Moving away from home to Cornell was a rough transition for me. I missed my friends and family from home, and found it more difficult than expected to keep in contact with them. It was hard to set time aside to call my friends and family everyday especially because of my work load and the time I was spending with my new Cornell friends. So, in order to keep in touch with my friends from home I used computer mediated communication such as AIM, email, and Facebook. The online relationship actually helped me become closer to one of my friends from home, Jessica. We started out first sending messages back and forth on Facebook and talking on AIM (when we had the time to sign on). Then we started emailing each other daily. This really helped to strengthen our relationship, because if we didn’t talk online daily, then we probably would have only spoken a couple of times a month on the telephone. The computer mediated communication allowed us to talk to each other when it was convenient for us, and ultimately it helped us to become better friends.
When analyzing this relationship the theory that really comes to mind is McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors. These factors are identifiability, removal of gating features, interactional control, connecting to similar others, and getting the goods. The two factors that best describe my experience with Jessica are gating features and interactional control. Even though Jessica and I were good friends when we were at home, there were some issues, like family problems for example, that I did not feel comfortable telling her. However, the social anxiety I had about those issues were no longer present when I was online, and I was able to share these problems with her and ask for her advice. We disclosed more personal information than we would normally face-to-face, because of the removal of a gating feature (social anxiety). Another factor that explains my online relationship with Jessica is interactional control. It was easy talking to Jessica online, because I could respond to her messages and emails on my own time. We did not have to set a certain time aside to spend together; we would be forced to do this if we were having a face-to-face relationship. We both had control over when to talk or respond. We had the freedom of replying to an email at 4am, in our pajamas, in between studying for two prelims. This control over when we interacted gave us both more of an opportunity to get more personal and in-depth with the information we were sharing in the emails.
Overall the computer mediated system really brought me and Jessica together. It removed the gates that perhaps were keeping us from sharing our complete selves in person, and it also gave us control over when we interacted so we had more freedom and time to construct personal and meaningful emails.
Monday, September 24, 2007
5- Long-distance relationship, without the distance
Wallace’s attraction factors:
1. Physical attraction- perception that someone is pleasing, good looking, etc., through physical traits.
2. Proximity- closeness in space or time
3. Common ground- area of agreement (such as taste in food & music)
4. Disinhibition effects- in a relationship, you first are wary of everything you say, but as you get to know the person, you become less inhibited and begin to self-disclose.
McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors:
1. Identifiability- as people learn more about each other, self-disclosure (or giving of personal information) increases, as does the relationship development.
2. Removal of gating features- gates include physical attractiveness, master status cues such as race, stigma and disability, and shyness or social anxiety. These gates are not apparent in text-based online spaces (as no one can tell your physical attractiveness, race, etc., without pictures)
3. Interactional control- selective self-presentation and choosing a medium (chat room, instant messaging, etc.) for telling certain things.
4. Connecting with similar others- after establishing a common ground, it is easier to identify with people with similar interests, as well as the ability to connect across space and time, and the ability to connect with social networks (such as a University).
5. Getting the goods- ability to learn about someone prior to meeting, such as facebook stalking.
During the second-half of my senior year in high school, I started dating a junior. At the beginning of the year, I barely knew her. However, we both had a physics class together. I began talking to her and soon started teasing her. After some time, our conversations became more serious and I, consequently, grew more attracted. As we learned more about each other, we started self-disclosing personal information. After going on a couple dates, we began an ‘official’ relationship.
Wallace’s attraction factors explain my experience well. Were it not for the proximity (physics class), I probably would have never met her. Our proximity led me to become attracted to her, as I saw and spoke with her often. As we increasingly conversed, we realized how much we have in common. Thus, establishing a common ground. In a way, this also fits with McKenna’s identifiably and connecting with similar others factors, as we developed similar interests and our relationship developed. Knowing more about each other, our self-discloser increased (disinhibition behavior) and inhibition lowered, leading us to the point where we were comfortable to start a relationship.
Deciding to continue our relationship as I left for Cornell, I promised I would get an AIM screen name. After arriving at Cornell, I began using AIM and talking with her. It was strange at first because I could not see her reactions. As I adjusted to AIM, our conversations became more serious than those we had had in person. Even when I would go home, our conversations were never as significant as those we would have online.
