Throughout the course we have learned about a number of theories that I believe are still very relevant. The class favorite, Hyperpersonal Model, will be a timeless theory. No matter what we know about the dangers of the CMC world and how it may warp our impressions of those we interact with on the internet, the human psyche will likely always draw us into exaggerated thoughts and feelings. In addition, the allowances of the internet (high deindividuation being one of them), will likely always be utilized at its full advantage. When the opportunity arises, people will likely choose to self-present themselves in the best light and look for common ground to connect with others around the world.
Another important topic covered in this class was Caplan's Theory on Problematic Internet Use. Considering the way internet is incorporated into almost everything our generation does, it put into perspective how much is too much internet usage and whether we are at risk of PIU. I'm sure it also relieved a few people to know that they may not be using the internet too much. Caplan's Theory seems to also contain many important elements to it since it deals with psychological issues linked to the internet. I feel the internet will always allow socially inept people to become comfortable somewhere in the world and has a high chance of taking over other aspects of their lives.
One thing that I think should be covered in future classes is how the internet is affecting us as students and as potential employees in the future. Are there any studies out there linking social skills to internet use? Is our generation becoming less able to communicate ideas face to face because we have become so used to text based environments? Also, it would be interesting to see if our multi-tasking skills may be better than previous generations due to our use of several different sources i.e. Youtube, listening to music, chatting, playing a video game, writing e-mail, all while writing a paper. These would be interesting topics to discuss for the future if there is any good literature out there exploring these roles.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
11: A rather odd dating situation gone bad...
Aubrey, a 24-year-old woman from the Philippines, posted her experience with a boyfriend she first met online. She openly admits her dysfunction with dating. Her need to always be in a relationship affects her judgment, as evidenced by her blog post. Upon entering a chat room, Aubrey met Calvin. The two got to know each other online over a two-week period before the decided to meet. While their online interaction was brief, she felt she knew who Calvin was. Despite a few undesirable qualities, Calvin was a “nice guy” who was trying to turn his life around. After a bout with drug addition, Calvin was trying to get his life together. He too was lonely and looking for a relationship. In her post, Aubrey does not go into much detail about her expectations. In fact, it’s implied that she really didn’t have any, she came across as despite to find a new “boy” after her breakup a few days prior. After meeting Calvin, she quickly learned that his issues were far from resolved and his verbally abusive nature quickly revealed itself. However, Aubrey wanted to help Calvin and tolerated the abuse thinking that she could have a positive impact. Needless to say, the relationship didn’t last long. After a month and a half, Calvin broke up with her and threatened to kill her if she came near him again!
The developmental process of Aubrey’s outrageous story can be explained by Ramirez and Wang’s study on modality switching (the move from an online relationship to an offline relationship). The Expectancy Violation Theory (EVT) explains that when a relationship has little time to develop there are fewer expectations as a result of heightened uncertainty. Calvin’s violation of Aubrey’s opinion of him as a “good guy” trying to turn his life around had a less severe impact on the development of the offline relationship because the accumulated valence of past behavior was sort of neutralized. Aubrey knew that Calvin had issues, as did she with her need to be in a relationship, therefore, the valence, in Aubrey’s mind, was flighty and one that was not deeply invested in. Hence, the modality switch after interacting for only a short period online provided social information that was unexpected. This supports Ramirez and Wang’s first hypothesis.
The developmental process of Aubrey’s outrageous story can be explained by Ramirez and Wang’s study on modality switching (the move from an online relationship to an offline relationship). The Expectancy Violation Theory (EVT) explains that when a relationship has little time to develop there are fewer expectations as a result of heightened uncertainty. Calvin’s violation of Aubrey’s opinion of him as a “good guy” trying to turn his life around had a less severe impact on the development of the offline relationship because the accumulated valence of past behavior was sort of neutralized. Aubrey knew that Calvin had issues, as did she with her need to be in a relationship, therefore, the valence, in Aubrey’s mind, was flighty and one that was not deeply invested in. Hence, the modality switch after interacting for only a short period online provided social information that was unexpected. This supports Ramirez and Wang’s first hypothesis.
Assignment #11
Last semester, I lived off campus with four roommates. Wireless internet was included in our rent. Our landlord opted for the cheapest option possible, purchased the least expensive routers and installed wireless networks himself. That did not work out so well. We had multiple internet connection problems. In the middle of semester, we suddenly lost ability to go online although our signal was "strong." It was a very frustrating situation. Since the router was installed in my room, I got in charge of trying to fix this mess. That's when my relationship with netgear representative R started.
He was randomly assigned to me when I emailed technical support. Since our landlord and wireless provider were not able to help me with our connection problems, I resorted into contacting netgear, the manufacturer. He responded to my somewhat vague "I see signals, but I can't connect to any websites" with a simple question; "can you connect to websites using ethernet cord?" Why, yes I can. Afterwards I started receiving considerably longer instructions, such as how to do "ipconfig" and update our router. After a month of futile email correspondence, my landlord finally decided to pay for someone to take a look. And then wireless internet became alive and my short CMC with R was abruptly ended.
My interactions with R the computer support assistant mostly demonstrated hyperpersonal model. Although our interactions were limited to topics related to wireless network, I attributed various characteristics.He always had a suggestion and ended with courteous "Glad to be assisting you." Sure his responses were probably cut-and-paste cookie-cutter ones from the customer assistance manual. But he always had an answer and responded in a timely manner. It was fascinating. I assumed that he'd be a courteous and resourceful in real life. At the end, I didn't even consider the fact that he never actually solved the wireless problem.
He was randomly assigned to me when I emailed technical support. Since our landlord and wireless provider were not able to help me with our connection problems, I resorted into contacting netgear, the manufacturer. He responded to my somewhat vague "I see signals, but I can't connect to any websites" with a simple question; "can you connect to websites using ethernet cord?" Why, yes I can. Afterwards I started receiving considerably longer instructions, such as how to do "ipconfig" and update our router. After a month of futile email correspondence, my landlord finally decided to pay for someone to take a look. And then wireless internet became alive and my short CMC with R was abruptly ended.
My interactions with R the computer support assistant mostly demonstrated hyperpersonal model. Although our interactions were limited to topics related to wireless network, I attributed various characteristics.He always had a suggestion and ended with courteous "Glad to be assisting you." Sure his responses were probably cut-and-paste cookie-cutter ones from the customer assistance manual. But he always had an answer and responded in a timely manner. It was fascinating. I assumed that he'd be a courteous and resourceful in real life. At the end, I didn't even consider the fact that he never actually solved the wireless problem.
#11 Wow, you are... really different from how I pictured you!
Jarring! Disorienting! Disappointing! It sounds like the move from virtual to actual world always creates negative feelings. My friend's tale tells a different story.
In order to study abroad in any English-speaking country other than US, students must take the IELTS to prove their proficiency in English. Numerous forums have sprung online for people to exchange information regarding the test. My friend LJ was preparing to study in Britain. She joined a few forums, offering and receiving help from people in similar situations (i.e. send each other practice exams, etc). After a while, a few of them from the same city decided to meet. The results were great. They found the actual conversations in English were more helpful for their test preparation, and they got along quite well. This would seem to contradict the predictions of SIDE and hyperpersonal model, but I feel it's a combination of a few theories.
First of all, LJ's meeting was very task-oriented. Each person had a very specific goal: to improve their English. From the forum to the FtF meeting, this goal didn't change. Though they were interested in each other's life, social attractiveness wasn't their main purpose so they didn't expect much along that line. Secondly, Hyperpersonal model certainly plays a big role here. Where LJ lives, most people able to study abroad must be from a higher socioeconomic class. This is an uniting factor and a basis for great overattribution. LJ and her friends all assumed things about each other: good family background, etc. This made them think they were more alike than they really were. BUT these things were obviously not talked about in their meeting. They obviously didn't ask each other how much money their parents made. So there were basically no cues to give away their differences. Lastly, Uncertainty Reduction Theory also had a role. In the forum, you can hide rotten speaking skills if you are a good writer. But through their actual conversations, they realized their English skills were about the same. Which made them feel more alike and probably contributed to the overall success of the meeting.
To me, the relationship seems long-term (they had known each other for a few months when they met) so its positive outcome in FtF would contradict Ramiraz & Wang. But again, it's important that the meeting was task-oriented and people were probably more comfortable with each other because their goal in CMC and FtF remained the same.
In order to study abroad in any English-speaking country other than US, students must take the IELTS to prove their proficiency in English. Numerous forums have sprung online for people to exchange information regarding the test. My friend LJ was preparing to study in Britain. She joined a few forums, offering and receiving help from people in similar situations (i.e. send each other practice exams, etc). After a while, a few of them from the same city decided to meet. The results were great. They found the actual conversations in English were more helpful for their test preparation, and they got along quite well. This would seem to contradict the predictions of SIDE and hyperpersonal model, but I feel it's a combination of a few theories.
