#12 - Have you had a day without any online activity?

Personally, I barely go through a day without using Internet. I have to check e-mails at least a couple of times a day, homework and studying materials are uploaded in blackboard, and talking to friends now mostly takes place on a messenger program. As time goes by, I find more social activities are being practiced online or at least becoming available online as well as offline.

A rapid increase in use of Internet is changing the expectation and perception of online social
computing. At the early stage of Internet, Cues Filtered Out Perspective assumed CMC would only be able to provide a few cues that will lead to develop impoverished relationship. However, as rapid development in technology brings more features to the Internet, this theory would not be valid any more. Although, at first, all human interactions in CMC were only text-based, these days, all of text, audio and visual aspects of human interaction can be provided in CMC. Therefore, CMC does not necessarily lead to decreased social presence unless it is specifically chosen to have certain feature only.

However, there are some theories that will always hold even in the future. Over-attribution processes and selective self-presentation factors in Hyperpersonal Model are examples of this case. Over-attribution processes say that fewer cues can lead a person to develop an intense impression of his partner in both positive and negative ways depends on the initial impression. Selective self-presentation says people selectively present themselves online, so that their partners would perceive them in the way they want to be perceived. This tendency would always hold and may be even intensified in the future of CMC social computing because more development on technology would offer more options for people to choose in their presentation online. According to the image they want to create, they can choose the most appropriate tool to have more effective selective self-presentation. As it becomes more successful to present a person in a desired way, it would be more susceptible for other people to believe in the image and to develop more intense impression.

As more online social interactions are expected, balancing between CMC and FtF interactions would be needed to be addressed. Already, there have been cases of people having troubles with compulsive Internet use. Some cases even led to murders and suicides. In the future, conducting various experiments on identifying the causes and impacts of problematic Internet use would make it possible to develop theories that explain the phenomena more specifically. This would help people to balance between CMC and FtF social activities. For example, it is hard to find the appropriate laws that promote healthy use of Internet. Enforcement of these laws made based on the findings from the experiments and theories would be one of the ways to have less unfortunate happenings online. It would be also educational to discuss about various features of Internet that are addictive and suggestions to overcome this addictive use of the Internet in the class.

*Bonus* The Fertile Web :: Looking Outward Looking In

The progression of the Internet, I believe, operates along a dialectic of integration and creation. The internet will continue to progress, insofar that it will become more integrated with our lives—our physical and mental condition—while still innovating through new platforms and applications (with an emphasis on streaming media and interconnected personal networks).

Therefore, the theories and phenomena discussed in Comm 245 will continue to hold if they incorporate the novel features of the internet within mature psycho-social theoretical frameworks.

One of the cornerstone theories we discussed, Walther’s Hyperpersonal Model, rests upon five assumptions or tenets that I expect to persist, though with diminished intensity. For example, I predict that the over-attribution process will lead to less strong or willful impressions in one-on-one CMC. I predict this based upon the process’ assumption that a participant (source) makes reaching generalizations about another participant (target) based upon limited information, and upon modality switching, realize that these assumptions are far exaggerated. As we feel increasingly comfortable in our online skins---virtual personas complete with a myriad of textual and pictorial signs (and possible vocal or filmic)---I believe the appeal of anonymity will decline and our savvy in CMC will lead us to be more reserved and better informed to form opinions. I expect my predictions redound through other elements of the Hyperpersonal Model (self-selective presentation, et al), SIDE, the Proteus Effect, and other theories that predict distinctiveness based upon a users’ ability to alter or react to their own avatar or virtual presence online. These theories will remain, but they'll lose some of the strength that once distinguished them from similar FtF-based theories wi (i.e., as we are more familiar with virtuality and our online space, CMC and FtF interactions will differ by a lessening margin).

The core elements of SIP, development over time, stand in tact, although the time in which someone may form a rounded impression of someone may diminish as programs like Facebook, LastFM, Amazon, Flickr, et al, are linked to create an interconnected online persona. As mimicked by the truth-or-fiction balance of online personals/dating sites (as described by Gibbs et al), our everyday offline and online personas are increasingly becoming intertwined so that internet users have more incentive for “self-disclosure” (be it through linking their LastFm profile, or through revealing textual chats). In Gibbs et al, honesty was not the highest correlation with perceived “self-presentational success," yet, here, I would predict that honesty will increase over the time we craft our online persona. Little white lies will always exist, but honesty will have increased benefit, especially as deception detection ability is heightened due to an enhanced ability to pull together audio/visual/textual cues.

I must note, that in my predictions I make an assumption, one in which the more informed Larry Lessig would be hesitant to make: we will feel more secure online. We certainly have more locks and passcodes to deal with on the internet, e.g. PayPal, but diminished privacy, spam, and identity theft remain vital web/technological issues which are potentially crippling to the progress of the internet and to the closure of the gap between our CMC and FtF persona. Undoubtedly, it's a major issue!

But beyond psychological, personal, and dyadic issues, I find that the new sociological developments on the internet—its open-source and collaborative nature—are the most intriguing and exciting developments harking the future of the internet. In the macro-realm, where anonymity is still prime, new work needs to be done and old theories need to be re-worked in accommodation. Questions we need to ask:

Why do people tirelessly patch-up open-source code or bother marking-up Wikipedia articles for their “lack of citations”? Is all of this cooperation and collaboration online a form of altruism, or just another arena for people to get their 15 minutes?

I hope that in future classes, Comm 245 will address the surprising macro-phenomena of the internet: how the structure sees the individual, and how the structure might supplant or complement corporate and other non-virtual institutions.

Thanks for reading!

