#9 Living Your Wildest Fantasy

If only Pavlov knew what he is missing. He wouldn’t have to have bothered with those silly dogs if he had only had the opportunity to witness the extremely comparable behavior of (mostly) boys and men of all ages around the world. No, this post is NOT about pornography…I mean fantasy sports. I often watch my boyfriend throughout various seasons settle in front of his computer and habitually return to espn.com to check on the progress of his roster. As soon as he first sees the red banner across the top of the page, he practically begins to salivate in anticipation of his reward: points for his team. No bell or Alpo required! Now, I am being slightly unfair to my better half. His “habit” is limited to a few times a week. But his case is extremely mild compared to many boys and men who spend an incredible amount of time and energy on their rosters. Even during football season, when professional teams mostly play only Sunday and Monday, many people (not just men, I’m being unfair to the male population as well) return to their respective fantasy sites almost compulsively to make trades, sign free agents, adjust their starting rosters, and even purchase projected stats and points.

For those unfamiliar with the phenomenon, fantasy sports offer a network for fans of football, baseball, basketball, etc to join in “leagues” against other participants and build rosters of professional players from different teams. For example, I am in a girls-only league along with my boyfriend's sister and step sister. Users gain points based on the performance of starting players in their selected rosters each game. Fantasy sports can lead to PIU for several reasons. Most obviously applied is Wallace’s concept of a locus of control. Sports fans are notorious for screaming at coaches and managers whom they believe have made a bad coaching call. While the fantasy teams are not real rosters (hence the name), fanatics have a say in who plays when. The only factors the users cannot control is player peformances and injuries. Also (pointing back to Pavlov), operant conditioning plays a large role by rewarding users with points when players on their team perform well.

While fantasy sport participants are often guilty of compulsive use, I do not believe Caplan’s model applies. Most often these compulsions are not born out of social dysfunction, but a constant desire to “check up on” one’s team and its progress and to quickly remedy any problems it may have. Fantasy sports do have unique properties in that it is one of few Internet phenomena that causes PIU that is heavily asynchronous (online shopping being another example). It also has special affordances in that it allows users almost complete control. While fantasy sports PIU is not as much cause for concern as are addictions to things like pornography or online gambling, it is certainly present in the online world.

Assignment 9

It's no surprise that many people have problems with their internet use. We use the internet every single day for many, many daily activities: checking e-mail, chatting with friends, watching videos, listening to/downloading music, and the list goes on.

I've read about and watched many shows that share the stories of people who have become so addicted to online gaming that they have either dropped out of school, lost their jobs, and/or completely lost their circle of friends. This kind of internet space can easily lead to problematic internet use because someone who feels socially incompetent can make connections with people through the internet, which means not having to deal with verbal cues or having to form bonds through face to face interaction (which may be prevented by nervousness). Playing online games can also become addictive because once a player gets a little ways into the game, the urge to keep getting better and moving up in levels becomes even stronger and the need to spend more and more time online seems to be the only option.

This situation does work with Caplan's model because players (some may who may be very shy) feel that the internet is less threatening and feel more effacious. The internet space is definitely appealing because of many thing listed under the model, such as removal of gating features, anonymity, less perceived social risk, etc.

These games get more realistic with each new release, so realistic it seems as though you are in the real world when playing. This is very appealing for many people, like they can do extraordinary things in the normal world. Aspects such as this draw users in, and some take the game to all new levels.

Assigment #9: World of Warcraft, or World of Warcrack?

World of Warcraft: to some, it is a way of life. To the rest of the world, it is something that nerds use as an excuse to be antisocial. But, seeing as how this virtual world has a larger population than more than 60% of actual countries (9 million players total as of July), there obviously must be something more to this obsession than meets the eye. Indeed, there is something strangely addicting about World of Warcraft.