First of all, LJ's meeting was very task-oriented. Each person had a very specific goal: to improve their English. From the forum to the FtF meeting, this goal didn't change. Though they were interested in each other's life, social attractiveness wasn't their main purpose so they didn't expect much along that line. Secondly, Hyperpersonal model certainly plays a big role here. Where LJ lives, most people able to study abroad must be from a higher socioeconomic class. This is an uniting factor and a basis for great overattribution. LJ and her friends all assumed things about each other: good family background, etc. This made them think they were more alike than they really were. BUT these things were obviously not talked about in their meeting. They obviously didn't ask each other how much money their parents made. So there were basically no cues to give away their differences. Lastly, Uncertainty Reduction Theory also had a role. In the forum, you can hide rotten speaking skills if you are a good writer. But through their actual conversations, they realized their English skills were about the same. Which made them feel more alike and probably contributed to the overall success of the meeting.
To me, the relationship seems long-term (they had known each other for a few months when they met) so its positive outcome in FtF would contradict Ramiraz & Wang. But again, it's important that the meeting was task-oriented and people were probably more comfortable with each other because their goal in CMC and FtF remained the same.
Assignment 11
As I continued to become more involved with online chat, especially Msn Messenger, I began to build a friendship network. As the majority of my online friends were people I personally knew offline, I began to pick up a few that I knew through people, in particular “Kirsten.” These were people that I had never formally met before but began to chat with online every once in a while. Even though we started with some common ground, the friends we shared, it was still different than actually getting to know the person firsthand.
Since instant messaging chat is a very real form of online communication, getting to know Kirsten was easier than other forms of online chat. With synchronous responses, the conversations could be meaningful and actual attempts to get to know her. As things progressed to a more comfortable level, we decided that meeting that other person was something that should be done. We exchanged pictures and told each other where we would be one night and if we managed to see each other great, if not just try it again. It just so happens that we ended up at the same place and actually met in person.
Since we had exchanged pictures, I knew what she was going to look like so the sudden appearance was not a shock. What came as some what of a surprise to me was her personality. I wasn’t sure what to expect because of the emotionless conversations but once we met FtF I was pleasantly surprised that she was somewhat genuine and enjoyed life.
I would have to go against the SIDE theory because it states that if differentiation occurs, the reaction would be negative but since I thought Kirsten was a nice and genuine girl, my reaction was positive. The hyperpersonal model did play a factor, since I was able to develop a perception of Kirsten but indeed it wasn’t supported in real life. Along with SIDE, my reaction was of the positive nature and we didn’t come across the problem of information sharing outside of CMC.
Since instant messaging chat is a very real form of online communication, getting to know Kirsten was easier than other forms of online chat. With synchronous responses, the conversations could be meaningful and actual attempts to get to know her. As things progressed to a more comfortable level, we decided that meeting that other person was something that should be done. We exchanged pictures and told each other where we would be one night and if we managed to see each other great, if not just try it again. It just so happens that we ended up at the same place and actually met in person.
Since we had exchanged pictures, I knew what she was going to look like so the sudden appearance was not a shock. What came as some what of a surprise to me was her personality. I wasn’t sure what to expect because of the emotionless conversations but once we met FtF I was pleasantly surprised that she was somewhat genuine and enjoyed life.
I would have to go against the SIDE theory because it states that if differentiation occurs, the reaction would be negative but since I thought Kirsten was a nice and genuine girl, my reaction was positive. The hyperpersonal model did play a factor, since I was able to develop a perception of Kirsten but indeed it wasn’t supported in real life. Along with SIDE, my reaction was of the positive nature and we didn’t come across the problem of information sharing outside of CMC.
Assignment 11
The summer before my freshman year at Carnegie Mellon (I am a transfer to Cornell), I received the contact information of my two future roommates, John and Benny. Eager to talk to the people I would be living with, I emailed them introducing myself and shared my excitement for the coming year. After one or two emails each, we all exchanged AIM screen names to make chatting easier. We talked as a group a few times to find out who was bringing what, and to share a bit more about ourselves. John and I seemed to have a lot in common; we liked similar music, were interested in the same program, and had similar high school experiences. John and I talked a lot throughout the summer, typically every other day. I didn’t think I had anything in common with Benny; he was from the
The relationship I had with John online can be characterized with the hyperpersonal model. Since we had a few shared interests and beliefs, we over-attributed each others personalities, filling in the blanks with information that wasn’t really there. Since the period of the online contact was relatively long, about three months, we had a lot of well formed impressions, even if these impressions were completely false due to the over-attribution. With Benny, our relatively short period of interaction online that transitioned to FtF can be characterized by the uncertainty reduction theory. Since we had little contact in CMC, FtF interaction reduced uncertainty.
The results of Ramirez and Wang’s study on the effects of modality switching apply to both of these relationships. With John, the modality switch ended up diminishing the communication process and social outcomes. Our well formed CMC perception of each other turned out to be blatantly incorrect; we butted heads as roommates and became involved with completely different activities. With Benny, the modality switch provided additional details about each other that we didn’t form impressions about in our short contact via CMC. I was pleasantly surprised, and although we weren’t best friends, we got along very well and still talk from time to time.
11: Um... you're weird. Let's stay virtual friends!
The summer before coming to Cornell for my freshman year, I was a bit worried because I did not know any of my future peers. In an effort to alleviate some of this nervousness and worriment, I decided to enter the chat room on the Cornell “Class of 2009” website. After about fifteen minutes of being in the chat room I began chatting with “Rick.” It started off simple enough—we made small talk about our interests, where we were both from, our intended majors, and other such information. We ended up chatting for nearly three hours that first night. It seemed amazing! I felt as if I had actually connected with somebody that I would like to become friends with while at Cornell. After that first night we ended up chatting at least twice a week and even exchanged emails. As our virtual conversations continued over the weeks I felt as though I was really getting to know Rick. I could hardly wait to arrive in Ithaca at the end of the summer to meet my new friend.
Based on your great conversations you would probably assume that once we met in person we would click instantly and become best-buds, right? Um… wrong! I remember arriving to Cornell and then heading to the dining hall, just as Rick and I had agreed to do, and finally meeting him, face-to-face. It was one of the most awkward and confusing experiences I had ever endured! I thought I knew Rick based on our virtual conversations. However, our instant messages and emails didn’t prepare me for his nasty mannerisms, rude physical actions, his blunt attitude, and immature social interactions when face to face with not only me, but also with others. I was totally confused—why was he not the “cool” Rick that I had conversed with online?
My interactions with Rick can be best summed up and described by incorporating Walther’s Hyperpersonal Theory. This theory suggests that CMC allows users to selectively self-present themselves, allowing certain impressions to be formulated. Walther suggests that users will resort to overattribution and exaggeration of learned details based on a lack of cues. This was the case with Rick. Based on only our virtual conversations, I had used the limited cues to assume how he would behave when our relationship left virtuality. The hyperpersonal model also predicts negative outcomes for leaving virtuality and this fits with my experience: when we first met, I formed a negative impression of the once “cool” Rick. I had assumed we would get along well and interact in a particular way (which was TOTALLY incorrect!).
Needless to say, Rick and I are no longer “face-to-face” friends. He and will chat from occasionally while online, but we have never spent time together since that initial meeting. Perhaps Walther, Ramirez, and Wang are correct—some relationships should never leave viruality. As for Rick, I’d much rather have him as a virtual friend and would probably rather spend time with crazy Britney Spears than hang out with him!
-Joshua Navarro
My Comments:
http://comm245purple.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11-first-impressions-can-be.html
http://comm245purple.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11-actually-youre-weird.html#comments
Based on your great conversations you would probably assume that once we met in person we would click instantly and become best-buds, right? Um… wrong! I remember arriving to Cornell and then heading to the dining hall, just as Rick and I had agreed to do, and finally meeting him, face-to-face. It was one of the most awkward and confusing experiences I had ever endured! I thought I knew Rick based on our virtual conversations. However, our instant messages and emails didn’t prepare me for his nasty mannerisms, rude physical actions, his blunt attitude, and immature social interactions when face to face with not only me, but also with others. I was totally confused—why was he not the “cool” Rick that I had conversed with online?
My interactions with Rick can be best summed up and described by incorporating Walther’s Hyperpersonal Theory. This theory suggests that CMC allows users to selectively self-present themselves, allowing certain impressions to be formulated. Walther suggests that users will resort to overattribution and exaggeration of learned details based on a lack of cues. This was the case with Rick. Based on only our virtual conversations, I had used the limited cues to assume how he would behave when our relationship left virtuality. The hyperpersonal model also predicts negative outcomes for leaving virtuality and this fits with my experience: when we first met, I formed a negative impression of the once “cool” Rick. I had assumed we would get along well and interact in a particular way (which was TOTALLY incorrect!).
