources, Jake didn’t have to react to nonverbal cues or body language; instead, he could focus on the messages that we exchanged. Selective self presentation led me to judge Jake more intensely because he chose what information to share and what information not to share. He controlled what I knew about him, and had more influence over my impression of him in a CMC environment than he would have in a face to face environment.
Assignment Tw0
My foray into a psychological space landed me in an Internet Relay Chat (IRC) chat room run by the music-oriented torrent site OiNK. Wallace identifies IRC as a synchronous chat environment, but after my experience, the synchronization seems to be much less than what one would expect from a face to face discussion.
When I entered the chat room for my first time, I did not really know how an interaction would begin between myself and complete strangers. So I typed, "hello world!" and quickly found myself talking to someone who, in fact, claimed to be the World. You can imagine my relief at finally being able to get some long seated questions answered: "Have you really been running a fever lately?" and "Is the term 'Mother Earth' actually gender appropriate?" World claims to love Al Gore for bringing attention to the recent fever of global warming, and told me that "Auntie Earth" was actually preferred. After changing his tag to represent his role as 'World' he soon ended the ruse to enter "normal guy mode" and reverted to his "normal" nickname.
As our conversation progressed and he revealed himself to be a male from Sweden, I found my impression of him beginning to form. Even through his layered sarcasm I began to notice a constant level of conscientiousness based on his awareness and evaluation of current events and the political climate. He seemed confident and was very enthusiastic to talk about our similar musical interests, but I did not have a good sense of his extraversion. Similarly, I did not really have enough time talking with him to determine his level of neuroticism, but he was certainly very agreeable, giving compliments and avoiding points of conflict when possible.
I did not find that the lack of cues would have prevented me from getting to know him-- on the contrary, a casual 30 minute conversation gave me a much better introduction than many 50 minute class periods that I've spent sitting next to a stranger in the flesh! I think I would say my experience lent itself towards the hyperpersonal model due to the fact that my impression of his openness and conscientiousness were not necessarily based on extensive evidence. The intensity of my impressions did seem slightly exaggerated in retrospect only because I realize that my evaluations are probably inaccurate after such little exposure. There was certainly selective self-presentation in that the musical tastes we expressed were trimmed down to emphasize the interesting and more diverse range of bands that we listened to- the ones that promoted a more fruitful conversation. The overall conversation also gave the impression that our textually based conversation would suffice, given enough time, in garnering accurate impressions of each other.
When I entered the chat room for my first time, I did not really know how an interaction would begin between myself and complete strangers. So I typed, "hello world!" and quickly found myself talking to someone who, in fact, claimed to be the World. You can imagine my relief at finally being able to get some long seated questions answered: "Have you really been running a fever lately?" and "Is the term 'Mother Earth' actually gender appropriate?" World claims to love Al Gore for bringing attention to the recent fever of global warming, and told me that "Auntie Earth" was actually preferred. After changing his tag to represent his role as 'World' he soon ended the ruse to enter "normal guy mode" and reverted to his "normal" nickname.
As our conversation progressed and he revealed himself to be a male from Sweden, I found my impression of him beginning to form. Even through his layered sarcasm I began to notice a constant level of conscientiousness based on his awareness and evaluation of current events and the political climate. He seemed confident and was very enthusiastic to talk about our similar musical interests, but I did not have a good sense of his extraversion. Similarly, I did not really have enough time talking with him to determine his level of neuroticism, but he was certainly very agreeable, giving compliments and avoiding points of conflict when possible.
I did not find that the lack of cues would have prevented me from getting to know him-- on the contrary, a casual 30 minute conversation gave me a much better introduction than many 50 minute class periods that I've spent sitting next to a stranger in the flesh! I think I would say my experience lent itself towards the hyperpersonal model due to the fact that my impression of his openness and conscientiousness were not necessarily based on extensive evidence. The intensity of my impressions did seem slightly exaggerated in retrospect only because I realize that my evaluations are probably inaccurate after such little exposure. There was certainly selective self-presentation in that the musical tastes we expressed were trimmed down to emphasize the interesting and more diverse range of bands that we listened to- the ones that promoted a more fruitful conversation. The overall conversation also gave the impression that our textually based conversation would suffice, given enough time, in garnering accurate impressions of each other.