Optional Post - the future

The internet and various technologies associated with it, change and update at a rapid pace. Perhaps for the first time, parents find themselves learning about new technologies from there elementary school children. As a member of this technological revolution and having grown up with it, we are up-to-date and constantly evolving as the technology does. However, our parents and grandparents are moving at a slower pace. It was only several years ago, that my mother first grasped the idea of email, she sent her first text message about 6 months ago, and she signs onto ‘gchat’ as of last week. The future will contain a world of experts entirely immersed and active in the internets rapid changes. As a result, some of the theories will be altered while others will stand the test of time.

The Hyperpersonal model, I believe, will prove to be valid throughout the drastic changes of the internet. Regardless of what incredible innovations arise, people will always over attribute certain traits, selectively self-present themselves, and behave the way they are portrayed. Secondly, I don’t believe the fundamental attribution error will likely change. This error extends beyond the scope of just internet usage. People will always assume that others negative behavior reflects their personal traits while our own negative behavior reflects the situation or situational setting.

As for some theories that will change, certainly PIU or problematic internet usage will increase. As the internet changes, people will likely rely more and more on its services. This will drastically increase the amount of people who suffer from problematic internet usage. In fact, perhaps it will become so wide spread, that it becomes the norm. Another theory to likely change is SIP. This theory states that sharing information takes longer in CMC because of the lack of cues. As the internet becomes more wide spread, people will become more accustomed to using it. Cues will be easier to translate and interpret in CMC. Additionally, ways to incorporate more cues will be introduced. For example, the use of webcams and free internet phone services such as Skype have drastically increased in recent years. These will all make sharing information happen at a faster pace.

Along those lines, I believe webcams and Skype, and there respective technologies, are increasing drastically. In the future, there will likely be much discussion and research about these internet phenomenons. For example, does Skype differ from a normal phone conversation? How different is a webcam conversation compared to a regular phone call?

COMM 245 did a great job of covering a huge scope of the internet. I was introduced to parts of the web that I didn’t know exist. If I had to pick one aspect of the changing internet to be discussed in greater depth, I would say to discuss the incredible unity that can occur on the internet. This can be examined in regard to the chain emails, famous videos, websites, and people.

Well, I never thought I’d have my own blog, but here I am. What a great semester assignment!
Scott

Bonus Assignment

I understand this assignment is a little late, however I ran into a problem, which was that my invite to the blog had expired which lead me to believe I no longer could post to the blog... To my surprise I can! :)

I feel as if although the Internet and the way we use it to communicate is changing increasingly fast I feel as if most of the theories we discussed in class with continue to explain how we act as we do in social situation online. For now the most advanced form of communication I know of on the Internet is video chat with voice, which I do on a daily basis. I feel as if the theories we have talked about in class still do there job explaining why we might do the things we do while in a CMC environment. However I do feel as if with further advances they may need to be re-evaluated or performed in a more advanced environment in order to present us with the most up to date and information available. Just like any other thing with time it needs to be edited and changed and re-tested in order to perform to the current days standards.

I feel as if perhaps the only theory that will become obsolete is Wallace theories of the internet today. I honestly don't feel as if her theory about less social support ect. really support the current state of CMC communication as she describes it.

I find when meeting new people when video/voice chatting theories such as the hyper personal model still play a huge role in getting to know someone in a CMC environment. For example if you read my last blog post about my "newest coolest fiend" I first met my new friend on a video/voice chat and then moved into mostly just txt, then phone calls, then ftf, and I referred to Walthers hyper personal model to describe my experience.

As for what the class missed I really feel as if the only thing would be video/voice communication online. I feel as if websites like myspace and youtube that support your videos you post online are a huge part of the growing CMC communication of the future and I wished we had looked at them a little more. I know that video chat and voice chat has been around for quite a while now as well but I feel like we really didn't cover as much about it as we should have.

Bonus: The Future of the Psychology of Computing

Despite the Internet’s ongoing renovations due to new technological strides, I think that the majority of the theories discussed in class will last. They may serve as benchmark theories for other future experiments or they may actually be applicable to some Internet situations. However, some key theories that are already being “pushed aside” may be theories relevant to impression formation. For example, Walther’s (1993) Social Information Processing Theory projects that impression formation will develop more slowly in CMC. Contemporary social networks like Facebook ad MySpace have already begun to steer away from this theory because of the ability to upload pictures. However, this theory may stick around because we may see it applied to other mediated media, like text messaging. Walther(1996) later describe the Hyperpersonal Model, which I found to be one of the most applicable theories we discussed. I find that the five points that Walther discusses in this model, the over-attribution process, the developmental aspect, selective self-presentation, re-allocation of cognitive resources, and behavioral confirmation, are pertinent in even the contemporary forms of social interaction. I think ongoing forms of social interaction through the Internet will increasingly grow in synchronicity and richness, which may lead to more application of this model. Also, companies and politicians on the Internet may use this model advantageously as it gains more support in the future. For example, advertisers may use this theoretical approach to manipulate their audience’s impressions of their company.

Other models and theories discussed in class, like SIDE (Spears & Lea 1990), the Feature Based Model of Deception (Hancock et al. 2004) will likely still exist and like the Hyperpersonal Model may even be applicable to future technological advancements on the Internet. For example, the Feature Based Model of Deception discusses multiple forms of media such as e-mail and Instant Messaging that are used for various types of deception. We may see that it can be applied to deception in media like video chatting, or networks like Facebook.



As some of these more rich and synchronous technologies that were previously discussed become more accessible they may give rise to more issues. Already we see people committing suicide over an “online relationship” or we have read stories about “online stalkers” as this media advances. Therefore, we can expect more legal issues and future legal restrictions to form in hopes of mediating the computer-mediated environment. If there were one thing that this class failed to cover that it should have already, it would probably be asynchronous (YouTube) and synchronous video chatting.



