Entering a synchronous chat space, called "College Chat," I came across a group of individuals spending their Friday afternoon chatting in a room filled with "college" students. The first thing I noticed when I was brought to the site was the rules which I have listed below:
College Chat Rules
- This college chat room is totally free. Simply enter your nickname and press connect. There is no registration required.
- By entering, you agree to be at least 16 years of age.
- Absolutely no phone numbers, emails or instant messaging IDs are allowed to be posted in public.
- Any suspicious activities relating to the exploitation of chat users, report it to a mod or admin immediately.
- Do not flood the chat room or disrupt other users in any way. You will be banned if you do.
- Although we do staff moderators in this chat room, they cannot be on every minute of the day.
- Do not give out any personal information to anyone, no matter how much you think you can trust them.
- Hack/exploit of the chat is a punishable offense by law. We have logs and will report to ISP/Police anyone who does.
- PERMANENT server bans will be placed to users who attempt to exploit/hack our college chat rooms.
The rules seemed straigtforward and rules #4 and #6 clearly expressed that the Leviathan, or anointed moderator, was present to reprimand and censor those who did not conform to the rules set forth. Wallace would have called these rules placed discreetly for all chatters to see a virtual "sign at the door," forewarning members that there are rules and one is expected to follow these rules.
As I began to chat with members in the group, I saw that indeed, many chose to follow the social norms and conventions set forth in the usual chat room environment, as well as conforming to the rules laid out by the website administration. Everyone was careful to not use any sexually explicit terms and only discussed superficial topics such as school and what everyone enjoyed doing. It seemed sexual soliciting was actually only occurring when people "pm'ed" one another. In order to test if this "Leviathan" really existed, however, I chose to experiment on my own. I began typing in sexually explicit words such as "sex", "d*ck," etc. and was immediately booted from the site. Low and behold, the moderator had done it's job and kicked me out for breaking the rules and not following the norm. When I re-entered the chat to talk to the same individuals as before I explained what happened and was immediately told by "conni" that "Yeah, they'll kick you out for saying things like that." I was curious if I would be kicked out again if I repeated the same offense, so I started typing in those words and...nothing happened. I was not kicked out of the chat room like I had five minutes before. However, this time I was warned by people within the chat. They said, "You better not do that or you'll get kicked out." and "If you don't stop I'll report you to the Committee."
My experience seems to support Wallace's theory of the Leviathan pretty clearly. To start off, people in the chat did conform to the social conventions or rules set forth by the site which restricted their own freedom of expression in order to be a part of the chat room. This explains why many immediately wanted to "pm" as soon as they got on the chat, they knew that if they were to make sexual comments in the large chat room they would be punished. However, there was no moderators in private chat. In addition, the Leviathan enforced the normal rules quite well because as soon as I broke one of the rules, I was booted from the chatting space.
In addition, Wallace discusses the fact that "...human willingness to conform and our eagerness to preserve an online group environment. (p. 70)" would lead to the emergence of a Leviathan if one were not officially present and a reproach may be forthcoming as well. In my case, this is exaclty what happened when I continued to use the sexually explicit terms and was warned by members of the chat room that they would report me if I continued using terms which were not allowed.
Therefore, it seems in the College Chat room, members were made aware of what the social norms should be due to the rules set out by the chat room itself. The Leviathan placed by the chat room is present throughout most of the day, but when it is not present, it seems members will continue to enforce the rules and take the Leviathan's place to maintain order. Therefore, in this online space, it would seem that there is always a Leviathan present, ready to censor and reprimand those who do not follow the social norms set out by the chat room and fellow members.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=7532310520884376725
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=4292794472630435976
Friday, September 28, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
#5 she goes to the school the furthest from me!
Long distance relationship is tough, especially when we are teenage college students living on the opposite sides of the continent. Of course it wasn't planned that way, but that's how it was. My first serious romantic relationship started at high school prom. We already submitted acceptance letters. I was worrying about infamous Cornell weather while he planned on enjoying the perfect 70's in San Diego. But there were attraction and naivety. We spent the summer together. We thought we were in love and there was nothing better. For the next year and a half we talked starting at 12pm EST and 9pm PST every night. I spent my breaks with him. But it was tough. The most challenging part was we couldn't physically be there to share our lives.
Wallace lists attraction factors including proximity, attractiveness, similarity, humor and self-disclosure. Proximity is determined as intersection frequency. Geographic distance plays less hindrance in interactions. Mediated communication is challenging for romantic partners moving from face-to-face interactions. Talking on the phone and sharing similar network in facebook.com didn't feel fulfilling enough.
"I can't go to sleep, because you didn't say you love me."
"I just wish you could put your arms around me and tell me it's going to be okay."
Similarity is another factor that influenced this relationship. We wanted to pursue same careers. We ate the same cereal. In the beginning we thought "love" made up for cultural/religious differences. His parents didn't agree. Transition from a small Catholic high school students to college students at universities with drastically different environments and groups of friends changed us. Mediated communication methods allowed continuation of relationship despite the geographic distance. However, talking on the phone every night about walking up the slope is not the same as sitting in classes together.
Wallace lists attraction factors including proximity, attractiveness, similarity, humor and self-disclosure. Proximity is determined as intersection frequency. Geographic distance plays less hindrance in interactions. Mediated communication is challenging for romantic partners moving from face-to-face interactions. Talking on the phone and sharing similar network in facebook.com didn't feel fulfilling enough.
"I can't go to sleep, because you didn't say you love me."
"I just wish you could put your arms around me and tell me it's going to be okay."
Similarity is another factor that influenced this relationship. We wanted to pursue same careers. We ate the same cereal. In the beginning we thought "love" made up for cultural/religious differences. His parents didn't agree. Transition from a small Catholic high school students to college students at universities with drastically different environments and groups of friends changed us. Mediated communication methods allowed continuation of relationship despite the geographic distance. However, talking on the phone every night about walking up the slope is not the same as sitting in classes together.
Assignment #5
Around April of last year, my apartment had a party. I met this girl, CC, who was a mutual friend of a friend of mine. We instantly hit it off, anyone who might have seen us would have thought we had been friends for months. After our initial meeting, there was a bit of awkwardness as to what will happen next. She ended up “friending” me on facebook and the day after, we spoke through AIM for a few hours. Once we got a little more comfortable with each other, we saw each other again and again until we were official. It helped that we happened to be the same major (and didn’t know it at the time), so as finals came around, we spent a lot of time together. But more cumbersome than finals was the onset of summer, I had an internship in
Connecting my experience with McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors, removal of gating features played an important role in our initial meeting. Even though we had a great time meeting each other, the next day was still a bit awkward. Therefore, our mode of contact thereafter was through CMC (ie. facebook and AIM). CMC removed any awkwardness that most likely would have occurred in an FtF meeting because of the control over what and how you speak online and the lack of nonverbal cues such as body language. CMC removed these “gating features” from affecting our relationship. It is interesting that our meeting had aspects of both online dating and traditional dating because we were initially physically attracted to each other and therefore met. However, we got to know each other better through subsequent CMC interactions.
Connecting to similar others and interaction control also facilitated our relationship. Over the summer, we spent many hours talking on the phone, webcam, and instant messaging. With these lean media, we had much more control over our words (phone calls and AIM) and appearance (on webcam) which made our interactions more comfortable. Also, since we are the same major, she took an interest in my internship and I helped her with her summer classes. Because we had similar academic backgrounds, we were able to connect and interact with each other much better.
#5: "I wish you were here... but not really."
“I’ll talk to you later… well, not really talk… but you know what I mean! TTYL!”
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:
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
12 hours' difference
Last year, when I stepped on the flight from Beijing to New York, I could hardly resist myself from crying, because I had to say goodbye to my boyfriend. I got accepted as a transferred student to Cornell, and would spend two years there till my graduation, while he would stay in Beijing for the rest of his BS degree. This relationship was 1 year long at that time, and we really liked each other. Both of us were aware of the fact that there would be 12-hour time difference between us, but it’s just too hard for us to give up. I had never been through a long-distance relationship before that, and neither could I imagine how we could work it out. But after all, we decided to give it a try, since we were lucky to have all those modern communication media: E-mail, telephone, and instant messengers…And the good news is: a year has already past, and we are still in a relationship. =)
Though hard for the first couple months, we quickly get used to communicating though asynchronous ways. We email each other back and force and leave offline messages on instant messengers. Also, over the weekends, when we are both awake, we webcam and chat. Sometime we even watch the same movie together (I mean…at the same time), though he cant hold my hinds, we can always chat and laugh at those funny stories as we always did when we were together.
I can’t tell this long distance did a bad or good thing to my relationship: we are physically separated, but we are emotionally closer than before: we have never quarreled again. In terms of McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors, I think the most applicable factors are removal of gating features and interactional control. When we come up with some problems, which in the past would always be the start of fights, we become more open about what we are thinking , we are more willing to talk about the it and that’s obviously helpful for solving problems. This also reminds me of O’Sullivan’s model which suggest that people tend to choose mediated media in communication while the valence is negative. It feels much easier to fix problems though instant messenger than FtF…And we obviously get more control over interaction. We can choose when and where to reply to an email and a message…and for the most cases…a webcam connection request… I found it most useful because I no longer have to spend 1 hour to check my hair and makeup before we go to library to study together, and I can always reject the request when I was staying up late for an unfinished paper or blog post wearing my glasses with dirty hair…which is also the most possible reason for us two to be online at the same time…(remember the 12-hour time difference?)
Though hard for the first couple months, we quickly get used to communicating though asynchronous ways. We email each other back and force and leave offline messages on instant messengers. Also, over the weekends, when we are both awake, we webcam and chat. Sometime we even watch the same movie together (I mean…at the same time), though he cant hold my hinds, we can always chat and laugh at those funny stories as we always did when we were together.
I can’t tell this long distance did a bad or good thing to my relationship: we are physically separated, but we are emotionally closer than before: we have never quarreled again. In terms of McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors, I think the most applicable factors are removal of gating features and interactional control. When we come up with some problems, which in the past would always be the start of fights, we become more open about what we are thinking , we are more willing to talk about the it and that’s obviously helpful for solving problems. This also reminds me of O’Sullivan’s model which suggest that people tend to choose mediated media in communication while the valence is negative. It feels much easier to fix problems though instant messenger than FtF…And we obviously get more control over interaction. We can choose when and where to reply to an email and a message…and for the most cases…a webcam connection request… I found it most useful because I no longer have to spend 1 hour to check my hair and makeup before we go to library to study together, and I can always reject the request when I was staying up late for an unfinished paper or blog post wearing my glasses with dirty hair…which is also the most possible reason for us two to be online at the same time…(remember the 12-hour time difference?)
5- My experience with long distance
At the beginning of my senior year in high school, I finally managed to win the heart of the girl of my dreams. I had been pining after her for over a year, so when we decided to start a romantic relationship, I was thrilled. All of Wallace’s attraction factors came into play in the beginning of this relationship. I was physically attracted to her, and I spent literally almost all of my time with her, during and after school. We had plenty of common ground, as we shared the same group of friends and hung out together all the time before we were dating anyway. As we were used to spending so much time together already, disinhibition effects rapidly took place, and we engaged in the deepest levels of self-disclosure.
The most significant factor of attraction, however, turned out to be proximity. When we lived only a few short minutes from each other, and spent all of our time together, we were both convinced that we were completely in love. We felt as if our relationship was invincible, and it would be forever. As these factors of attraction began to change, however, so did our relationship.
When I left for Cornell, and she left for
Despite our best efforts, the decrease in our proximity, combined with the lack of common ground as a result of no longer being in the same social circle, led our relationship into a downward spiral. We no longer felt the attraction for one another that we once had, and our relationship came to an end.