McKenna’s interactional control may be used in understanding our long-term relationship. As we talked more on AIM, our relationship continued to grow. We told each other more about our pasts and expectations for the future than we ever had before. I feel this was a product of the medium (instant messaging), as a lack of physical cues allowed us to say things we would have been embarrassed to say in person. In addition, we had time to selectively present exactly what we wanted to say and how we wanted to say it. Thus, making difficult face-to-face discussions easier through the use of a selected medium (AIM).
Ultimately, our long-distance relationship lasted over a year and we are still friends today.
1. Physical attraction- perception that someone is pleasing, good looking, etc., through physical traits.
2. Proximity- closeness in space or time
3. Common ground- area of agreement (such as taste in food & music)
4. Disinhibition effects- in a relationship, you first are wary of everything you say, but as you get to know the person, you become less inhibited and begin to self-disclose.
McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors:
1. Identifiability- as people learn more about each other, self-disclosure (or giving of personal information) increases, as does the relationship development.
2. Removal of gating features- gates include physical attractiveness, master status cues such as race, stigma and disability, and shyness or social anxiety. These gates are not apparent in text-based online spaces (as no one can tell your physical attractiveness, race, etc., without pictures)
3. Interactional control- selective self-presentation and choosing a medium (chat room, instant messaging, etc.) for telling certain things.
4. Connecting with similar others- after establishing a common ground, it is easier to identify with people with similar interests, as well as the ability to connect across space and time, and the ability to connect with social networks (such as a University).
5. Getting the goods- ability to learn about someone prior to meeting, such as facebook stalking.
During the second-half of my senior year in high school, I started dating a junior. At the beginning of the year, I barely knew her. However, we both had a physics class together. I began talking to her and soon started teasing her. After some time, our conversations became more serious and I, consequently, grew more attracted. As we learned more about each other, we started self-disclosing personal information. After going on a couple dates, we began an ‘official’ relationship.
Wallace’s attraction factors explain my experience well. Were it not for the proximity (physics class), I probably would have never met her. Our proximity led me to become attracted to her, as I saw and spoke with her often. As we increasingly conversed, we realized how much we have in common. Thus, establishing a common ground. In a way, this also fits with McKenna’s identifiably and connecting with similar others factors, as we developed similar interests and our relationship developed. Knowing more about each other, our self-discloser increased (disinhibition behavior) and inhibition lowered, leading us to the point where we were comfortable to start a relationship.
Deciding to continue our relationship as I left for Cornell, I promised I would get an AIM screen name. After arriving at Cornell, I began using AIM and talking with her. It was strange at first because I could not see her reactions. As I adjusted to AIM, our conversations became more serious than those we had had in person. Even when I would go home, our conversations were never as significant as those we would have online.
McKenna’s interactional control may be used in understanding our long-term relationship. As we talked more on AIM, our relationship continued to grow. We told each other more about our pasts and expectations for the future than we ever had before. I feel this was a product of the medium (instant messaging), as a lack of physical cues allowed us to say things we would have been embarrassed to say in person. In addition, we had time to selectively present exactly what we wanted to say and how we wanted to say it. Thus, making difficult face-to-face discussions easier through the use of a selected medium (AIM).
Ultimately, our long-distance relationship lasted over a year and we are still friends today.
Give as much advice as you want. Long distance doesn't work (5,1)
The first half of my senior year of high school, I was in a long distance relationship with a young man I had met at Cornell’s Summer College program. (I’ll call him James for the sake of flow, though it is not his real name.) He and I met in a class we had together, immediately clicked, and then decided to pursue and exclusive romantic relationship, despite the fact that James lived outside of New York City and I lived in Atlanta. We kept in touch through AOL instant messenger, as well as lengthy telephone conversations and e-mails. We had a set schedule to talk online while we were writing papers or doing other homework. After dinner, we would talk for an hour on the phone. While we were dating, one of us would fly to see the other roughly once every month or six weeks. I even spent an entire week and a half with James and his family in Vermont following Christmas. Even though we visited frequently considering the large distance between us and the fact that we were both in high school (and therefore largely not in control of our traveling schedules), most of our conversations took place in media much less rich than face to face contact.
Quick, chatty conversation was exchanged through IM, while more serious conversations about our concerns and feelings were reserved for phone time. In this aspect of our relationship, McKenna’s concept of identifiabiity came into practice. Identifiability suggests that anonymity leads to more self disclosure, then more relational development. Even though James knew much about me, the phone gave me a sense of anonymity that allowed me to reveal more about myself without feeling judged.