Needless to say, Rick and I are no longer “face-to-face” friends. He and will chat from occasionally while online, but we have never spent time together since that initial meeting. Perhaps Walther, Ramirez, and Wang are correct—some relationships should never leave viruality. As for Rick, I’d much rather have him as a virtual friend and would probably rather spend time with crazy Britney Spears than hang out with him!
-Joshua Navarro
My Comments:
http://comm245purple.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11-first-impressions-can-be.html
http://comm245purple.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11-actually-youre-weird.html#comments
11. What happens in CMC should STAY in CMC
During my freshman year of high school, my best friend began
dating a girl from another town. He wanted to be able
to spend more time with her, so he convinced me to try and
befriend one of her good friends online so that we could
all hang out together. I reluctantly agreed. I was given this
girl’s screen name, and we began to talk on AIM. While
it was awkward in the beginning, I found that she seemed
to be one of the most fun people I had ever talked to.
She was very open and spontaneous, and as Uncertainty
Reduction theory predicts, the more time we spent talking
online, the more intimate our conversations became, and
the more positively we viewed one another. My friend broke up with his girlfriend well before I ever got
to meet this girl, so it seemed like our friendship would have
to remain online. Months of such conversations went by, and
we talked more and more frequently. We both believed
that we were romantically interested in one another, and she
made plans to come visit me. When we finally did meet,
it was the strangest experience of my life. When we saw
one another for the first time, we both realized that we
didn’t really know each other at all. I could tell that we both
felt ridiculous as we walked back from the train station
to my house, and rather than being the fun, flirtatious and s
pontaneous person I had been speaking to online, she
looked like a deer trapped in the headlights. I can’t imagine
that I was much better- the level of uncertainty about
exactly where we stood, (I mean, I knew so much about her
but had never even seen her before), led me to be almost
completely silent. It redefined awkward. The Ramirez and Wang article would predict these findings.
We had been over attributing the positive characteristics
and things we had in common online, and had developed
very strong impressions of one another. However, these
impressions were not representative, and when we met
one another, we were obviously confused and let down. Suffice it to say that we agreed she should probably
just go home about an hour after she arrived.
We never spoke again.Assignment 11: First impressions can be great, but...
When asked to write about a relationship that began online and later left virtuality to meet face to face, I had difficulty thinking up such a relationship that had occurred. Because I knew my freshman roommate before we were assigned housing in those wonderful townhouses, the only relationship I could think of was the one that developed between me and my roommate and our two suitemates (as they were friends prior to moving in as well).
My roommate and I had not heard from the two of them all summer, so we decided to send them an email because we did not know either of their AIM screen names or if they even had AIM. We sent them basic information about ourselves, such as where we’re from, major, favorite movie, favorite T.V. show, etc; typical get-to-know-you information. They didn’t respond for a couple of weeks (which didn’t send a positive initial impression of my future housemates); however, when they finally did, I found that we had some things in common. The three of us (excluding my roommate) were all from a big city, and we liked similar movies and T.V. shows. Based on this information (I sent an email back to them but there was no further correspondence), it seemed like we would get along well in the upcoming year.
All I have to say is move in day was a shock to me. After the modality switch, meeting them for the first time face to face, I realized that they were not at all what I had expected them to be. Unfortunately, the modality switch led to a contradiction of my little knowledge and expectations of them. Needless to say, we did not get along like I had expected. My impressions followed the hyperpersonal model: I formed exaggerated impressions of my suitemates based on the few cues they had given me over the summer. It turns out that we did not have as much in common as I had expected. They were also much quieter and shyer than I assumed. When my roommate and I invited them to go places with us, such as dinner at RPU, they refused therefore making it difficult to get to know them face to face, just as it had been difficult getting to know them through computer mediated communication. My modality switch therefore, unfortunately, led to a negative impression of my suitemates. I was expecting great relationships to form throughout freshman year based on the few cues I had; however, my expectations did not develop as I predicted.
My roommate and I had not heard from the two of them all summer, so we decided to send them an email because we did not know either of their AIM screen names or if they even had AIM. We sent them basic information about ourselves, such as where we’re from, major, favorite movie, favorite T.V. show, etc; typical get-to-know-you information. They didn’t respond for a couple of weeks (which didn’t send a positive initial impression of my future housemates); however, when they finally did, I found that we had some things in common. The three of us (excluding my roommate) were all from a big city, and we liked similar movies and T.V. shows. Based on this information (I sent an email back to them but there was no further correspondence), it seemed like we would get along well in the upcoming year.
All I have to say is move in day was a shock to me. After the modality switch, meeting them for the first time face to face, I realized that they were not at all what I had expected them to be. Unfortunately, the modality switch led to a contradiction of my little knowledge and expectations of them. Needless to say, we did not get along like I had expected. My impressions followed the hyperpersonal model: I formed exaggerated impressions of my suitemates based on the few cues they had given me over the summer. It turns out that we did not have as much in common as I had expected. They were also much quieter and shyer than I assumed. When my roommate and I invited them to go places with us, such as dinner at RPU, they refused therefore making it difficult to get to know them face to face, just as it had been difficult getting to know them through computer mediated communication. My modality switch therefore, unfortunately, led to a negative impression of my suitemates. I was expecting great relationships to form throughout freshman year based on the few cues I had; however, my expectations did not develop as I predicted.
Assignment # 11: Next time I won't have such high expectations!
The summer after my sophomore year of high school, I spent six weeks traveling cross-country on a teen tour with 40 other teenagers my age. Before embarking on the trip, I conversed with another teen, Jared, who was signed up for the same program dates. We spoke a few times online using instant messenger and eventually met face to face on the first day of the tour. Initially, I was only able to form an impression of Jared from our communication through CMC. The shift to then meeting him face-to-face, is an example of modality switching, which had an impact on our relationship. My experience can be characterized by the Expectancy Violation Theory which says that a violation of expectations (behavior that deviates from currently held expectations) triggers a chain of events directed at explaining its occurrence (Ramirez and Wang). I experienced violations of expectations of the social information that was initially processed. Specifically, I envisioned him to be physically attractive and assumed that he would be outgoing and friendly. Instead, I found him to be relatively shy and less attractive than expected. As a result, our relationship was dampened when we met face-to-face.
I think that these examples of violated expectations can be explained by the hyperpersonal model. One component of the hyperpersonal model is over attribution of similarity and common norms. Since my online interaction with Jared was rather brief, I think that I may have formed an over idealized impression of him. Since he was friendly and seemed confident online, I assumed that he would be very friendly and physically attractive based on our interaction through CMC. I also attributed our common interests to mean that we were far more similar to each other than in reality. Another component of the hyperpersonal model that also seems to help explain these inconsistencies in expectations is selective self presentation. Perhaps because CMC lacks many non-verbal cues, Jared was able to control our interaction and present himself in a positive manner. He probably also had more confidence in himself which explains my expectation of him being very physically attractive.
My experience with modality switching seems to be consistent with some of the findings of the Ramirez and Wang paper. They hypothesized and proved that MS, relative to interacting through only CMC, will provide social information perceived as less expected. My encounters with expectancy violations of partner behavior and physical attractiveness support these results. Another finding was that with MS, social information would be perceived as more relationally important. In my relationship with Jared, I felt that social information was more important upon meeting him relative to when I had simply talked to him online. Our interactions in person led me to place much more emphasis on social information and had an impact on our relationship throughout the six weeks we traveled together. These results show how relationships can be affected by experiencing modality switching from online communication to face-to-face interaction.
I think that these examples of violated expectations can be explained by the hyperpersonal model. One component of the hyperpersonal model is over attribution of similarity and common norms. Since my online interaction with Jared was rather brief, I think that I may have formed an over idealized impression of him. Since he was friendly and seemed confident online, I assumed that he would be very friendly and physically attractive based on our interaction through CMC. I also attributed our common interests to mean that we were far more similar to each other than in reality. Another component of the hyperpersonal model that also seems to help explain these inconsistencies in expectations is selective self presentation. Perhaps because CMC lacks many non-verbal cues, Jared was able to control our interaction and present himself in a positive manner. He probably also had more confidence in himself which explains my expectation of him being very physically attractive.
My experience with modality switching seems to be consistent with some of the findings of the Ramirez and Wang paper. They hypothesized and proved that MS, relative to interacting through only CMC, will provide social information perceived as less expected. My encounters with expectancy violations of partner behavior and physical attractiveness support these results. Another finding was that with MS, social information would be perceived as more relationally important. In my relationship with Jared, I felt that social information was more important upon meeting him relative to when I had simply talked to him online. Our interactions in person led me to place much more emphasis on social information and had an impact on our relationship throughout the six weeks we traveled together. These results show how relationships can be affected by experiencing modality switching from online communication to face-to-face interaction.