I feel like this may be the future of interaction on the net will go in the direction of video chatting and we will most likely see this form taking on new applications and it may be used in new environments (such as the recent Democratic debate where YouTubers we asking questions to the candidates) I feel like this field will grow in terms of respectability and applicability as more of the world moves in the direction of the Internet. Great class and useful info!!!!!!

Disappearance of the fTf interaction- Assignment #9

Prior to our entrance into the new millenium our society was heavily concerned with the possible breakdown of the internet and failure of computer systems. If we look into the past we can realize that even in the early 90s our lives were not nearly as dependent on technology. We have gone from a culture where we converse solely through face-to-face interaction and revert to paper mail and telephones as alternate forms of communication. Nowadays it has become our priority to use e-mail, instant-messaging, and telephones ( mostly for text-messaging purposes) to communicated with one another. I have talked with many people in the business industries who have told me that they have started using instant-messaging throughout the company to communicate with fellow employees. The reasoning behind this being that it could cut time and costs by outsourcing work across seas and allowing people to work from home. Time is cut when schedules don't have to be made to be in a certain place at a certain time for a meeting; with video technology and IMs companies are able to have virtual conferences. With outsourcing, companies can higher employees who accept lower wages and can work at times when the company is sleeping in America, therefore making the company a 24/7 operation.
The main idea that I think will become a strong representative of CMC environments and virtual interaction as we move on is that people will loose the ability to communicate affectively face to face and relationships will not be as strong for lack of cues (Cues Filtered Our Theory). Similarly, SIDE theory will continue to show face (no pun intended) in CMC environments as more people become reliant on these sources as their primary forms of communication thereby relying on the overattributions they form about those with whom they converse.
While it is clear that many theories will hold fast to the happenings in the future I believe that we need to look even more directly at the lack of ability that humans have to interact face to face. I think that the more people interact online the less they will in person. Factors we have discussed that will influence humans to act this way is the 24/7ness of CMC environments, the ability to self-present, the ease of being honest. When I mention ease of honesty it is interesting to discuss the pros and cons: Is being honest always good? Will this cause relationships to be weaker? People to be less polite? Could this possibly strengthen relationships because we are more straightforward online so we will express our feelings more readily? Additionally should we see the 24/7ness of online communities as a positive or negative? Is is negative because this enables people to avoid further human interaction and any other'real life' activities for that matter? or is it Postive because it allows people from all over the world to converse and thus broadens our scope of society? These are issues we must look at when we look at the future of technology and communication in CMC.
In COMM245 it would be extremely interested to discuss the issues I have mentioned above. I believe that we missed looking at more of the psychological aspects of what reliance on CMC for communication does to our everyday face-to-face relationships. Yes, we did discuss how they are different but not really how they affect one another ( at least not on a deep detailed enough level). It would be interesting to discuss whether or not society could function without human face-to-face interaction at all and what they would mean. It seems that part of Ramirez and Wang's points on the different outcomes when you meet fTf in the short term vs long term after using CMC hold true. It makes sense that the longer you get to know someone online the greater the development of your picture of them and the less room you leave for alterations of the mental picture. Adding to this we can see elements of SIP, the idea of time. SIP differs from CFO in that it says you can develop a clear idea of who the person is, it just takes time however we have yet to look at this in totality. Yes, overtime we gain more information about the individual but is this really the case. Has anyone ever wondered whether time just allows us more opportunity to develop our own perception of the person not really who the actual individual is? This might be an area that COMM245 could explore.

What does the future hold for the Psychology Of Social Computing?

We covered an extensive amount of theories over the course of this semester, and this blog is interesting because it lets us delve into which theories actually mattered for our lifetime and which theories we could've just zoned out on during lecture. The internet has always been expanding, and unforunately some of the theories that we covered in class just willn ot be relevant when talking about the internet any longer. I feel like the internet is making a move toward solely having live chats with video, and being able to see the person you are IMing is very near.
In other words, communication online without knowing what the other person looks like will be a thing of the past. Now what does that mean for some of the theories we covered in class? For one thing, impression formation will practically become obsolete. We will be able to visually see someone, thus there is no need to form impressions, other than that of personality traits, which will be much easier to gather with visual communication. Because of visual cues becoming available, Social Information Processing theory is sure to become a thing of the past. I think is it accurate to say, and this came as shock to me, that most theories that were covered in class will stick around for some time.
Theories such as O'Sullivan Model and SIDE will all be around throughout our lifetime. Concerning the first theory, it has to do with valence and locus. This means, is the information you are expressing positive or negative and is it about yourself or someone esle. I will always call my parents if I recieved a bad grade, a bad report at work, or God forbid, a call from the police station. However, if I get a promotion or inform them they are soon to be grandparents, I would love to tell them that face-to-face. As for SIDE, even if the internet turns to live video chats, which I think it will, people will still feel the need to group the person they are communicating with into a social category, i.e. she's a prep, he's a goth.
One thing I believe will come a thing of the past in our lifetime is the telephone. Maybe not the cell phone, but a live conversation without visual contact. I believe that will be a thing of the past. Soon IMing will have the ability to not only see what they are writing, but also to see what they are wearing. Instead of dialing a number in on the house phone, there will be live chats with video in between friends and families. Basically what a video chat is now, except it will be used to express all types of information, whether it be about asking for a cup of sugar or wondering when the book club is meeting.
I didn't know what to write about something we didn't cover, but now that I took a glance at what the others had to say, I really would've loved to hear what you had to say about pornography. With the diversity and personality of the class, I think pornography would have been very interesting and at the very least fun.