Wallace’s attraction factors truly form an accurate depiction of how attraction is formed between two individuals. I never would have believed back in high school that anything could have broken apart our relationship, so powerful was our bond- however, when the factors of attraction were no longer present, our passion began to slip away.
5 - EA Sports Not Just About Games But About WHAT?
A person with whom I have had a substantial amount of mediated communication would have to be my online friend VazzyFresh. We met while playing Madden for Xbox 360 a few years back. Madden is a video game developed by EA Sports based on professional athletes of the National Football League that is very popular among the gaming world and can be recognized worldwide.
Madden allows the fans the opportunity to take ownership of their favorite team and even become a star player on the same team. The video game has every player, team, and stadium currently in existence with the league as well as Hall of Famer’s from years before. You don’t just play Madden, you become the game. Every tackle made and every touch down thrown is all because of you; only you can control your team’s destiny.
This experience brings together millions of fans, as well as allowing us to meet new people with similar interest, like VazzyFresh. He lives in New Jersey and is a college freshman. We have never met before, but we consider ourselves to be friends over the “Madden Nation” network. We talk on instant messenger every now and then and always chat about what’s going on in the world of Madden.
Video games aren’t just about playing against the computer now; it’s more of a social interaction with other people around the world. Whether you meet online randomly or through a friend, the ability to interact with new people is very easy. This is due to the common ground principle. Through Madden we are able to identify with people because of their interest with Madden and football. Classification can now be put into different groups whether it’s based on the likings of a player, team, or just the game in general. McKenna describes this as “connecting to similar others.”
Another one of McKenna’s theories that relates to “connecting to similar others” is “getting the goods,” or the ability to receive information about others before meeting them. In online gaming you might not ever meet the person on the other screen, but you do know much about them due to their profile from EA Sports. Interaction occurs also through blogs, facebook groups, chat rooms, and through websites as well. These interactions are what I like to refer to as “MADDEN NATION.”
Madden allows the fans the opportunity to take ownership of their favorite team and even become a star player on the same team. The video game has every player, team, and stadium currently in existence with the league as well as Hall of Famer’s from years before. You don’t just play Madden, you become the game. Every tackle made and every touch down thrown is all because of you; only you can control your team’s destiny.
This experience brings together millions of fans, as well as allowing us to meet new people with similar interest, like VazzyFresh. He lives in New Jersey and is a college freshman. We have never met before, but we consider ourselves to be friends over the “Madden Nation” network. We talk on instant messenger every now and then and always chat about what’s going on in the world of Madden.
Video games aren’t just about playing against the computer now; it’s more of a social interaction with other people around the world. Whether you meet online randomly or through a friend, the ability to interact with new people is very easy. This is due to the common ground principle. Through Madden we are able to identify with people because of their interest with Madden and football. Classification can now be put into different groups whether it’s based on the likings of a player, team, or just the game in general. McKenna describes this as “connecting to similar others.”
Another one of McKenna’s theories that relates to “connecting to similar others” is “getting the goods,” or the ability to receive information about others before meeting them. In online gaming you might not ever meet the person on the other screen, but you do know much about them due to their profile from EA Sports. Interaction occurs also through blogs, facebook groups, chat rooms, and through websites as well. These interactions are what I like to refer to as “MADDEN NATION.”
Time away meant more time together
Having lived in a different city than my family since I was 17, I began to rely on the phone, email, and instant message to stay in touch with my family and friends at home. Spending the summers at home meant I needed to have some connections still open and available to fulfill the social aspect of life once I returned home. One friendship that actually grew and blossomed into more than just acquaintances was with Bailey. She was someone I knew through many friends and never really spent time to get to know. Once I had moved away, talking mainly on instant messenger with her began to lead to more than a mere friendship. We usually talked 3 or 4 times a week on Msn Messenger and began to talk on the phone more frequently. With the distance that was put between us, we began to develop a relationship that wouldn’t have survived if we were in physical proximity.
Having the ability to remain behind the computer, yet know who each other were, we could use McKenna’s “Identifiability” to explore a new relationship. Having the feeling of being able to identify the person and continue to reveal information opened up our relationship when physical proximity was accessible. With the continuation of talking on Msn Messenger, the rapid development in our relationship created an ever lasting friendship.
Physical attraction became apart of the relationship over time. As we began to talk more while I was away, we made promises to hang out when I got home. A lot of the attraction we developed came after the fact that we had been friends online for an extended period of time. According to Wallace’s theory, we did actually reverse the physical attractiveness cycle. By beginning our relationship through a lean medium, instant messaging, we were able to avoid physicality’s that may have deteriorated each of us from trying to get to know the true inner self.
As this relationship developed into more of a long distance, long term friendship we became close and shared secrets that no one else knew about each other. Having shared many experiences, past and present, we began to build upon the already common ground between us. Through Clark’s theory of common ground, we were able to become physically attracted because of the common interests and beliefs that were uncovered amongst the hours spent talking to each other. Developing such a relationship has been unique in that everything went backwards; we became emotionally friendly first before physical attraction set in.
Having the ability to remain behind the computer, yet know who each other were, we could use McKenna’s “Identifiability” to explore a new relationship. Having the feeling of being able to identify the person and continue to reveal information opened up our relationship when physical proximity was accessible. With the continuation of talking on Msn Messenger, the rapid development in our relationship created an ever lasting friendship.
Physical attraction became apart of the relationship over time. As we began to talk more while I was away, we made promises to hang out when I got home. A lot of the attraction we developed came after the fact that we had been friends online for an extended period of time. According to Wallace’s theory, we did actually reverse the physical attractiveness cycle. By beginning our relationship through a lean medium, instant messaging, we were able to avoid physicality’s that may have deteriorated each of us from trying to get to know the true inner self.
As this relationship developed into more of a long distance, long term friendship we became close and shared secrets that no one else knew about each other. Having shared many experiences, past and present, we began to build upon the already common ground between us. Through Clark’s theory of common ground, we were able to become physically attracted because of the common interests and beliefs that were uncovered amongst the hours spent talking to each other. Developing such a relationship has been unique in that everything went backwards; we became emotionally friendly first before physical attraction set in.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Assignment 5: Long distance relationships make great airport reunions
One of the reasons it was difficult for me to leave home for the first time three years ago when I came to Cornell other than leaving my family, was that I was also leaving my best friend, Paige, behind. Because she is a year younger than me, she was not going through the same experience I was; going to college, going to a new school for the first time (I went to the same school from kindergarten through senior year), and meeting new people. I would not be seeing my best friend everyday, going to school with her, seeing her in the halls, playing tennis with her, and going out to dinner with her. Life was going to be very different. Although we talked everyday at school in person, we also talked either on the phone or through instant messaging on AIM whenever one of us was bored; that’s what best friends are for.
Now that I was a freshman at Cornell and she was still back in Chicago, I thought that we would slowly grow apart. I didn’t think that we would talk as much or tell each other as much about our lives because she would have no idea what I was talking about and I’ve already been through what she’s going through, senior year. However, I found the exact opposite to be true. One of McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors, identifiability demonstrates the importance of disclosing information about oneself. We are clearly identifiable to one another which, according to McKenna, leads to an increase in self-disclosure and thus an increase in relationship development; however, I found myself revealing things to her that I did not reveal to my friends at Cornell that I saw every day. I still talk to her almost every day either through instant messaging or on the phone when we both have the time. We are both displaying uninhibited behavior. Now that she goes to Colgate, it is a little more difficult to find a time when both of us can sit down and have a long conversation.
Another relationship facilitation factor that McKenna reveals is connecting to similar others, the common ground principle. It is easy to identify with and connect to people with similar interests as our own, hence the saying, “birds of a feather flock together.” Paige and I grew up together, went to the same school, had similar friends in high school, and have very similar personalities. It is therefore very easy for the two of us to get along, even though we do not go to the same school any more. As of this past weekend, I hadn’t seen Paige since the beginning of July because I spent my summer in New York. All of a sudden, as I was waiting in the security line at Syracuse airport waiting to get on a plane to go home, I heard someone call out my name. It turns out she was going home as well for the holiday weekend. After the hug that probably scared half of the airport, we walked and talked like we saw each other yesterday. Any long distance relationship is hard, but if you keep your friendship building, connect to others and develop relationships, it is sometimes easy to maintain those long distance relationships.
Now that I was a freshman at Cornell and she was still back in Chicago, I thought that we would slowly grow apart. I didn’t think that we would talk as much or tell each other as much about our lives because she would have no idea what I was talking about and I’ve already been through what she’s going through, senior year. However, I found the exact opposite to be true. One of McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors, identifiability demonstrates the importance of disclosing information about oneself. We are clearly identifiable to one another which, according to McKenna, leads to an increase in self-disclosure and thus an increase in relationship development; however, I found myself revealing things to her that I did not reveal to my friends at Cornell that I saw every day. I still talk to her almost every day either through instant messaging or on the phone when we both have the time. We are both displaying uninhibited behavior. Now that she goes to Colgate, it is a little more difficult to find a time when both of us can sit down and have a long conversation.
Another relationship facilitation factor that McKenna reveals is connecting to similar others, the common ground principle. It is easy to identify with and connect to people with similar interests as our own, hence the saying, “birds of a feather flock together.” Paige and I grew up together, went to the same school, had similar friends in high school, and have very similar personalities. It is therefore very easy for the two of us to get along, even though we do not go to the same school any more. As of this past weekend, I hadn’t seen Paige since the beginning of July because I spent my summer in New York. All of a sudden, as I was waiting in the security line at Syracuse airport waiting to get on a plane to go home, I heard someone call out my name. It turns out she was going home as well for the holiday weekend. After the hug that probably scared half of the airport, we walked and talked like we saw each other yesterday. Any long distance relationship is hard, but if you keep your friendship building, connect to others and develop relationships, it is sometimes easy to maintain those long distance relationships.
Assignment # 5: Relationship with a phone
For this assignment, I chose to discuss a friend’s experience with computer based communication rather than my own because I truthfully, don’t have much experience in this area of communication. My friend, on the other hand, has plenty of experience because of her relationship with her “title-less” guy friend who lives in Washington D.C. Although the two would not consider each other boyfriend and girlfriend, they would definitely consider each other close friends, with the occasional benefits of course. They utilize mediated technology to communicate because of distance and this dynamic happens to facilitate rather than hinder their “relationship”. There are many distinctive features that exist within mediated communication that promote the formation and maintenance of my friend’s relationship according to McKenna.
One aspect of mediated communication is interactional control. The term is relatively self explanatory in that this form of communication allows my friend to have control over which medium she utilizes to interact with her “friend”. Depending on how busy her schedules is, she can choose to text message or communicate via email, contact which requires minimal amount of attention, or talk on the phone if she has the time and wishes to take part in a more meaningful conversation. What also makes this feature so important is that my friend can take advantage of selective self-presentation. For instance, when she speaks with him, she does not have to worry about her appearance. She can focus more of her attention on what she actually saying and present herself in the best light possible, instead of being concerned with how she looks.
Another distinctive feature of mediated communication that facilitates my friend’s relationship is ‘connecting to similar others’. She happens to have a lot in common with the guy she speaks to, and she has told me on numerous occasions that they can spend hours discussing their likes and dislikes regarding various topics such as movies, music, and books. Their similarity in interests creates a common ground where they can relate to each other and thus, feel close and connected.The most ironic thing about my friend’s relationship is that it is usually more satisfying when the two are apart than when together. The face to face interactions that take place between the two, usually lead to conflict whereas features within mediated interaction help to facilitates their relationship
One aspect of mediated communication is interactional control. The term is relatively self explanatory in that this form of communication allows my friend to have control over which medium she utilizes to interact with her “friend”. Depending on how busy her schedules is, she can choose to text message or communicate via email, contact which requires minimal amount of attention, or talk on the phone if she has the time and wishes to take part in a more meaningful conversation. What also makes this feature so important is that my friend can take advantage of selective self-presentation. For instance, when she speaks with him, she does not have to worry about her appearance. She can focus more of her attention on what she actually saying and present herself in the best light possible, instead of being concerned with how she looks.
