Extra Credit blog: What the future holds

Every year the internet is becoming more advanced and changes are occurring everyday. Just three years ago before I entered college personal blogs like Xanga were just becoming popular. Today, it is a common system used for homework assignment in classes! The world is becoming smaller all the time because of advances with webcams and programs like Skype. My younger sister and her friends are using their built in Mac webcams to video chat over the internet and post information about themselves on their social networking sights. When I was her age I didn’t even know such websites as Facebook existed nor did I ever foresee their creation. The most unique way to show your personality was through the color of your font and the quotes you put in your AIM profile.
Some issues that I think will have to be addressed are the use of these social networking sites being used by such young children. Once the internet became popular, issues arose with pedophilia and kidnapping when older people would fake their identity online and harm a child once they decided to meet in person. While many children are warned to be careful of speaking with strangers online today, I think that the use of social networking sites will exacerbate the problem. Teens often like to rebel and break the rules, and if they are told not to talk to strangers, they may be inclined to after all. Especially when sites such as Facebook or Myspace provide “proof” that the stranger isn’t lying. If a fourteen year old girl sees that the cute boy Mike they met online really IS the age he says he is and has pictures to prove it, she will think it is safe to meet him. However, online predators could easily find pictures online and form a profile around it. Or if he/she is really creepy (like the story we heard in class), he could take photos of his own son and pretend it is himself. Due to technology and the easiness of posting photos online, I can also foresee some issues other than fake identities. Many young teens are insecure or have low self esteem and often use the internet as a way to gain social approval. This could lead many underage teens to post inappropriate pictures of them online to gain approval of being told how attractive they are. Although I don’t think this will become a widespread, prevalent problem, I have a feeling that the new camera technology will be misused by teenagers, especially since many computers come with it already built in to the machine. Many issues may also arise of children developing social problems or social phobias because they become so used to interacting with others only online. The PIU theory we learned in class covers this slightly, but I think this problem can still be studied a lot more. Different age groups and different environmental factors (such as bullies at school, bad home life, etc) all may have a different effect on ones addiction to the internet. It may also have different consequences for their FtF social interactions as well.
As a result, some theories will hold true for years to come, and others will soon die out. With the anonymity and ability to get responses quickly, online social support will grow in popularity. It allows people the advantage to never have to leave their home, receive help at any hour of the day, and allow them to ask questions that they would be afraid to ask in real life. Also, as I have already discussed, with the ability to alter one’s self presentation online, I think the Hyperpersonal model will continue to explain how people perceive one another online. It helps to explain how people form the wrong impressions of others by over attributing the cues and information they receive. This then causes problems when leaving virtuality and people begin to communicate face to face; of then the person they expect to meet is entirely different. With the ability to self select the jokes you make, the type of information you give out, and what types of interests you want to discuss, when can easily form the wrong impression.
One theory that is likely to change is Cues Filtered Out (CFO). It predicts that a lack of cues in CMC will lead to neutral, negative, underdeveloped impressions of your partner. I think that with the technology we have today and the types of attributes websites have (such as photos, and font colors, and ability to have links, etc), it is very difficult to form a neutral or underdeveloped impression of someone. If anything, you may form a stereotyped and wrong impression (as described by Hyperpersonal), but it is nearly impossible to form an underdeveloped one from a lack of cues.
This class was a lot of fun and it was very interesting to learn about all these theories. Since all of us use the internet and Facebook everyday, many of these theories are very applicable and relatable to our daily life. In the future, however, I think it would be fun to learn more about behavioral changes and flirty behavior on line. Such as when people are very flirty and say certain comments that they would not say in a FtF setting. Or, to learn about people’s desire to use the internet to self disclose personal and private information, such as on Postsecret.com.
Thanks for a great semester!

Bonus Assignment: The Future of Comm 245

The concepts learned in Comm 245: Psychology of Social Computing, were very effective in explaining modern day internet use and its impact on society. The problem, however, is that advances in internet technology are occurring everyday. Perhaps by next year when this course is taught again, the curriculum will have to be updated because of the constant changes in technology. For the future of Psychology of Social Computing, I predict that some theories will hold, however, some will need to be altered, and new theories will be created.

One important aspect of the internet is its dimensions. These dimensions are key tools that help to form and define many theories and will continue to be crucial in the future. Important dimensions of psychological spaces include anonymity, synchronicity, and persistence. Based on how internet use has progressed over time, these dimensions will continue to have an impact but in different ways. For example, as technology works to keep individuals connected, it is now possible to communicate with others through webcam and over time it will probably become even easier. As a result, this type of online psychological space will have a very small degree of anonymity because a person can be seen and heard and has little control over their self expression. Also, technological improvements will be able to minimize the time delay, making this sort of communication very synchronous. In addition to these two factors that seem very similar to communicating face-to face, the dimension of persistence would also be very high because almost everything on the internet today is recordable. This dimension would make communication very different from face-to-face interaction and would probably spark many new ideas and theories about communication.

An important theory that was emphasized throughout this course was the Hyperpersonal Model which has five components. Based on its main points and the current technological advancements, I think that this theory would become obsolete unless it were to be modified. The first component, over-attributional processes, would not be accurate in the future. It is based on the fact that people overattribute certain aspects of ones personality due to lack of cues (verbal and non-verbal). This, however, will not be as much of an issue if technology continues to move in the direction it is in now. Again, the developmental aspect explains how it will take longer to form impressions of others with internet use which will decline in importance as technology works to bring people closer together. The other three features of the hyperpersonal model will also become obsolete for the same reasons because the issue of reduced cues in CMC will be eliminated as we move into the future.

As the internet becomes more accessible, these changes will probably encourage more use and attract a wider variety of people. Therefore, the concept of internet addiction might become a more salient issue in society and more research about it will need to be conducted.

At the current time, this course does not fail to address any important concepts about communicating in CMC. The one aspect that I think should be stressed throughout this course, however, is how the rapidly changing environment on the internet leads to the development of new theories almost everyday.

Anonymity Begins to “See” it’s Decline Online

The entirely visually-anonymous, text-based medium that we tend to think of as CMC is slowly changing. The comfort that parallels with sitting behind one's computer screen, physical appearance unknown to the world, is one of the bases for many of the theories of that we have learned about in COMM 245 thus far. With the advent of Facebook, Skype, and multiple other psychological spaces that give visual information about physical appearance, anonymity is beginning to decline in CMC. Relationships and interpersonal interactions online will likely be the domains in which such changes will occur, as physical appearance is often the first thing we notice about someone before they open their mouth to say a word, or in CMC, type a sentence.

In an online space, people first have the opportunity to get to know someone and then eventually meet the person, seeing their physical appearance. This is a complete reversal of what occurs in a face to face setting, in which people seem to filter others out based on physical appearance, and then take the steps to get to know them. Mckenna’s Relationship Facilitation factors include five features that may be distorted if the anonymity of the internet is reduced. When we introduce pictures and lose the anonymity of the internet, the gating features of face to face communication suddenly reappear. Additionally, the gating features of any psychological space including physical attractiveness, status cues, and shyness, will no longer be removed on the internet, thus losing that equaling of the playing field for those who do not feel as socially competent and enjoy the safety of sitting behind their computer screens in social interactions.

Typically, the visual anonymity of the internet allows for disinhibited behaviors such as increased self-disclosure as a result of increased self-awareness and decreased public-awareness. However, with the disappearance of anonymity online, people may be less willing to divulge such personal information if they no longer believe that they are a “stranger on the train.” “Google Images” will now often produce a picture of people when their names are searched, leaving no room for the selective self-presentation and psychological processes of behavioral confirmation that make up part of Walther’s (1996) Hyperpersonal Model. I do not believe that the Hyperpersonal Model will no longer be applicable next year, but I do think that as we reduce the anonymity of the internet space, the allowance of time for an individual to choose his or her words carefully and give off the best impression of him or herself may too begin to dissolve.