#12 Bonus Blog: The Future

Society and the internet are constantly changing. What used to be relevant and important today may not be so tomorrow. With new technologies and new insights on their effects on impression formation older theories of social computing will be replaced with fresher ideas. For example, the Reduced Social Context Cues Theory is dying down in popularity, while the Hyperpersonal Model is soaring. With so much of our time spent online it makes sense that our impression formations will become exaggerated and intense. We end up feeling like we know the person on the other end of the computer with the help of our vivid imaginations. The use of the internet as a social, not just a task oriented device, will lead to the demise of the Reduced Social Context Cues Model. People are now using the internet to make friends and driving the internet away from its cold and unfriendly origin. Further, with the increased use of the internet, there will be no doubt an increase in problematic internet usage (PIU). We, as a society, are becoming more and more dependent on the internet. Some of us will be able to handle this change, and others will not have as much self-control and discipline.

In the future theorist’s will move away from focusing on MUD’s and move towards Facebook and Youtube. Such a change is already in the making. An interesting study would be to see how influential the Youtube video “Obama Girl” was on the political campaign and people’s opinions. Another interesting topic that may be addressed in the future is the quality of online relationships with strangers in online games. Do these online relationships serve the same purpose as real life relationships and are these individuals just as health and happy as the rest of us? Further, will spending an increasing amount of time and reliance on the internet, lead to less socially competent individuals in the real world? How easy is it to go back and forth from online to offline (modality switching)? Is there an adjustment period?

One topic that I wished the class would have covered was pornography. Pornography is a growing business and I’m curious to as to what social computing theorists have to say about it. There must be research related to PIU, gender differences and online pornography. Maybe I’ll read the Wallace chapter on pornography on my own. I think it would be interesting.

Comments:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=6493681443023717003

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=3812547572584801721

#12: What Does the Future Hold?

I really enjoyed taking Psychology of Social Computing because I found that the theories covered in class applied to me and my use of the Internet. The hyperpersonal model is a theory that will always be prevalent on the Internet. Intensification loops certainly occur as people undergo self-presentation and over-attribution. As long as people continue to self-present online, the hyperpersonal model will come into play. SIDE is another theory that will remain important in the future. Whether online or offline, people tend to group people into social categories. Since grouping others into social categories is a part of human nature, it is a behavior that will always be present online, even if people are only given a few cues about a person. Also, people have a need to feel like they belong to a group, which is why the deindividuation part of SIDE theory will also remain prevalent. In both the real and virtual worlds, people will conform to norms in order to feel like they are a part of a bigger group. The hyperpersonal model and SIDE will continue to be relevant in the future because they focus on aspects of human nature.

One theory that may be less influential in the future is SIP. CMC continues to develop and become richer. Some richer modes of communication fail to become popular, but others may eventually become widespread. For example, video chatting is becoming increasingly popular. Today, most people use it to talk to people that they already know FtF. However, in the future, people may use video chatting to meet new people and get to know others better. With so many visual cues available, it will no longer necessary to adapt cues to the verbal channel. Cues will be immediate and plentiful. Thus, impression formation may be able to develop as quickly through CMC as it does FtF, making SIP obsolete.

One issue that will need to be addressed in the future is the expansion of media on the Internet. Websites that broadcast TV shows and movies illegally have caused many problems. The government has caught some violators of copyright laws, but often, illegal media sites are so popular that it is difficult to identify all the people who use them. Illegal downloading of music, TV shows, and movies is a similar issue that must be addressed. Even media that is legally broadcast online has caused problems. Right now, the Writers’ Guild of America is on strike as a result of problems with legal online broadcasts. Many popular TV shows are shown on TV network sites, but writers do not receive residuals from these online broadcasts. Instead, TV networks receive all the profits from online broadcasting. Writers are on strike now in order to demand a share of profit from online broadcasting. As the writers’ strike demonstrates, it has been difficult to keep with the rapid expansion of Internet media. Policies and procedures must continually be updated in order to monitor online media. All these issues with online media demonstrate that online media is a big force on the Internet.

I was surprised that the class did not cover pornography. Pornography is incredibly prevalent online and is hard to avoid if one uses the Internet frequently. Issues like problematic Internet use certainly come into play when people are “addicted” to pornography online. With online pornography, there exist ideas about gender roles and masochism, which connect to psychology. I understand that pornography may not be as relevant as other Internet topics in a class about "social computing." Still, as a class focused on the psychology of the Internet in general, it seems that pornography should at least be mentioned.

A 11, My Newest Coolest Friend!

When we had received this assignment I was quite stoked about it. I had just finished explaining to my neighbor in class about my newest friend I had met on facebook. A few weeks before I had met a girl online and we had been talking hours a day on aim and eventually the phone until last weekend. I traveled down to NYC to search for apartments and my friend from facebook and I decided to would meet finally and get to see each other in person for the first time. As sketchy as this sounds, I had no problem following through. I had friends in the area and I was the male in the encounter, I would image for her being the female is was even sketchier. My friend from facebook and I had started our friendship through talking primary through facebook messages and then aim for a few weeks. I think because of this our friendship could relay on theories relating to the hyperpersonal model. I think because we started talking online we were much more able and encourage to disclose personal information because of the lack of rejection or embarrassment which we may face in a ftf environment. We were able to talk to each without worrying about factors like how we looked or what was going on around us, or even if we were naked. As I mentioned about the hyperpersonal model’s theories could explain why this was an easier means of meeting each other and getting to know each other so well. Selective self presentation and the reallocation of cognitive resources were the reason that we were able to focus ourselves on getting to know each other so well, with a more personal goal in mind rather then worrying about physical appearance or the reason I stated above getting in the way. Selective self presentation was also a playing factor because although we first met each other by her reading my profile and finding I was very much like her, we were able to disclose information which we felt would make the other interested in ourselves. Because of this our online relationship developed more and more until we finally decided we would meet in person for the first time. When we did meet it was on a very crowed corner near times square in Manhatten. Although I was walking up to kind of a complete stranger I did not feel as if I would normally walking up to and talking to a stranger about personal issues. We spent hours just walking around and talking to each other that night, even though it was freezing we had a blast. We walked arm to arm as if we had known each other forever and not once did the situation seem even a little bit odd. Even though selective self presentation probably took place in our meeting online, even when we met in person there were really no shocks or surprises, I think because we have such identical personalities that it may have played a role in this however. Now this weekend she came to visit me here in Ithaca and we had a blast once again. I think that the hyperpersonal model played a huge role in us getting to know and be comfortable with each other in a less threatening and hurtful environment before it progressed to a ftf environment. We are still getting along great and finding more and more in common.