Assignment #11 - My "Perfect" Roommate
When I decided to defer for a year and spend it in Israel, I wanted have a completely unique experience and therefore decided to try my luck by going potluck to pick a roommate. During July, I found out that my roommate was going to be a German girl two years older than me named Anna. I decided to begin emailing her in the summer in order to have a familiar person to look forward to seeing when I moved half way around the world. We emailed back and forth throughout the rest of the summer and through the cliché icebreakers and “getting-to-know-you” questions, we discovered that we shared a lot of common ground and it appeared that we were a perfect match. I was only too excited to meet her and when I arrived in Israel, I was told that she would be arriving a week later, which only built up my anticipation of finally meeting her.
However, after meeting, we quickly discovered that our common ground was only pertinent to the online world. We learned that we had extremely different interests, lifestyles and groups of friends. I felt that many of the personality traits on which I felt that we based our connection on never surfaced. By the end of two months living together, our interactions were cordial but not at all warm and were typically to superficial conversations that included statements like “Do you want me to turn the light off now?”
My experience was strongly affected by the Hyperpersonal model as I based my impression of Anna on personality traits affected by the over-attribution process as well as selective self-presentation. For example, Anna recounted a story that led me to assume that she was typically a loud, lively girl only and after meeting her it became apparent this story atypical of her behavior. My initial impression of meeting her in person was negative which is consistent with the Hyperpersonal model as it predicts a negative outcome for when an interaction transitions from virtuality to in-person.
I also found that my experience was consistent with Ramirez & Wang’s Expectancy Violation Theory as meeting Anna was quite a disappointing experience. I had built up my expectation of meeting her because I assumed that it would go off without a hitch and that I would find a roommate I could actually bond with. In fact, I was a bit anxious the rest of the year because I found living with her to be an awkward experience and when she went to Germany for two weeks, I found myself hoping that she wouldn’t return.Ramirez & Wang attribute this negative outcome to the fact that we spent a few weeks chatting each other up before we met. Perhaps if we only had FtF interactions, it wouldn’t have been such a disappointment to meet her.
However, after meeting, we quickly discovered that our common ground was only pertinent to the online world. We learned that we had extremely different interests, lifestyles and groups of friends. I felt that many of the personality traits on which I felt that we based our connection on never surfaced. By the end of two months living together, our interactions were cordial but not at all warm and were typically to superficial conversations that included statements like “Do you want me to turn the light off now?”
My experience was strongly affected by the Hyperpersonal model as I based my impression of Anna on personality traits affected by the over-attribution process as well as selective self-presentation. For example, Anna recounted a story that led me to assume that she was typically a loud, lively girl only and after meeting her it became apparent this story atypical of her behavior. My initial impression of meeting her in person was negative which is consistent with the Hyperpersonal model as it predicts a negative outcome for when an interaction transitions from virtuality to in-person.
I also found that my experience was consistent with Ramirez & Wang’s Expectancy Violation Theory as meeting Anna was quite a disappointing experience. I had built up my expectation of meeting her because I assumed that it would go off without a hitch and that I would find a roommate I could actually bond with. In fact, I was a bit anxious the rest of the year because I found living with her to be an awkward experience and when she went to Germany for two weeks, I found myself hoping that she wouldn’t return.Ramirez & Wang attribute this negative outcome to the fact that we spent a few weeks chatting each other up before we met. Perhaps if we only had FtF interactions, it wouldn’t have been such a disappointment to meet her.
11: Am I Attracted To Beager and Calabrese?
This blog post brought back a funny memory of mine from high school, in which I “took one for the team.” My best friend met this girl at a party and they exchanged screen names and a few days later conversed over AIM. After talking for a week or so, they decided to setup a date. The only catch was that it had to be a double date, which is where I come in. She wanted her friend to come along on the date, so I was my buddy’s wing man. I agreed to take the girl out as long as we got to talk beforehand. He got me her screen name, and we started talking a couple of days before the date was suppose to occur.
Talking to this total stranger was a little weird at first because we didn’t know anything about each other and we were really dragged into the situation by our friends. The first 20 minutes or so was awkward because we weren’t paying that much attention to each other since the interest level was not there. After we got past the introduction phase, we both suddenly became interested in each other and began our CMC relationship. It’s interesting because I was attracted to her without even seeing what she looked like. We exchanged physical characteristics of each other, but decided to make it interesting by revealing what we looked like on the date. Other then characteristics that we possessed we talked about anything and everything for the next couple of day’s non-stop, almost as if we had known whom the other person was.
The gentlemen that we were, we picked them up at my friend’s date’s house and took them out to eat. Seeing my date for the first time was actually shocking because she was not the type of girl I normally would go after, however, I was attracted to her in a different way. Throughout the night we joked around and had a lot of fun in our conversation over dinner, and I could feel that the attraction was there for her as well. After that date, we actually went on a few more dates before we got into a relationship. Unfortunately for my friend it didn’t work out as well, but they decided just to be friends.
My first face-to-face meeting was the date in which the communication was no longer through an AOL chat. Beager and Calabrese's Uncertainty Reduction Theory states that the reduction of uncertainty leads to attraction. When someone has a lot of information about the other person online it will then lead to an increased liking in a relationship. When we left the online world and met face-to-face we had a very positive effect. After our date, we continued to converse online and eventually found more things that we had in common. Our impressions of one another did not change, and our conversations online continued to be the same as before we had gone on the date. McKenna's attraction theory played a role as well in my situation. I believe that some of our attractions were due to common interests. Another small factor was the SIDE theory; SIDE predicts that when moving from individuality into a group that the interaction will be more positive than being in a one on one situation. This held true for our date since our first interaction of face-to-face was on a double date with people we were comfortable with.
Talking to this total stranger was a little weird at first because we didn’t know anything about each other and we were really dragged into the situation by our friends. The first 20 minutes or so was awkward because we weren’t paying that much attention to each other since the interest level was not there. After we got past the introduction phase, we both suddenly became interested in each other and began our CMC relationship. It’s interesting because I was attracted to her without even seeing what she looked like. We exchanged physical characteristics of each other, but decided to make it interesting by revealing what we looked like on the date. Other then characteristics that we possessed we talked about anything and everything for the next couple of day’s non-stop, almost as if we had known whom the other person was.
The gentlemen that we were, we picked them up at my friend’s date’s house and took them out to eat. Seeing my date for the first time was actually shocking because she was not the type of girl I normally would go after, however, I was attracted to her in a different way. Throughout the night we joked around and had a lot of fun in our conversation over dinner, and I could feel that the attraction was there for her as well. After that date, we actually went on a few more dates before we got into a relationship. Unfortunately for my friend it didn’t work out as well, but they decided just to be friends.
My first face-to-face meeting was the date in which the communication was no longer through an AOL chat. Beager and Calabrese's Uncertainty Reduction Theory states that the reduction of uncertainty leads to attraction. When someone has a lot of information about the other person online it will then lead to an increased liking in a relationship. When we left the online world and met face-to-face we had a very positive effect. After our date, we continued to converse online and eventually found more things that we had in common. Our impressions of one another did not change, and our conversations online continued to be the same as before we had gone on the date. McKenna's attraction theory played a role as well in my situation. I believe that some of our attractions were due to common interests. Another small factor was the SIDE theory; SIDE predicts that when moving from individuality into a group that the interaction will be more positive than being in a one on one situation. This held true for our date since our first interaction of face-to-face was on a double date with people we were comfortable with.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Assignment 11- Yeah, Yeah, my girlfriend was right
So I have a problem that my girlfriend hates, I tend to, believe-it-or-not, follow stereotypes or what people generally consider a characteristic of a group. My brother quit the hockey team in high school because the team was a bunch of goons and arrogant rich kids. That is the sort of stereotype I sometimes use. Or things like a certain team always has good parties for the ladies on campus because it is a bunch of chiseled guys who have a tendency to wear very little clothing. Yes, I am wrong from time to time, but, what keeps me from breaking the habit, the idea behind such stereotypes is that they are usually true.
Where am I going with this? The Social Identity and Deindividuation Effects theory (or SIDE theory) says relationships are built between groups and within groups based off of certain tying or separating characteristics, or...stereotypes. What happens when people find out the truth or even just the other side of someone in another group, is that their opinion and not coincidentally, their relationship changes. They had an opinion based off of the characteristics of a group, when those characteristics are proved otherwise...the opinion and relationship changes.