This leveling of the anonymity present online and in face to face interactions may lead to a decline in the amount of time people are spending online, increasing social interactions face to face. This would be quite ironic as technological innovations are typically set in place to further our use of technology. The internet has made such developments and innovations meant to increase social interaction and improve upon itself, that it is beginning to take us back in the other direction to where communication started: Face to face.

Extra Credit Post: What's to come? More CMC

The future of the class this entry is for, the Psychology of Social Computing is going to change a great deal. What is going to make this change is the arrival of new generations that have lived their entire lives surrounded by the internet and a world that changes very rapidly with technology.

Theories now are done with people who are normally very comfortable with computer mediated communication (CMC) but who have not necessarily grown up with it. As a culture, we still see excessive time spent online as a bad thing. I expect in the future, as more and more important things in lives, business or personal, are done online, it will be more accepted to spend more time online. This is going to change a lot of views on the theories surrounding CMC. CFO perspectives will virtually disappear because it will be understood that time as mentioned Social Information Processing theory it a large part of how much people know about each other. People will grow up online, like in person, and will not view a difference between CMC and FtF making the CFO assumptions disappear as a CMC phenomenon.

However, the theories that are going to really escalate in scale, and possibly have to be adjusted or completely changed, are the ones like Impression Management. The better technologies are going to change the ease and ability of people being able to represent themselves online. This will be very important to see because people are going to obviously try to show a better light of who they are. Also, since CMC will be used more and more often, it will become less and less important if someone is presenting a different avatar or picture or any description of their real self.

That will be one of the most interesting changes. If we spend 3 hours doing online communicating now, and 3-6 FtF, what happens when the ratio switches? If we are spending twice as much time communicating online than face to face, I think that it will change two different things. The first, I think lying about some identity cues will become less of a problem, I also think that the representation online, (think Impression Management) will become more important as well. Current face to face “sayings” like you can only make one first impression, will be integrated into CMC and people will adjust to that, and want to have more control of their representations.

So to wrap up a relatively scattered entry, the biggest change in the way Psychology of Social computing will be studied, is going to come from the increased integration of CMC into our lives, and the better technology and the changes that will make to CMC.

Bonus: What will teh future actually hole?

Communications 245 future is very interesting because of the technological advancements that are occurring. Technology will change theories we hold now about impression formation. I think that some of the theories will stay the same, while others will evolve into bigger and better ideas.

Communicating on the Internet used to be through CMC, but now has evolved into a combination of CMC and FTF. Computers now come with a built in camera, and we are capable of video chatting. This takes the wall down from CMC and transforms it into FTF. This is where our first theory comes in; Hyperpersonal Model will evolve into another theory because with a CMC interaction you can only learn so much. This then moves to a FTF by video chatting helping the attraction over the Internet to occur. I am not sure if this will help or hurt the “supposedly” increased intensity in attraction. Being online people can portray them in the best way possible and selectively present certain cues about one self. By adding the video chat will this cause “gender switches” or digital deceptions to occur a lot less and help interactions online to become more of a comfortable interaction?

Our dependence with the internet/computers will lead to increased problems with Internet deception. This deception will lead to many problems because no one will really know who is who unless they video chat online. We can still use Social Information Processing Theory since we can still adapt cues into the verbal channel even with the new changes.

Even though it is a big issue now, Problematic Internet Usage will become even bigger of an issue in the future. With the computers advancement, everything is at the tips of our fingers. We soon can watch TV from our computer and have no need for actual televisions in our rooms. Attractions might become more intense leading to more problems due to internet dating taking off. Will Youtube or Facebook evolve into a bigger time consuming monster then it already is now?

What will happen in the future is unpredictable and will be very interesting to follow. This means that this course’s future will be on a rise because the internet seems to be getting richer and richer as the years progress.

Bonus Assignment: The Future Freaks Me Out...

When deciding what it is, exactly, that the future of the internet, and the subsequent psychology associated with it, will hold, I first tried to figure out what it is that will change most. It can generally be agreed upon that the internet of the future will be faster, have better graphics, be more involved/realistic, and be more universal. All of these changes, on their own, are positive, and should generally make internet use a more positive experience for everyone. It is likely, however, that these changes will bring with them an increased occurrence of problematic internet use, a serious problem that afflicts a myriad of different internet users around the world today.

Currently, problematic internet use is defined by Caplan (2004) as maladaptive cognitions and behaviors involving Internet use that result in negative academic, professional, and social consequences. Maladaptive behavior includes both excessive, amount of time exceeding planned, and compulsive, inability to control one’s online activity, use. Caplan also came up with the Theory of Problematic Internet Use and Psychological Well-Being, which reads as follows:

1. individuals with psychosocial problems hold negative perceptions about their social competence
2. these individuals prefer online interaction because it is less threatening and they feel more efficacious
3. preference for online interaction leads to excessive and compulsive online interaction, which then worsens their problems (at school, home, work)

1, leads to 2, which leads to 3, which only increases the feelings and emotions that are experienced in 1, creating a self perpetuating cycle that results in a downward emotional spiral.

People are still going to have problems in the future, so it seems unlikely that the psychological problems that lead to problematic internet use are going to be leaving society anytime soon. There are also, however, properties of the internet that encourage and promote problematic internet use. These include, but are not limited to, availability, access to human contact twenty-four-seven, worlds and environments that allow you to escape from your own, and online social interaction methods that can, for some, act as a substitute for real world social interactions. It can be expected that these properties will only become stronger as the internet advances and becomes more effective at drawing users in.

Imagine this: An online world that is as real as life itself. In this world you can walk around, you can eat, you can talk with your friends, you can live in your expensive house, you can drive your boats and your cars, and you can kiss and make love to your significant other. All of this, as real to you as life itself. Now, ask yourself why, if you had a dream world where none of life’s real problems existed, would you ever want to leave?

12: CMC in the Future

I think that in the future, as new technologies are created, we will see even more computer mediated communication. It will be interesting to see how people will respond to new technology. Right now, so many of us are online all of the time to the point that problematic internet use has been recognized as a type of problem. So will we eventually “correct ourselves” and focus more on ftf interactions with future generations? Will we ever stop and say enough is enough? Children are getting on the computer at younger and younger ages, will it ever become a TV replacement? Overall, I think it will be fascinating to see how we will continue to deal with the new media, how we will raise our kids in a media-dominant society and the different directions the media will move in.

While I believe this new technology will change theories we hold now about impression formation, I think that some of the basic ideas of theories will stay the same. With regards to the Cues Filtered Out Perspective, I think that it will slowly start to fade and not really be used anymore. At this point in time, it is not truly accurate of the impressions people make online, so in the future, I do not think it will be used. However, I think that the Social Information Processing Theory and the Hyperpersonal model will continue into the future. People will continue to adapt cues into the verbal channel and while I think that the length of time needed to get an impression similar to ftf will keep getting shorter, for now, time is still needed. With the hyperpersonal model, I think that online, because people can, they will try to portray themselves in the best way possible and selectively self present certain cues, and then will over attribute the few cues they receive. While it may be harder to do this in the future, I do not think it will go away very quickly.

A topic that might be a part of psychology of social computing in the future is virtual classrooms. Will they become common in colleges and universities? What does a community look like in this type of “classroom,” do students do better or worse, should there even be virtual classrooms? Classes right now have changed to keep up with cmc with powerpoints instead of writing on the board and discussion boards online. Will education continue to move in a cmc direction?