11 My Sister: A Guinea Pig For Wallace

Unfortunately, I’m not one to really to stay informed with family related events and I was awkwardly surprised when I came home one day this summer to find a 22-year-old named Jon living in my house. He was up from Texas and planned on staying for 5 days for my twin sister. Now, to be honest, my sister doesn’t get to Texas much, in fact, she has never been. Also, I don’t necessarily recall her mentioning anything about having this guy over before—perplexing I know. So, after he left back home to Texas of course, I questioned how she met this guy and the online saga began to unfold.

Apparently, she met this nerdy music major (to my relief he is just a nerd and not a crazy killer), on MySpace. The two sparked their online affair basically because of intersection frequency. She listens a lot of the same music as him and they found each other writing on different pages for particular bands, and they started communicating with each other. She explained that they’ve been ‘friends’ online for a while, but only recently had they started messaging each other through MySpace. But the messaging, after finding that they had many similar interests, moved off of MySpace, and to Instant Messaging, a more synchronous space. Cues in her story alluded to an increasing amount of disclosure, and reciprocity. Soon they moved their conversation to a more intimate medium, the phone and probably only sixth months after they started messaging, he was taking a trip up to New York.

Here is where we can go back to the beginning of the semester and apply Wallace’s four factors (physical attractiveness, proximity, common ground, and disinhibition effects). Although Wallace suggests that CMC’s relationship begin with getting to know someone then physical attractiveness becomes important, my sister’s relationship began with an interest yet; she admittedly says that his and her ability to selectively self present online was one of the initial factors. She was attracted to him, not only because of similar interests but also because of his MySpace pictures.

Next, proximity played a huge role because, as mentioned before, they met each other on the account of intersection frequency. Their improved relationship came with even more intersection frequency on Instant Messaging, which coincides with Wallace’s predictions stating that increased proximity will result in increased relational development.

Common ground certainly played a role in furthering their relationship. They endless mutually shared beliefs, assumptions, and propositions—all part of the common ground factor. Furthermore, the picture, their conversation, and most likely their MySpace profiles contributed to a positive Law of Attraction, which according to Wallace, means that one is attracted to people they have common ground with.

Finally, Wallace’s disinhibition effects also apply here. In essence, disinhibition refers to the willingness to self-disclose. The Hyperpersonal Model plays a huge role here where people form impressions quicker, and possibly stronger with fewer cues, and impression management. Because of a decreased public self-awareness, we may be more apt to disclose more about ourselves online (Jonison, 2001) In my sister’s case, this probably had a huge role, as they were disclosing more and more because of possible impressions formed early due to a lack of cues and selective self presentation on both parts.

Wallace’s four factors all seem to overlap, but still prove to be a good foundation for analyzing relationship development online. Recently, Jon came up the weekend before Thanksgiving for another visit. I wonder how the face-to-face relationship will turn out?

11: lvl 8 ogre mage seeks moon queen or druid

One broken Ipod, a pet dog and a used sofa in exchange for a two hour back rub? Craigslist has got you covered. Craigslist, for those still living in the 90s, is a rapidly growing internet classifieds bulletin board started in 2000. Jobs, housing, for sale, gigs and services all can be posted without charge.

Weird? Check. Shameless? Check. Sketchy? Check.

The most active and entertaining sections is Craigslist personals. Strictly platonic, women seek women, women seeking men, men seeking women, men seeking men, misc romance, casual encounters, missed connections, rants and raves are the categories in a no holds barred forum of human desires. Due to the anonymity of the postings socially accepted norms are often thrown out the window. Every once in a while a gem like http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/ksc/395322346.html will pop up.

Though I personally have not had any experience with Craigslist Personals, every once in a while a I will read good post usually featured on best of craigslist like The Rules for dating on Craigslist. From the advice given by the poster, it is clear that he has had some experience in online dating or personals. Dating on Craigslist generally happens like so: you see an ad that you like and email the person >> the other person probably does a preliminary screening and emails you back >> a couple more emails are exchanged before deciding a meeting place for a date >> date. For the most part I would have to say moving from Craigslist to a face to face environment is relationship dampening due to expectancy violation. The effect of timing doesn’t play a part because I assume most relationships move to Ftf at about the same point which is early in the relationship. It was easy to find posts like this one http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/44001372.html on bad dating experiences but I could not find a single one in which people have had an enjoyable or successful experience. It might just be because people leave the online space once they have a life.