My specific story is recent, in a group project I and a friend were assigned another person to work with. I emailed that person, asked them when they were normally free, what year they were, what they were studying, and how much experience they had in the project we were going to undertake. He is a senior, biology/pre-med major, and had little experience before the course started. I facebook stalked him, won't deny it, and made some other silly assumptions about him. In this case, I was not thrilled with what I had learned about him in the CMC environment, I doubted his ability to work in a group effectively. When we all finally got together for the first meeting, it turns out the TAs had done a very good job combining our group, and while he was what he was online, he was more, and that more played a good compliment to what my friend and I were, and our group is working really well. My girlfriend was right, but I will say that, still, usually, I am right.
Where am I going with this? The Social Identity and Deindividuation Effects theory (or SIDE theory) says relationships are built between groups and within groups based off of certain tying or separating characteristics, or...stereotypes. What happens when people find out the truth or even just the other side of someone in another group, is that their opinion and not coincidentally, their relationship changes. They had an opinion based off of the characteristics of a group, when those characteristics are proved otherwise...the opinion and relationship changes.
My specific story is recent, in a group project I and a friend were assigned another person to work with. I emailed that person, asked them when they were normally free, what year they were, what they were studying, and how much experience they had in the project we were going to undertake. He is a senior, biology/pre-med major, and had little experience before the course started. I facebook stalked him, won't deny it, and made some other silly assumptions about him. In this case, I was not thrilled with what I had learned about him in the CMC environment, I doubted his ability to work in a group effectively. When we all finally got together for the first meeting, it turns out the TAs had done a very good job combining our group, and while he was what he was online, he was more, and that more played a good compliment to what my friend and I were, and our group is working really well. My girlfriend was right, but I will say that, still, usually, I am right.
An Online Relationship Tragedy
“Kids need to be taught not to be so trustworthy online. You can’t be so gullible.” –Bob Abram
It began as a casual online relationship, but rapidly turned into a nightmare. Chelsea Abram, 16, began chatting with Sam Levitan, supposedly 16, over the internet (in a chat room) and quickly grew fond of their conversations. When both felt they knew each other well, Levitan became pushy, hoping to meet Abram in person. On August 14, 2005 during the night, Levitan called Abram’s house and asked to meet with her. At first rejected, Levitan tried once more, this time from Abram’s driveway. Realizing his dedication to the relationship, Abram conceded, allowing Levitan to drive her to her friend’s house. Instead of going to their original destination, Levitan brought Abram to his home, where he raped and tormented her. Hours later, he dropped Abram off at her friend’s house. Half a year later, on News Years Day, Abram shot herself with her father’s .22-caliber pistol. It was later found that Levitan was 22 at the time of the rape, not 16 as he had told Abram.
Regarding Ramirez’s and Wang’s article on Modality Switching (MS), the online relationship fits with hypothesis three, which states that “MS following a long-term association via CMC will provide social information that will be (a) evaluated more negatively and (b) uncertainty-provoking relative to interacting via CMC.” Abram and Levitan interacted online for nearly two months before meeting each other. By that time, both had learned quite a bit about each other (or Abram thought). By the time they did meet each other, Abram discovered Levitan’s true character, which was incredibly negative. Additionally, the social information gained after the MS also provoked greater uncertainty, as Abram found Levitan's personality much different than how she had perceived online.
11: Likes me, Likes me not, Likes me
Before coming to Cornell my freshman year, one of my future suitemates IMed me over the summer and we talked a few times online before school. We had the basic “get to know you” conversations concerning our interests, activities, summer jobs, future majors, etc. When we finally met on move-in day, I was taken by surprise. My suitemate was not who I expected her to be and I initially did not like her.
I think that my experience of leaving virtuality fits with the hyperpersonal theory. I had an idealized impression of what I thought my suitemate would be like. Because we only spoke 2 or 3 times, I did not know much about her, and I overattributed the few cues I got. On the internet, we got along well. While her interests were slightly different from mine, we still connected and the conversations flowed easily. I figured this would carry over into our ftf interaction. However, when I met her, I was surprised by her personality, tone of voice, and expressions – it did not seem like we had anything in common. According to the hyperpersonal theory, CMC allows users to selectively self-present and “senders tailor messages to cater exceedingly positive impressions” (Ramirez & Want). We both tried to give each other good impressions of ourselves and also focused on things we had in common. So when I finally met her, I did not expect her to be so different from me. The hyperpersonal model predicts negative outcomes for leaving virtuality and this fits with my experience: when we first met, I formed a negative impression of my suitemate.
This leaving virtuality also fits with one of the main results discussed in Ramirez & Wang. In the study, participants rated the social information acquired by modality switching as an expectancy violation despite the short-term versus long-term measures. Similarly, when I first met my suitemate in person after talking to her online, she was not who I expected her to be. Our ftf interaction provided me with a lot more information than I had gotten online. Seeing how she expressed herself and acted around others, gave me more insight into who she was but this did not fit with who I thought she was.
Overall, “initial in-person encounters following a period of online interaction have the potential to significantly influence interpersonal processes and outcomes” (Ramirez & Wang). My online impression differed from my ftf impression and initially, this led me to form a negative impression of my suitemate. But despite the original negative expectancy violation, she ended up becoming one of my closest friends at school.
I think that my experience of leaving virtuality fits with the hyperpersonal theory. I had an idealized impression of what I thought my suitemate would be like. Because we only spoke 2 or 3 times, I did not know much about her, and I overattributed the few cues I got. On the internet, we got along well. While her interests were slightly different from mine, we still connected and the conversations flowed easily. I figured this would carry over into our ftf interaction. However, when I met her, I was surprised by her personality, tone of voice, and expressions – it did not seem like we had anything in common. According to the hyperpersonal theory, CMC allows users to selectively self-present and “senders tailor messages to cater exceedingly positive impressions” (Ramirez & Want). We both tried to give each other good impressions of ourselves and also focused on things we had in common. So when I finally met her, I did not expect her to be so different from me. The hyperpersonal model predicts negative outcomes for leaving virtuality and this fits with my experience: when we first met, I formed a negative impression of my suitemate.
This leaving virtuality also fits with one of the main results discussed in Ramirez & Wang. In the study, participants rated the social information acquired by modality switching as an expectancy violation despite the short-term versus long-term measures. Similarly, when I first met my suitemate in person after talking to her online, she was not who I expected her to be. Our ftf interaction provided me with a lot more information than I had gotten online. Seeing how she expressed herself and acted around others, gave me more insight into who she was but this did not fit with who I thought she was.
Overall, “initial in-person encounters following a period of online interaction have the potential to significantly influence interpersonal processes and outcomes” (Ramirez & Wang). My online impression differed from my ftf impression and initially, this led me to form a negative impression of my suitemate. But despite the original negative expectancy violation, she ended up becoming one of my closest friends at school.
You Like Pink, too? Wow, we have SO much in common!
After joining the Accepted: University of Michigan Class of 2011
Although switching to a face-to-face form of communication provides more social cues and information about a person, this is not necessarily going to benefit the relationship (Ramirez, 2007). According to the Hyperpersonal theory, (Walther, 1997) impressions online will likely be exaggerated versions of the other person’s true character. Selective self-presentation allows the presenter to modify and mold the way he or she represents him or herself, giving off the best impression possible. Although this can be beneficial to relationship formation, it also raises expectations of the other by both parties. Text-based communication likely leads to a belief in many more similarities than actually exist in reality and a sort of “idealized” view of the other person. Students going into their first year of college are in such a vulnerable state and are likely to put even more weight on these conversations, taking each word of the other person as a sign that they were meant to be life long friends. According to the Laws of Attraction, it is the proportion of shared attitudes and beliefs that leads to attraction and thus the fewer cues available in a mediated channel may heighten this phenomenon. When Rachel met this girl in the
When they finally met at school, already in a Facebook “complicated relationship,” the girls likely expected to be best friends. They had highly over-attributed their similarities to one another and had very high expectations of what their friendship would be. They are simply two very different people who get along well, but ironically are by no means as close as they were when they were sitting in separate rooms, on opposite sides of the country, and behind their own computer screens. Since the time they spent online was more similar to the “long-term” group used in Ramirez and Wang’s (2007) study, it makes sense that their move out of virtuality was less expected and less positive. Meeting people online prior to school can certainly reduce anxiety about attending college. Unfortunately, it may also lead people to put all of their attention on and effort into the success of these expected friendships because they worked so well online. However, there are so many new people to meet in that first rush of excitement at college, it is important not to solely consider these prior CMC relationships that may or may not work out.
Assignment 11...Not as bad as I expected.