Magic 8 Ball of the Psychology of the Internet

Technological determinism, the view that the availability of technology dictates our behaviour, probably wouldn't hold up very well. Technology will no doubt improve in the future and will probably make CMC come very close to FtF communication, but our interactions over CMC will still maintain a considerable distance from our FtF interactions. Even if the technology is available, people will probably still choose not to use some of it.

Visual anonymity will still remain a big part of the reason people are so attracted to the Internet. You can actively interact with other people, but they don't have to see you at the moment. Even though Social Distance Theory mostly applies to lying over CMC, it is still an indication of our comfort level over various social distances. On some days, all of us will feel both the need for company and the lack of desire to make ourselves presentable. Even more fundamentally, we rely on the lack of non-verbal cues to shield us from judgment and help us become a more ideal self (out of the four aspects of the "self). Cues Filtered Out, instead of a negative thing, will precisely be the main attraction of the Internet. It allows for the effective removal of gating features. Even with the technology available now (webcam, video conference, etc), we still choose to remain anonymous. A friend recently told me that he only uses his webcam for close friends and family. So if a chatroom requires webcam communication to make CMC closer to FtF, the chatroom will probably have a rocky future because it is ripping through most people's safety blanket of anonymity.

So a fundamental thing that will stay the same even as technology changes is people's mentality to stay behind the veil of anonymity. Even if technology allows for it, people would not want to make CMC too much like FtF. This will, to some degree, limit the market for some new technology. That's why the webcame market is not as big as one would think it should be. (Come on, long-distance visual communication? That should be a hot item straight out of a cool sci-fi movie. But it's not.)

A future issue that we may want to discuss in this class is Internet crimes. We covered a little bit of it during the Digital Deception unit. But there are so many of them out there! Why do we feel okay downloading movies and music illegally while we won't normally walk out of a store with a CD under our jackets? Does CMC actually diminish our feelings of right and wrong and confuse our moral compass? That would be a very interesting phenomenon to study.

An Unknown and Exciting Future

Throughout this year, we have studied numerous theories and phenomena regarding social computing and its psychological effects. Although no one can truly know what the future will hold, we always have and will continue to make predictions. As the world becomes more dependent on computers and the Internet, I believe a few theories in particular will hold true. First, the Hyperpersonal Model, as CMC will always lead to a reduced breath of content (there is only so much you can learn over the Internet about a person) and consequently lead to an increased intensity in attributions. In addition, a few others include Media Richness Theory, Social Distance Theory and the Feature-based Model of deception. In terms of the former, as our society becomes increasingly computer dependent (with online dating becoming even more popular with time), there will always be a need for a match between the equivocality of a task and the appropriate means of communication. As for the latter, I believe an increase in social computing dependence will lead to increased problems with Internet deception, and therefore, both theories will be important, as they predict which medium will be used for different forms of deception. Finally, Caplin’s Theory on Problematic Internet Use will also hold, as greater social computing dependence will lead to greater PIU symptoms.

A few theories that will not be applicable in the future include Social Presence Theory, Reduced Social Context Cues and Social Information Processing. As we are currently seeing trends toward increased Internet dating (and modality switching actually working), these theories that predict less social presence, poorly developed and negative impression formation, and slower impression formation in CMC, respectively, will not hold in the future. Moreover, if these were even entirely true today, I do not believe there would be such an increase in Internet dating.

Certainly, we have learned quite a bit about the psychology of social computing. From examining impression formation via computer mediated communication to studying the switch from an online relationship to off, Comm 245 has covered a great range. However, new technologies are born everyday. Thus, many studies that seem pertinent today may not be appropriate tomorrow. As video chat has become increasingly popular, perhaps studying the technology’s effects on impression/relationship development may provide interesting results. Furthermore, in light of the future, maybe studies on dating through virtual reality may also be applicable, as our society moves closer toward blending the online world with reality.

Past, Present, and Future

Throughout the course we have learned about a number of theories that I believe are still very relevant. The class favorite, Hyperpersonal Model, will be a timeless theory. No matter what we know about the dangers of the CMC world and how it may warp our impressions of those we interact with on the internet, the human psyche will likely always draw us into exaggerated thoughts and feelings. In addition, the allowances of the internet (high deindividuation being one of them), will likely always be utilized at its full advantage. When the opportunity arises, people will likely choose to self-present themselves in the best light and look for common ground to connect with others around the world.

Another important topic covered in this class was Caplan's Theory on Problematic Internet Use. Considering the way internet is incorporated into almost everything our generation does, it put into perspective how much is too much internet usage and whether we are at risk of PIU. I'm sure it also relieved a few people to know that they may not be using the internet too much. Caplan's Theory seems to also contain many important elements to it since it deals with psychological issues linked to the internet. I feel the internet will always allow socially inept people to become comfortable somewhere in the world and has a high chance of taking over other aspects of their lives.

One thing that I think should be covered in future classes is how the internet is affecting us as students and as potential employees in the future. Are there any studies out there linking social skills to internet use? Is our generation becoming less able to communicate ideas face to face because we have become so used to text based environments? Also, it would be interesting to see if our multi-tasking skills may be better than previous generations due to our use of several different sources i.e. Youtube, listening to music, chatting, playing a video game, writing e-mail, all while writing a paper. These would be interesting topics to discuss for the future if there is any good literature out there exploring these roles.

11: A rather odd dating situation gone bad...

Aubrey, a 24-year-old woman from the Philippines, posted her experience with a boyfriend she first met online. She openly admits her dysfunction with dating. Her need to always be in a relationship affects her judgment, as evidenced by her blog post. Upon entering a chat room, Aubrey met Calvin. The two got to know each other online over a two-week period before the decided to meet. While their online interaction was brief, she felt she knew who Calvin was. Despite a few undesirable qualities, Calvin was a “nice guy” who was trying to turn his life around. After a bout with drug addition, Calvin was trying to get his life together. He too was lonely and looking for a relationship. In her post, Aubrey does not go into much detail about her expectations. In fact, it’s implied that she really didn’t have any, she came across as despite to find a new “boy” after her breakup a few days prior. After meeting Calvin, she quickly learned that his issues were far from resolved and his verbally abusive nature quickly revealed itself. However, Aubrey wanted to help Calvin and tolerated the abuse thinking that she could have a positive impact. Needless to say, the relationship didn’t last long. After a month and a half, Calvin broke up with her and threatened to kill her if she came near him again!

The developmental process of Aubrey’s outrageous story can be explained by Ramirez and Wang’s study on modality switching (the move from an online relationship to an offline relationship). The Expectancy Violation Theory (EVT) explains that when a relationship has little time to develop there are fewer expectations as a result of heightened uncertainty. Calvin’s violation of Aubrey’s opinion of him as a “good guy” trying to turn his life around had a less severe impact on the development of the offline relationship because the accumulated valence of past behavior was sort of neutralized. Aubrey knew that Calvin had issues, as did she with her need to be in a relationship, therefore, the valence, in Aubrey’s mind, was flighty and one that was not deeply invested in. Hence, the modality switch after interacting for only a short period online provided social information that was unexpected. This supports Ramirez and Wang’s first hypothesis.

Assignment #11

Last semester, I lived off campus with four roommates. Wireless internet was included in our rent. Our landlord opted for the cheapest option possible, purchased the least expensive routers and installed wireless networks himself. That did not work out so well. We had multiple internet connection problems. In the middle of semester, we suddenly lost ability to go online although our signal was "strong." It was a very frustrating situation. Since the router was installed in my room, I got in charge of trying to fix this mess. That's when my relationship with netgear representative R started.