When I decided that it was time for James and me to go our separate ways, McKenna’s concept of interactional control came into play. This concept suggests that because I could control the number of cues I was giving, I was able to selectively self present; therefore, I was more comfortable with myself and disclosed more. I was able to speak more honestly about why I felt our relationship should end because I did not have to 1) give away many cues about my attitude, or 2) witness his reaction. Therefore, I was less tempted to “beat around the bush” and was able to be honest with
Quick, chatty conversation was exchanged through IM, while more serious conversations about our concerns and feelings were reserved for phone time. In this aspect of our relationship, McKenna’s concept of identifiabiity came into practice. Identifiability suggests that anonymity leads to more self disclosure, then more relational development. Even though James knew much about me, the phone gave me a sense of anonymity that allowed me to reveal more about myself without feeling judged.
When I decided that it was time for James and me to go our separate ways, McKenna’s concept of interactional control came into play. This concept suggests that because I could control the number of cues I was giving, I was able to selectively self present; therefore, I was more comfortable with myself and disclosed more. I was able to speak more honestly about why I felt our relationship should end because I did not have to 1) give away many cues about my attitude, or 2) witness his reaction. Therefore, I was less tempted to “beat around the bush” and was able to be honest with
#5- Online Attraction From One Frequent Forum User to Another
For a period of time extending a little over a year when I was in Middle School, I developed a series of online relationships in an asychronous discussion forum. I had performed a Google search on one of my favorite artists at that time (around the year 2000-2001), Eminem and stumbled upon an online community devoted to posting and discussing any news related item related to Eminem, from opinion on his album to his personal life. However, as the people who posted in the forum became "regulars", the discussion evolved to become more intimate and personal forms of communication. After a few months of board discussion, a close group of friends was formed between myself and the users of the forum. We all knew each other's personalities, life stories, feelings and opinions on certain topics. On a daily basis, we exchanged our stories and views on family, relationships, entertainment, love and daily life. Like any group of friends we had a clown, the honesty laden girl, the emotional attention-getter, the guy with the sarcastic dry sense of humor, the romantic, the motherly figure, the intellectual, the angsty teenage girl, the insecure recluse, the obsessed tennybopper, the flirt, and the mediator. We each occupied our own niche, and as a middle schooler who couldn't find her niche, I felt like I had found mine on this message board.
Within the message board, I came to be particularly interested in a member of our little community-- a poster by the name of Jeno (his online username was XpliCit). He was two years older than I was, and from England. What really drew me towards him was his cynical sense of humor. When new posters wrote in the forum, we all gave them a hard time as "newbies" and judged them harshly, but Jeno was particularly caustically witty. I suppose that as a middle schooler, I was subjected to harsh judgment in the face-to-face environment at school, but seeing others online being subjected to Jeno's razor-sharp humor gave me a prime sense of satisfaction. His crafty insults also contained a fair amount of British slang, which I found to be even more charming.
Although common ground, according to Wallace (which is defined as having mutually shared beliefs, experiences, characteristics) is a factor in attraction, I found I didn't have much common ground with Jeno. I don't profess to having a dry sense of humor, I am of different religion and live thousands of miles away, and I have a different taste altogether in music, which was the main topic of dicussion. In the CMC environment, however, I found that at least two of Wallace's relationship factors applied.
Towards the middle of our online aquaintance, Jeno posted his pictures up on the message board for everyone to see. This fits in with what Wallace describes as the CMC model of "getting to know" the person before evaluating their physical attractiveness. I found Jeno to look like a hybrid of Josh Harnett and Ben Affleck, which was a large factor in attraction. The pictures he posted were of low quality and featured him with angry expressions on his face. The online pictures definitely fit in with the Hyperpersonal Model. Within the Model, selective self-presentation says that we emphasize the positive traits we have and tone down the negative. Jeno could have probably decided in his pictures to post which ones he felt he looked attractive in. Also, as part of the Hyperpersonal Model, Behavioral Confirmation states that we try to behave the way people think of us as. Since most posters viewed him as the 'big bad wolf', Jeno posted pictures he thought reflected this and in turn confirmed my impression of him.
Another factor of Wallace's that contributed to my fondness for Jeno was proximity. Proximity online states that the more a person grows to be familiar with another person due to shared interaction space, the more they become attracted to that person. Since I visited the forum at least a few times a week, I saw Jeno's postings and interacted with him as well as the other users quite frequently. This allowed me to get to know him through time, and as looking at what he had to say became part of my weekly routine, my attraction grew. The more I visited the forum, the more I grew accustomed to his sense of humor and appreciated him more.