When I played World of Warcraft, I wouldn't have ever called my gaming habits problematic, but I certainly knew my fair share of individuals whose habits I would call problematic. I actually know of someone that goes to Harvard who skipped two of his finals so he could join his guild for an important in-game event. It is very sad that this happens, but it is also very interesting to explore why it does. One possible explanation is the escape from reality the game provides. This can range from the simple need to forget that you have three tests coming up very soon, or it can be more fundamental, such as being unhappy with your actual self. I had one friend who is very skinny in real life, but would play as the most masculine characters imaginable. This cartoon sums up the basic idea:


Another reason World of Warcraft is so addicting is the insatiable desire for better items. Truthfully, it may be a little time consuming, but it is possible to obtain superior quality weapons and armor without a great deal of effort. However, it is almost impossible for any one player to obtain the very best items the game has to offer, lest he or she is willing to devote endless time to playing. It is almost like a gambler's mentality, that with a little more patience, some hard work, and a little luck, you can strike it rich. To make it even worse, the developers of the game are always releasing new content, which means that fancy new sword you spent hours upon hours to get will soon be obsolete, and you will have to spend even more time getting the better item.

Despite the problems that can arise from playing World of Warcraft, it does not really resemble Caplan's model at all. All of the internet affordances (anonymity, less social risk, etc.) are not really reasons people get addicted, except for having greater control over self-presentation (the above cartoon). In terms of psychosocial issues, the motivation to play World of Warcraft is fundamentally different from Caplan's model. Online gaming, in general, is a very social activity, and some of the most fun I've had with other people were the ridiculous conversations I've had with people online using voice chat programs. In fact, most of the time when I wanted to play World of Warcraft, it was more to talk with my friends from home who also played: if nobody else was on besides me, I usually just logged off. This is fundamentally different from Caplan's model, which links problematic internet usage to social problems. Of all the people that I have become close with online, I would never say that any of them have had social problems. In fact, every single person I knew came from a group of real-life friends who played together.

I would say there there are really no unique affordances to online gaming in general. With all of the different reasons people get addicted to many things they do, there is bound to be some kind of overlap.

Assignment 9 -- MSN and PIU?

Problematic Internet Use (PIU) can be defined as maladaptive cognitions and behaviors involving Internet use that result in negative academic, professional, and social consequences. PIU generally incorporates excessive Internet use (quantity of use considered by participant to exceed normal, usual, planned amount of time online), and compulsive Internet use (inability to control one’s online use). An activity I think could certainly lead to PIU, or at least provide the Internet affordances conducive to PIU, is MSN messenger. MSN (similar to AIM, Skype, etc) allows for synchronous chat between users, as well as a variety of other features such as video, sound, emoticons, “nudging” and so on. It also allows users to add a photo to their profile and provide basic information – or not.

Though MSN is generally just another potential form of communication between friends and/or acquaintances, it may lead to PIU with excessive and compulsive use. Users may become obsessed with their online interactions and friends at the expense of social activities in face-to-face settings. The addition of video could further contribute to misuse. I know of several individuals who enjoy “webcaming”. However, when one leaves their webcam running all of the time for friends in foreign countries, spends weekends webcaming and chatting rather than completing schoolwork, or chooses online interactions on MSN over other social opportunities – there might be a problem. I raise these issues because I have a close friend that often behaves in this manner. Discounting the fact that she swiped my webcam after hers faltered (she considered this an emergency and I have no use for it), I’ve also heard the phrase “not now, I’m caming” a few too many times. Perhaps her stage of misuse hasn’t reached PIU levels just yet, but it certainly lead me to consider MSN use a probable candidate for PIU.

Caplan’s Theory of PIU and Psychosocial well-being (which is circular in nature) suggests that individuals with psychosocial problems hold negative perceptions about their social competence, that these individuals prefer online interaction because it is less threatening and more efficacious, and that this preference leads to excessive and compulsive online interaction – which worsens original psychosocial problems. Caplan’s theory does not necessarily apply to all MSN users, but it is certainly applicable in specific contexts. Lonely individuals, for example, may find solace in online friendship via MSN. Webcaming could make these interactions even more satisfying, yet still easier or less threatening than face-to-face encounters. MSN also encapsulates many of the affordances of Internet interaction associated with PIU. There is a greater sense of anonymity and control (selective self-presentation), and less social responsibility. Thus, MSN could be the path to PIU for individuals already susceptible in terms of Caplan’s Theory. Finally, in relation to Wallace, MSN use might inadvertently integrate operant conditioning, since users presumably don’t know when their friends will be online/available to chat. Misuse could stem from waiting for friends to sign on – the “reward” in a sense.