He was randomly assigned to me when I emailed technical support. Since our landlord and wireless provider were not able to help me with our connection problems, I resorted into contacting netgear, the manufacturer. He responded to my somewhat vague "I see signals, but I can't connect to any websites" with a simple question; "can you connect to websites using ethernet cord?" Why, yes I can. Afterwards I started receiving considerably longer instructions, such as how to do "ipconfig" and update our router. After a month of futile email correspondence, my landlord finally decided to pay for someone to take a look. And then wireless internet became alive and my short CMC with R was abruptly ended.

My interactions with R the computer support assistant mostly demonstrated hyperpersonal model. Although our interactions were limited to topics related to wireless network, I attributed various characteristics.He always had a suggestion and ended with courteous "Glad to be assisting you." Sure his responses were probably cut-and-paste cookie-cutter ones from the customer assistance manual. But he always had an answer and responded in a timely manner. It was fascinating. I assumed that he'd be a courteous and resourceful in real life. At the end, I didn't even consider the fact that he never actually solved the wireless problem.

#11 Wow, you are... really different from how I pictured you!

Jarring! Disorienting! Disappointing! It sounds like the move from virtual to actual world always creates negative feelings. My friend's tale tells a different story.

In order to study abroad in any English-speaking country other than US, students must take the IELTS to prove their proficiency in English. Numerous forums have sprung online for people to exchange information regarding the test. My friend LJ was preparing to study in Britain. She joined a few forums, offering and receiving help from people in similar situations (i.e. send each other practice exams, etc). After a while, a few of them from the same city decided to meet. The results were great. They found the actual conversations in English were more helpful for their test preparation, and they got along quite well. This would seem to contradict the predictions of SIDE and hyperpersonal model, but I feel it's a combination of a few theories.

First of all, LJ's meeting was very task-oriented. Each person had a very specific goal: to improve their English. From the forum to the FtF meeting, this goal didn't change. Though they were interested in each other's life, social attractiveness wasn't their main purpose so they didn't expect much along that line. Secondly, Hyperpersonal model certainly plays a big role here. Where LJ lives, most people able to study abroad must be from a higher socioeconomic class. This is an uniting factor and a basis for great overattribution. LJ and her friends all assumed things about each other: good family background, etc. This made them think they were more alike than they really were. BUT these things were obviously not talked about in their meeting. They obviously didn't ask each other how much money their parents made. So there were basically no cues to give away their differences. Lastly, Uncertainty Reduction Theory also had a role. In the forum, you can hide rotten speaking skills if you are a good writer. But through their actual conversations, they realized their English skills were about the same. Which made them feel more alike and probably contributed to the overall success of the meeting.

To me, the relationship seems long-term (they had known each other for a few months when they met) so its positive outcome in FtF would contradict Ramiraz & Wang. But again, it's important that the meeting was task-oriented and people were probably more comfortable with each other because their goal in CMC and FtF remained the same.

Assignment 11

As I continued to become more involved with online chat, especially Msn Messenger, I began to build a friendship network. As the majority of my online friends were people I personally knew offline, I began to pick up a few that I knew through people, in particular “Kirsten.” These were people that I had never formally met before but began to chat with online every once in a while. Even though we started with some common ground, the friends we shared, it was still different than actually getting to know the person firsthand.

Since instant messaging chat is a very real form of online communication, getting to know Kirsten was easier than other forms of online chat. With synchronous responses, the conversations could be meaningful and actual attempts to get to know her. As things progressed to a more comfortable level, we decided that meeting that other person was something that should be done. We exchanged pictures and told each other where we would be one night and if we managed to see each other great, if not just try it again. It just so happens that we ended up at the same place and actually met in person.

Since we had exchanged pictures, I knew what she was going to look like so the sudden appearance was not a shock. What came as some what of a surprise to me was her personality. I wasn’t sure what to expect because of the emotionless conversations but once we met FtF I was pleasantly surprised that she was somewhat genuine and enjoyed life.

I would have to go against the SIDE theory because it states that if differentiation occurs, the reaction would be negative but since I thought Kirsten was a nice and genuine girl, my reaction was positive. The hyperpersonal model did play a factor, since I was able to develop a perception of Kirsten but indeed it wasn’t supported in real life. Along with SIDE, my reaction was of the positive nature and we didn’t come across the problem of information sharing outside of CMC.

Assignment 11

The summer before my freshman year at Carnegie Mellon (I am a transfer to Cornell), I received the contact information of my two future roommates, John and Benny. Eager to talk to the people I would be living with, I emailed them introducing myself and shared my excitement for the coming year. After one or two emails each, we all exchanged AIM screen names to make chatting easier. We talked as a group a few times to find out who was bringing what, and to share a bit more about ourselves. John and I seemed to have a lot in common; we liked similar music, were interested in the same program, and had similar high school experiences. John and I talked a lot throughout the summer, typically every other day. I didn’t think I had anything in common with Benny; he was from the Midwest looking to pursue a degree in art. I thought John and I would be great friends when our relationship would finally leave the virtual world, whereas I was expecting to be just cordial towards Benny.

The relationship I had with John online can be characterized with the hyperpersonal model. Since we had a few shared interests and beliefs, we over-attributed each others personalities, filling in the blanks with information that wasn’t really there. Since the period of the online contact was relatively long, about three months, we had a lot of well formed impressions, even if these impressions were completely false due to the over-attribution. With Benny, our relatively short period of interaction online that transitioned to FtF can be characterized by the uncertainty reduction theory. Since we had little contact in CMC, FtF interaction reduced uncertainty.

The results of Ramirez and Wang’s study on the effects of modality switching apply to both of these relationships. With John, the modality switch ended up diminishing the communication process and social outcomes. Our well formed CMC perception of each other turned out to be blatantly incorrect; we butted heads as roommates and became involved with completely different activities. With Benny, the modality switch provided additional details about each other that we didn’t form impressions about in our short contact via CMC. I was pleasantly surprised, and although we weren’t best friends, we got along very well and still talk from time to time.

11: Um... you're weird. Let's stay virtual friends!

The summer before coming to Cornell for my freshman year, I was a bit worried because I did not know any of my future peers. In an effort to alleviate some of this nervousness and worriment, I decided to enter the chat room on the Cornell “Class of 2009” website. After about fifteen minutes of being in the chat room I began chatting with “Rick.” It started off simple enough—we made small talk about our interests, where we were both from, our intended majors, and other such information. We ended up chatting for nearly three hours that first night. It seemed amazing! I felt as if I had actually connected with somebody that I would like to become friends with while at Cornell. After that first night we ended up chatting at least twice a week and even exchanged emails. As our virtual conversations continued over the weeks I felt as though I was really getting to know Rick. I could hardly wait to arrive in Ithaca at the end of the summer to meet my new friend.

Based on your great conversations you would probably assume that once we met in person we would click instantly and become best-buds, right? Um… wrong! I remember arriving to Cornell and then heading to the dining hall, just as Rick and I had agreed to do, and finally meeting him, face-to-face. It was one of the most awkward and confusing experiences I had ever endured! I thought I knew Rick based on our virtual conversations. However, our instant messages and emails didn’t prepare me for his nasty mannerisms, rude physical actions, his blunt attitude, and immature social interactions when face to face with not only me, but also with others. I was totally confused—why was he not the “cool” Rick that I had conversed with online?

