5- Long-distance relationship, without the distance

Wallace’s attraction factors:
1. Physical attraction- perception that someone is pleasing, good looking, etc., through physical traits.
2. Proximity- closeness in space or time
3. Common ground- area of agreement (such as taste in food & music)
4. Disinhibition effects- in a relationship, you first are wary of everything you say, but as you get to know the person, you become less inhibited and begin to self-disclose.

McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors:
1. Identifiability- as people learn more about each other, self-disclosure (or giving of personal information) increases, as does the relationship development.
2. Removal of gating features- gates include physical attractiveness, master status cues such as race, stigma and disability, and shyness or social anxiety. These gates are not apparent in text-based online spaces (as no one can tell your physical attractiveness, race, etc., without pictures)
3. Interactional control- selective self-presentation and choosing a medium (chat room, instant messaging, etc.) for telling certain things.
4. Connecting with similar others- after establishing a common ground, it is easier to identify with people with similar interests, as well as the ability to connect across space and time, and the ability to connect with social networks (such as a University).
5. Getting the goods- ability to learn about someone prior to meeting, such as facebook stalking.

During the second-half of my senior year in high school, I started dating a junior. At the beginning of the year, I barely knew her. However, we both had a physics class together. I began talking to her and soon started teasing her. After some time, our conversations became more serious and I, consequently, grew more attracted. As we learned more about each other, we started self-disclosing personal information. After going on a couple dates, we began an ‘official’ relationship.

Wallace’s attraction factors explain my experience well. Were it not for the proximity (physics class), I probably would have never met her. Our proximity led me to become attracted to her, as I saw and spoke with her often. As we increasingly conversed, we realized how much we have in common. Thus, establishing a common ground. In a way, this also fits with McKenna’s identifiably and connecting with similar others factors, as we developed similar interests and our relationship developed. Knowing more about each other, our self-discloser increased (disinhibition behavior) and inhibition lowered, leading us to the point where we were comfortable to start a relationship.

Deciding to continue our relationship as I left for Cornell, I promised I would get an AIM screen name. After arriving at Cornell, I began using AIM and talking with her. It was strange at first because I could not see her reactions. As I adjusted to AIM, our conversations became more serious than those we had had in person. Even when I would go home, our conversations were never as significant as those we would have online.

McKenna’s interactional control may be used in understanding our long-term relationship. As we talked more on AIM, our relationship continued to grow. We told each other more about our pasts and expectations for the future than we ever had before. I feel this was a product of the medium (instant messaging), as a lack of physical cues allowed us to say things we would have been embarrassed to say in person. In addition, we had time to selectively present exactly what we wanted to say and how we wanted to say it. Thus, making difficult face-to-face discussions easier through the use of a selected medium (AIM).

Ultimately, our long-distance relationship lasted over a year and we are still friends today.