Comments:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=8915373663145783111

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3186874989969223722&postID=6062706184066826356

9: Your Friendly Neighborhood Facebook Stalker

"Facebook stalking" is the phenomenon associated with viewing a component of a person's profile on Facebook of which you are not a part of. Facebook stalking can be divided into two categories: FFS (fun friendly stalking) or GCS (genuinely creepy stalking). FFS occurs when you are either: a) looking at the profile of someone you are Facebook friends with or semi-aquaintances in real life at the very least (i.e. you don't pretend to ignore them when you run into them on Ho Plaza) or b) Not Facebook friends but friends in real life and have been too lazy/forgetful to friend them (yet you never forget to look at their profile from time to time, somehow). During FFS stalking, you can view your friend/acquaintance's pictures from their vacation, their sorority/fraternity/sports team mixer (if you are not in the same organization), or of their family ( but it is only FFS if you and the person are considered friends in reality!). It is not considered to be stalking if you are anywhere in the album. FFS can also happen when your Facebook friend (or at least semi-acquaintance as defined above) updates their profile information and you would like to see what their new favorite saying of the week is, or what they're newly listening to in their iPod. While viewing their walls, it is only considered FFS if the person is an acquaintance (on a more personal level than semi-acquaintance, an acquaintance is defined as someone you would have a 1-2 minute conversation with when bumping into them on Ho Plaza). The level at which you look more into depth at their profile should correspond to how good friends you are in real life.

Any Facebook activity that does not meet this criteria is defined as GCS (genuinely creepy stalking). A good indicator of whether or not you are engaging in GCS is to ask yourself, "What if I'm in the library looking at profile of said person, and he/she is in the row behind me watching me look at their profile?" If their imagined reaction involves not getting sketched/creeped out/nervous/vulnerable/concerned, then you are most likely engaging in FFS. Any part or combination of this reaction indicates you are hardcore GCS. In and among GCS, there are various level of severity. For instance, if the person is Facebook friends with you from Orientation week freshman year and you haven't spoken to them since, this is less severe GCS than stalking that guy/girl sitting at the table behind from you in Trillium last Wednesday who you heard talking about The Office. You love anyone who loves The Office and want to get to know him/her better...creepy!

However, I do recognize that mostly everyone on Facebook including myself engages in GCS from time to time. For example, I found that many people in Israel are just recently discovering Facebook and have been signing up for it in large numbers. Since I went to elementary school and Middle School in Israel, I was interested in checking out my old classmates, but I've been too shy to friend them yet in fear that they don't remember who I am. GCS? You bet! The level of severity as well as frequency of GCS may lead to PIU (Problematic Internet Usage) and Facebook is especially conducive to frequent and severe GCS.

PIU or Problematic Internet Usage is the excess use (too much time spent) or impulse use (uncontrolled, with an accompaniment of guilt) of the Internet to the point where it may result in problematic and maladaptive social, academic and professional behavior in the individual.
Facebook provides all too many perfect opportunities for GCS. Although you may not be speaking to that friend of yours on Facebook since who knows when, whenever they update their profile it pops up on your Minifeed or list of updated profiles just the same as when a good friend of yours updates his or her profile. Thus, out of sheer boredom or curiosity, it is just as convenient to look at the profile of a random person you once talked to or your best friend you've known since kindergarten. Facebook's inability to differentiate between degrees of varying friends leads to increased opportunity to GCS, which would increase a potential PIU.

Stalking strangers/people who are not your friend, the main component of GCS, can be greatly enhanced by Facebook. Many people's profiles are visible to other people in their network, providing those that might not be friends with them to stalk them completely without having to go through the trouble of friending them (especially if the one being stalked does not know the stalker). Facebook provides users with the option of blocking their profile to people who are not in their network, however many choose to make their profile visible to all those in their community. The advanced searching tool provides many users to stalk others in their network if they only know limited details about the person whose profile they wish to view such as class year, high school, and screen name. This has helped many of my guy friends, I know, look up the girl they met at a recent party in Cornell when they couldn't remember her full name and only that she was from Albuquerque and a Biology major.