My interactions with Rick can be best summed up and described by incorporating Walther’s Hyperpersonal Theory. This theory suggests that CMC allows users to selectively self-present themselves, allowing certain impressions to be formulated. Walther suggests that users will resort to overattribution and exaggeration of learned details based on a lack of cues. This was the case with Rick. Based on only our virtual conversations, I had used the limited cues to assume how he would behave when our relationship left virtuality. The hyperpersonal model also predicts negative outcomes for leaving virtuality and this fits with my experience: when we first met, I formed a negative impression of the once “cool” Rick. I had assumed we would get along well and interact in a particular way (which was TOTALLY incorrect!).

Needless to say, Rick and I are no longer “face-to-face” friends. He and will chat from occasionally while online, but we have never spent time together since that initial meeting. Perhaps Walther, Ramirez, and Wang are correct—some relationships should never leave viruality. As for Rick, I’d much rather have him as a virtual friend and would probably rather spend time with crazy Britney Spears than hang out with him!

-Joshua Navarro


My Comments:

http://comm245purple.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11-first-impressions-can-be.html

http://comm245purple.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11-actually-youre-weird.html#comments

11. What happens in CMC should STAY in CMC

During my freshman year of high school, my best friend began
dating a girl from another town. He wanted to be able
to spend more time with her, so he convinced me to try and
befriend one of her good friends online so that we could
all hang out together. I reluctantly agreed. I was given this
 girl’s screen name, and we began to talk on AIM. While
it was awkward in the beginning, I found that she seemed
to be one of the most fun people I had ever talked to.
She was very open and spontaneous, and as Uncertainty
Reduction theory predicts, the more time we spent talking
online, the more intimate our conversations became, and
the more positively we viewed one another. 

My friend broke up with his girlfriend well before I ever got
to meet this girl, so it seemed like our friendship would have
to remain online. Months of such conversations went by, and
 we talked more and more frequently. We both believed
that we were romantically interested in one another, and she
 made plans to come visit me. When we finally did meet,
it was the strangest experience of my life. When we saw
one another for the first time, we both realized that we
didn’t really know each other at all. I could tell that we both
felt ridiculous as we walked back from the train station
to my house, and rather than being the fun, flirtatious and s
pontaneous person I had been speaking to online, she
looked like a deer trapped in the headlights. I can’t imagine
that I was much better- the level of uncertainty about
exactly where we stood, (I mean, I knew so much about her
but had never even seen her before), led me to be almost
completely silent. It redefined awkward. 

The Ramirez and Wang article would predict these findings.
We had been over attributing the positive characteristics
and things we had in common online, and had developed
very strong impressions of one another. However, these
impressions were not representative, and when we met
one another, we were obviously confused and let down. 

Suffice it to say that we agreed she should probably
just go home about an hour after she arrived.
We never spoke again.

Assignment 11: First impressions can be great, but...

When asked to write about a relationship that began online and later left virtuality to meet face to face, I had difficulty thinking up such a relationship that had occurred. Because I knew my freshman roommate before we were assigned housing in those wonderful townhouses, the only relationship I could think of was the one that developed between me and my roommate and our two suitemates (as they were friends prior to moving in as well).

My roommate and I had not heard from the two of them all summer, so we decided to send them an email because we did not know either of their AIM screen names or if they even had AIM. We sent them basic information about ourselves, such as where we’re from, major, favorite movie, favorite T.V. show, etc; typical get-to-know-you information. They didn’t respond for a couple of weeks (which didn’t send a positive initial impression of my future housemates); however, when they finally did, I found that we had some things in common. The three of us (excluding my roommate) were all from a big city, and we liked similar movies and T.V. shows. Based on this information (I sent an email back to them but there was no further correspondence), it seemed like we would get along well in the upcoming year.

All I have to say is move in day was a shock to me. After the modality switch, meeting them for the first time face to face, I realized that they were not at all what I had expected them to be. Unfortunately, the modality switch led to a contradiction of my little knowledge and expectations of them. Needless to say, we did not get along like I had expected. My impressions followed the hyperpersonal model: I formed exaggerated impressions of my suitemates based on the few cues they had given me over the summer. It turns out that we did not have as much in common as I had expected. They were also much quieter and shyer than I assumed. When my roommate and I invited them to go places with us, such as dinner at RPU, they refused therefore making it difficult to get to know them face to face, just as it had been difficult getting to know them through computer mediated communication. My modality switch therefore, unfortunately, led to a negative impression of my suitemates. I was expecting great relationships to form throughout freshman year based on the few cues I had; however, my expectations did not develop as I predicted.

Assignment # 11: Next time I won't have such high expectations!

The summer after my sophomore year of high school, I spent six weeks traveling cross-country on a teen tour with 40 other teenagers my age. Before embarking on the trip, I conversed with another teen, Jared, who was signed up for the same program dates. We spoke a few times online using instant messenger and eventually met face to face on the first day of the tour. Initially, I was only able to form an impression of Jared from our communication through CMC. The shift to then meeting him face-to-face, is an example of modality switching, which had an impact on our relationship. My experience can be characterized by the Expectancy Violation Theory which says that a violation of expectations (behavior that deviates from currently held expectations) triggers a chain of events directed at explaining its occurrence (Ramirez and Wang). I experienced violations of expectations of the social information that was initially processed. Specifically, I envisioned him to be physically attractive and assumed that he would be outgoing and friendly. Instead, I found him to be relatively shy and less attractive than expected. As a result, our relationship was dampened when we met face-to-face.

I think that these examples of violated expectations can be explained by the hyperpersonal model. One component of the hyperpersonal model is over attribution of similarity and common norms. Since my online interaction with Jared was rather brief, I think that I may have formed an over idealized impression of him. Since he was friendly and seemed confident online, I assumed that he would be very friendly and physically attractive based on our interaction through CMC. I also attributed our common interests to mean that we were far more similar to each other than in reality. Another component of the hyperpersonal model that also seems to help explain these inconsistencies in expectations is selective self presentation. Perhaps because CMC lacks many non-verbal cues, Jared was able to control our interaction and present himself in a positive manner. He probably also had more confidence in himself which explains my expectation of him being very physically attractive.

My experience with modality switching seems to be consistent with some of the findings of the Ramirez and Wang paper. They hypothesized and proved that MS, relative to interacting through only CMC, will provide social information perceived as less expected. My encounters with expectancy violations of partner behavior and physical attractiveness support these results. Another finding was that with MS, social information would be perceived as more relationally important. In my relationship with Jared, I felt that social information was more important upon meeting him relative to when I had simply talked to him online. Our interactions in person led me to place much more emphasis on social information and had an impact on our relationship throughout the six weeks we traveled together. These results show how relationships can be affected by experiencing modality switching from online communication to face-to-face interaction.

Assignment #11 - My "Perfect" Roommate

When I decided to defer for a year and spend it in Israel, I wanted have a completely unique experience and therefore decided to try my luck by going potluck to pick a roommate. During July, I found out that my roommate was going to be a German girl two years older than me named Anna. I decided to begin emailing her in the summer in order to have a familiar person to look forward to seeing when I moved half way around the world. We emailed back and forth throughout the rest of the summer and through the cliché icebreakers and “getting-to-know-you” questions, we discovered that we shared a lot of common ground and it appeared that we were a perfect match. I was only too excited to meet her and when I arrived in Israel, I was told that she would be arriving a week later, which only built up my anticipation of finally meeting her.

However, after meeting, we quickly discovered that our common ground was only pertinent to the online world. We learned that we had extremely different interests, lifestyles and groups of friends. I felt that many of the personality traits on which I felt that we based our connection on never surfaced. By the end of two months living together, our interactions were cordial but not at all warm and were typically to superficial conversations that included statements like “Do you want me to turn the light off now?”