It is always an interesting and dynamic experience to meet and develop a relationship online, and then move that relationship from virtuality to reality. One personal example of such an occurrence can be seen by observing the development of my relationship with my freshmen roommate, who will hereon out be referred to as Joe. Throughout this relationship, there was one major social theory that was readily reflected by this experience, which is the Hyperpersonal Model, as formulated by Walther in 1997.
My first interaction with Joe was over e-mail. He sent me a message, introducing himself and telling me those few basic facts that new acquaintances exchange in their first interaction. I sent him an e-mail back, sharing some of the same information. After this initial exchange, we decided to take our relationship to the next level, and communicate over AIM. This interaction was more revealing, and led to me develop an inflated, and negative, impression of Joe’s true personality. One of the first things he told me was which county he was from, and how it was the richest in America. He then proceeded to tell me about all his feats, which included, amongst other things, being a genius, being a world class musician and athlete, and also having the potential to be a model for Abercrombie.
Needless to say, the arrogance that I perceived him to possess, since arrogance was one of the few cues I had to work with, became incredibly inflated, as predicted by the Hyperpersonal Model, and I had immediately formed a negative impression of him. When it was time to meet face to face, I was quite nervous, and was prepared for the worst. What I found however, was pleasantly surprising. Joe was considerably less arrogant, and far more laid back, than I had expected him to be. I found, therefore, that the Hyperpersonal Model created a positive outcome for my relationship with Joe when leaving virtuality. I was expecting the worst, and since my expectations were so low, based and exaggerated upon the few cues I had, I was pleasantly surprised in my face to face meeting when I found that Joe surpassed my expectations, and was not as bad as I was prepared to accept.
As predicted by the Hyperpersonal Model, I developed an exaggerated and inflated impression of my future roommate, based on the few cues I had. Since the impression I developed was negative, however, I had a positive outcome when moving my relationship from virtuality to reality.
Assignment 11- How I Met My Boyfriend
Last week, Professor Hancock asked us how many members of our class began a relationship with someone online that eventually moved face-to-face. Initially, I scoffed at the question and thought to myself "What's the point of beginning a relationship with someone online?" Then, I realized that my current boyfriend and I actually DID initially meet in CMC.
We found each other in a Myspace group that was dedicated to accepted members of Cornell's class of 2010 during our senior year of high school. We exchanged screen names, added each other as friends on Facebook, and eventually exchanged numbers (though we never actually spoke on the phone until much later). These interactions, mostly on AIM, built the foundation of our relationship by allowing us to discuss our common interests (mostly movies and football), and debate about things about which we did not hold similar views at the time. We kept CMC as our primary contact method until half way through orientation week, when we decided to meet for lunch.
After our first face to face meeting, my boyfriend's and my relationship was adjusted so that we left virtuality (with the exception of summer and other breaks when he is in Massachusettes and I am in Georgia). Our experience is consistant with Beager and Calabrese's Uncertainty Reduction Theory. Their theory states that the reduction of uncertainty leads to affinity or attraction. More information leads to increased liking and intimacy. Though I had seen enough photos of my boyfriend while our relationship was only online to know that he is an attractive person, I was not certain that I would be attracted to his offline personality, which might not have been as interesting or fun-loving. He and I immediately clicked in the online world, but my experience with other Cornell students who I had first met online told me that I might not always be compatible with those same people face to face. Even after over a year of dating, my boyfriend and I are still "reducing uncertainty." To this day, we are still increasingly attracted to each other as we learn more about each other.
We found each other in a Myspace group that was dedicated to accepted members of Cornell's class of 2010 during our senior year of high school. We exchanged screen names, added each other as friends on Facebook, and eventually exchanged numbers (though we never actually spoke on the phone until much later). These interactions, mostly on AIM, built the foundation of our relationship by allowing us to discuss our common interests (mostly movies and football), and debate about things about which we did not hold similar views at the time. We kept CMC as our primary contact method until half way through orientation week, when we decided to meet for lunch.
After our first face to face meeting, my boyfriend's and my relationship was adjusted so that we left virtuality (with the exception of summer and other breaks when he is in Massachusettes and I am in Georgia). Our experience is consistant with Beager and Calabrese's Uncertainty Reduction Theory. Their theory states that the reduction of uncertainty leads to affinity or attraction. More information leads to increased liking and intimacy. Though I had seen enough photos of my boyfriend while our relationship was only online to know that he is an attractive person, I was not certain that I would be attracted to his offline personality, which might not have been as interesting or fun-loving. He and I immediately clicked in the online world, but my experience with other Cornell students who I had first met online told me that I might not always be compatible with those same people face to face. Even after over a year of dating, my boyfriend and I are still "reducing uncertainty." To this day, we are still increasingly attracted to each other as we learn more about each other.
Assignment 11 -- Actually, you're weird.
I remember a situation where a couple of female friends of mine were going on a double date – one girl was paired with her boyfriend, the other was being set up with his friend (a blind date). Both boys lived a little out of town, and neither went to school with all of us. “Mari” had been chatting online with “Jeff” before this first blind date. It seemed like they had really hit it off. In fact, she spoke of him all the time, and whenever I happened to be at her house, they were chatting on AIM. Over time, Mari’s impressions of Jeff were highly consistent with the Hyperpersonal model. She took the little information she had and developed strong over-attributions. They both enjoyed sports, had similar taste in music, etc. Within a few weeks she anticipated their first date leading to a romantic relationship. They spent a lot of time chatting late into the night, and expressed a lot of affection for each other.
comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=5278212485470618850
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=347346585241167108
Assignment #11: Relationships that leave virtuality
It's true that many people do form relationships online and then choose to move their friendship and/or romance offline into reality. Seeing that I don't personally know any couple that met online and continued their relationship in reality, I'm going to analyze the commercials for eharmony.com and match.com.
Both of these sites offer members the chance to create profiles that can be seen by other members. Each person can compare themselves with others who they feel they have the potential to really connect with through similar interests and backgrounds. When it comes to CMC, the Hyperpersonal Model can be applied because people rate others on fewer characteristics (because people choose what specific information to disclose on the internet profiles) and these ratings are therefore more intensified and exaggerated. The Hyperpersonal Model is composed of over-attribution processes, developmental aspects, selective self-presentation, re-allocation of cognitive resources and behavioral confirmation.
Because people only list selective information on their profiles, the information they share is managed. Even though, sites like eHarmony and match.com say that the information shared is enough to form a strong bond. The couples on the commercials stand to prove this, saying that they never believed they could find such love online (many met through the sites and moved on to marrying in real life).
Personally, I don't think I would make an account on such sites in hopes of finding my soulmate, but some of my friends have made profiles for fun just to see what the experience is all about. I believe that connections through CMC and dating sites can lead to lasting relationships, but such are few and far between.
Both of these sites offer members the chance to create profiles that can be seen by other members. Each person can compare themselves with others who they feel they have the potential to really connect with through similar interests and backgrounds. When it comes to CMC, the Hyperpersonal Model can be applied because people rate others on fewer characteristics (because people choose what specific information to disclose on the internet profiles) and these ratings are therefore more intensified and exaggerated. The Hyperpersonal Model is composed of over-attribution processes, developmental aspects, selective self-presentation, re-allocation of cognitive resources and behavioral confirmation.
Because people only list selective information on their profiles, the information they share is managed. Even though, sites like eHarmony and match.com say that the information shared is enough to form a strong bond. The couples on the commercials stand to prove this, saying that they never believed they could find such love online (many met through the sites and moved on to marrying in real life).
Personally, I don't think I would make an account on such sites in hopes of finding my soulmate, but some of my friends have made profiles for fun just to see what the experience is all about. I believe that connections through CMC and dating sites can lead to lasting relationships, but such are few and far between.
Assignment # 11: Mr. Bad Guy is actually Mr. Nice Guy
One relationship that started online and left virtuality was the relationship I have with my boss from my summer internship. I saw a posting for the summer intern position on a Cornell website. So I emailed the contact person who was the director of the program, in order to ask about more information on applying for the position. For months he did not respond to me email. I assumed the position had been already filled. Months later, I decided to email him again. He finally replied with a very short and concise email asking me to send my resume to him. I did so. A couple of weeks later I got a call from someone asking to set up a time for an interview. When it came time for the interview I was very nervous. Because all of the emails that the director of the program sent to me were so short, concise, and not very friendly, I felt that he would be that same way in person, and that my interview might be more challenging than others. He also took a long time to respond which made me feel that he was not very interested in me as an applicant. I was very happily surprised however when I finally met him. Right away I could tell he was an extremely friendly person. He seemed genuinely interested in everything I said during the interview. He smiled a lot and made me feel very comfortable. This was the exact opposite of what I was expecting.