In addition, GCS can be done to a person even if he or she is not in your network or their profile is blocked. Some strategies to overcome this (I may or may not be speaking from experience) is to go through the list of friends of the person being stalked (which is usually the only thing provided along with the person's name, network and a thumbnail of their profile picture). Sooner or later, you may find a friend whose network you may belong to who may be close friends with the person you want to stalk. Through their friend whose network you are in, you may be able to see pictures and wall posts of the person. Again, Facebook gives settings to block the friends list or picture from a blocked profile, but many instead choose to display this information. As Caplan points out, there are both individual factors and property factors that can influence GCS to becoming a PIU. Facebook's features, as mentioned, make it simple to self-disclose and encourages disclosure in order for each individual to maintain a virtual presence of their own.

However, many individual characteristics mentioned in Davis et al. can turn GCS from an occasional curiosity to a disruptive, frequent maladaptive behavior that can interfere with the person's functioning outside of the Internet. Davis et al. found significant predictors in people with problematic Internet use: diminished impulse control, problems with depression/loneliness, use of the Internet as a tool of social comfort, and the use of the Internet for procrastinating and distraction. People who may uncontrollably devote large amounts of time reading about the details of the lives of others on Facebook may be depressed and lonely, since they may feel as if they can live vicariously through the lives of others by exploring that person's life off the Internet through wall posts and pictures. Looking at a person's Facebook profile, especially a person who you don't know very well can lead to many exaggerated impressions (via Hyperpersonal model) that a person can form as a tool for coping with loneliness. Using GCS as a tool of social comfort may also be a factor in why GCS can lead to PIU. Although there is no interaction between parties in GCS, a stalker may derive social comfort from looking at the interactions of others. Using GCS when you are procrastinating or as a tool for distracting is easy, since it engages you in the lives of others you may not know, diverting anxieties over getting that paper done or your own problems to the lives and identities of other people. Those with less impulse control are also less likely to control their impulse to spy, pry and inform themselves with what other people may decide to put on their profiles.

As Caplan's model suggests, those with psychosocial problems (loneliness, depression) are more susceptible to Internet use because they find it less threatening and more reliable in providing an intended result. Some who take GCS too far may be shy and not confident in interacting face-to-face. They see their complete anonymity behind the computer as non-threatening since Facebook makes it a policy to never disclose who views one's profile and how many times it is viewed. In principle GCS is usually effective in learning about a person without ever having to interact. People with psychosocial problems tend to experience anxiety over or avoid face-to-face interaction. Since they prefer the Internet, GCS may be replaced by interacting with people in reality, and consequently addiction to the Internet may result. Lack of interaction and increased anonymous observation though the Internet may further worsen the psychosocial problems the individual experiences. In addition, GCS in large compulsive amounts is not seen as socially acceptable. Those who let this kind of Facebook stalking get in the way of their social lives by interacting less, and straining their academic lives by using time to stalk instead of study, are not generally well regarded in society. Addiction to the Internet due to features of the Internet and features of the individual is a positive feedback mechanism whose factors feed into each other, making the situation worse.

Assignment 9: To Shop or Not to Shop?

One online activity that I believe definitely is associated with problematic internet use is online shopping. Many online users have resorted to online shopping over physically shopping for many reasons. First of all there is a lot of convenience involved; you can shop at any time of the day and do not need to schedule in shopping time between regular store hours. Another reason is that it is often a procrastination tool. Instead of sitting at the computer and doing your homework, it is easy to get sidetracked by looking at the new fall sales at your favorite store’s website. Also, online shopping is definitely a tool conducive to compulsive shoppers. You can buy something on the spur of the moment without ever leaving your chair.

Because of all the characteristics involved with online shopping it seems that it would very easily lead to PIU. You can sign on at any time and make purchases, and it can interfere with your school work by being a procrastination tool. It can also have an affect on financial management, because you may find you are charging more things to your credit than you realized. Including tax and shipping costs, the final amount of an online purchase is always more than you expect it to be. As people continue to see the convenience of online shopping and continue to use it, they can easily become obsessed with it to a point where it disturbs other areas of their life.

