There was nothing special to the chat room I went into. It was like the 3rd choice down for a search on Google for "chat". I had initially started with another, but it sorted chat rooms into categories, and I didn't want to go in with a preconceived notion of who the person was. The first 6-10 people I contacted were unfortunately, completely uninterested in talking with me, they just wanted to do role play, or sex via chat or something. I finally gave up and went into a chat room that was called "bored-but not horny" hoping I could get somewhere with it. In this chat room I came across a person with a nickname that essentially said that TV is not good for people. I said hello, and got a very excited response, a big two lined, funny pronunciation hello back. I asked if it was a normal greeting for them, and they said no, everyone gets something special. We ended up just talking and trying to get to know each other a little bit. We found some common interests, track and field and cross country; and from there just talked about random things.
The impression I got of this person was an overall warm impression, and of the "big 5" traits, here's what I say:
Conscientiousness - definitely a very disciplined person compared to most "high schoolers" they kept mentioning that they were worried that XC (cross-country) was going to take up as much time as track and they weren't going to do as well as they wanted in school.
Agreeableness - relatively agreeable, had no issues talking with me about track and field and our opinions in politics.
Neuroticism - By the things they were involved with, and the very calm but warm vibe I got, I'd say that they weren't neurotic at all
Openness - Nada, I have no idea on this one
Extroversion - Judging by the excited response to my greeting I'd say they were decently extroverted, but then I did not get a lot more after that.
So all in all I think my impressions do not at all follow the CFO theories. I didn't receive a lot of information about them, but from the limited information I received, I was able to make a pretty strong and positive impression, regardless of its accuracy. As for the SIP Theory, I can imagine that the more we talked, the more I would be able to create a more accurate impression of them. SIP would not have changed the strength much, but the breadth would increase, and likely increase the accuracy. Hyperpersonal theory was the closest theory to match the impression I got. I know I over-attributed a lot, because I made some guesses to personality based off of stereotypes, athlete, distance runner, interest in academics, etc. Selective Self-presentation definitely must have played a role; we talked about mostly things we had in common, and didn't delve into other aspects as much. I think that has something to do with the development aspect of the Hyperpersonal model, because initial interactions don't have enough time not to use selective self-presentation. I'll be honest, the only reallocation of cognitive resources I did, was to remember what other things I had to do. I feel like there was not enough time or interaction to make judgment on the behavior confirmation part of the Hyperpersonal Theory.
5 comments:
Great description/analysis. I think your decision to go into a chat room unbiased by categories was a great idea. Although I had the same idea when looking for a good chat room, I decided to categorize myself by age, which was a terrible idea.
Your descriptions on the Big 5 Traits are excellent. Regarding the openness trait, if you felt that the people you were talking to were reasonably extroverted (though with the time constraint I know you can’t be sure), I think you could categorize them as reasonably open as well. Additionally, I like how you did not disregard any theories and yet, adequately described your experience in terms of the hyperpersonal theory.
Hey Peter,
I think that you did a very good analysis of your subject. I found it interesting though, that you got such a positive impression of somebody that you met in a chat room, as I had exactly the opposite experience. I think that your positive impression, as you mentioned, has primarily to do with the fact that the two of you had so much in common to talk about, and within the time limits didn't delve into much else. This was quite the opposite to my experience, where my subject and I briefly bonded over a common language but that quickly turned into "voulez vous couchez avec moi ce soir??" Its nice to know that there seem to be more genuine people out there interested in actually talking about their interests in an online social environment. However, I also found it interesting that because you got a positive impression of the subject, you associated it with the hyperpersonal model despite that fact that you mention you got to know few details about him. It almost seems as though the situation could follow a CFO model where you got only positive cues that led to a quick, positive impression. Not sure if that is possible, but any thoughts??
I have to say, you did a great job on analysing your online chatting experience. lol
And I agree with you that CFO somehow doesnt work well in current chatrooms. Though most of the time we have to make quick assumptions based on fewer cues, the impressions are not always neutral, negative and undeveloped, as the target's intention should also be counted in. I used to spend some time in chat rooms, and most of the time, I tended to act friendly, considerately...just to maitain a conversation or reveal a warm self-image. Maybe this kind of selective self-presentation can be concluded as another way of focusing on task, which clearly not leads to a cold image.
Hi Peter! I find it interesting that we many of us had similar experiences with both getting people's attention and then with dealing with an overwhelming desire to talk about sex. Do most people already know each other in these chat rooms or is there some standard way of joining in that promotes interaction that few of us seem to know about? And is that way of "joining in" related to initiating sexual oriented conversation? In any case, I'm happy to hear that you had a relatively normal conversation with a seemingly normal person.
With regard to your analysis of your chatting partner, I think it is very good, although, I would argue that SIP perspective might actually apply more if you got to know your "buddy" a little bit better. I'd imagine that in any developing computer mediated relationship one would be able to form increasingly intense and in depth opinions about the five traits relating to these theories. With a little more time and the desire, you would probably be able to comment on your "friend's" openness and form more developed opinions about the other traits. Maybe?
Post a Comment