This was something that my ex and I got used to saying (I mean, typing) back and forth on countless occasions. Many of my peers and friends find it difficult to comprehend the fact that as a 19 year old I was able to maintain a stable relationship for over a year… with somebody who was 1,800 miles away for over eight months of the relationship.
My ex and I had met at a mutual friend’s party while I was home in Colorado for winter break of my freshman year. We instantly hit it off; all seemed great! However, there was one minor issue facing us—I was to return to Cornell only a few short days later. Intrigued and yearning to know each other more, we both agreed to contact each other in the near future. Before leaving the party I had expected to receive a phone number; but to my surprise I was handed a piece of paper… with an AOL screen name instead of a phone number. This felt like a total blow. Honestly, who gives screen names to somebody they claim to really have an interest in?! I tried to not think much of it as I gave my screen name in return. To my surprise, I received an instant message the day following the party. We chatted for hours that first day. I know it sounds a bit rushed, but we met up in person a few times later that week and by the end of the week we were an “unofficial item” (as my mother likes to call it).
Even though we eventually exchanged phone numbers, it is surprising how little we actually spoke on the phone. Sure, we spoke on the phone at least once a week. But it seemed as though we spent a plethora of hours chatting via AIM. I feel a majority of our relationship was developed through those countless hours spent chatting online. Why was this? Why did we feel most comfortable resorting to instant messaging as our primary medium of communication? You may be thinking that it would have been just as simple to pick up the phone and dial those simple ten digits. Though it is arguably true that using the phone would have been just as simple, would it have been just as effective?
I believe McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors help explain and played a major role in the development of my past relationship. One primary factor is identifiability, which pertains to the importance of disclosing information about oneself. My ex and I were clearly identifiable to one another which, according to McKenna, lead to an increase in self-disclosure. In return, this increased the development of the emotional bond between us. Instant messaging enabled us to present information that made us more identifiable as an individual, rather than just a screen name.
Another relationship facilitation factor suggested by McKenna is connecting to similar others; this is essentially the common ground principle. McKenna explains that one finds it easier to identify with, as well as connect with, others who have similar interests as one. Instant messaging allowed my ex and I to relay different stories and experiences to each other, expressing our interests and likes. Our CMC conversations also consisted of debates and discussions regarding favorite foods, music tastes, interests in books, movies, and the liking. This clearly allowed us to examine the qualities and characteristics we had in common. This factor of McKenna’s also suggests that a relationship can develop over time and space. In the example of me and my ex, this was clearly the case. For months we instant messaged, discussing and discovering endless commonalities (as well as differences).
I honestly do not think our relationship could have developed as greatly if we would have relied on telephone conversations versus instant messages. Even though the phone is thought of as a richer medium, we both felt more comfortable discussing deeper issues and details in text instead of relaying them verbally. We were able to truly identify and connect with each other due to the wonders of technology.
And just in case you are wondering, the relationship ended during the winter break of my sophomore year. When we met up in person during that winter break, there was something lacking in our face-to-face interactions. We both ironically felt our online relationship was much more exciting than our face-to-face interactional relationship. And more ironic, our instant messaging has nearly ceased… but we still call each other every now and then.
Weird, right?!
-Joshua Navarro
My Comments:
http://comm245purple.blogspot.com/2007/09/time-away-meant-more-time-together.html
http://comm245purple.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-long-distance-doesnt.html
7 comments:
Joshua, the title to your post caught me immediately and the content was even more interesting. I have been in a similar situation like yours back when I was in high school. The guy I was seeing had a thing about constantly text messaging me and most of our conversation and interaction (sadly enough) was through some type of text. I found that he was quite awkward and uncomfortable on the phone and even more so face to face. The outcome of the relationship was very much reminiscent of the one you experienced. The fact that we have such commonality in our experiences also makes me think of McKenna's theory of the removal of gating features. Possibly our exes were much more capable of expressing themselves through a lean media rather than a rich one, therefore they chose these text based spaces over a phone and in my case face to face conversation as well. I believe both our experiences are great supporters of McKenna's relationship facilitation factors.
Joshua,
I really enjoyed reading your blog as it proved that distance could really make the heart grow fonder. It was especially interesting how you and your ex basically worked as a couple online but that spark waned when you had your long awaited face-to-face interaction. I also experienced a long-distance relationship (except with an ex) and when we finally saw each other again, the build up from mediated communication increased the attraction between us.
Your relationship seems to have the element of Interactional Control as McKenna describes. The two of you tended to use a lean media because that’s the technological medium that you two worked best in. With that understanding, it’s conceivable to think that you both kept on choosing to communicate with AIM because that’s where felt the most comfortable in and felt like you could open up to each other.
Joshua,
As I was reading your post I actually wondered if all of your interaction through a mediated channel would make future face-to-face interaction awkward or strange. Of course you ended up answering this before I could ask. That being said, I could definitely relate to your experience. I have had many relationships (both romantic and nonromantic) that consisted of mostly text mediated interaction. Like you, I often found the spark was gone once face-to-face interaction was possible. This makes me wonder if the Hyperpersonal model could also apply here, or at least Wallace’s distribution attraction factor, which deals with Hyperpersonal processes. Overattribution, in particular, seems applicable to situations like these. Perhaps we exaggerate our impressions, attractions, and commonalities in a lean media such as AIM. We imagine something a little idealistic, making the real deal altogether disappointing.
Hey Joshua, I'm Brendan Suhrland. I think it was very interesting that you thought that your relationship would not have been as strong if you had used the phone rather than instant messaging to keep in contact. I was in a long distance relationship for a very long time, and I felt as though the main thing that kept us very close was our ability to talk on the phone every night. But then again, I'm more of a Media Richness Theory kind of person anyway. I do agree with you about identifiability being a key component in relationships. Being able to tell my significant other things about myself prompted her to tell me things about herself, which I believe aided in our closeness.
I feel like your situation could be most effectively explained by McKenna's concept of "removal of gaiting features." Perhaps each of you was so comfortable with the other only knowing your CMC personalities that the carefully edited versions of yourselves were really the people in the relationship. Maybe it was too foreign of a concept for the 100% true YOU to talk too much with the 100% true HER, because they are slightly different people who might have incompatible personalities. (I know everyone else has said something like this, but I was just extremely intrigued by the fact that you didn't include this concept in your post).
Joshua,
Like sophia said, your post title caught my attention immediately, and I was kept interested throughout the post not only because of my ability to relate to your situation but also because you write in a very fun, approachable manner. I especially enjoyed your little kick of irony thrown in at the end. I have found myself in similar relationships, though not nearly as significant, when I immediately was able to connect with an individual over AIM but not nearly as successful in face to face conversation. After having studied CMC I think the "buffering" provided by leaner media, such as AIM, allowed us to develop relationships while overlooking any discomfort that might be present in face to face contact. However, unlike your ability to turn this AIM contact into a relationship, I found myself unable to look past the lack of richer contact and would quickly drop these relationships; which ended up happening with you two in the long run. It leads me to wonder, if one is in a relationship that has some face-to-face/phone possibility, but prefers to use the leaner media, does this mean the relationship's face-to-face potential is essentially doomed?
Post a Comment