After a year or so within my message board community I realized that Face-to-Face relationships gave me more satisfaction than CMC, so I officially signed off the message board and lost contact with Jeno. However, my year spent on the message board truly applies to what we are learning in class about relationship development and facilitation online. I wonder if any of them, especially Jeno, still talk on that forum. If any of them happen to google 'Jeno' and 'XpliCit' and stumble upon this blog, I want to say HI! That period of time I spent getting acquainted with strangers online is the reason I was intrigued to take this course. I hope to apply my online experience there with further behavioral and psychological theories we will learn .
Within the message board, I came to be particularly interested in a member of our little community-- a poster by the name of Jeno (his online username was XpliCit). He was two years older than I was, and from England. What really drew me towards him was his cynical sense of humor. When new posters wrote in the forum, we all gave them a hard time as "newbies" and judged them harshly, but Jeno was particularly caustically witty. I suppose that as a middle schooler, I was subjected to harsh judgment in the face-to-face environment at school, but seeing others online being subjected to Jeno's razor-sharp humor gave me a prime sense of satisfaction. His crafty insults also contained a fair amount of British slang, which I found to be even more charming.
Although common ground, according to Wallace (which is defined as having mutually shared beliefs, experiences, characteristics) is a factor in attraction, I found I didn't have much common ground with Jeno. I don't profess to having a dry sense of humor, I am of different religion and live thousands of miles away, and I have a different taste altogether in music, which was the main topic of dicussion. In the CMC environment, however, I found that at least two of Wallace's relationship factors applied.
Towards the middle of our online aquaintance, Jeno posted his pictures up on the message board for everyone to see. This fits in with what Wallace describes as the CMC model of "getting to know" the person before evaluating their physical attractiveness. I found Jeno to look like a hybrid of Josh Harnett and Ben Affleck, which was a large factor in attraction. The pictures he posted were of low quality and featured him with angry expressions on his face. The online pictures definitely fit in with the Hyperpersonal Model. Within the Model, selective self-presentation says that we emphasize the positive traits we have and tone down the negative. Jeno could have probably decided in his pictures to post which ones he felt he looked attractive in. Also, as part of the Hyperpersonal Model, Behavioral Confirmation states that we try to behave the way people think of us as. Since most posters viewed him as the 'big bad wolf', Jeno posted pictures he thought reflected this and in turn confirmed my impression of him.
Another factor of Wallace's that contributed to my fondness for Jeno was proximity. Proximity online states that the more a person grows to be familiar with another person due to shared interaction space, the more they become attracted to that person. Since I visited the forum at least a few times a week, I saw Jeno's postings and interacted with him as well as the other users quite frequently. This allowed me to get to know him through time, and as looking at what he had to say became part of my weekly routine, my attraction grew. The more I visited the forum, the more I grew accustomed to his sense of humor and appreciated him more.
After a year or so within my message board community I realized that Face-to-Face relationships gave me more satisfaction than CMC, so I officially signed off the message board and lost contact with Jeno. However, my year spent on the message board truly applies to what we are learning in class about relationship development and facilitation online. I wonder if any of them, especially Jeno, still talk on that forum. If any of them happen to google 'Jeno' and 'XpliCit' and stumble upon this blog, I want to say HI! That period of time I spent getting acquainted with strangers online is the reason I was intrigued to take this course. I hope to apply my online experience there with further behavioral and psychological theories we will learn .
Assignment 5, Option 1: World of Warcraft relationships... a.k.a. "Get our flag back so I can cap theirs, you n00bs."
I have once again decided to tread in familiar territory. Even though I do not play World of Warcraft anymore, I cannot help but be reminded of how well this game relates to nearly everything we talk about in class. The relationships I formed in World of Warcraft are vast in number, and there are even some people I met randomly while playing the game that I still chat with to this day.
The relationship I want to discuss is with one player from my guild, whose online name I won't include, but only because it is an inappropriate word. So instead, I'll just call him "wow_player." Wow_player is an interesting human specimen, mostly because he has the demeanor of a starving grizzly bear and a vocabulary that makes George Carlin seem mild. To be completely honest, this is not all that rare in the world of online video games, but wow_player has unfriendliness down to a science.