SIP theory plays less of a part in this situation because the modality switch generally occurs early in the relationship. However it would not be supported because many of the posts show that users have a jarring experience in the first face to face meeting. Uncertainty remains relatively high until Ftf interaction however it is hard to say that there is always a direct correlation between increased information and greater liking and intimacy. This theory only seems true in relationships where candidates are assumed to be a good fit for each other. SIDE theory plays a larger role in this situation in which users have a very high level of anonymity and selective self presentation in the Craiglist and email spaces. However in Ftf interaction partners are individuated which leads to decreased social attraction. Whether the person is The "Couple of Extra Pounds" guy or the The Alcoholic Who Hid The Fact That He Had a DUI and Thus Could Not Allow Me in His Car, my findings support that leaving virtuality in Craigslist personals generally had negative outcomes. This fits in to the long term results of Ramirez and Wang. Negative expectation violations were common, often with a selection bias when exchanging pictures. More study needs to be done on the emails exchanged and opinions before and after Ftf meetings do apply URT and Hyperpersonal Theory.

It could be completely possible that the Craigslist Personals community does not draw from a “normal” distribution of people. However unless you are feeling adventurous, I would say to try your local bar or party before hitting up Craigslist.

Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/11/me-and-bill.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-being-yourself-pays-off.html

Assignment 11- I guess it's not really possible to be an attention whore through email anyway.

I had trouble finding a really good story online to use about the transition from online to face-to-face, so I’m going to base this on personal experience. Last summer, one of my friends informed me that her friend, Jason, had been saying that he thought that she should set him up with me. I had met Jason twice before at parties, but we hadn’t really talked and I barely knew him. As I’m sure many others would do in this situation, I Facebooked him to try to determine if I would like him. Based on the limited information he had in his Facebook profile, I thought he would be funny with perhaps a slightly offbeat sense of humor. We exchanged a few messages on Facebook and my initial impression of him was confirmed. I thought it might be fun to get to know him in person, but nothing really ever came of it because he didn’t end up replying to the last message I sent him. I wasn’t too broken up by the whole thing because we had just been casually chatting.

I only found out how lucky I had been that he never actually suggested that we go out a few weeks later when a group of my friends and I somehow ended up eating together at a restaurant with him and a few of his friends. To say that he was obnoxious would be an understatement. He desperately needed to be the center of attention. There were probably 7 or 8 of us eating together, but no one could get a word in edgewise as Jason monopolized the conversation. I had thought he was funny when I talked to him online, but in real life, it was clear that he was only capable of amusing himself.

Hyperpersonal theory seems to describe this (almost) relationship fairly well. Consistent with this theory, meeting face to face produced a negative outcome. With relatively few cues online, I formed a stereotyped impression of him based off of only a few characteristics. I thought that he was funny but I didn’t know that in addition, he was a self-aggrandizing attention whore. Moving offline didn’t lead to enhancement effects in our relationship, even though it was short-term as predicted by Ramirez and Wang. I think that selective self-presentation played a huge role in my positive perception of Jason before meeting him. Online, he tempered his personality. Offline, it was too much for me to handle.

11.Where should I go in Thanksgiving?

I have a friend Alex coming to Cornell together with me. After assigned a double room, she contacted her roommate immediately through email. This contact lasted for nearly 4 months.

Before we came, I thought she knew everything and every life detail of her new roommate, because when we chatted, she even knew what color of flip-flops the new roommate liked. This really surprised me very much. Not only because I didn't send any email to my new roommate, but also because I would never believe two girl strangers can get on so well just through this email thing. But comparing to what happened to her on the day her roommate moving in, this was a piece of cake.

I was in her room when her new roommate moved in. After a hard work, we went to dinner together, when her new roommate Joe invited her to home during Thanksgiving break. This was really surprising and she said yes.

But things didn't go through well as it seemed as days passed. One day, I was going to a dinner with Alex, when we met Joe on the way. But they two both pretended not to see each other and passed each other with silence. I was surprised again.

Then Thanksgiving came. I was planing what to do with my friends, when Alex suddenly called asking me if she could join us. This was surprising but also in expectation. After we talked, I knew, they didn't get on well. They quarrelled on whether to open windows in the night, on how often should they clean the room, on when to turn off the light in the evening and on playing music too loud on the computer. It seemed they quarrelled about every little things, and they turned out not talk to each other. And now Alex even contacted the Cornell housing, wanting to move out or change a room.

I think it is a disaster when things turn out like this.

Alex's experience is in consistent to the Ramirez and Wang Hypothesis. Modality switch following a long-term association via CMC will provide social information that will be evaluated negatively and uncertainty-provoking relative to interaction via CMC. Alex and her new roommate Joe communicated online for nearly 4 months, which was a long time. They got on really well online, and it seemed they had many commons. But when they finally lived together, they found more differences of life habits, and turned out a bad relation and evaluation.

Alex's experience is also in consistent to the Hyperpersonal Theory. CMC leads to inflated of over-attribution. So some attributes are evaluated more than they really are. So when the two persons meet in real life, these attributes are not that prominent, comparing to others. And they become disappointed after they move to off-line. This works with Alex's experience.

Now I really hope they two can work well, or they can find their own "dream room". I don't want to hear "I hate staying in my room" in the next spring break.

11: Remember that best friend...well she is no more

As I have mentioned before , I met one of my best friends through a blogging site known as Xanga(Me and my best friend). We “met” online in June, 2001. The interaction started off slow, but escalated soon after a severe emotional event occurred in my real life (December 2002). Monica and I got closer to the point of being best friends talking through the phone, IM, and of course through Xanga posts. We talked about everything under the sun and not a day would go by without one of us calling or IM’ing each other.

Our first real-world interaction came about a year after getting close to each other. She came to New York to visit. It was awkward at first but soon enough that disappeared and we were us again. Almost all those who interacted with us that weekend were shocked to know that this was the first time we had officially “met”. We had three more real-world interactions within a period of two years. However, in December of 2005, we had a huge fight and our friendship ceased to exist.