Some of the same factors in Caplan’s model can be applied to problematic internet use related to online shopping. People who have psychosocial problems and do not necessarily want to leave their house to go shopping will have a preference for online shopping. These people will also feel that shopping online is less threatening and more comfortable then actually going out and physically shopping in a store or mall. This comfortable feeling can then lead to excessive or compulsive online shopping, which can then add to the psychosocial problems the person had in the first place. This may happen to people who are overweight or not comfortable with their bodies. It may be uncomfortable for them to go to a store and go shopping because they feel that people will stare and judge them. However they do have the option of going shopping in their own homes, where they are safe from other people’s judgments. However by doing this they are isolating themselves from society and this may only lead to them being more uncomfortable with their body.

There are definitely some unique properties and affordances of the online shopping world. For instance online shopping does not involve interaction with other people. Therefore people who are introverts can find themselves attracted to online shopping because it is a way to enjoy the internet without interacting with anyone else. It is easy to get a sense of joy from online shopping. You are not depending on anyone else to make you happy. You simply search around until you find something you want to purchase and then you buy it. Your satisfaction does not depend on a response from another person. The fact that online shopping does not depend on anyone else, and because you can get a sense of satisfaction easily from it, allows it to easily lead to problematic internet use.

It is not rare to find Cornell students online shopping for hours instead of studying for a final exam. You can also easily find people waking up at 2am because they just thought of something else they want to bid on from E-bay. Problematic internet use comes in all forms, and sometimes it easy to overlook spaces like online shopping where there is not much interaction with other people.

9: Check for New Mail

Check for new mail. Check for new mail. Check for new mail. Check for new mail. Some people, like me, constantly check their email throughout the day. For me, it is one of the first things I do when I get up and one of the last things I do before I go to bed. Throughout the day, whenever I am near a computer, I always check my email. On my own computer, I leave up the site and just consistently click the “check for new mail” tab. I think for many people who engage in this online activity of persistently checking their email, it becomes very automatic and something one does without even thinking about it. While am unsure whether this behavior alone will lead to PIU, I think that it does fit with in with some of Wallace’s factors that might affect whether one engages in PIU.

Checking one’s email falls under the electronic mail online psychological space, and this space, according to Wallace, has “become a vitally important Internet environment for net users, who now consider it to be side by side with the Web as an indispensable technology.” Based on Wallace’s four factors, I think that two of the main aspects of email checking that may lead to PIU are operant conditioning and maintenance of virtual presence. Operant conditioning is when a behavior is rewarded with a variable schedule, that behavior becomes more difficult to extinguish. With email, one never really knows whether or not he/she has mail. So sometimes when one clicks the “check for new mail” tab, it will say “ # unread messages” while other times it will continue to say “0 unread messages” – but one never knows. I think this factor plays a major role in why people constantly feel the need to check their email because one just never knows whether or not he/she has something important waiting in his/her inbox. There is no system where if you check every two hours, something will be there; you just need to frequently check in order to stay on top of your mail. The second factor, maintenance of virtual presence, is also an important part of this online activity. I know, for me, when I do not check my email, I feel lost and unaware of everything that is going on. I get emails all of the time where I am expected to respond back quickly or emails that pertain to something I am doing that day. I think that email is involved in this need to be online and feel connected. Some groups or communities that people are involved with depend on email, so people may feel that they need to constantly check their email to maintain a virtual presence.

In relation to Caplan’s model of the cycle where psychosocial problems leads to low social competence, which leads to preference for internet interaction to less threatening, more efficacious, which leads to excessive compulsive use of the internet, which then leads back to psychosocial problems, I do not think that email checking really fits in with this idea. I am not sure how loneliness or depression relates to whether or not one would be more or less inclined to check his or her email. Perhaps one who constantly checks his/her email and sends email may prefer internet interaction more, but I think that besides email checking, there are additional activities and factors that lead to excessive compulsive use of the internet.

Something that is unique to electronic mail is the idea that some jobs, businesses, and schools facilitate this constant checking of one’s email. For example, I’ve had to check my email a lot more since I came to college because I am always receiving important information through email. I believe that Cornell is very web based and emails keep me up-to-date and in contact with many people. I am always on uportal and I think that email is a main source of communication among students, faculty, and staff. In these instances, email becomes almost a necessity to stay on top of one’s schedule and work.

Overall, constantly checking one’s email is an online activity that fits with some aspects of Wallace’s factors that affect whether one engages in PIU. I do not think that email checking will automatically lead to PIU but I think that coupled with other online activities, it has potential to lead to PIU.