Another distinctive feature of mediated communication that facilitates my friend’s relationship is ‘connecting to similar others’. She happens to have a lot in common with the guy she speaks to, and she has told me on numerous occasions that they can spend hours discussing their likes and dislikes regarding various topics such as movies, music, and books. Their similarity in interests creates a common ground where they can relate to each other and thus, feel close and connected.The most ironic thing about my friend’s relationship is that it is usually more satisfying when the two are apart than when together. The face to face interactions that take place between the two, usually lead to conflict whereas features within mediated interaction help to facilitates their relationship
5.1: Long Distance Friendship
Sonja and I have been best friends since sixth grade. For our sophomore year of high school, Sonja, being the amazing women she is, left for South Africa to study abroad for a year. Before she returned, I moved 45 minutes away, where I finished high school. We lost touch until four years ago, when I received an email from her out of the blue. Over the years Sonja and I have reconnected through email. In our correspondence we’ve shared detailed stories about our lives and discussed our goals and values, unlike we had ever done before. I am not a very sentimental person and often feel cheesy casually talking about feelings and grandiose dreams, but doing these things in an email was much more comfortable for me. Our relationship dramatically evolved, and Sonja once again became my closest friend. Because of the buffer created by email’s minimal cues and asynchronous features, I became disinhibited. The hyperpersonal model best explains my uninhibited behavior that lead to self-disclosure and depth superceding that of our previous relationship.
More recently we have started interacting via Facebook. I have found that our online interactions have slightly changed because of the features Facebook offers, namely pictures. Sonja has 515 images linked to her! And I have about 10! Seeing Sonja with new friends, a series of old boyfriends, on various trips around the world, and with family has made me realize how distant Sonja and I have really become. I know nearly no one in the pictures, I know very little about the things depicted in her travel images, and her family looks much different from the last time I saw them seven years ago. Despite our long emails, I realized that there is a lot that I don’t know about Sonja and what is going on in her life and that make feel sad (wow, that sounded cheesy!). Ultimately, this has had a negative impact on our relationship. The hyperpersonal model talks about two relevant concepts here: behavioral confirmation and self-presentation. The way Sonja was presented in her images was not entirely the same Sonja that I had come to know. I knew the intellectual and emotional side of her, and the pictures depicted her more fun, spontaneous, and social side. These things have not come across in our emails as much as they did in the pictures. Looking at them, I found myself feeling less “psychologically attracted” to her.
My new found realization of what Wallace terms common ground is one further explanation. I see, more than ever, that Sonja and I have little common ground in our social activities and less than I thought in our personal lives. McKenna’s identifiability factor also provides some insight: Learning more about Sonja through her pictures indicates a superficial lack of self-disclosure, thus causing some depenetration of the friendship. The removal of gating features, the verbal and nonverbal discomfort potentially communicated during a face-to-face interaction, has caused my feelings to remain hidden. My feelings are not be interpreted as my feeling lied to or upset with Sonja in any way, rather the connection I feel with her simply feels less strong. It’s unreasonable for me to tell Sonja about my feelings in any channel because they’re counterproductive. Telling her that I feel sad because of my realization of lack common ground will not enable her to “fix it.” Our lives have gone in different directions over the years and that’s something that I need to come to terms with, not expect Sonja to change.
More recently we have started interacting via Facebook. I have found that our online interactions have slightly changed because of the features Facebook offers, namely pictures. Sonja has 515 images linked to her! And I have about 10! Seeing Sonja with new friends, a series of old boyfriends, on various trips around the world, and with family has made me realize how distant Sonja and I have really become. I know nearly no one in the pictures, I know very little about the things depicted in her travel images, and her family looks much different from the last time I saw them seven years ago. Despite our long emails, I realized that there is a lot that I don’t know about Sonja and what is going on in her life and that make feel sad (wow, that sounded cheesy!). Ultimately, this has had a negative impact on our relationship. The hyperpersonal model talks about two relevant concepts here: behavioral confirmation and self-presentation. The way Sonja was presented in her images was not entirely the same Sonja that I had come to know. I knew the intellectual and emotional side of her, and the pictures depicted her more fun, spontaneous, and social side. These things have not come across in our emails as much as they did in the pictures. Looking at them, I found myself feeling less “psychologically attracted” to her.
My new found realization of what Wallace terms common ground is one further explanation. I see, more than ever, that Sonja and I have little common ground in our social activities and less than I thought in our personal lives. McKenna’s identifiability factor also provides some insight: Learning more about Sonja through her pictures indicates a superficial lack of self-disclosure, thus causing some depenetration of the friendship. The removal of gating features, the verbal and nonverbal discomfort potentially communicated during a face-to-face interaction, has caused my feelings to remain hidden. My feelings are not be interpreted as my feeling lied to or upset with Sonja in any way, rather the connection I feel with her simply feels less strong. It’s unreasonable for me to tell Sonja about my feelings in any channel because they’re counterproductive. Telling her that I feel sad because of my realization of lack common ground will not enable her to “fix it.” Our lives have gone in different directions over the years and that’s something that I need to come to terms with, not expect Sonja to change.
Assignment 5- Long distance
For this assignment we were asked to describe a relationship that has involved a substantial amount of mediated communication. I have experienced two long distance relationships, with boyfriends, which have involved mediated communication. Both relationships were quite different from one another so I will only describe one. I spent my freshman year of college studying at the University at Albany. When I left Albany to transfer to Cornell after my freshman year, I left behind a boyfriend of two months. We decided that we would stay together, long distance, as he lived in New Jersey and I lived in upstate New York. Also, after the summer I would be going to school in Ithaca and he would be in Albany, so in the foreseeable future we were never going to be in the same place.
I will select two of Mckenna’s relationship facilitation factors and relate them to this relationship. The first relationship facilitation factor is interactional control, which involves selective self-presentation. In the case of this relationship I found myself always thinking about the way I was going to present myself, and since my boyfriend was not usually with me I was able to do this a lot more. Everyday I had to select what I would tell him and how I would tell him things that were going on in my life. Therefore I left a lot of information out when I spoke with him thus influencing how I presented myself to him. Also, this can be related to self-disclosure in that I could selectively choose what I presented to him about myself. As it turns out this had a negative effect on our relationship because we did not get to know each other as well as we needed to in order to have a successful relationship.
The second facilitation factor I will use is getting the goods. Specifically the aspect of the relationship I can relate this factor to is getting to know his family. Getting the goods involves the ability to get information about others prior to an actual meeting, which is exactly how I got to know his family. Before I met them face to face, I learned all about what they were like through the descriptions my boyfriend gave me. We mostly talked online so most of the descriptions I got were through IM. When I actually met his family they were similar to his descriptions but also very different from the picture I had in my head.
The relationship lasted close to eight months before we both decided that having a relationship primarily based on CMC was just too difficult for us at this time in our lives.
I will select two of Mckenna’s relationship facilitation factors and relate them to this relationship. The first relationship facilitation factor is interactional control, which involves selective self-presentation. In the case of this relationship I found myself always thinking about the way I was going to present myself, and since my boyfriend was not usually with me I was able to do this a lot more. Everyday I had to select what I would tell him and how I would tell him things that were going on in my life. Therefore I left a lot of information out when I spoke with him thus influencing how I presented myself to him. Also, this can be related to self-disclosure in that I could selectively choose what I presented to him about myself. As it turns out this had a negative effect on our relationship because we did not get to know each other as well as we needed to in order to have a successful relationship.
The second facilitation factor I will use is getting the goods. Specifically the aspect of the relationship I can relate this factor to is getting to know his family. Getting the goods involves the ability to get information about others prior to an actual meeting, which is exactly how I got to know his family. Before I met them face to face, I learned all about what they were like through the descriptions my boyfriend gave me. We mostly talked online so most of the descriptions I got were through IM. When I actually met his family they were similar to his descriptions but also very different from the picture I had in my head.
The relationship lasted close to eight months before we both decided that having a relationship primarily based on CMC was just too difficult for us at this time in our lives.
Assignment 5: Prox and Common ground win!
In my past, I have never been one to do a lot of online relationship forming. My online experience has almost always stemmed from continuing interaction with people I have met before. I am therefore going to examine my summer experience when my girlfriend is at home in Hawaii and I am here in Ithaca using Wallace's Attraction Factors, physical attraction, proximity, common ground and disinhibition.
For some background; my girlfriend and I have been together since freshman year, and each summer she goes home to
The physical attraction attribute won't work because the idea is that someone will make an impression based off of personality and not appearance due to the lack of cues. I met her ahead of time, knew her physical appearance, and got to know her personality afterwards. Physical attraction is a factor that is limited to only to relationships started online.
Proximity is the idea that familiarity grows out of more frequent contact. This is like seeing someone on the sub-way every day; you know them more than the person who you have never seen before, sitting next to them. Proximity also is diminished when the relationship is not only mediated, but it still works as an example. All summer long we would send emails, chat on IM and talk on the phone. These three mediums were only available on weekends because of the time difference, and my work schedule, we were limited to an asynchronous medium, email, during the week. This made the relationship slower, it was harder to build on a relationship through the medium. Especially since we knew that in 8 weeks or less, we would be in person again. So proximity is less important when the relationship starts in real life.
Common ground is the same in real life and in mediated communications, because it is a matter of interest, not usually visual, something learned through conversation. Which brings me to the last factor of attraction, Disinhibition.
Disinhibition to me in high school made sense. I talked much more openly to my friends about things over IM. I followed O’Sullivan’s Impression Management model well. I was more comfortable talking about myself when it was mediated and I had more control over what was being said. Since then, I have gained confidence in myself and my speaking ability to the point that I prefer richer mediums. So disinhibition is becoming less plausible as a factor for affection mediated relationships I am in.
I will say, that for me, the factor that plays a role in talking with my friends at other schools who I don’t see enough, proximity and common ground play the biggest role. If I see them more often, I communicate more often, and the relationship continues to grow. If we have more in common, I am more likely to have something to say.
Assignment #5: long-disance relationships... is CMC really sufficient??
Patricia Wallace defines four factors that contribute to attraction, which plays a key role in the development of relationships: 1) physical attractiveness, 2) proximity, 3) common ground, and 4) disinhibition effects. Physical attraction, she argues, is the most important factor because people tend to get to know eachother after a physical attraction has been established. However computer mediated communication has led to a reversal in this sequence; individuals often get to know eachother first, and then trade pictures or meet so that an attraction can form before physical judgement is passed. Next, proximity is essential for any relationship, as familiarity breeds attraction. Traditionally, proximity comes from face-to-face interaction, but the rise in CMC has allowed proximity to exist in a psychological space that doesn't involve physical connection. Common ground is also important in forming relationships; those with shared ideas, assumptions, and beliefs tend to be more attracted to each other than to individuals with conflicting beliefs. Lastly, disinhibition effects refer to the tendency of individuals to reveal more about themselves as they become closer with an individual. This is often a challenge to do in a face-to-face situation, but CMC provides buffers that often allow individuals to become increasingly disinhibited.
