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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree that SIDE is incorrect based on your reactions to Kirsten, but I'm just wondering if you categorized her in a certain group before individuation happened, or if you were just referring to individuation from a general "online friend" sense. I know that sentence was hard to read. I apologize. What I guess I want to know is you say you developed your online friendship with Kirsten because you knew her "through people." Was she part of some particular group that you identified her with, or was she literally just a friend of a friend?
I liked how your story went against the norm and you had a positive experience meeting someone FtF. While you were still surprised by her genuine and happy attitude atleast it still was what you were expecting. In your analysis, however, I think you could have explained more how the hyperpersonal model was not supported and tied in with Ramirez & Wang's hypotheses.
Brendon,
Your post serves as a reminder that it can be hard to apply these theories to real life situations that are not cut and dry. Because Kirsten was part of your "ingroup" you developed a positive online relationship with her. But my question is, how much did you associate her with your group as you got to know her? My impression is that you looked beyond that as the two of you interacted more, and viewed her as an individual rather than "part of the group." Is it possible that SIDE theory could have been negated as a result, maybe making this more of a SIP theory? I really don't know...
I think it was very interesting that you actually met someone online and then finally in real person kind of randomly, because although this seems to be becoming more common, it is still pretty rare. If I had to take a guess at what theory fit you experience, I would say it was Uncertainty Reduction Theory. URT states that the reduction of uncertainty about the other person in a relationship leads to a positive effect. Since you seemed to like this person more after you met her face to face, I would say that UTC fits your experience pretty well.
Post a Comment