My experience was strongly affected by the Hyperpersonal model as I based my impression of Anna on personality traits affected by the over-attribution process as well as selective self-presentation. For example, Anna recounted a story that led me to assume that she was typically a loud, lively girl only and after meeting her it became apparent this story atypical of her behavior. My initial impression of meeting her in person was negative which is consistent with the Hyperpersonal model as it predicts a negative outcome for when an interaction transitions from virtuality to in-person.

I also found that my experience was consistent with Ramirez & Wang’s Expectancy Violation Theory as meeting Anna was quite a disappointing experience. I had built up my expectation of meeting her because I assumed that it would go off without a hitch and that I would find a roommate I could actually bond with. In fact, I was a bit anxious the rest of the year because I found living with her to be an awkward experience and when she went to Germany for two weeks, I found myself hoping that she wouldn’t return.Ramirez & Wang attribute this negative outcome to the fact that we spent a few weeks chatting each other up before we met. Perhaps if we only had FtF interactions, it wouldn’t have been such a disappointment to meet her.

11: Am I Attracted To Beager and Calabrese?

This blog post brought back a funny memory of mine from high school, in which I “took one for the team.” My best friend met this girl at a party and they exchanged screen names and a few days later conversed over AIM. After talking for a week or so, they decided to setup a date. The only catch was that it had to be a double date, which is where I come in. She wanted her friend to come along on the date, so I was my buddy’s wing man. I agreed to take the girl out as long as we got to talk beforehand. He got me her screen name, and we started talking a couple of days before the date was suppose to occur.

Talking to this total stranger was a little weird at first because we didn’t know anything about each other and we were really dragged into the situation by our friends. The first 20 minutes or so was awkward because we weren’t paying that much attention to each other since the interest level was not there. After we got past the introduction phase, we both suddenly became interested in each other and began our CMC relationship. It’s interesting because I was attracted to her without even seeing what she looked like. We exchanged physical characteristics of each other, but decided to make it interesting by revealing what we looked like on the date. Other then characteristics that we possessed we talked about anything and everything for the next couple of day’s non-stop, almost as if we had known whom the other person was.

The gentlemen that we were, we picked them up at my friend’s date’s house and took them out to eat. Seeing my date for the first time was actually shocking because she was not the type of girl I normally would go after, however, I was attracted to her in a different way. Throughout the night we joked around and had a lot of fun in our conversation over dinner, and I could feel that the attraction was there for her as well. After that date, we actually went on a few more dates before we got into a relationship. Unfortunately for my friend it didn’t work out as well, but they decided just to be friends.

My first face-to-face meeting was the date in which the communication was no longer through an AOL chat. Beager and Calabrese's Uncertainty Reduction Theory states that the reduction of uncertainty leads to attraction. When someone has a lot of information about the other person online it will then lead to an increased liking in a relationship. When we left the online world and met face-to-face we had a very positive effect. After our date, we continued to converse online and eventually found more things that we had in common. Our impressions of one another did not change, and our conversations online continued to be the same as before we had gone on the date. McKenna's attraction theory played a role as well in my situation. I believe that some of our attractions were due to common interests. Another small factor was the SIDE theory; SIDE predicts that when moving from individuality into a group that the interaction will be more positive than being in a one on one situation. This held true for our date since our first interaction of face-to-face was on a double date with people we were comfortable with.

Assignment 11- Yeah, Yeah, my girlfriend was right

So I have a problem that my girlfriend hates, I tend to, believe-it-or-not, follow stereotypes or what people generally consider a characteristic of a group. My brother quit the hockey team in high school because the team was a bunch of goons and arrogant rich kids. That is the sort of stereotype I sometimes use. Or things like a certain team always has good parties for the ladies on campus because it is a bunch of chiseled guys who have a tendency to wear very little clothing. Yes, I am wrong from time to time, but, what keeps me from breaking the habit, the idea behind such stereotypes is that they are usually true.

Where am I going with this? The Social Identity and Deindividuation Effects theory (or SIDE theory) says relationships are built between groups and within groups based off of certain tying or separating characteristics, or...stereotypes. What happens when people find out the truth or even just the other side of someone in another group, is that their opinion and not coincidentally, their relationship changes. They had an opinion based off of the characteristics of a group, when those characteristics are proved otherwise...the opinion and relationship changes.

My specific story is recent, in a group project I and a friend were assigned another person to work with. I emailed that person, asked them when they were normally free, what year they were, what they were studying, and how much experience they had in the project we were going to undertake. He is a senior, biology/pre-med major, and had little experience before the course started. I facebook stalked him, won't deny it, and made some other silly assumptions about him. In this case, I was not thrilled with what I had learned about him in the CMC environment, I doubted his ability to work in a group effectively. When we all finally got together for the first meeting, it turns out the TAs had done a very good job combining our group, and while he was what he was online, he was more, and that more played a good compliment to what my friend and I were, and our group is working really well. My girlfriend was right, but I will say that, still, usually, I am right.

An Online Relationship Tragedy

“Kids need to be taught not to be so trustworthy online. You can’t be so gullible.” –Bob Abram

It began as a casual online relationship, but rapidly turned into a nightmare. Chelsea Abram, 16, began chatting with Sam Levitan, supposedly 16, over the internet (in a chat room) and quickly grew fond of their conversations. When both felt they knew each other well, Levitan became pushy, hoping to meet Abram in person. On August 14, 2005 during the night, Levitan called Abram’s house and asked to meet with her. At first rejected, Levitan tried once more, this time from Abram’s driveway. Realizing his dedication to the relationship, Abram conceded, allowing Levitan to drive her to her friend’s house. Instead of going to their original destination, Levitan brought Abram to his home, where he raped and tormented her. Hours later, he dropped Abram off at her friend’s house. Half a year later, on News Years Day, Abram shot herself with her father’s .22-caliber pistol. It was later found that Levitan was 22 at the time of the rape, not 16 as he had told Abram.

This modality switch from an online relationship to offline certainly relates to Walther’s Hyperpersonal Model, as the model predicts a negative outcome for leaving virtuality. Within Walther’s model, individuals interacting via CMC (Computer Mediated Communication) will form stereotypic views of their partners. The Hyperpersonal Model begins with an over-attribution process, in which CMC factors, such as fewer characteristics to attribute (breadth), lead to inflated perceptions of partners. In the case of Chelsea Abram’s conversation, as the relationship progressed, Abram felt Levitan’s self-disclosure was genuine and began to like him, presumably believing he was a good person. The problem with their relationship can also be understood through the Hyperpersonal Model, as the channel of communication (chat room) allowed for selective self-presentation. Levitan made himself out to be honest and respectful, with only the best intentions for the relationship. Obviously, his self-presentation was quite deceitful. After leaving virtuality, Levitan had less control over information sharing. However, he was able to fool her until they reached his house. Then his true personality was shown.

Regarding Ramirez’s and Wang’s article on Modality Switching (MS), the online relationship fits with hypothesis three, which states that “MS following a long-term association via CMC will provide social information that will be (a) evaluated more negatively and (b) uncertainty-provoking relative to interacting via CMC.” Abram and Levitan interacted online for nearly two months before meeting each other. By that time, both had learned quite a bit about each other (or Abram thought). By the time they did meet each other, Abram discovered Levitan’s true character, which was incredibly negative. Additionally, the social information gained after the MS also provoked greater uncertainty, as Abram found Levitan's personality much different than how she had perceived online.

11: Likes me, Likes me not, Likes me

Before coming to Cornell my freshman year, one of my future suitemates IMed me over the summer and we talked a few times online before school. We had the basic “get to know you” conversations concerning our interests, activities, summer jobs, future majors, etc. When we finally met on move-in day, I was taken by surprise. My suitemate was not who I expected her to be and I initially did not like her.