My current relationship is an interesting one that involves all of Wallace's four attraction factors. It developed while I was studying abroad, initially based purely on physical attraction and then perpetuated because our proximity. Living in the same building, and experiencing an entire new culture together allowed us not only to become familiar with each other, but also allowed us to create a lot of common ground. Wallace differentiates between two different types of common ground: conversational (actually talking about shared beliefs) and categorical (assumptions of shared beliefs based on groups). Because J and I were in the same abroad situation, we knew we had a certain categorical common ground (i.e. travelling, getting to know new places, etc.). The proximity and physical attraction then allowed us to have conversational common ground. At the end of our abroad experience, J and I made the difficult decision to continue this relationship despite that fact that we are from different states and go to different schools. Thus, the entire basis of our relationship (physical attraction and proximity) was removed and the nature of our relationship changed to one that was now much more based on mediated communication. Initially, we struggled a lot over the phone and on instant messenger. It seemed that the removal of proximity took away the most important element of our relationship. However we soon discovered that if we used email as a mode of communication, our conversation became much more significant. The asynchronous space allowed us to both structure out thoughts and had a largely disinhibiting effect on each of us as individuals. Suddenly, topics that were never brought up in our face to face relationship were carefully worded and easily expressed via email. The use of email as a mode of communication was a hyperpersonal process because we both changed our mode of selective self-representation. Furthermore, the categorical common-ground that I mentioned earlier became much less pronouced in this long-distance relationship, and we had to make the shift towards conversational common ground, achieved through mediated communication. Now, after having been in this long-distance relationship for several months, I feel that our relationship has reached an entirely new level because the mediated communitation has forced us to become more serious and deep in our interaction. My current relationship certainly has made use of all four of Wallace's attraction factors. It has become evident that our face-to-face relationship was based largely on physcial attraction and proximity, but that mediated communication has helped us grow, especially on the levels of common ground and disinhibition effects.
My current relationship is an interesting one that involves all of Wallace's four attraction factors. It developed while I was studying abroad, initially based purely on physical attraction and then perpetuated because our proximity. Living in the same building, and experiencing an entire new culture together allowed us not only to become familiar with each other, but also allowed us to create a lot of common ground. Wallace differentiates between two different types of common ground: conversational (actually talking about shared beliefs) and categorical (assumptions of shared beliefs based on groups). Because J and I were in the same abroad situation, we knew we had a certain categorical common ground (i.e. travelling, getting to know new places, etc.). The proximity and physical attraction then allowed us to have conversational common ground. At the end of our abroad experience, J and I made the difficult decision to continue this relationship despite that fact that we are from different states and go to different schools. Thus, the entire basis of our relationship (physical attraction and proximity) was removed and the nature of our relationship changed to one that was now much more based on mediated communication. Initially, we struggled a lot over the phone and on instant messenger. It seemed that the removal of proximity took away the most important element of our relationship. However we soon discovered that if we used email as a mode of communication, our conversation became much more significant. The asynchronous space allowed us to both structure out thoughts and had a largely disinhibiting effect on each of us as individuals. Suddenly, topics that were never brought up in our face to face relationship were carefully worded and easily expressed via email. The use of email as a mode of communication was a hyperpersonal process because we both changed our mode of selective self-representation. Furthermore, the categorical common-ground that I mentioned earlier became much less pronouced in this long-distance relationship, and we had to make the shift towards conversational common ground, achieved through mediated communication. Now, after having been in this long-distance relationship for several months, I feel that our relationship has reached an entirely new level because the mediated communitation has forced us to become more serious and deep in our interaction. My current relationship certainly has made use of all four of Wallace's attraction factors. It has become evident that our face-to-face relationship was based largely on physcial attraction and proximity, but that mediated communication has helped us grow, especially on the levels of common ground and disinhibition effects.
Assignment # 5 - Long Distance Doesn't Necessarily Hinder a Relationship
Everyone has that one guy or girl that they’ve had a history with that always lingers around in their lives. That person for me is Mikey, my ex-boyfriend whom I dated throughout all four years of high school. During the summer following senior year, we decided to break up because we were going to be in very different places as he was going to be in UMass and I in Israel, because I deferred for a year. It initially was awkward speaking to him after we broke up for a multiple of reasons (including his short fling with another girl), resulting in a short period of time with extremely limited interaction. However, over the course of the year, we both realized how much we missed our closeness and subsequently attempted to rebuild our friendship through mediated communication. We occasionally used email, AIM and Facebook, but the majority of our interaction stemmed from speaking on the phone at least once a week, despite the seven-hour time difference.
One of the main reasons I really valued my friendship with Mikey was due to the fact that I felt so at ease with him. A crucial step that we needed to take to become friends again was to reestablish that sense of comfort and the ability to let our guard down around each other. This was attainable when each of us revealed a new embarrassing story or previously unknown facets of our personalities. One of McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors, Identifiability, highlights the importance of self-disclosure in relationship development. Even though I was clearly identifiable to him, I found myself divulging things to him that I didn’t dare tell my closest friends who I saw everyday because of the visual anonymity I was able to enjoy on the phone (as described by Joinson).
As in any long-term relationship, we had many mutual interests, beliefs and friends. Many of our conversations included the usage of quotes form our favorite movies and filling each other in on humorous stories that happened with friends from home. These elements of shared interests and assumptions in the Common Ground principle (as identified by Wallace) and the concept of attraction stemming from when we connect to similar others (as described by McKenna) were key to our relationship as they were the reasons that brought us together in the first place. Furthermore, when he took a considerable interest in a cause that I’m particularly passionate about, there was suddenly more of an allure to him. From my experience, I can attest to the fact these factors enhance the attraction in relationships because we slowly went from rebuilding our friendship to relapsing back into our relationship. Not surprisingly, by the second week after returning from Israel, I was basically back together with him.
One of the main reasons I really valued my friendship with Mikey was due to the fact that I felt so at ease with him. A crucial step that we needed to take to become friends again was to reestablish that sense of comfort and the ability to let our guard down around each other. This was attainable when each of us revealed a new embarrassing story or previously unknown facets of our personalities. One of McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors, Identifiability, highlights the importance of self-disclosure in relationship development. Even though I was clearly identifiable to him, I found myself divulging things to him that I didn’t dare tell my closest friends who I saw everyday because of the visual anonymity I was able to enjoy on the phone (as described by Joinson).
As in any long-term relationship, we had many mutual interests, beliefs and friends. Many of our conversations included the usage of quotes form our favorite movies and filling each other in on humorous stories that happened with friends from home. These elements of shared interests and assumptions in the Common Ground principle (as identified by Wallace) and the concept of attraction stemming from when we connect to similar others (as described by McKenna) were key to our relationship as they were the reasons that brought us together in the first place. Furthermore, when he took a considerable interest in a cause that I’m particularly passionate about, there was suddenly more of an allure to him. From my experience, I can attest to the fact these factors enhance the attraction in relationships because we slowly went from rebuilding our friendship to relapsing back into our relationship. Not surprisingly, by the second week after returning from Israel, I was basically back together with him.
Two Wives, Two Marriages, & No Broken Laws - 5
Ric Hoogestraat lives in Arizona and has two wives - and its all legal. He has been married to his real wife, Sue Hoogestraat for seven months and then preceded to get married to “Tenaj Jackalope” on Second Life, a digital fantasy land. In real life, Ric has had many different jobs from being an elementary school teacher, ski instructor, and on-the-road salesman. Right now, he works as a call-center operator and makes $14.00 an hour. He has a bachelor’s degree from Arizona State University and took graduate courses at the University of Wyoming and the University of Arizona. Physically, he is heavy, has a long gray ponytail, and a mustache.
In contrast, Ric (rather Dutch Hoorenbeek) is a successful entrepreneur in Second Life. He has a networth of around $1.5 million and owns a mall, a private beach club, a dance club, and a strip club. He also employees 25 other avatars and designs bikinis and lingerie that he sells in his Red Headed Lovers chain store. Dutch is a muscular, 6’9 man with a dark ponytail, who rides motorcycles. His avatar wife, Taneaj, is a young red-headed woman with green eyes, full lips, and racy clothing. The two of them own a house, pay a mortgage, have a dog, and spend hours together online shopping and riding motorcycles.
While, Ric “assure[s] his wife that it’s only a game,” he spends six hours a night and fourteen hours on weekends as Dutch Hoorenbeek. Meanwhile, his real wife joined an online support group for spouses of obsessive online gamers and says that “she worries it will be years before her husband realizes that he’s traded his real life for a pixilated fantasy existence, one that doesn’t include her.” Although, she refuses to live him because she believes that his avatar is “him at 25 … He’s a good person. He’s just fallen down this rabbit hole.”
Taneaj and Dutch have never met or talked in real life and have no plans to do so, but both insist that there is a “huge trust between [them]” and they “tell each other everything.” Their intimacy is based on what’s posted on their online user profiles and the exorbitant amount of time they spend together - going to the beach, walking the dogs, and motorcycle riding in this fantasy world. And while her husband spends 10 hours straight in Second Life without leaving the computer room, Sue Hooggestraat is stuck facing reality on her own.
Digital Deception is the intentional control of information in a technologically mediated message to create a false belief in the receiver of the message. Of the two kinds of deception, I think this scenario is a good example of identity-based deception rather than message-based deception. Identity-based deception is the false manipulation of display of a person’s or organization’s identity. In this case, Dutch’s avatar is an ideal physical representation of himself – the avatar is much younger than he is, is more fit, slim, and muscular and has dark hair. Taneaj is also a younger version of herself - in person, she is older and has short red hair, while her avatar is very young, has long red streaked hair and a more attractive face. This is an example of selective self-presentation from the Hyperpersonal Model. Neither Dutch nor Taneaj have seen each other face-to-face, so both do not know what each other’s true physical traits and what are manipulated (although after this article came out, I supposed they both saw each other since each of their pictures were displayed in the article). Message-based deception is when the information between two people is manipulated or controlled deception. All of the parties are well aware of what is going on – Sue know that her husband is married in Second Life, and Taneaj knows that Dutch has a wife in real wife. The article did not really discuss their conversations, so I guess I do not definitely know if there was message based deception, but it seems to be more of a case of identity-based deception.
I think that three relationship factors play a large role in Dutch and Taneaj’s marriage – physical attractiveness, proximity, and common ground. In relation to physical attractiveness, while normally CMC one first gets to know a person and then finds them attractive, in this case, the relationship was based on the avatar’s physical appearance. Both are young and physically attractive and because it is a fantasy-land, one can “see” what the person looks like before interacting with them. Proximity is a significant aspect of the online relationship. Familiarity breeds attraction and online, familiarity is a result of intersection frequency. The article talks about Dutch and Taneaj spending a lot of time together – shopping and walking around malls, going to the beach, riding Dutch’s motorcycle, going dancing, walking their two dogs, and hanging out around their house. They interact daily and besides when Dutch is off “working” in Second Life, they spend the majority of their time together. Finally, the Dutch and Taneaj talk to each other all of the time and say they tell each other “everything.” It seems that they share a common ground, mutually shared beliefs, assumptions, and presumptions.
In contrast, Ric (rather Dutch Hoorenbeek) is a successful entrepreneur in Second Life. He has a networth of around $1.5 million and owns a mall, a private beach club, a dance club, and a strip club. He also employees 25 other avatars and designs bikinis and lingerie that he sells in his Red Headed Lovers chain store. Dutch is a muscular, 6’9 man with a dark ponytail, who rides motorcycles. His avatar wife, Taneaj, is a young red-headed woman with green eyes, full lips, and racy clothing. The two of them own a house, pay a mortgage, have a dog, and spend hours together online shopping and riding motorcycles.
While, Ric “assure[s] his wife that it’s only a game,” he spends six hours a night and fourteen hours on weekends as Dutch Hoorenbeek. Meanwhile, his real wife joined an online support group for spouses of obsessive online gamers and says that “she worries it will be years before her husband realizes that he’s traded his real life for a pixilated fantasy existence, one that doesn’t include her.” Although, she refuses to live him because she believes that his avatar is “him at 25 … He’s a good person. He’s just fallen down this rabbit hole.”
Taneaj and Dutch have never met or talked in real life and have no plans to do so, but both insist that there is a “huge trust between [them]” and they “tell each other everything.” Their intimacy is based on what’s posted on their online user profiles and the exorbitant amount of time they spend together - going to the beach, walking the dogs, and motorcycle riding in this fantasy world. And while her husband spends 10 hours straight in Second Life without leaving the computer room, Sue Hooggestraat is stuck facing reality on her own.
