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
2 comments:
This was a really great blog! I think you did a great job applying the theories we learned and discussing Ramirez & Wang's article. I agree with you that possibly the aftermath of their interaction wouldn't have been as extreme if they hadn't spent so much time talking to each other online before they met FtF. Possibly if they had gotten to know each for a much shorter amount of time online before meeting, they could have used this information to have good conversations and learn more about each other FtF. But since CMC lasted so long, they only talked about information they had in common, thus making it awkward in person.
Isn't it sad how such a great CMC friend can be lost forever once reality hits?
Hi Kayla,
Yours was a very interesting post! I also think you did a great job giving an introduction to some of the concepts and theories discuss pertaining to these types of interactions. One thing that I was greatly intrigued by in your blog was the fact that you mention that these two people communicated online for such a long time before meeting one another face-to-face. It’s important to recognize how crucial face-to-face interactions are… but why is this? Is it because when FtF, there is a plethora of nonverbal cues and physical behaviors? I don’t have the answer to this question, but it can be assumed that online communications are favored for a reason.
Overall, I think you did a great job!
-Joshua Navarro
Post a Comment