This outcome can be discussed along the lines of the Hyperpersonal Model. My thoughts about the program director were definitely exaggerated. I ascribed characteristics to him based on the little I knew about him through the emails he sent. I expected him to be concise and unfriendly because that’s how his emails were. However after my first meeting with my boss I realized he was very friendly and one of the warmest people I ever met. There was definitely an expectancy violation. My expectation for the FtF interaction was negative but actually ended up being very positive. Because of this expectancy violation there was an enhancement affect. Instead of being disappointed like some theories predict, my views of my boss were actually enhanced and became positive.
This assignment helped me realize how much we exaggerate online interactions and how these exaggerations affect our expectations for FtF meetings. If someone sends me a friendly email, I automatically think that when I meet them in person they will be friendly. Through the hyperpersonal model you can see that whether or not there is an expectancy violation determines what kind of effect you will have in person; either enhancement, like in my situation, or it could even be extreme disappointment in other situations.
#11: Mr Perfect is actually Mr Awkward
It is easy for someone to be cool, witty, and even charming when in an
online chat box. But once you leave virtuality, the person you meet FtF
could be different than you ever imagined! When I was a senior in
highschool, my friend Becca, who lived in another state, had a family
friend’s son who had also been accepted to Cornell; for the purposes of
this blog I will call him Bob. She gave him my screen name and we began
talking regularly, thinking that once we got to Cornell we could be good
friends. After a while of talking we realized we had a lot in common, and
developed stronger feelings for one another. We decided to start a
relationship when we got to school, and in the meantime invited one
another to our senior proms. When I went up to visit Bob for his prom,
however, the funny, confident, and flirty boy I expected to meet up with
was, in reality, boring, uptight, and not very witty. He was too shy to
hold my hand, he really was not that funny, and when we went out to dinner
we barely had anything to talk about. It was strange that this person, who
I had laughed with and joked with so much online, was suddenly completely
the opposite of how he presented himself to me. It is understandable for
things to have been awkward at first, since we were probably both nervous
to be spending a few days together for the first time FtF, but this
experience was beyond awkward, it was just terrible.
I think a lot of the reason this experience was so disappointing can be
explained by the Ramirez & Wang article, and to an extent, the
Uncertainty Reduction Theory. This theory states that the more time
people spend talking to one another online, the more information they
gather and there is an increase in intimacy and liking. Bob and I had
gotten to know each other really well online. We had developed lots of
inside jokes and even shared personal stories, helped each other with
problems, and shared secrets. We spoke for a few hours every single day
for weeks and developed a strong liking for one another. URT predicts
that a positive outcome will occur when leaving virtuality. As I already
explained, the opposite happened and I realized that Bob was nothing like
I expected. As explained in the Ramirez & Wang article, the hyperpersonal
perspective explains why things did not work out when Bob and I met in
person. When speaking with Bob online I overanalyzed and over attributed
the limited cues he had given. This led me to develop “heightened
impressions and idealized partner expectation.” When he had made witty
remarks or jokes (that he probably had time to think about), I came to
the conclusion that he was hilarious. When I met him in person we barely
joked around together at all. Based on the comments he said online, I
figured he was a very confident and outgoing person, when in reality he
was very shy and my whole visit was awkward. As a result, I feel like I
have personal experience to support the paper’s hypothesis that “MS
following a long-term association via CMC will provide social information
that will be evaluated more negatively and uncertainty-provoking relative
to interacting via CMC.” I had formed such a high opinion of Bob after
talking to him online for months, that when I went up to visit him for
prom I viewed the situation and interaction very negatively. As my
“uncertainty” was reduced I viewed him in a negative light and realized
he was not the boy I had imagined him to be.
Needless to say I found a
new prom date for my own prom, and to this day give advice to friends
that if they ever have a crush on someone who seems “so perfect” online
or on facebook...they may want to spend a few hours with Mr. Perfect to
see if he really is as charming as they perceive.
Blog Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=80368646074219181
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=6495055022767021658
My Mom Always Told Me Looks Can Decieve...(11)
After the initial acceptance letter, the mailed document most important and exciting to an accepted Cornell student is the housing information, that is what dorm you are placed in and who your roommate(s) are. After being given the name of my dorm ("Yes! Mary Donlon! The social one!") and roommate, I rushed to my newly created Facebook account to find out all I could about the people I would be living with, forming close friendships and celebrating all the freshmen rites of passage Cornell had to offer. After being slightly disappointed that my new roommate didn't have a Facebook, I e-mailed her from my new net I.D. a message with a lot of words like "excited" "ohmygod" and tons of exclamation points.
The response I got back was as equally enthusiastic and soon our interaction progressed to instant messanger. I was determined to make a good impression on my soon-to-be roommate. We had a lot in common together: we were both from neighboring towns in Long Island, considered Judaism a big part of our lives, applied to Cornell early, and liked the same types of music and movies. Through our instant messaging conversations, I inferred that she was funny (when I told her of my weird sleeping patterns she teased me and called me a vampire), was close to her family (I messaged her and ended up talking to her mother who was using her screen name), very smart (we talked about the upcoming AP tests we were taking), and friendly (she asked questions about my life, and seemed very open about answering my questions about hers). Soon enough, she created a Facebook profile and posted her prom pictures. My impressions were that she was very tall, athletic (she listed many sports and her job as a lifeguard under her interests), well liked (she made many Facebook friends and received a lot of wallposts her first couple of days of joining Facebook) and outgoing (she seemed to have many friends with her in her prom pictures and always messaged me first when we were online).
The Hyperpersonal model played a big role in how I perceived my perspective roommate. Using her perceived height from her photos, and listed interests on Facebook, I attributed her to be very athletic, levelheaded, active, and cool. In addition, her sense of humor and friendliness on instant messanger made me believe she was equally personable and worth having as a good friend. This was due to selective self presentation via Facebook on her part, as well as the over-attribution process on my part. The fact that her mother occasionally went on her messanger account allowed me to overgeneralize that she was very much close and played an active role in her family. Due to all these positive attributions, I was very intimidated to meet her and hoped she would also like me and want to be good friends. Suffice to say, my perception of her was inflated.
When we left virtuality and met face to face, the impression I got was quite different. Since there was less control over the information and manner in which it was shared, I got quite a different perception. I was shocked to meet a short (about my height, 5'2"), meek and quiet girl. I remember being so surprised at how high her voice was. The first few days in our room were awkward, quiet and tense between us as the flowing conversations we had online did not occur face to face. As I got to know her more, I found that she was quite neurotic, messy, procrastinated, and prone to hysterical outbursts. She was nothing like the polished, cool, outgoing person I had pictured when we interacted over the Internet.
As Ramirez and Wang (in press) point out, my experience with my freshman roommate constituted part of an EVT, or Expectancy Violation Theory. The expectancy violation, or "behavior that deviates from or is inconsistent with currently held expectations" occurred when my roommate's behavior was inconsistent with my positive expectations of her. These violations led to my evaluation and interpretation of the valance of the violations, which influenced future interactions between us. I would say our CMC interaction was relatively long term (over the span of 4 months), and yet contained many violations when we met face-to-face, consistent with Ramirez and Wang's findings. As in the study, since we had a long term interaction, I was more likely to rate my partner's behavior more negatively (which I did) than if we had talked in the short term. In addition, I would be more likely to have a higher degree of uncertainty FtF following a long term CMC interaction than if I had talked to her for a short amount of time.
The response I got back was as equally enthusiastic and soon our interaction progressed to instant messanger. I was determined to make a good impression on my soon-to-be roommate. We had a lot in common together: we were both from neighboring towns in Long Island, considered Judaism a big part of our lives, applied to Cornell early, and liked the same types of music and movies. Through our instant messaging conversations, I inferred that she was funny (when I told her of my weird sleeping patterns she teased me and called me a vampire), was close to her family (I messaged her and ended up talking to her mother who was using her screen name), very smart (we talked about the upcoming AP tests we were taking), and friendly (she asked questions about my life, and seemed very open about answering my questions about hers). Soon enough, she created a Facebook profile and posted her prom pictures. My impressions were that she was very tall, athletic (she listed many sports and her job as a lifeguard under her interests), well liked (she made many Facebook friends and received a lot of wallposts her first couple of days of joining Facebook) and outgoing (she seemed to have many friends with her in her prom pictures and always messaged me first when we were online).
The Hyperpersonal model played a big role in how I perceived my perspective roommate. Using her perceived height from her photos, and listed interests on Facebook, I attributed her to be very athletic, levelheaded, active, and cool. In addition, her sense of humor and friendliness on instant messanger made me believe she was equally personable and worth having as a good friend. This was due to selective self presentation via Facebook on her part, as well as the over-attribution process on my part. The fact that her mother occasionally went on her messanger account allowed me to overgeneralize that she was very much close and played an active role in her family. Due to all these positive attributions, I was very intimidated to meet her and hoped she would also like me and want to be good friends. Suffice to say, my perception of her was inflated.