Digital Deception is the intentional control of information in a technologically mediated message to create a false belief in the receiver of the message. Of the two kinds of deception, I think this scenario is a good example of identity-based deception rather than message-based deception. Identity-based deception is the false manipulation of display of a person’s or organization’s identity. In this case, Dutch’s avatar is an ideal physical representation of himself – the avatar is much younger than he is, is more fit, slim, and muscular and has dark hair. Taneaj is also a younger version of herself - in person, she is older and has short red hair, while her avatar is very young, has long red streaked hair and a more attractive face. This is an example of selective self-presentation from the Hyperpersonal Model. Neither Dutch nor Taneaj have seen each other face-to-face, so both do not know what each other’s true physical traits and what are manipulated (although after this article came out, I supposed they both saw each other since each of their pictures were displayed in the article). Message-based deception is when the information between two people is manipulated or controlled deception. All of the parties are well aware of what is going on – Sue know that her husband is married in Second Life, and Taneaj knows that Dutch has a wife in real wife. The article did not really discuss their conversations, so I guess I do not definitely know if there was message based deception, but it seems to be more of a case of identity-based deception.
I think that three relationship factors play a large role in Dutch and Taneaj’s marriage – physical attractiveness, proximity, and common ground. In relation to physical attractiveness, while normally CMC one first gets to know a person and then finds them attractive, in this case, the relationship was based on the avatar’s physical appearance. Both are young and physically attractive and because it is a fantasy-land, one can “see” what the person looks like before interacting with them. Proximity is a significant aspect of the online relationship. Familiarity breeds attraction and online, familiarity is a result of intersection frequency. The article talks about Dutch and Taneaj spending a lot of time together – shopping and walking around malls, going to the beach, riding Dutch’s motorcycle, going dancing, walking their two dogs, and hanging out around their house. They interact daily and besides when Dutch is off “working” in Second Life, they spend the majority of their time together. Finally, the Dutch and Taneaj talk to each other all of the time and say they tell each other “everything.” It seems that they share a common ground, mutually shared beliefs, assumptions, and presumptions.
5: Building a Relationship to Deceive
Nothing ever happens in the town that I grew up in. It is a small suburb of
Though the predator and the investigator met in a chatroom, they continued their “sexually explicit” dialogue through e-mails over a six week period. According to the feature-based model of deception, the predator was clearly not contemplating the recordability of their exchanges. Given that he was able to move their conversation from chatroom to e-mail to ensure it was recorded, we can assume that this investigator was highly trained in deception, and therefore easily able to string this man along into believing that he was in fact a young girl. His job requires that he is highly motivated to use identity-based deception. According to Hancock’s study on deception and motivation, the more motivated one is to deceive, the more likely he or she will be successful. This is a scary thought in imagining the effectiveness of child predators, yet in this case the tables were turned. The motivation factor was clearly very effective in the investigator’s deceit as their relationship developed so much that by the time they picked a time and place to meet, the predator was fully unaware that he was talking to anyone other than a teenage girl. Though one would think that the intelligent man that this predator is would be skeptical, the truth bias, or our human nature to believe, dilutes this possibility.
McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors absolutely played a role in its growth of this six week relationship. The medium of online space in which this “bond” developed, would never have occurred in a series of face to face interactions. It is likely that her theory of increased self-disclosure as a result of increased anonymity and identifiability aided in their relationship. Known as the “stranger in the crowd effect,” this man would never have spoken in such a way to who he thought was a young girl in person. However, online it likely felt like they were hidden and that no one would find out about their secret relationship; so he thought. His public self-awareness likely decreased, which means that thoughts of what his family and friends would think of him had absolved the inhibition he would have in a richer media. The elimination of gate features, according to McKenna, or the features that would impede a relationship in person, are removed in internet space. If this meeting occurred in person, the predator would have clearly known that he was talking to another man, not a young girl and thus the relationship would not have proceeded from there.
An important correlation seems to exist between deception and relationships. One person in this situation thought that he was building a relationship. The other person, in contrast, had deception as his main intention. To deceive this man effectively meant first giving him the idea that they were truly developing a relationship and he was actually attracted to and interested in him. He would have to take advantage of the factors that Wallace describes, especially in the areas of common ground and disinhibition. Through the laws of attraction, or the proportion of shared attitudes and beliefs, the investigator could give him the notion that they had a lot in common within their limited interaction. Additionally, the principle of social equity demonstrates that the more the investigator self-disclosed, the more likely this man would be to share information about himself. To deceive, the building of a foundation relationship may be essential. They seem to go hand in hand, and in this case, were extremely effective in preventing what could have been a very scary situation.
#5 Who said online relationships don't last long?!
I understand that we take "relationships" in this scenario to mostly mean romantic ones, but I just don't really have any faith in long-distance romantic relationships. However, I do find it convenient and sometimes liberating to maintain friendships over the internet. And since friendships can be equally equivocal as romances, my friendships online can fit quite easily into this topic.
I have this friend whom I haven't seen in 6 years. We first met in person 6 and a half years ago, then she moved to another state and we haven't seen each other since. But I would count her as one of my few best friends, and most of this precious friendship is built over the internet. Before she moved, we were not much more than mere acquaintances. But we kept in touch via e-mails for a few years and got to know each other quite intimately that way.
We met through our families, so Walther's Social Identity Processing Theory definitely applies (even though this was a FtF situation). We are about the same age, and we share an ethnic background, so we assumed that we shared many other things such as political views and views on life in general. Disregarding how similar we actually were, we at least assumed that we had a lot of common ground and therefore got along quite nicely.
Due to these special circumstances, this friendship takes parts of both the Wallace attraction factors AND the McKenna relationship facilitation factors. The common ground factor mentioned above is both a Wallace and a McKenna factor.
Proximity, a Wallace factor, is also crucial to our friendship because we would always reply as soon as we could to each other's e-mails, so we had come to expect the immediateness and responsiveness of the e-mails. We could count on an answer from each other, and it became routine for us. This sense of familiarity led to comfort when we self-disclosed.
The Disinhibition Effects were pronounced in our friendship. Even though we already met FtF and were quite "identifiable" to each other (a McKenna factor), we were still far enough geographically that she could not affect my life immediately if I self-disclosed and told her some secret about me. She couldn't exactly fly in from out-of-state and tell all my friends in school my embarrassing childhood memories or my current emotions and concerns. Again, our friendship was CMC so there was always that barrier between physical and online realities. We already knew what each other looked like, but the visual anonymity of the e-mails still helped with our self-disclosure.
Personally I'm really thankful for the e-mails. Otherwise I would lose a potential best friend simply because she's not physically close to me anymore. Across time and space, Internet does have its perks.
I have this friend whom I haven't seen in 6 years. We first met in person 6 and a half years ago, then she moved to another state and we haven't seen each other since. But I would count her as one of my few best friends, and most of this precious friendship is built over the internet. Before she moved, we were not much more than mere acquaintances. But we kept in touch via e-mails for a few years and got to know each other quite intimately that way.
We met through our families, so Walther's Social Identity Processing Theory definitely applies (even though this was a FtF situation). We are about the same age, and we share an ethnic background, so we assumed that we shared many other things such as political views and views on life in general. Disregarding how similar we actually were, we at least assumed that we had a lot of common ground and therefore got along quite nicely.
Due to these special circumstances, this friendship takes parts of both the Wallace attraction factors AND the McKenna relationship facilitation factors. The common ground factor mentioned above is both a Wallace and a McKenna factor.
Proximity, a Wallace factor, is also crucial to our friendship because we would always reply as soon as we could to each other's e-mails, so we had come to expect the immediateness and responsiveness of the e-mails. We could count on an answer from each other, and it became routine for us. This sense of familiarity led to comfort when we self-disclosed.
The Disinhibition Effects were pronounced in our friendship. Even though we already met FtF and were quite "identifiable" to each other (a McKenna factor), we were still far enough geographically that she could not affect my life immediately if I self-disclosed and told her some secret about me. She couldn't exactly fly in from out-of-state and tell all my friends in school my embarrassing childhood memories or my current emotions and concerns. Again, our friendship was CMC so there was always that barrier between physical and online realities. We already knew what each other looked like, but the visual anonymity of the e-mails still helped with our self-disclosure.
Personally I'm really thankful for the e-mails. Otherwise I would lose a potential best friend simply because she's not physically close to me anymore. Across time and space, Internet does have its perks.
Assgnmnt 5: These five factors only help when starting a weak relationship...
While reading through McKenna’s Relationship Facilitation Factors, I agreed with a lot of them as to how it helped my long distance relationship. Two years ago I was dating a senior, and after he graduated we decided to continue our relationship long distance when I came back to Cornell. Since he was busy starting a job in the city I knew he would not have much time to come visit, so most of our interaction was through mediated communication (both telephone and instant messenger). The five factors McKenna recognized are identifiably, removal of gating features, interactional control, connecting to similar others, and getting the goods. While not ever single one necessarily contributed to my relationship, I can see how they all relate.
The identifiably factor discusses how the more a person self-disclosed about themselves, the more the relationship will evolve. Essentially, the less anonymous you are, the more a relationship will develop. Of course this factor influenced my long distance relationship because every time my ex-boyfriend and I would talk on the phone or through IM we would disclose information, get to know one another better and make our relationship stronger. This was extremely important because he was trying to identify himself as a post graduate, trying to make it in the New York City business world. I have no idea what that is like since I am still in school, and thus, if we did not talk often, he would start to become anonymous to me. Unfortunately, as time went on, we did not have as much time to talk as I would have liked, and we did slowly start to drift away. Eventually I did feel like we know longer understood each other, our new ambitions, or connected at this point in our two different lives. Had we spoke more often, and disclosed more information, maybe I would not have felt like the person I talked to was so much of a stranger who seemed so anonymous. Once when we talked, he disclosed a lot of information that I did not know about, that used the medium to disclose a lot of personal information that perhaps he was not comfortable telling me in person. At the beginning of the school year, though, it certainly did help to continue our evolving relationship and keep us closer.
I think the factor of removal of gating features had a small affect on our relationship. We had already been dating for quite some time and been close before our relationship became long distance, so it is not as though we needed to use the medium to be less shy or get over status cues. However, perhaps it helped a little bit with physical attractiveness. Either one of us could look as ugly as we pleased when talking on the phone or IM because the other one would not know. Thus, we could each imagine the other person looking like how we remembered.
I think interactional controls was a very important factor of our relationship. Since we did not see each other every day, and were not in the same place, we could tell each other stories however we wanted, choosing what information to say and how much detail to go in. For example, when we were on campus together, in face to face we may tell each other about funny conversations that happened with friends, or about small things that happened during the day. On the phone or via IM, however, we didn’t always know who the person was that either of us were talking about. For example, he would not tell me about his day in depth, because I did not know who the people in his office were, I would not care about small things that happened that day, and he did not always feel like talking about his stressed he was or something negative that maybe happened at work. Instead he could just tell me about the best parts of his days and about how things were in general. I too, could edit my message and share how I would like. For example, whereas when we were at school together I may have ranted to him about a bad exam. However, since we had limited time on the phone or via IM, I would rather spend the time talking about good news and editing out bad parts of my days or insignificant parts.
