Assignment #5 (Option#1)....Friends in Far Away Places

Hi again,
Throughout the past two weeks of class we have been delving futher into the computer-mediated world; looking specifically at how relationship formation takes place online. We have looked at both the content/context of interpersonal attraction online as wells as characteristics of online relationships. While many of the relationships we discussed were examples in which the subjects started off never having met, however the explanations that have been applied to these interactions can also be applied to situations in which a face-to-face relationship continues online due to separation. Specifically, the certain set of explanations I am talking about are Wallace's Attraction Factors and McKenna's Relationship facilitation factors.
In more detail, the attraction factors presented by Wallace are as follows: physical attractiveness, proximity, common ground, disinhibition effects. Physical attractiveness, as defined in this manner, refers to how online the sequence of attraction is reversed (e.g. usually we see people before we talk to them). Additionally, with the lack of a visual cues we are not able to make quick decisions about whether we want to talk to this person or not, we either form very positive/negative opinions. Next, proximity refers to the idea that online familiarity flows from intersection frequency (e.g. how many times you run into this person) as well as the psychological spaces (instant messaging, chat room, e-mail , MUD etc....) which affect the intersection. Continuing, common ground represents the idea that we are attracted to those with whom we mutually share beliefs (Law of Attraction). Finally, Disinhibition is the idea that the there is increased self-disclosure online in relational conversation.
McKenna's relationship facilitation factors can be further described as follows: identifiability- how much one can identify with groups/people online and in addition we are like to disclose much more personal information online as a result of anonymity; Removal of gating features- refers to the idea that one has less immediate cues with which to judge someone thus we have less gates, yet with the addition of pictures new gates are opening in computer mediated environments; interactional control- drawing from the Hyperpersonal Model we refer to the idea of selective self-presentation here and the fact that the virtual world allots many more opportunities to manipulate our self presentation; connecting to similar others- again this refers to the idea that we easily identify with people whom have similar interests and media further allows us to connect through space and time; finally the factor referred to as getting the goods posits that we interact with those whom we gain something from.
Both these methods of assessing relationships online provide different points and each can be supported and supportive in different ways.
My best friend was first person I thought of when we were given the assignment to write about a relationship we have that has recently meant that we partake in more leaner media. What I find strange is that our relationship now is ten times stronger then in highschool. While we were close our relationship did not seem that different from those with other friends and I didn't assume our communication in college would be any different. I found that I was very wrong.
From the day I got to Cornell we have both made efforts to call each other every day. Even if we have nothing interesting to say (e.g. I just moved into my dorm and made my bed) or really exciting news (I met this guy, his name was so and so...) a day doesn't pass where we don't talk. If someone had told me 3 years ago this would be the case I would've been extremely suprised. In addition to talking on the phone, my friend and I converse by e-mail, facebook, and instant messaging (but not nearly as much as by phone). In trying to apply the two sets of factors I discussed above, I found that McKenna's relationship facilitation factors were most applicable. In particular the ideas that the relationship can be characterized by identifiability and getting the goods. Clearly I can identify with many of my friends' likes and dislikes and futher I can also identify with her actions and emotions. As a result of the identifiability and thus further self-disclosure I have learned even more things about who my friend really is and recipricated much of the given information so that we now know each other extremely well. Combined with this facter, I believe that I also have become closer to my friend because talking to her and looking at her facebook enables me to get more information about her, more specifically keep up with what is happening in her life so that when we meet again face to face it will be comfortable. Supporting the idea that we search what is interesting, I do find myself enjoying her pictures and wall posts. These enable me to learn more about who she is as well as how she as changed. I have the ability to see who her friends are and how they interact. I would almost say the leaner medium has made our friendship better because we impart enormous amounts of personal information to one another that we mighjt otherwise have kept to ourselves.
To keep the post from becoming a novel I will hold off on how one could directly apply Walther's attraction factor: disinhibition to the communication that took place.
Best-