When we left virtuality and met face to face, the impression I got was quite different. Since there was less control over the information and manner in which it was shared, I got quite a different perception. I was shocked to meet a short (about my height, 5'2"), meek and quiet girl. I remember being so surprised at how high her voice was. The first few days in our room were awkward, quiet and tense between us as the flowing conversations we had online did not occur face to face. As I got to know her more, I found that she was quite neurotic, messy, procrastinated, and prone to hysterical outbursts. She was nothing like the polished, cool, outgoing person I had pictured when we interacted over the Internet.
As Ramirez and Wang (in press) point out, my experience with my freshman roommate constituted part of an EVT, or Expectancy Violation Theory. The expectancy violation, or "behavior that deviates from or is inconsistent with currently held expectations" occurred when my roommate's behavior was inconsistent with my positive expectations of her. These violations led to my evaluation and interpretation of the valance of the violations, which influenced future interactions between us. I would say our CMC interaction was relatively long term (over the span of 4 months), and yet contained many violations when we met face-to-face, consistent with Ramirez and Wang's findings. As in the study, since we had a long term interaction, I was more likely to rate my partner's behavior more negatively (which I did) than if we had talked in the short term. In addition, I would be more likely to have a higher degree of uncertainty FtF following a long term CMC interaction than if I had talked to her for a short amount of time.
Assignment 11: All that, for this?
Since I use the Internet frequently, it is quite common for me to interact with strangers online, whether it’s a common interest site or a discussion debate. Now, especially with Facebook, it becomes much easier to communicate with people online, even those you don’t know. Most of the time though, this CMC interaction rarely leads to a FtF meeting, at least for me.
However, there was one instance where I actually met someone FtF after interacting with him for several months through Facebook. It was actually quite sketchy, now that I look back on it. This person apparently read a comment I wrote on some group wall, looked me up, messaged me and then to top it off, he got my AIM too. Needless to say, he IMed me soon after and we began to chat regularly. Thanks to Facebook, I found out he was a friend of a friend and according to our profiles, we actually had some things in common. Our chat topics normally consisted of sports teams (since we came from a similar area), our mutual friends, classes, etc. He was extremely sarcastic and loved to talk about how awesome he was. Maybe it was due to my naïveté as a freshman, but pretty soon I believed everything that showed up in our IM windows. Our interactions definitely followed the Hyperpersonal Model. The cues were very limited; I basically knew that he loved to drink, partied frequently, had numerous friends, hated Ithaca and was in love with himself. The fact that he was so sarcastic and insulted everything led me to conclude that maybe he was as cool as he appeared online. That was all I knew of him and gradually I became more intimidated, especially when he suggested we meet in person. Finally, after months of persuasion, I finally agreed to see him in a public place. Now I know that there was definitely some selective self-presentation going on, as well as over-attribution of resources. The fact that he had my Facebook profile available to him meant that he had the goods and could edit how he communicated with me.
Our meeting, like the Ramirez and Wang paper stated, was definitely a “turning point” in our relationship. The person did not meet my expectations at all, which agreed with the Expectation Violation Theory. He was rude, awkward and just plain weird. The FtF meeting, after our CMC interactions, was disappointing and led to a chain of events which basically ended up with no (or rare) future interactions. The research was correct in that the impressions I made through CMC failed to match physical reality during FtF, and there was a huge difference in my initial expectations of the person’s “communication behavior and physical appearance” and what was present during the FtF encounter. Thankfully, I learned to be not so naïve and trusting.
However, there was one instance where I actually met someone FtF after interacting with him for several months through Facebook. It was actually quite sketchy, now that I look back on it. This person apparently read a comment I wrote on some group wall, looked me up, messaged me and then to top it off, he got my AIM too. Needless to say, he IMed me soon after and we began to chat regularly. Thanks to Facebook, I found out he was a friend of a friend and according to our profiles, we actually had some things in common. Our chat topics normally consisted of sports teams (since we came from a similar area), our mutual friends, classes, etc. He was extremely sarcastic and loved to talk about how awesome he was. Maybe it was due to my naïveté as a freshman, but pretty soon I believed everything that showed up in our IM windows. Our interactions definitely followed the Hyperpersonal Model. The cues were very limited; I basically knew that he loved to drink, partied frequently, had numerous friends, hated Ithaca and was in love with himself. The fact that he was so sarcastic and insulted everything led me to conclude that maybe he was as cool as he appeared online. That was all I knew of him and gradually I became more intimidated, especially when he suggested we meet in person. Finally, after months of persuasion, I finally agreed to see him in a public place. Now I know that there was definitely some selective self-presentation going on, as well as over-attribution of resources. The fact that he had my Facebook profile available to him meant that he had the goods and could edit how he communicated with me.
Our meeting, like the Ramirez and Wang paper stated, was definitely a “turning point” in our relationship. The person did not meet my expectations at all, which agreed with the Expectation Violation Theory. He was rude, awkward and just plain weird. The FtF meeting, after our CMC interactions, was disappointing and led to a chain of events which basically ended up with no (or rare) future interactions. The research was correct in that the impressions I made through CMC failed to match physical reality during FtF, and there was a huge difference in my initial expectations of the person’s “communication behavior and physical appearance” and what was present during the FtF encounter. Thankfully, I learned to be not so naïve and trusting.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
11 - a good friend?
I knew my good friend Amy through mutual friends; we never met in FtF. We talked for almost a year before meeting in FtF. I needed a place to stay for a week in NYC, and she offered her place. At first my impressions were more negative, but along the course of the week, my impressions became more positive. I adjusted to her “true” personality and understood her more.
My relationship with Amy is best explained by the Social Information Processing Model. It took time for me to get a good impression of who she was.
Factors that affected our relationship were proximity, common ground, and removal of gating features. We have high intersection frequency being on AIM frequently. We had a strong common ground being in the same organizations and sharing friends. Through CMC, we had a huge proportion of similarities. We had high self-disclosure because we did not know each other. In this sense removal of gating features was present because we did not judge each other.
The Gibbs article supports three hypotheses based on the SIP model which were true for me as well. Amy and I held importance on a long term relationship resulting in more honest, more frequent, and more intentional self-disclosure, though not necessarily more positive.
Ramirez and Wang state in their article that modality switching allows access to new social information, filling blanks left by CMC impression formation, “enhance partner perceptions, and further relationship growth.” This is in accordance to my own experience. I did not have a complete impression of Amy, but meeting her in FtF definitely solidified it. Ramirez and Wang also state that “impressions formed through extended period of CMC typically fail to match the physical reality experienced” which was also the case for me. I found Amy to be more sarcastic and less open. This in turn follows what Ramirez and Wang state that “modality switching (MS) diminishes communication processes and social outcomes” when FtF doesn’t meet CMC expectations. This was true for an initial time span. The Expectancy Violation Theory also held for our situation because I expected Amy to be less sarcastic and more open which was inconsistent with my FtF impression. Over time, a chain of events, which involved more discussion, explained the difference in my impression of her. Meeting Amy was definitely a “turning point”, as Ramirez and Wang state, in our relationship. It solidified the strength of our relationship.
My relationship with Amy is best explained by the Social Information Processing Model. It took time for me to get a good impression of who she was.
Factors that affected our relationship were proximity, common ground, and removal of gating features. We have high intersection frequency being on AIM frequently. We had a strong common ground being in the same organizations and sharing friends. Through CMC, we had a huge proportion of similarities. We had high self-disclosure because we did not know each other. In this sense removal of gating features was present because we did not judge each other.
The Gibbs article supports three hypotheses based on the SIP model which were true for me as well. Amy and I held importance on a long term relationship resulting in more honest, more frequent, and more intentional self-disclosure, though not necessarily more positive.
Ramirez and Wang state in their article that modality switching allows access to new social information, filling blanks left by CMC impression formation, “enhance partner perceptions, and further relationship growth.” This is in accordance to my own experience. I did not have a complete impression of Amy, but meeting her in FtF definitely solidified it. Ramirez and Wang also state that “impressions formed through extended period of CMC typically fail to match the physical reality experienced” which was also the case for me. I found Amy to be more sarcastic and less open. This in turn follows what Ramirez and Wang state that “modality switching (MS) diminishes communication processes and social outcomes” when FtF doesn’t meet CMC expectations. This was true for an initial time span. The Expectancy Violation Theory also held for our situation because I expected Amy to be less sarcastic and more open which was inconsistent with my FtF impression. Over time, a chain of events, which involved more discussion, explained the difference in my impression of her. Meeting Amy was definitely a “turning point”, as Ramirez and Wang state, in our relationship. It solidified the strength of our relationship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)