Approximately 4 months later, we patched things up. Since our last real world meeting (April 2005), I had not seen Monica till this past weekend. Since it had been so long since we had seen each other, and we had both changed so much, it was almost like it was our first meeting again. However, unlike our first meeting, this one did not go as well as planned. Expectations on both sides were not met, and it resulted in a very awkward weekend, and a tearful phone call where we both realized that maybe we had just thought that our friendship was the same when it truly wasn’t and hadn’t been for a long time.

My relationship with Monica has grown and developed over time, allowing different portions of it to be analyzed by different theories. I choose to analyze the last part of our relationship.

According to Ramirez and Wang’s article, their hypothesis 3 stated “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” (12). This hypothesis was proven true in their study and is also proven true in my situation as described above.

My approximately two and a half year online interaction (April 2005-November 2007) with Monica can be taken as a long-term online association. Since the interaction was long term, there was a higher rate of over-attribution and many more expectations when the relationship left virtuality. When Monica and I met this past weekend, we both had over attributed impressions of each other since we had been interacting solely through CMC for the past 2 and ½ years and that too sporadically. When real world clashed with the one created online, both of us were extremely disappointed and our relationship will never be the same again.

Taking our relationship offline this time resulted in catastrophe due to the sporadic nature of our relationship which caused over attribution to occur. Since we talked less than we used to and only through a medium, Walter’s Hyperpersonal theory was in full force resulting in a very negative outcome.

#11...from virtual relationship to real life relationship

I was actually quite pleased with this assignment, because one of my most important relationships, that with my boyfriend, originated online, as dorky as it sounds. We started dating in high school, but this most likely wouldn't have happened without the help of AIM. My boyfriend was at the time in a band with one of my friends, and we met through this mutual friend. I first saw my boyfriend at one of their performances playing the drums, and wasn't initially interested (simply because he looked too angry when he was playing his drums). However, we began talking online, and because our relationship developed primarily online in the beginning and then moved to FtF, I think my experiences apply to the Hyperpersonal theory quite well.

Because we met and allowed our friendship to develop through this environment, I was able to disclose more personal information to him because the medium acted as a buffer for me in my much more timid days, and we got to know each other on a personal level without any factors other than our conversation and self-disclosure getting in the way. In other words, this was consistent with the "reallocation of cognitive resources" and "selective self-presentation" aspects of the Hyperpersonal theory, because we were able to focus all of our "cognitive resources" on getting to know each other personally without letting any other social or physical pressures get in the way, and we were also able to selectively self-present and disclose certain information about ourselves that we thought would make us more appealing to the other, which was I'm sure a factor that led to our interest in progressing our relationship to FtF.

Additionally, the developmental aspect played a key role in our relationship because we really did spend a lot of time talking online before we spent time together in person, and once we did so, we felt extremely comfortable together, as if we had known each other forever even though we had never actually hung out. Our time spent getting to know each other through online interactions really did prove effective in that I didn't feel any major shock or surprises about any aspects of my boyfriend after we met in person; the online interactions really were sufficient in letting us get to know one another.

I also think that over-attribution played a role in our initial relationship because we were allowed to selectively self-present our best qualities, and all our resources for getting to know each other were allocated to the information that the other gave us. For example, I know that I over-attributed his intelligence and humor, but also noticed, upon reflection, that behavioral confirmation played a role here too, in that he in a way rose to this role for a while, and while all these self-presentational methods began to fade as we became more intimate throughout our relationship, there was never any severe disappointment or shock in not living up to any expectations or anything like that.

So overall, I think that the beginning stages of my relationship with my boyfriend apply well with the Hyperpersonal theory in its progression from a virtual relationship to a non-virtual relationship because of the way that all of the Hyperpersonal factors played a role in our initial online interactions and how, over time, we got to know each other just as well, if not better, in the less-threatening online environment as we would had our relationship been strictly FtF all along.

Comments:

http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-modality-switching-hits-little-too.html

http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-being-yourself-pays-off.html

A11: I'd rather not meet...

During the last few day of summer before my sophomore year here at Cornell, I received a Facebook friend request from stranger. (I went looking for the exact “friend request” message but could not find it, so I’ll paraphrase) The message read as so:

"Hi Taek!
This is a little awkward, but I know your sister from high school and she told me to friend you on Facebook! "

I found this to be a little odd but nonetheless friended her and messaged back with my little greeting, which turned out to be just as awkward and to the point. Facebook hadn’t exploded into what it is now, so social networking was still relatively new to me, a.k.a. I wanted more friends. My new Facebook friend (we’ll call her J) had gone to high school with my sister who had been a senior at the time and J a freshman.

I was reluctant to meet this person face to face, because I knew my sister’s friends and didn’t get along too well with them in general. Due to this presumption, I tried to limit the extent of the friendship to the internet. We talked mostly about our interests and shared the general “getting to know eachother” information. In sharing information, I tried my best to present myself as the typical Cornell Undergrad.

However, when classes began, we met up. She was nothing like what I had imagined.

According to the hyperpersonal model, the factors that play a role in impression formation are as follows:
1. over-attribution processes
2. developmental aspect
3. selective self-presentation
4. re-allocation of cognitive resources
5. behavioral confirmation

In our case, given the initial information, that she had attended my sister’s school and that she had been close to my sister, I automatically assumed that J would be an annoying girl with mannerisms similar to that of my sister. I assumed she was very smart since their high school had been one of the best in our area. By using the very few clues to over-attribute, I had formed a very negatively intensive impression of J.

Given the timeline of our CMC interaction, developmental aspect did not play a role, I was neither able to get to know J very well. But during that time, I noticed that I was pulling the clues from our conversations that would further prove my initial impression of J.