Connecting to similar others (or lack thereof) also was very important to our long distance relationship. When talking on the phone or IM, it was hard to establish the same common ground that we once had shared. We were both at very different points in our lives and going through new experiences. While we both could talk about Cornell and relate to that, and share stories about friends we both knew, it was hard to continue this overtime we made new circle of friends. It was hard to connect across space and time because he was working in a set business time frame and could go out at night, whereas I am constantly working, studying, and doing activities. Thus, even though our basic day to day agendas differed a lot more than they once had. While McKenna talked about mediums helping people connect to similar others, it actually caused my boyfriend and I to be disconnected. Especially since we could not see what each others normal days were like and did not see each other often. This was useful, however, in terms of getting the goods. Since we were able to continue our relationship for a while by talking via telephone and IM, it helped us to be updated on one another’s lives and know what we would be doing when we had a chance to see each other again. We could discuss what we would to together when I would visit in NYC, prior to our actual meeting up in the city.
McKenna’s Facilitation Factors provide a lot of insight into relationship development between people in mediated communication forums. The evidence we learned in class provided a lot of support and I am sure they help develop weak relationships into stronger ones as people can use these factors to get to know one another better. Sadly, when it comes to long distance relationships, these factors can actually inhibit an already once well-established relationship.
My comments:
http://comm245purple.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5.html
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=1089413166221384556
The identifiably factor discusses how the more a person self-disclosed about themselves, the more the relationship will evolve. Essentially, the less anonymous you are, the more a relationship will develop. Of course this factor influenced my long distance relationship because every time my ex-boyfriend and I would talk on the phone or through IM we would disclose information, get to know one another better and make our relationship stronger. This was extremely important because he was trying to identify himself as a post graduate, trying to make it in the New York City business world. I have no idea what that is like since I am still in school, and thus, if we did not talk often, he would start to become anonymous to me. Unfortunately, as time went on, we did not have as much time to talk as I would have liked, and we did slowly start to drift away. Eventually I did feel like we know longer understood each other, our new ambitions, or connected at this point in our two different lives. Had we spoke more often, and disclosed more information, maybe I would not have felt like the person I talked to was so much of a stranger who seemed so anonymous. Once when we talked, he disclosed a lot of information that I did not know about, that used the medium to disclose a lot of personal information that perhaps he was not comfortable telling me in person. At the beginning of the school year, though, it certainly did help to continue our evolving relationship and keep us closer.
I think the factor of removal of gating features had a small affect on our relationship. We had already been dating for quite some time and been close before our relationship became long distance, so it is not as though we needed to use the medium to be less shy or get over status cues. However, perhaps it helped a little bit with physical attractiveness. Either one of us could look as ugly as we pleased when talking on the phone or IM because the other one would not know. Thus, we could each imagine the other person looking like how we remembered.
I think interactional controls was a very important factor of our relationship. Since we did not see each other every day, and were not in the same place, we could tell each other stories however we wanted, choosing what information to say and how much detail to go in. For example, when we were on campus together, in face to face we may tell each other about funny conversations that happened with friends, or about small things that happened during the day. On the phone or via IM, however, we didn’t always know who the person was that either of us were talking about. For example, he would not tell me about his day in depth, because I did not know who the people in his office were, I would not care about small things that happened that day, and he did not always feel like talking about his stressed he was or something negative that maybe happened at work. Instead he could just tell me about the best parts of his days and about how things were in general. I too, could edit my message and share how I would like. For example, whereas when we were at school together I may have ranted to him about a bad exam. However, since we had limited time on the phone or via IM, I would rather spend the time talking about good news and editing out bad parts of my days or insignificant parts.
Connecting to similar others (or lack thereof) also was very important to our long distance relationship. When talking on the phone or IM, it was hard to establish the same common ground that we once had shared. We were both at very different points in our lives and going through new experiences. While we both could talk about Cornell and relate to that, and share stories about friends we both knew, it was hard to continue this overtime we made new circle of friends. It was hard to connect across space and time because he was working in a set business time frame and could go out at night, whereas I am constantly working, studying, and doing activities. Thus, even though our basic day to day agendas differed a lot more than they once had. While McKenna talked about mediums helping people connect to similar others, it actually caused my boyfriend and I to be disconnected. Especially since we could not see what each others normal days were like and did not see each other often. This was useful, however, in terms of getting the goods. Since we were able to continue our relationship for a while by talking via telephone and IM, it helped us to be updated on one another’s lives and know what we would be doing when we had a chance to see each other again. We could discuss what we would to together when I would visit in NYC, prior to our actual meeting up in the city.
McKenna’s Facilitation Factors provide a lot of insight into relationship development between people in mediated communication forums. The evidence we learned in class provided a lot of support and I am sure they help develop weak relationships into stronger ones as people can use these factors to get to know one another better. Sadly, when it comes to long distance relationships, these factors can actually inhibit an already once well-established relationship.
My comments:
http://comm245purple.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5.html
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=1089413166221384556
Assignment 5: Getting closer after moving away
It’s really funny now that I look back on it, because with most of my friendships, they tend to deepen after more frequent face to face interactions. There was this girl that I’ve known since late junior high but we were “close” acquaintances at best. While suffering through labs and assignments, we had our bonding moments but that was all. When we graduated and went our separate ways, I thought that’ll be the last I’d see of her. So it was doubly surprising that right now, she’s one of the few people I stay in contact with regularly from high school.
Wallace has several factors such common ground, proximity and disinhibition effects which helped to explain why we became better friends even though we’re in two different countries (though that doesn’t really count if she’s in Canada right, ha).
According to Wallace, common ground is the “mutually shared beliefs, assumptions and propositions” between people. You become attracted to people with whom you share common ground, and your interactions would depend on how much of that is shared. Basically my friend and I started our communication with MSN and it was a mutual “reaching out” because at the time, both of us were overwhelmed with settling into college life. Coincidentally, we both moved far away from home (from the west coast to east) and we were close with our families – consequently feeling similarly homesick. Through our online conversations, we bonded over adjusting to dorm life, the disagreeable weather, difficult classes and being isolated in small college towns. I also found that we had much in common, a lot more than just sharing heavy workloads during high school. She got me hooked onto Taiwanese soaps; I introduced her to Korean ones. We had a mutual love of singing theme songs, so during breaks we’d use her very nice karaoke system.
Despite living in the same time zone, we were too far away to visit each other. Therefore our proximity is basically the online spaces that we interact in. MSN was the primary channel, since it was the most synchronous. If there was time and privacy, we’d do video or voice chats too, which made our conversations more personal. She was the first person I advertised Facebook to, since most of my old classmates didn’t know what that was. So in addition to synchronous interactions, we’d use all of Facebook’s messaging functions. When time became limited, this became used a lot more.
During our numerous online conversations, the physical distance and not seeing each other made it easier for both of us to disclose more information. The more we chatted, the more personal information we disclosed, proving the disinhibition effect. When we became less inhibited, we shared things that I’d tell my best friends. I felt like I had nothing to be embarrassed of, since she couldn’t actually see me. Issues that I couldn’t tell my friends at school, I felt perfectly comfortable telling her, probably because she doesn’t see me every day and I would feel less awkward about it.
Thanks to building our friendship online, I’m already looking forward to winter break when we can hang out. :)
Wallace has several factors such common ground, proximity and disinhibition effects which helped to explain why we became better friends even though we’re in two different countries (though that doesn’t really count if she’s in Canada right, ha).
According to Wallace, common ground is the “mutually shared beliefs, assumptions and propositions” between people. You become attracted to people with whom you share common ground, and your interactions would depend on how much of that is shared. Basically my friend and I started our communication with MSN and it was a mutual “reaching out” because at the time, both of us were overwhelmed with settling into college life. Coincidentally, we both moved far away from home (from the west coast to east) and we were close with our families – consequently feeling similarly homesick. Through our online conversations, we bonded over adjusting to dorm life, the disagreeable weather, difficult classes and being isolated in small college towns. I also found that we had much in common, a lot more than just sharing heavy workloads during high school. She got me hooked onto Taiwanese soaps; I introduced her to Korean ones. We had a mutual love of singing theme songs, so during breaks we’d use her very nice karaoke system.
Despite living in the same time zone, we were too far away to visit each other. Therefore our proximity is basically the online spaces that we interact in. MSN was the primary channel, since it was the most synchronous. If there was time and privacy, we’d do video or voice chats too, which made our conversations more personal. She was the first person I advertised Facebook to, since most of my old classmates didn’t know what that was. So in addition to synchronous interactions, we’d use all of Facebook’s messaging functions. When time became limited, this became used a lot more.
During our numerous online conversations, the physical distance and not seeing each other made it easier for both of us to disclose more information. The more we chatted, the more personal information we disclosed, proving the disinhibition effect. When we became less inhibited, we shared things that I’d tell my best friends. I felt like I had nothing to be embarrassed of, since she couldn’t actually see me. Issues that I couldn’t tell my friends at school, I felt perfectly comfortable telling her, probably because she doesn’t see me every day and I would feel less awkward about it.
Thanks to building our friendship online, I’m already looking forward to winter break when we can hang out. :)
#5-Sorry wife, I'm leaving you for Tenaj, my virtual wife.
In the modern United States, online relationships seem to have become an increasingly common phenomenon. It seems like nearly everyone knows at least one couple that started as the result of an online meeting, whether it be myspace or an online dating service. There are, however, examples of people who keep their relationships entirely online. One such example of this is can be seen by observing the online relationship of Ric Hoogestraat and Janet Spielmen.
Janet and Ric play an online game known as Second Life. Second Life allows players to control all aspects of their avatars world, and according to the Second Life, website, everything in the virtual world is created and maintained by the players. In this online world, Janet's character, Tenaj, and Ric's character, Dutch are married. Ric spends, on average, six hours a day playing Second Life during the week, and around fourteen hours a day playing during the weekend. Much of this time is spent interacting with his online wife, Tenaj. In addition to the excessive amount of time spent online, there is another problem. Ric is married. His wife's name is Sue Hoogstraat, and she is, understandably, not very happy about her husbands past time.
Ric insists that it is just a game, and shrugs off Sue's complaints as being ridiculous. Friends and family of Sue, however, feel differently. Her children have offered to help her move out, for as far as they are concerned, Ric is cheating on her with his virtual wife. What is it about his virtual world that has caused Ric to forsake his flesh wife for a virtual one?
The question is complicated, with many different aspects to it. The first thing to consider is what is the appeal of the virtual world that Ric lives in. This can be answered by observing his avatar. His avatar is basically his ideal self, representing him when he was younger. Although the examples of avatars and their users on the Second Life website often depict two nearly identical images, it is obvious that this is not always the case. Ric is manipulating conventional assessment signals to make himself appear more ideal.
Ric's online relationship is also probably more satisfying for him than his real world relationship. His virtual wife is what most would refer to as a "hottie", thus making her more desirable to Ric than his rather voluptuous real world wife. Ric is also likely to be less inhibited in his online interactions, as he is in a private space, and has no physical proximity to the characters with which he interacts. Also, all gating features have been removed, such as physical attractiveness, and Ric is free to interact without any of that social anxiety that he may feel in the real world. It is likely that Ric also feels as though Janet understands him, since she plays the same game that gives him so much pleasure, rather than nagging him about, which is what his real world wife does.
Second Life allows Ric to live out a fantasy that he otherwise would be unable to experience. He has immersed himself so entirely in his virtual world, that, regardless of the fact that he his successful and rich in his online life, his real world life has begun to suffer. You can claim that it's just a game all you want, but once a virtual world starts consuming your spare time and making your wife feel like she's being cheated on, it is no longer just a game. It becomes an unpleasant reality, and is no longer a virtual fantasy world.
Website from which article was taken:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118670164592393622.html?mod=hpp_us_leisure
Janet and Ric play an online game known as Second Life. Second Life allows players to control all aspects of their avatars world, and according to the Second Life, website, everything in the virtual world is created and maintained by the players. In this online world, Janet's character, Tenaj, and Ric's character, Dutch are married. Ric spends, on average, six hours a day playing Second Life during the week, and around fourteen hours a day playing during the weekend. Much of this time is spent interacting with his online wife, Tenaj. In addition to the excessive amount of time spent online, there is another problem. Ric is married. His wife's name is Sue Hoogstraat, and she is, understandably, not very happy about her husbands past time.