Psychological Space
The psychological space that I entered was a forum on the website, www.prosportsdaily.com. This site is a great source for breaking sports news, and articles are posted from newspapers every day of the week for readers to enjoy. This site also contains a ‘rumors’ section and ‘forums’ section for viewers to deliberate and discuss current events in athletics.
The user I observed was on a forum discussing Pittsburg Steelers’ quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger. The forum was designed to have people voice their opinions on whether he is overrated or not. This particular user’s personality could be labeled under neuroticism based on his/her interaction with others. In this situation, he/she sarcastically responded to previous posts which stated Ben Roethlisberger gets too much praise, by saying that the athlete is overrated because he won, one Superbowl. Other people on the forum were distraught at the fact that this person was apparently undermining the importance, significance, or feat of winning a Superbowl (possibly thinking that the original post was meant to say that he should be wining more championships to be considered a great player). This was an inadvertent mistake (due to sarcasm and lack of facial/verbal cues) and similar situations arose further along this forum. From this example is it apparent that computer mediated communication makes it difficult for people to understand tone, cues, and subtle meanings that face-to-face communication would clarify. The reason for distinguishing this person/situation as neuroticism, is due to the fact that these ‘let-downs’ by other ‘post-ers’ were bringing down the person’s morale; one time he/she stated that he/she should probably never post again because of such harsh ridicule. Having this occur would lead to the same person having to reject other ‘Big 5 Traits’ such as openness, because he/she would be too afraid to voice his/her own opinions.
This situation is one that I think happens a great deal in computer mediated communication. While conversing online, people are unable to pick up on cues and tones such as sarcasm, disgust, or happiness. This is a perfect example of why certain people become disengaged and upset with communicating online. It is important to note that after the interaction between those on the forum took place, the original ‘post-er’ explained his/her sarcasm and everything was solved. This situation follows the path of the Social Information Processing theory developed by Professor Joe Walther (1993), as the absence of social cues led to a slow transition of information between online users. SIP does not state that nonverbal cues are totally lost, but they are harder to pick up on and take longer to process while communicating online. It was difficult to pick up on the sarcasm used by the original person who posted, and thus the problem with computer mediated communication was picked up on. I find it interesting to see how other people, rather than myself and friends, were able to converse online and experience similar communication difficulties.
Assignment #2: Online Impression Formation
For the past several days, I have been posting on an asynchronous online forum. The forum is a fansite for a Broadway show called Spring Awakening that I’ve seen a few times and am a huge fan of. On this site, there is a particular thread for introductions, so on Saturday afternoon, I posted a little bit about myself and waited for people to respond. Out of the responses I got, I chose one person named Zoe to continue to chat with. Since we shared a passion for this Broadway show, it was easy to get carried away and discuss what actors we did and didn’t like, what scenes of the show were our favorites, and what our experiences have been like seeing it and meeting the actors.
From our short conversation, I can infer that Zoe is extroverted; I determined this based on her tendency to get more excited about topics other than herself, and the energy and enthusiasm she had towards our conversations. She was very agreeable and always willing to support my opinions and experiences with her own, and not once did I experience tension in our conversation. Zoe was also very open – she shared stories and facts about herself, and gave off an overall warm feeling. It was harder to judge her conscientiousness and neuroticism from our conversation.
My impression of Zoe clearly aligns with the hyperpersonal model, especially the over-attribution process. Since our conversation first sprung from our shared passion for this Broadway musical, I found it really easy to guess what she liked and disliked. (For example, I assumed, and then confirmed, that she liked John Gallagher Jr., musicals, and Duncan Sheik. I also assumed that she was an open-minded and thoughtful person, based on the content of the Broadway show.) It was very easy to make assumptions about Zoe despite the small amount of information I was given.
With regard to breadth and intensity, my experiences also match the hyperpersonal model perfectly. Although I still don’t know that much information about Zoe, I feel that I know her interests and her opinions very strongly. The instant bond that was formed through our shared passion made me immediately feel comfortable with her, like I was talking to an old friend. People are quick to attribute characteristics and interests to others just from one fact that they know, just like I was with Zoe; this experience has made me aware of how much people can assume about another person just from a small amount of information.
From our short conversation, I can infer that Zoe is extroverted; I determined this based on her tendency to get more excited about topics other than herself, and the energy and enthusiasm she had towards our conversations. She was very agreeable and always willing to support my opinions and experiences with her own, and not once did I experience tension in our conversation. Zoe was also very open – she shared stories and facts about herself, and gave off an overall warm feeling. It was harder to judge her conscientiousness and neuroticism from our conversation.