I think that my experience of leaving virtuality fits with the hyperpersonal theory. I had an idealized impression of what I thought my suitemate would be like. Because we only spoke 2 or 3 times, I did not know much about her, and I overattributed the few cues I got. On the internet, we got along well. While her interests were slightly different from mine, we still connected and the conversations flowed easily. I figured this would carry over into our ftf interaction. However, when I met her, I was surprised by her personality, tone of voice, and expressions – it did not seem like we had anything in common. According to the hyperpersonal theory, CMC allows users to selectively self-present and “senders tailor messages to cater exceedingly positive impressions” (Ramirez & Want). We both tried to give each other good impressions of ourselves and also focused on things we had in common. So when I finally met her, I did not expect her to be so different from me. The hyperpersonal model predicts negative outcomes for leaving virtuality and this fits with my experience: when we first met, I formed a negative impression of my suitemate.

This leaving virtuality also fits with one of the main results discussed in Ramirez & Wang. In the study, participants rated the social information acquired by modality switching as an expectancy violation despite the short-term versus long-term measures. Similarly, when I first met my suitemate in person after talking to her online, she was not who I expected her to be. Our ftf interaction provided me with a lot more information than I had gotten online. Seeing how she expressed herself and acted around others, gave me more insight into who she was but this did not fit with who I thought she was.

Overall, “initial in-person encounters following a period of online interaction have the potential to significantly influence interpersonal processes and outcomes” (Ramirez & Wang). My online impression differed from my ftf impression and initially, this led me to form a negative impression of my suitemate. But despite the original negative expectancy violation, she ended up becoming one of my closest friends at school.

You Like Pink, too? Wow, we have SO much in common!

After joining the Accepted: University of Michigan Class of 2011 group on Facebook, my neighbor, Rachel immediately started making connections with others in the group. She even went into college in a “complicated relationship with” a girl she had met on Facebook and communicated with through instant messenger over the summer. Learning about their present friendship outside of the virtual world, I better understand how leaving virtuality ties into the Hyperpersonal theory of computer-mediated communication (Walther, 1997).

Although switching to a face-to-face form of communication provides more social cues and information about a person, this is not necessarily going to benefit the relationship (Ramirez, 2007). According to the Hyperpersonal theory, (Walther, 1997) impressions online will likely be exaggerated versions of the other person’s true character. Selective self-presentation allows the presenter to modify and mold the way he or she represents him or herself, giving off the best impression possible. Although this can be beneficial to relationship formation, it also raises expectations of the other by both parties. Text-based communication likely leads to a belief in many more similarities than actually exist in reality and a sort of “idealized” view of the other person. Students going into their first year of college are in such a vulnerable state and are likely to put even more weight on these conversations, taking each word of the other person as a sign that they were meant to be life long friends. According to the Laws of Attraction, it is the proportion of shared attitudes and beliefs that leads to attraction and thus the fewer cues available in a mediated channel may heighten this phenomenon. When Rachel met this girl in the University of Michigan class of 2011 group, and they both learned of their true love for the color pink, it seemed like a match made in heaven.

When they finally met at school, already in a Facebook “complicated relationship,” the girls likely expected to be best friends. They had highly over-attributed their similarities to one another and had very high expectations of what their friendship would be. They are simply two very different people who get along well, but ironically are by no means as close as they were when they were sitting in separate rooms, on opposite sides of the country, and behind their own computer screens. Since the time they spent online was more similar to the “long-term” group used in Ramirez and Wang’s (2007) study, it makes sense that their move out of virtuality was less expected and less positive. Meeting people online prior to school can certainly reduce anxiety about attending college. Unfortunately, it may also lead people to put all of their attention on and effort into the success of these expected friendships because they worked so well online. However, there are so many new people to meet in that first rush of excitement at college, it is important not to solely consider these prior CMC relationships that may or may not work out.

comment 1

comment 2

Assignment 11...Not as bad as I expected.

It is always an interesting and dynamic experience to meet and develop a relationship online, and then move that relationship from virtuality to reality. One personal example of such an occurrence can be seen by observing the development of my relationship with my freshmen roommate, who will hereon out be referred to as Joe. Throughout this relationship, there was one major social theory that was readily reflected by this experience, which is the Hyperpersonal Model, as formulated by Walther in 1997.

My first interaction with Joe was over e-mail. He sent me a message, introducing himself and telling me those few basic facts that new acquaintances exchange in their first interaction. I sent him an e-mail back, sharing some of the same information. After this initial exchange, we decided to take our relationship to the next level, and communicate over AIM. This interaction was more revealing, and led to me develop an inflated, and negative, impression of Joe’s true personality. One of the first things he told me was which county he was from, and how it was the richest in America. He then proceeded to tell me about all his feats, which included, amongst other things, being a genius, being a world class musician and athlete, and also having the potential to be a model for Abercrombie.

Needless to say, the arrogance that I perceived him to possess, since arrogance was one of the few cues I had to work with, became incredibly inflated, as predicted by the Hyperpersonal Model, and I had immediately formed a negative impression of him. When it was time to meet face to face, I was quite nervous, and was prepared for the worst. What I found however, was pleasantly surprising. Joe was considerably less arrogant, and far more laid back, than I had expected him to be. I found, therefore, that the Hyperpersonal Model created a positive outcome for my relationship with Joe when leaving virtuality. I was expecting the worst, and since my expectations were so low, based and exaggerated upon the few cues I had, I was pleasantly surprised in my face to face meeting when I found that Joe surpassed my expectations, and was not as bad as I was prepared to accept.

As predicted by the Hyperpersonal Model, I developed an exaggerated and inflated impression of my future roommate, based on the few cues I had. Since the impression I developed was negative, however, I had a positive outcome when moving my relationship from virtuality to reality.

Assignment 11- How I Met My Boyfriend

Last week, Professor Hancock asked us how many members of our class began a relationship with someone online that eventually moved face-to-face. Initially, I scoffed at the question and thought to myself "What's the point of beginning a relationship with someone online?" Then, I realized that my current boyfriend and I actually DID initially meet in CMC.

We found each other in a Myspace group that was dedicated to accepted members of Cornell's class of 2010 during our senior year of high school. We exchanged screen names, added each other as friends on Facebook, and eventually exchanged numbers (though we never actually spoke on the phone until much later). These interactions, mostly on AIM, built the foundation of our relationship by allowing us to discuss our common interests (mostly movies and football), and debate about things about which we did not hold similar views at the time. We kept CMC as our primary contact method until half way through orientation week, when we decided to meet for lunch.

After our first face to face meeting, my boyfriend's and my relationship was adjusted so that we left virtuality (with the exception of summer and other breaks when he is in Massachusettes and I am in Georgia). Our experience is consistant with Beager and Calabrese's Uncertainty Reduction Theory. Their theory states that the reduction of uncertainty leads to affinity or attraction. More information leads to increased liking and intimacy. Though I had seen enough photos of my boyfriend while our relationship was only online to know that he is an attractive person, I was not certain that I would be attracted to his offline personality, which might not have been as interesting or fun-loving. He and I immediately clicked in the online world, but my experience with other Cornell students who I had first met online told me that I might not always be compatible with those same people face to face. Even after over a year of dating, my boyfriend and I are still "reducing uncertainty." To this day, we are still increasingly attracted to each other as we learn more about each other.

Assignment 11 -- Actually, you're weird.