Ric insists that it is just a game, and shrugs off Sue's complaints as being ridiculous. Friends and family of Sue, however, feel differently. Her children have offered to help her move out, for as far as they are concerned, Ric is cheating on her with his virtual wife. What is it about his virtual world that has caused Ric to forsake his flesh wife for a virtual one?
The question is complicated, with many different aspects to it. The first thing to consider is what is the appeal of the virtual world that Ric lives in. This can be answered by observing his avatar. His avatar is basically his ideal self, representing him when he was younger. Although the examples of avatars and their users on the Second Life website often depict two nearly identical images, it is obvious that this is not always the case. Ric is manipulating conventional assessment signals to make himself appear more ideal.
Ric's online relationship is also probably more satisfying for him than his real world relationship. His virtual wife is what most would refer to as a "hottie", thus making her more desirable to Ric than his rather voluptuous real world wife. Ric is also likely to be less inhibited in his online interactions, as he is in a private space, and has no physical proximity to the characters with which he interacts. Also, all gating features have been removed, such as physical attractiveness, and Ric is free to interact without any of that social anxiety that he may feel in the real world. It is likely that Ric also feels as though Janet understands him, since she plays the same game that gives him so much pleasure, rather than nagging him about, which is what his real world wife does.
Second Life allows Ric to live out a fantasy that he otherwise would be unable to experience. He has immersed himself so entirely in his virtual world, that, regardless of the fact that he his successful and rich in his online life, his real world life has begun to suffer. You can claim that it's just a game all you want, but once a virtual world starts consuming your spare time and making your wife feel like she's being cheated on, it is no longer just a game. It becomes an unpleasant reality, and is no longer a virtual fantasy world.
Website from which article was taken:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118670164592393622.html?mod=hpp_us_leisure
Assignment #5, How E-mail Saved My Friendship
Moving away from home to Cornell was a rough transition for me. I missed my friends and family from home, and found it more difficult than expected to keep in contact with them. It was hard to set time aside to call my friends and family everyday especially because of my work load and the time I was spending with my new Cornell friends. So, in order to keep in touch with my friends from home I used computer mediated communication such as AIM, email, and Facebook. The online relationship actually helped me become closer to one of my friends from home, Jessica. We started out first sending messages back and forth on Facebook and talking on AIM (when we had the time to sign on). Then we started emailing each other daily. This really helped to strengthen our relationship, because if we didn’t talk online daily, then we probably would have only spoken a couple of times a month on the telephone. The computer mediated communication allowed us to talk to each other when it was convenient for us, and ultimately it helped us to become better friends.
When analyzing this relationship the theory that really comes to mind is McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors. These factors are identifiability, removal of gating features, interactional control, connecting to similar others, and getting the goods. The two factors that best describe my experience with Jessica are gating features and interactional control. Even though Jessica and I were good friends when we were at home, there were some issues, like family problems for example, that I did not feel comfortable telling her. However, the social anxiety I had about those issues were no longer present when I was online, and I was able to share these problems with her and ask for her advice. We disclosed more personal information than we would normally face-to-face, because of the removal of a gating feature (social anxiety). Another factor that explains my online relationship with Jessica is interactional control. It was easy talking to Jessica online, because I could respond to her messages and emails on my own time. We did not have to set a certain time aside to spend together; we would be forced to do this if we were having a face-to-face relationship. We both had control over when to talk or respond. We had the freedom of replying to an email at 4am, in our pajamas, in between studying for two prelims. This control over when we interacted gave us both more of an opportunity to get more personal and in-depth with the information we were sharing in the emails.
Overall the computer mediated system really brought me and Jessica together. It removed the gates that perhaps were keeping us from sharing our complete selves in person, and it also gave us control over when we interacted so we had more freedom and time to construct personal and meaningful emails.
When analyzing this relationship the theory that really comes to mind is McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors. These factors are identifiability, removal of gating features, interactional control, connecting to similar others, and getting the goods. The two factors that best describe my experience with Jessica are gating features and interactional control. Even though Jessica and I were good friends when we were at home, there were some issues, like family problems for example, that I did not feel comfortable telling her. However, the social anxiety I had about those issues were no longer present when I was online, and I was able to share these problems with her and ask for her advice. We disclosed more personal information than we would normally face-to-face, because of the removal of a gating feature (social anxiety). Another factor that explains my online relationship with Jessica is interactional control. It was easy talking to Jessica online, because I could respond to her messages and emails on my own time. We did not have to set a certain time aside to spend together; we would be forced to do this if we were having a face-to-face relationship. We both had control over when to talk or respond. We had the freedom of replying to an email at 4am, in our pajamas, in between studying for two prelims. This control over when we interacted gave us both more of an opportunity to get more personal and in-depth with the information we were sharing in the emails.
Overall the computer mediated system really brought me and Jessica together. It removed the gates that perhaps were keeping us from sharing our complete selves in person, and it also gave us control over when we interacted so we had more freedom and time to construct personal and meaningful emails.
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.
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.
Give as much advice as you want. Long distance doesn't work (5,1)
The first half of my senior year of high school, I was in a long distance relationship with a young man I had met at Cornell’s Summer College program. (I’ll call him James for the sake of flow, though it is not his real name.) He and I met in a class we had together, immediately clicked, and then decided to pursue and exclusive romantic relationship, despite the fact that James lived outside of New York City and I lived in Atlanta. We kept in touch through AOL instant messenger, as well as lengthy telephone conversations and e-mails. We had a set schedule to talk online while we were writing papers or doing other homework. After dinner, we would talk for an hour on the phone. While we were dating, one of us would fly to see the other roughly once every month or six weeks. I even spent an entire week and a half with James and his family in Vermont following Christmas. Even though we visited frequently considering the large distance between us and the fact that we were both in high school (and therefore largely not in control of our traveling schedules), most of our conversations took place in media much less rich than face to face contact.
Quick, chatty conversation was exchanged through IM, while more serious conversations about our concerns and feelings were reserved for phone time. In this aspect of our relationship, McKenna’s concept of identifiabiity came into practice. Identifiability suggests that anonymity leads to more self disclosure, then more relational development. Even though James knew much about me, the phone gave me a sense of anonymity that allowed me to reveal more about myself without feeling judged.
When I decided that it was time for James and me to go our separate ways, McKenna’s concept of interactional control came into play. This concept suggests that because I could control the number of cues I was giving, I was able to selectively self present; therefore, I was more comfortable with myself and disclosed more. I was able to speak more honestly about why I felt our relationship should end because I did not have to 1) give away many cues about my attitude, or 2) witness his reaction. Therefore, I was less tempted to “beat around the bush” and was able to be honest with
Quick, chatty conversation was exchanged through IM, while more serious conversations about our concerns and feelings were reserved for phone time. In this aspect of our relationship, McKenna’s concept of identifiabiity came into practice. Identifiability suggests that anonymity leads to more self disclosure, then more relational development. Even though James knew much about me, the phone gave me a sense of anonymity that allowed me to reveal more about myself without feeling judged.
When I decided that it was time for James and me to go our separate ways, McKenna’s concept of interactional control came into play. This concept suggests that because I could control the number of cues I was giving, I was able to selectively self present; therefore, I was more comfortable with myself and disclosed more. I was able to speak more honestly about why I felt our relationship should end because I did not have to 1) give away many cues about my attitude, or 2) witness his reaction. Therefore, I was less tempted to “beat around the bush” and was able to be honest with
#5- Online Attraction From One Frequent Forum User to Another
For a period of time extending a little over a year when I was in Middle School, I developed a series of online relationships in an asychronous discussion forum. I had performed a Google search on one of my favorite artists at that time (around the year 2000-2001), Eminem and stumbled upon an online community devoted to posting and discussing any news related item related to Eminem, from opinion on his album to his personal life. However, as the people who posted in the forum became "regulars", the discussion evolved to become more intimate and personal forms of communication. After a few months of board discussion, a close group of friends was formed between myself and the users of the forum. We all knew each other's personalities, life stories, feelings and opinions on certain topics. On a daily basis, we exchanged our stories and views on family, relationships, entertainment, love and daily life. Like any group of friends we had a clown, the honesty laden girl, the emotional attention-getter, the guy with the sarcastic dry sense of humor, the romantic, the motherly figure, the intellectual, the angsty teenage girl, the insecure recluse, the obsessed tennybopper, the flirt, and the mediator. We each occupied our own niche, and as a middle schooler who couldn't find her niche, I felt like I had found mine on this message board.
Within the message board, I came to be particularly interested in a member of our little community-- a poster by the name of Jeno (his online username was XpliCit). He was two years older than I was, and from England. What really drew me towards him was his cynical sense of humor. When new posters wrote in the forum, we all gave them a hard time as "newbies" and judged them harshly, but Jeno was particularly caustically witty. I suppose that as a middle schooler, I was subjected to harsh judgment in the face-to-face environment at school, but seeing others online being subjected to Jeno's razor-sharp humor gave me a prime sense of satisfaction. His crafty insults also contained a fair amount of British slang, which I found to be even more charming.
Although common ground, according to Wallace (which is defined as having mutually shared beliefs, experiences, characteristics) is a factor in attraction, I found I didn't have much common ground with Jeno. I don't profess to having a dry sense of humor, I am of different religion and live thousands of miles away, and I have a different taste altogether in music, which was the main topic of dicussion. In the CMC environment, however, I found that at least two of Wallace's relationship factors applied.
Towards the middle of our online aquaintance, Jeno posted his pictures up on the message board for everyone to see. This fits in with what Wallace describes as the CMC model of "getting to know" the person before evaluating their physical attractiveness. I found Jeno to look like a hybrid of Josh Harnett and Ben Affleck, which was a large factor in attraction. The pictures he posted were of low quality and featured him with angry expressions on his face. The online pictures definitely fit in with the Hyperpersonal Model. Within the Model, selective self-presentation says that we emphasize the positive traits we have and tone down the negative. Jeno could have probably decided in his pictures to post which ones he felt he looked attractive in. Also, as part of the Hyperpersonal Model, Behavioral Confirmation states that we try to behave the way people think of us as. Since most posters viewed him as the 'big bad wolf', Jeno posted pictures he thought reflected this and in turn confirmed my impression of him.
Another factor of Wallace's that contributed to my fondness for Jeno was proximity. Proximity online states that the more a person grows to be familiar with another person due to shared interaction space, the more they become attracted to that person. Since I visited the forum at least a few times a week, I saw Jeno's postings and interacted with him as well as the other users quite frequently. This allowed me to get to know him through time, and as looking at what he had to say became part of my weekly routine, my attraction grew. The more I visited the forum, the more I grew accustomed to his sense of humor and appreciated him more.
After a year or so within my message board community I realized that Face-to-Face relationships gave me more satisfaction than CMC, so I officially signed off the message board and lost contact with Jeno. However, my year spent on the message board truly applies to what we are learning in class about relationship development and facilitation online. I wonder if any of them, especially Jeno, still talk on that forum. If any of them happen to google 'Jeno' and 'XpliCit' and stumble upon this blog, I want to say HI! That period of time I spent getting acquainted with strangers online is the reason I was intrigued to take this course. I hope to apply my online experience there with further behavioral and psychological theories we will learn .
Within the message board, I came to be particularly interested in a member of our little community-- a poster by the name of Jeno (his online username was XpliCit). He was two years older than I was, and from England. What really drew me towards him was his cynical sense of humor. When new posters wrote in the forum, we all gave them a hard time as "newbies" and judged them harshly, but Jeno was particularly caustically witty. I suppose that as a middle schooler, I was subjected to harsh judgment in the face-to-face environment at school, but seeing others online being subjected to Jeno's razor-sharp humor gave me a prime sense of satisfaction. His crafty insults also contained a fair amount of British slang, which I found to be even more charming.