My impression of Zoe clearly aligns with the hyperpersonal model, especially the over-attribution process. Since our conversation first sprung from our shared passion for this Broadway musical, I found it really easy to guess what she liked and disliked. (For example, I assumed, and then confirmed, that she liked John Gallagher Jr., musicals, and Duncan Sheik. I also assumed that she was an open-minded and thoughtful person, based on the content of the Broadway show.) It was very easy to make assumptions about Zoe despite the small amount of information I was given.
With regard to breadth and intensity, my experiences also match the hyperpersonal model perfectly. Although I still don’t know that much information about Zoe, I feel that I know her interests and her opinions very strongly. The instant bond that was formed through our shared passion made me immediately feel comfortable with her, like I was talking to an old friend. People are quick to attribute characteristics and interests to others just from one fact that they know, just like I was with Zoe; this experience has made me aware of how much people can assume about another person just from a small amount of information.
assignment 2
I entered a synchronous space on the internet, a random chat room and met one particular user, by the screen name of malehere. He was extremely forward, the first thing he asked was A/S/L? (Age /Sex/Location) Never having been in a chat room before I was taken aback at how quickly these personal questions were asked and answered. Not being able to rely on visuals or sound, I suppose knowing those social qualities (gender, age, race) helps people decide who to continue conversing with. Malehere was a twenty four year old male from San Francisco. We did not discuss race, but did go on to discuss livelihoods. He was in advertising, and I was a nurse from Manhattan. I found it is easy to ask and answer social questions, but harder to gauge malehere’s personality based on the top five traits through our brief online chat. He appeared warm, but almost in a suggestive inappropriate way. (I may or may not have been in a dating chat room by accident?) Malehere didn’t seem particularly extraverted, although that is a very visible characteristic, and hard to determine via CMC. He was fairly open, although I wasn’t really asking very personal questions. He wasn’t confrontational, and was fairly agreeable. At one point, I expressed discomfort about a comment he made, and he was quick to apologize and reprimand himself, in order to keep the social harmony in the conversation. It is hard to determine whether or not malehere was neurotic in the few minutes we chatted, but in that brief span of time, he didn’t seem anxious or nervous about anything. There wasn’t enough information to make a decision about his conscientiousness.
In order to form an impression of malehere I did engage in interpersonal discussion, including asking questions, and disclosing information about ourselves. (in my case fictional information) After chatting with malehere and getting to know him briefly, I agree with Walther’s Hyperpersonal Model and his Social Information Processing (SIP) model. In accordance with the SIP model, I felt I was able to exchange social information, despite the lack of nonverbal cues. I did feel that in an attempt not to appear too eager to chat, malehere did come off as kind of “cold,” at first. I think this may be due partly to what the hyperpersonal model describes as reallocation of cognitive resources. Because there were no non verbal cues to focus on, all I had to go by was the text, which may have caused me to overanalyze the conversation. I don’t feel as though malehere was selectively representing himself. If anything, he wanted to be agreeable, but not necessarily boastful. If we had continued talking, he may have been an example of what Walther describes as behavioral confirmation, malehere may have tried to behave the way he thought I perceived him to be. In conclusion, parallel to what the Hyperpersonal model states, my impression of malehere was less detailed, but more exaggerated or intense due to our chatting via CMC.
In order to form an impression of malehere I did engage in interpersonal discussion, including asking questions, and disclosing information about ourselves. (in my case fictional information) After chatting with malehere and getting to know him briefly, I agree with Walther’s Hyperpersonal Model and his Social Information Processing (SIP) model. In accordance with the SIP model, I felt I was able to exchange social information, despite the lack of nonverbal cues. I did feel that in an attempt not to appear too eager to chat, malehere did come off as kind of “cold,” at first. I think this may be due partly to what the hyperpersonal model describes as reallocation of cognitive resources. Because there were no non verbal cues to focus on, all I had to go by was the text, which may have caused me to overanalyze the conversation. I don’t feel as though malehere was selectively representing himself. If anything, he wanted to be agreeable, but not necessarily boastful. If we had continued talking, he may have been an example of what Walther describes as behavioral confirmation, malehere may have tried to behave the way he thought I perceived him to be. In conclusion, parallel to what the Hyperpersonal model states, my impression of malehere was less detailed, but more exaggerated or intense due to our chatting via CMC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)