In my relationship with wow_player, I believe my experience can best be explained by the removal of gating features, one of McKenna's relationship facilitation factors. What this means is that certain features that will facilitate or inhibit relationships in face-to-face interactions (such as physical attractiveness, social adeptness, gender, race, etc.) play either a reduced role or no role at all in CMC interations. Although I agree with this idea, it is somewhat incomplete, because for World of Warcraft, the FtF gating features are removed, but there exists a seperate set of gating factors for the game. In World of Warcraft, and video games in general, what matters is not your demeanor or attractiveness, but rather how skilled you are. Those who excel at "owning newbs" will quickly rise to the top of the social ladder, but those who are unskilled will find themselves ostracized and ridiculed. Wow_player, despite being an unbelievable jerk (and quite unattractive, from his picture), was probably one of the most skilled players I have ever met, and this is the reason why everyone (including myself) sought to be his friend. Conversely, he was very kind to me and sought out my opinion often simply because I was a skilled player as well.
Having common ground, one of Wallace's attraction factors, also played a key role in the relationship wow_player and I had. Having common ground simply means that one tends to form stronger relationships with others who share common beliefs or values. Obviously, wow_player and I shared an affinity for World of Warcraft, but there is more to it. We also shared beliefs on how skilled players should be, as well as the preference for what kind of gaming we enjoyed. Despite being a jerk to everyone else, he was civil with me because we agreed on our expectation of others and the game itself.
The relationship I want to discuss is with one player from my guild, whose online name I won't include, but only because it is an inappropriate word. So instead, I'll just call him "wow_player." Wow_player is an interesting human specimen, mostly because he has the demeanor of a starving grizzly bear and a vocabulary that makes George Carlin seem mild. To be completely honest, this is not all that rare in the world of online video games, but wow_player has unfriendliness down to a science.
In my relationship with wow_player, I believe my experience can best be explained by the removal of gating features, one of McKenna's relationship facilitation factors. What this means is that certain features that will facilitate or inhibit relationships in face-to-face interactions (such as physical attractiveness, social adeptness, gender, race, etc.) play either a reduced role or no role at all in CMC interations. Although I agree with this idea, it is somewhat incomplete, because for World of Warcraft, the FtF gating features are removed, but there exists a seperate set of gating factors for the game. In World of Warcraft, and video games in general, what matters is not your demeanor or attractiveness, but rather how skilled you are. Those who excel at "owning newbs" will quickly rise to the top of the social ladder, but those who are unskilled will find themselves ostracized and ridiculed. Wow_player, despite being an unbelievable jerk (and quite unattractive, from his picture), was probably one of the most skilled players I have ever met, and this is the reason why everyone (including myself) sought to be his friend. Conversely, he was very kind to me and sought out my opinion often simply because I was a skilled player as well.
Having common ground, one of Wallace's attraction factors, also played a key role in the relationship wow_player and I had. Having common ground simply means that one tends to form stronger relationships with others who share common beliefs or values. Obviously, wow_player and I shared an affinity for World of Warcraft, but there is more to it. We also shared beliefs on how skilled players should be, as well as the preference for what kind of gaming we enjoyed. Despite being a jerk to everyone else, he was civil with me because we agreed on our expectation of others and the game itself.
Assignment 5, Option 1: Long-Distance Relationship
This summer, I began seeing a boy who does not go to Cornell. Obviously, it was easy to keep in contact and see one another while we were at home, but problems arose when he left for military camp for five weeks in July and when we both left for school in mid-August. Although we are not currently together, we still try to work at a very close friendship over long-distance.
Every few days, we talk on the phone and have conversations about how school is going for each of us, how football is going for him, and other such events. We also talk over AIM and randomly through text messaging. Keeping a long-distance relationship going is extremely difficult, especially if there are feelings beyond friendship still involved.
McKenna's relationship facilitation factors include identifiability, removal of gating features, interactional control, connecting with similar others and getting the goods. Talking with him is simple and familiar because of the "connecting with similar others" factor. Since I attended all of high school with this boy, I already knew him pretty well before this summer. We can connect through both space and time and through social networks (we share the same circle of friends at home). He knows my interests, and I know his, so therefore we have common ground to cover. I suppose that ''getting the goods'' can also be applied to my situation, since his Facebook account is constantly available for me to see what he's up to. Now, I'm not saying I sit all day and check his updates, but it's nice to see some of his pictures from school and football and what not.