Although common ground, according to Wallace (which is defined as having mutually shared beliefs, experiences, characteristics) is a factor in attraction, I found I didn't have much common ground with Jeno. I don't profess to having a dry sense of humor, I am of different religion and live thousands of miles away, and I have a different taste altogether in music, which was the main topic of dicussion. In the CMC environment, however, I found that at least two of Wallace's relationship factors applied.
Towards the middle of our online aquaintance, Jeno posted his pictures up on the message board for everyone to see. This fits in with what Wallace describes as the CMC model of "getting to know" the person before evaluating their physical attractiveness. I found Jeno to look like a hybrid of Josh Harnett and Ben Affleck, which was a large factor in attraction. The pictures he posted were of low quality and featured him with angry expressions on his face. The online pictures definitely fit in with the Hyperpersonal Model. Within the Model, selective self-presentation says that we emphasize the positive traits we have and tone down the negative. Jeno could have probably decided in his pictures to post which ones he felt he looked attractive in. Also, as part of the Hyperpersonal Model, Behavioral Confirmation states that we try to behave the way people think of us as. Since most posters viewed him as the 'big bad wolf', Jeno posted pictures he thought reflected this and in turn confirmed my impression of him.
Another factor of Wallace's that contributed to my fondness for Jeno was proximity. Proximity online states that the more a person grows to be familiar with another person due to shared interaction space, the more they become attracted to that person. Since I visited the forum at least a few times a week, I saw Jeno's postings and interacted with him as well as the other users quite frequently. This allowed me to get to know him through time, and as looking at what he had to say became part of my weekly routine, my attraction grew. The more I visited the forum, the more I grew accustomed to his sense of humor and appreciated him more.
After a year or so within my message board community I realized that Face-to-Face relationships gave me more satisfaction than CMC, so I officially signed off the message board and lost contact with Jeno. However, my year spent on the message board truly applies to what we are learning in class about relationship development and facilitation online. I wonder if any of them, especially Jeno, still talk on that forum. If any of them happen to google 'Jeno' and 'XpliCit' and stumble upon this blog, I want to say HI! That period of time I spent getting acquainted with strangers online is the reason I was intrigued to take this course. I hope to apply my online experience there with further behavioral and psychological theories we will learn .
Assignment 5, Option 1: World of Warcraft relationships... a.k.a. "Get our flag back so I can cap theirs, you n00bs."
I have once again decided to tread in familiar territory. Even though I do not play World of Warcraft anymore, I cannot help but be reminded of how well this game relates to nearly everything we talk about in class. The relationships I formed in World of Warcraft are vast in number, and there are even some people I met randomly while playing the game that I still chat with to this day.
The relationship I want to discuss is with one player from my guild, whose online name I won't include, but only because it is an inappropriate word. So instead, I'll just call him "wow_player." Wow_player is an interesting human specimen, mostly because he has the demeanor of a starving grizzly bear and a vocabulary that makes George Carlin seem mild. To be completely honest, this is not all that rare in the world of online video games, but wow_player has unfriendliness down to a science.
In my relationship with wow_player, I believe my experience can best be explained by the removal of gating features, one of McKenna's relationship facilitation factors. What this means is that certain features that will facilitate or inhibit relationships in face-to-face interactions (such as physical attractiveness, social adeptness, gender, race, etc.) play either a reduced role or no role at all in CMC interations. Although I agree with this idea, it is somewhat incomplete, because for World of Warcraft, the FtF gating features are removed, but there exists a seperate set of gating factors for the game. In World of Warcraft, and video games in general, what matters is not your demeanor or attractiveness, but rather how skilled you are. Those who excel at "owning newbs" will quickly rise to the top of the social ladder, but those who are unskilled will find themselves ostracized and ridiculed. Wow_player, despite being an unbelievable jerk (and quite unattractive, from his picture), was probably one of the most skilled players I have ever met, and this is the reason why everyone (including myself) sought to be his friend. Conversely, he was very kind to me and sought out my opinion often simply because I was a skilled player as well.
Having common ground, one of Wallace's attraction factors, also played a key role in the relationship wow_player and I had. Having common ground simply means that one tends to form stronger relationships with others who share common beliefs or values. Obviously, wow_player and I shared an affinity for World of Warcraft, but there is more to it. We also shared beliefs on how skilled players should be, as well as the preference for what kind of gaming we enjoyed. Despite being a jerk to everyone else, he was civil with me because we agreed on our expectation of others and the game itself.
The relationship I want to discuss is with one player from my guild, whose online name I won't include, but only because it is an inappropriate word. So instead, I'll just call him "wow_player." Wow_player is an interesting human specimen, mostly because he has the demeanor of a starving grizzly bear and a vocabulary that makes George Carlin seem mild. To be completely honest, this is not all that rare in the world of online video games, but wow_player has unfriendliness down to a science.
In my relationship with wow_player, I believe my experience can best be explained by the removal of gating features, one of McKenna's relationship facilitation factors. What this means is that certain features that will facilitate or inhibit relationships in face-to-face interactions (such as physical attractiveness, social adeptness, gender, race, etc.) play either a reduced role or no role at all in CMC interations. Although I agree with this idea, it is somewhat incomplete, because for World of Warcraft, the FtF gating features are removed, but there exists a seperate set of gating factors for the game. In World of Warcraft, and video games in general, what matters is not your demeanor or attractiveness, but rather how skilled you are. Those who excel at "owning newbs" will quickly rise to the top of the social ladder, but those who are unskilled will find themselves ostracized and ridiculed. Wow_player, despite being an unbelievable jerk (and quite unattractive, from his picture), was probably one of the most skilled players I have ever met, and this is the reason why everyone (including myself) sought to be his friend. Conversely, he was very kind to me and sought out my opinion often simply because I was a skilled player as well.
Having common ground, one of Wallace's attraction factors, also played a key role in the relationship wow_player and I had. Having common ground simply means that one tends to form stronger relationships with others who share common beliefs or values. Obviously, wow_player and I shared an affinity for World of Warcraft, but there is more to it. We also shared beliefs on how skilled players should be, as well as the preference for what kind of gaming we enjoyed. Despite being a jerk to everyone else, he was civil with me because we agreed on our expectation of others and the game itself.
Assignment 5, Option 1: Long-Distance Relationship
This summer, I began seeing a boy who does not go to Cornell. Obviously, it was easy to keep in contact and see one another while we were at home, but problems arose when he left for military camp for five weeks in July and when we both left for school in mid-August. Although we are not currently together, we still try to work at a very close friendship over long-distance.
Every few days, we talk on the phone and have conversations about how school is going for each of us, how football is going for him, and other such events. We also talk over AIM and randomly through text messaging. Keeping a long-distance relationship going is extremely difficult, especially if there are feelings beyond friendship still involved.
McKenna's relationship facilitation factors include identifiability, removal of gating features, interactional control, connecting with similar others and getting the goods. Talking with him is simple and familiar because of the "connecting with similar others" factor. Since I attended all of high school with this boy, I already knew him pretty well before this summer. We can connect through both space and time and through social networks (we share the same circle of friends at home). He knows my interests, and I know his, so therefore we have common ground to cover. I suppose that ''getting the goods'' can also be applied to my situation, since his Facebook account is constantly available for me to see what he's up to. Now, I'm not saying I sit all day and check his updates, but it's nice to see some of his pictures from school and football and what not.
A lot of the time, it's difficult to keep such a relationship healthy because a particular person may be the one always initiating contact. However, if the partners share common ground and identify themselves with one another, a relationship such as mine is quite possible to keep alive. Long-distance is hard work, but since we were connected before through interactions in person, it's much easier.
Every few days, we talk on the phone and have conversations about how school is going for each of us, how football is going for him, and other such events. We also talk over AIM and randomly through text messaging. Keeping a long-distance relationship going is extremely difficult, especially if there are feelings beyond friendship still involved.
McKenna's relationship facilitation factors include identifiability, removal of gating features, interactional control, connecting with similar others and getting the goods. Talking with him is simple and familiar because of the "connecting with similar others" factor. Since I attended all of high school with this boy, I already knew him pretty well before this summer. We can connect through both space and time and through social networks (we share the same circle of friends at home). He knows my interests, and I know his, so therefore we have common ground to cover. I suppose that ''getting the goods'' can also be applied to my situation, since his Facebook account is constantly available for me to see what he's up to. Now, I'm not saying I sit all day and check his updates, but it's nice to see some of his pictures from school and football and what not.
A lot of the time, it's difficult to keep such a relationship healthy because a particular person may be the one always initiating contact. However, if the partners share common ground and identify themselves with one another, a relationship such as mine is quite possible to keep alive. Long-distance is hard work, but since we were connected before through interactions in person, it's much easier.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
#5 -- A relationship through email
Although I’ve actually attempted several long distance relationships in my life – including one that lasted well over a year – the one that I think would be most interesting to analyze here is one I have more recently begun. What makes this relationship particularly interesting is that we’ve had very little face-to-face contact, but communicate almost daily via email. Although we sometimes chat over instant messaging, only rarely do we communicate over the phone or by any other means of rich media.
I met this person about four weeks ago when he showed up at my apartment with his younger brother, who happens to be my neighbor. After an unconvincing invitation, and much coercion from my apartment-mate, I reluctantly agreed to take a break from my work and join the small gathering next door. In retrospect, I am very glad I did because I met an interesting new friend. “Adrian” and I spent the rest of that night and the next day talking and getting to know each other before he left for home (New York City). Since then, we’ve kept in touch over the Internet, and he plans to visit again soon.
Perhaps our choice of a mediated and lean communication channel for remaining friends reflects a generation of technology obsessed/savvy young adults, but I think it’s more likely a reflection of our common interests. This brings me to the first factor in Wallace’s model that I find specifically relevant to my experience. Wallace claims that common ground is an important attraction factor, and I agree. This includes mutually shared beliefs, assumptions, and propositions. It also includes conversational and categorical commonalities. “Adrian” and I bonded on all of these fronts. We shared a common interest in computers – especially things related to the Internet (perhaps this is why it has been so easy to keep in touch via email), but also in keeping extremely busy, outdoor activities, dangerous sports, sense of humor, coffee, opinions, pet peeves, etc. Obviously, we didn’t match on everything we discussed in our short time together, but the proportion of common ground to disparities was surprisingly high – and in agreement with the Law of Attraction, I was immediately attracted to him as a result. Since synchronous conversations between us are infrequent, this proportion of common ground has remained quite high.
The second Wallace attraction factor I found most relevant to my situation with “Adrian” is the Distribution effect. This factor deals with Hyperpersonal processes (i.e. over-attribution and selective self-presentation) and the role of self-disclosure in relationship development (a higher degree of self-disclosure is theorized to facilitate relationship development). Since we have been communicating through a mediated method, the over-attribution and selective self-presentation processes have emerged – which I noticed once I started to think about our interactions in a theoretical context. I am very careful in my emails to “Adrian”, and I imagine he censors his in a similar manner. This carefully crafted selective self-presentation narrows our topics to common ground, and characteristics we enjoy about each other. This then further promotes the over-attribution process. We may agree on a very simple issue or express another subtle similarity, and the lack of additional cues intensifies our mutually positive response. There is even some behavioral confirmation in our communication. I find myself replicating the type of messages and conversations to which he responds especially well. Over time, we have become quite close and I feel like I know “Adrian” very well. Self-disclosure has certainly aided this progression. By communicating daily we have shared many stories, experiences, and pieces of information about ourselves with each other. In sum, though I only knew “Adrian” in person for about 24 hours, I am quite fond of him because of our online relationship development – much of which can be explained using Wallace’s ideas.
comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=385623541247901584
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=6306258261571934981
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)