I remember a situation where a couple of female friends of mine were going on a double date – one girl was paired with her boyfriend, the other was being set up with his friend (a blind date). Both boys lived a little out of town, and neither went to school with all of us. “Mari” had been chatting online with “Jeff” before this first blind date. It seemed like they had really hit it off. In fact, she spoke of him all the time, and whenever I happened to be at her house, they were chatting on AIM. Over time, Mari’s impressions of Jeff were highly consistent with the Hyperpersonal model. She took the little information she had and developed strong over-attributions. They both enjoyed sports, had similar taste in music, etc. Within a few weeks she anticipated their first date leading to a romantic relationship. They spent a lot of time chatting late into the night, and expressed a lot of affection for each other.

Unfortunately, their date (a modality switch) was consistent with results discussed by Ramirez and Wang – after a long-term interaction in virtual reality, a Ftf interaction was sorely disappointing. Mari had built high expectations for their meeting, but consistent with Expectancy Violation Theory and Ramirez and Wang’s study, the experience did not meet expectations, increased uncertainty, and was quite negatively evaluated. Awkward would be an understatement, and Mari and Jeff actually never spoke again. She later confided to me that he was strange, boring, unattractive, and… well, you get the idea. This particular memory stands out significantly to me because of how extreme it was. It is also interesting how in line this specific event was with Ramirez and Wang’s theory. Maybe the situation would have panned out differently if they hadn’t chatted for so long beforehand – like the study also suggests. Regardless, the longer period of interaction via CMC enabled them to develop Hyperpersonal impressions, and subsequently, a modality switch to Ftf was a complete disaster. Ninth grade can be so hard sometimes.

comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=5278212485470618850
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=347346585241167108

Assignment #11: Relationships that leave virtuality

It's true that many people do form relationships online and then choose to move their friendship and/or romance offline into reality. Seeing that I don't personally know any couple that met online and continued their relationship in reality, I'm going to analyze the commercials for eharmony.com and match.com.

Both of these sites offer members the chance to create profiles that can be seen by other members. Each person can compare themselves with others who they feel they have the potential to really connect with through similar interests and backgrounds. When it comes to CMC, the Hyperpersonal Model can be applied because people rate others on fewer characteristics (because people choose what specific information to disclose on the internet profiles) and these ratings are therefore more intensified and exaggerated. The Hyperpersonal Model is composed of over-attribution processes, developmental aspects, selective self-presentation, re-allocation of cognitive resources and behavioral confirmation.

Because people only list selective information on their profiles, the information they share is managed. Even though, sites like eHarmony and match.com say that the information shared is enough to form a strong bond. The couples on the commercials stand to prove this, saying that they never believed they could find such love online (many met through the sites and moved on to marrying in real life).

Personally, I don't think I would make an account on such sites in hopes of finding my soulmate, but some of my friends have made profiles for fun just to see what the experience is all about. I believe that connections through CMC and dating sites can lead to lasting relationships, but such are few and far between.

Assignment # 11: Mr. Bad Guy is actually Mr. Nice Guy

One relationship that started online and left virtuality was the relationship I have with my boss from my summer internship. I saw a posting for the summer intern position on a Cornell website. So I emailed the contact person who was the director of the program, in order to ask about more information on applying for the position. For months he did not respond to me email. I assumed the position had been already filled. Months later, I decided to email him again. He finally replied with a very short and concise email asking me to send my resume to him. I did so. A couple of weeks later I got a call from someone asking to set up a time for an interview. When it came time for the interview I was very nervous. Because all of the emails that the director of the program sent to me were so short, concise, and not very friendly, I felt that he would be that same way in person, and that my interview might be more challenging than others. He also took a long time to respond which made me feel that he was not very interested in me as an applicant. I was very happily surprised however when I finally met him. Right away I could tell he was an extremely friendly person. He seemed genuinely interested in everything I said during the interview. He smiled a lot and made me feel very comfortable. This was the exact opposite of what I was expecting.

This outcome can be discussed along the lines of the Hyperpersonal Model. My thoughts about the program director were definitely exaggerated. I ascribed characteristics to him based on the little I knew about him through the emails he sent. I expected him to be concise and unfriendly because that’s how his emails were. However after my first meeting with my boss I realized he was very friendly and one of the warmest people I ever met. There was definitely an expectancy violation. My expectation for the FtF interaction was negative but actually ended up being very positive. Because of this expectancy violation there was an enhancement affect. Instead of being disappointed like some theories predict, my views of my boss were actually enhanced and became positive.

This assignment helped me realize how much we exaggerate online interactions and how these exaggerations affect our expectations for FtF meetings. If someone sends me a friendly email, I automatically think that when I meet them in person they will be friendly. Through the hyperpersonal model you can see that whether or not there is an expectancy violation determines what kind of effect you will have in person; either enhancement, like in my situation, or it could even be extreme disappointment in other situations.

#11: Mr Perfect is actually Mr Awkward

 It is easy for someone to be cool, witty, and even charming when in an
online chat box. But once you leave virtuality, the person you meet FtF
could be different than you ever imagined! When I was a senior in
highschool, my friend Becca, who lived in another state, had a family
friend’s son who had also been accepted to Cornell; for the purposes of
this blog I will call him Bob. She gave him my screen name and we began
talking regularly, thinking that once we got to Cornell we could be good
friends. After a while of talking we realized we had a lot in common, and
developed stronger feelings for one another. We decided to start a
relationship when we got to school, and in the meantime invited one
another to our senior proms. When I went up to visit Bob for his prom,
however, the funny, confident, and flirty boy I expected to meet up with
was, in reality, boring, uptight, and not very witty.  He was too shy to
hold my hand, he really was not that funny, and when we went out to dinner
we barely had anything to talk about. It was strange that this person, who
I had laughed with and joked with so much online, was suddenly completely
the opposite of how he presented himself to me. It is understandable for
things to have been awkward at first, since we were probably both nervous
to be spending a few days together for the first time FtF, but this
experience was beyond awkward, it was just terrible.
        I think a lot of the reason this experience was so disappointing can be
explained by the Ramirez & Wang article, and to an extent, the
Uncertainty Reduction Theory. This theory states that the more time
people spend talking to one another online, the more information they
gather and there is an increase in intimacy and liking. Bob and I had
gotten to know each other really well online. We had developed lots of
inside jokes and even shared personal stories, helped each other with
problems, and shared secrets. We spoke for a few hours every single day
for weeks and developed a strong liking for one another. URT predicts
that a positive outcome will occur when leaving virtuality. As I already
explained, the opposite happened and I realized that Bob was nothing like
I expected. As explained in the Ramirez & Wang article, the hyperpersonal
perspective explains why things did not work out when Bob and I met in
person. When speaking with Bob online I overanalyzed and over attributed
the limited cues he had given. This led me to develop “heightened
impressions and idealized partner expectation.” When he had made witty
remarks or jokes (that he probably had time to think about), I came to
the conclusion that he was hilarious. When I met him in person we barely
joked around together at all. Based on the comments he said online, I
figured he was a very confident and outgoing person, when in reality he
was very shy and my whole visit was awkward.  As a result, I feel like I
have personal experience to support the paper’s hypothesis that “MS
following a long-term association via CMC will provide social information
that will be evaluated more negatively and uncertainty-provoking relative
to interacting via CMC.”  I had formed such a high opinion of Bob after
talking to him online for months, that when I went up to visit him for
prom I viewed the situation and interaction very negatively. As my
“uncertainty” was reduced I viewed him in a negative light and realized
he was not the boy I had imagined him to be. 
  Needless to say I found a
new prom date for my own prom, and to this day give advice to friends
that if they ever have a crush on someone who seems “so perfect” online
or on facebook...they may want to spend a few hours with Mr. Perfect to
see if he really is as charming as they perceive.

Blog Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=80368646074219181
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=6495055022767021658