A lot of the time, it's difficult to keep such a relationship healthy because a particular person may be the one always initiating contact. However, if the partners share common ground and identify themselves with one another, a relationship such as mine is quite possible to keep alive. Long-distance is hard work, but since we were connected before through interactions in person, it's much easier.
Every few days, we talk on the phone and have conversations about how school is going for each of us, how football is going for him, and other such events. We also talk over AIM and randomly through text messaging. Keeping a long-distance relationship going is extremely difficult, especially if there are feelings beyond friendship still involved.
McKenna's relationship facilitation factors include identifiability, removal of gating features, interactional control, connecting with similar others and getting the goods. Talking with him is simple and familiar because of the "connecting with similar others" factor. Since I attended all of high school with this boy, I already knew him pretty well before this summer. We can connect through both space and time and through social networks (we share the same circle of friends at home). He knows my interests, and I know his, so therefore we have common ground to cover. I suppose that ''getting the goods'' can also be applied to my situation, since his Facebook account is constantly available for me to see what he's up to. Now, I'm not saying I sit all day and check his updates, but it's nice to see some of his pictures from school and football and what not.
A lot of the time, it's difficult to keep such a relationship healthy because a particular person may be the one always initiating contact. However, if the partners share common ground and identify themselves with one another, a relationship such as mine is quite possible to keep alive. Long-distance is hard work, but since we were connected before through interactions in person, it's much easier.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
#5 -- A relationship through email
Although I’ve actually attempted several long distance relationships in my life – including one that lasted well over a year – the one that I think would be most interesting to analyze here is one I have more recently begun. What makes this relationship particularly interesting is that we’ve had very little face-to-face contact, but communicate almost daily via email. Although we sometimes chat over instant messaging, only rarely do we communicate over the phone or by any other means of rich media.
I met this person about four weeks ago when he showed up at my apartment with his younger brother, who happens to be my neighbor. After an unconvincing invitation, and much coercion from my apartment-mate, I reluctantly agreed to take a break from my work and join the small gathering next door. In retrospect, I am very glad I did because I met an interesting new friend. “Adrian” and I spent the rest of that night and the next day talking and getting to know each other before he left for home (New York City). Since then, we’ve kept in touch over the Internet, and he plans to visit again soon.
Perhaps our choice of a mediated and lean communication channel for remaining friends reflects a generation of technology obsessed/savvy young adults, but I think it’s more likely a reflection of our common interests. This brings me to the first factor in Wallace’s model that I find specifically relevant to my experience. Wallace claims that common ground is an important attraction factor, and I agree. This includes mutually shared beliefs, assumptions, and propositions. It also includes conversational and categorical commonalities. “Adrian” and I bonded on all of these fronts. We shared a common interest in computers – especially things related to the Internet (perhaps this is why it has been so easy to keep in touch via email), but also in keeping extremely busy, outdoor activities, dangerous sports, sense of humor, coffee, opinions, pet peeves, etc. Obviously, we didn’t match on everything we discussed in our short time together, but the proportion of common ground to disparities was surprisingly high – and in agreement with the Law of Attraction, I was immediately attracted to him as a result. Since synchronous conversations between us are infrequent, this proportion of common ground has remained quite high.
The second Wallace attraction factor I found most relevant to my situation with “Adrian” is the Distribution effect. This factor deals with Hyperpersonal processes (i.e. over-attribution and selective self-presentation) and the role of self-disclosure in relationship development (a higher degree of self-disclosure is theorized to facilitate relationship development). Since we have been communicating through a mediated method, the over-attribution and selective self-presentation processes have emerged – which I noticed once I started to think about our interactions in a theoretical context. I am very careful in my emails to “Adrian”, and I imagine he censors his in a similar manner. This carefully crafted selective self-presentation narrows our topics to common ground, and characteristics we enjoy about each other. This then further promotes the over-attribution process. We may agree on a very simple issue or express another subtle similarity, and the lack of additional cues intensifies our mutually positive response. There is even some behavioral confirmation in our communication. I find myself replicating the type of messages and conversations to which he responds especially well. Over time, we have become quite close and I feel like I know “Adrian” very well. Self-disclosure has certainly aided this progression. By communicating daily we have shared many stories, experiences, and pieces of information about ourselves with each other. In sum, though I only knew “Adrian” in person for about 24 hours, I am quite fond of him because of our online relationship development – much of which can be explained using Wallace’s ideas.
comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=385623541247901584
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=6306258261571934981
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)