When sharing information about myself, by re-allocating my cognitive resources and not worrying about anything else but how I presented myself, I was able to effectively selectively self-present myself as a typical Cornell student without giving any extraneous hints as to who I was. I could pick and choose who I was.

When we finally met, all of the impressions that had formed broke down and to my surprise, I was relieved that I had over-attributed and had formed an exaggerated impression. Obviously, she was glad that I had more depth to my personality than some boring generic Cornell Undergrad. (499 words)

http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-what-happens-when-you-meet-your.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-my-sister-guinney-pig-for-wallace.html

#11 Uncertainty and Expectation

I've never met anyone in "real life" after first meeting them online (honestly... I'm just not that brave). Nor do I have any friends who have (if they have, they aren't telling). So for this assignment I was left to deal with the media and their sober reporting of this subject for "inspiration".

I spent quite awhile combing blogs, newspapers, and journals looking for a tearjerking romance or an awesomely bad horror story to write about. Unfortunately I came up empty handed. The more I read the more I realized, "these are all so similar!" And they truly were. I must have read at least 60 of these testimonial/cautionary tales and each them can be summarized in one sentence:

I was expecting [blank] and (s)he was [blank].

Those two blanks being the same thing made all the difference. In fact almost all of the stories out there hinge on expectations. Every one of the daters formed a very clear mental picture of their potential suitors, and it's pretty safe to say that if they decided to take the relationship offline, they had formed mutually positive images of each other. Some of these people had been speaking for months, others had only sent a few brief emails back and forth. The amount of time they had spent talking online before their real life encounter didn't seem to be a good predictive measure for offline success. This would indicate that SIP's trademark "time" aspect doesn't seem to transcend the online/offline barrier. This would also seem to contradict the Uncertainty Reduction Theory. The daters weren't necessarily attracted by the reduction of uncertainty, but instead were only interested in seeing if their preconceived notions of a person were correct. This heavily supports the Hyperpersonal Model, in which we take the information that is available to us and, through stereotypes and hyperbole, we form a more complete profile. However, it didn't appear that the findings of the Ramirez & Wang paper held water. As stated earlier the timing (long term vs. short term) of the offline meeting did not appear to be a good predictor of success.

A great analogy for this phenomenon compared the online/offline jump to that of an audition for a movie role. The director has a mental image of character. He has an idea of how that character will look and act. If you don't fit the role you don't get the part, it's that simple. "There is only that one meeting, make or break."

So in the end it came down to expectations, and it appeared that time was not a significant factor. People's preconceived notions were either fulfilled or dashed. There were no examples of someone who was "pleasantly surprised" in their FTF encounter. William Congreve once said that, "uncertainty and expectation are the joys of life," but it seems we're only truly happy when the two converge.

11.0: Roommate from hell.

August-ish, 2006: Roommate assignments administered to incoming freshman at Cornell.
November, 2006: I now live in a double room by myself because my roommate has moved out.

Let me explain the events that occurred in between. Oh, the drama!

My freshman-year roommate and I contacted each other on Facebook as soon as we got the memo that we’d be roomed together for our first year at college. We talked about the finer things in life, and asked the oh-so original questions “Where you from?” and “What do you do for fun?” (Boooring, wake me when it’s over.) Somehow through these lackluster conversations, we hit it off. So of course, via the Hyperpersonal model (thank you, Walther), I thought she was the coolest thing since the eraser. I shall elaborate.

Every time we talked and she said something related to softball or another sport that I like, she got more and more splendid to talk to. She said that she played softball and other sports, so I over-attributed her as an athlete (which is super-duper in my book). But, I think she may be guilty of selective self-presentation. Clearly, she was not going to straight-up tell me “I am a psycho”, but she could have AT LEAST warned me just a little bit.

So the day came when we moved it, and we met non-virtually for the first time. Semi-awkward, but I brushed it off. But as the days went by, things got worse and worse. Disappearances (of both her and my personal belongings), awkwardness, and fights were all routine. Soon it was unbearable, where was the awesome person I met online? Non-existent. Thanks again, Walther.

Things were very bad, but I refused to move out of my room. Luckily, to my delight, I came home one day and her things were gone from the room. She had moved out without even telling me. And we still don't talk to this day.

The moral of the story is: everyone seems awesomely cool online. Little do we know, they’re the biggest disappointment since K-Fed’s album Playing With Fire. Ouch.

Assignment 11 - a fresh look at CMC

My uncle Larry is a radiologist who uses cutting edge technology to aid both other doctors and patients in diagnosing diseases. Recently, there has been a huge technological shift within this profession. Radiologists, for the most part, no longer use printed hard copies of X-rays, CAT scans, and MRI’s, rather they are digitally viewed over the internet. This allows my uncle to view a radiological image of a patient either in the room next door or in a country on the other side of the world. Today, my uncle, for example, views a cross section of a patient’s abdomen electronically via the internet along with a brief medical history of this person. It is only days or weeks later that he sometimes meets the patient when they come to the office, as opposed to the typical doctor who examines/converses with a patient in person then thinks about the diagnosis. My uncle begins his “relationship” with the patient online and then carries it out in the “real world.”

This type of interaction proves to be interesting, since this type of computer mediated communicated is not typical. My uncle receives all the information he needs to make a diagnoses through the internet. My uncle has no interest in whether a patient is in a relationship or has lots of friends. This type of information is deliberately filtered out. As a result, Social Information Processing theory (SIP) (Walther, 1993) is valid, for the most part. SIP rejected the view that the absence of nonverbal cues restricts the capability to exchange social information. Clearly, my uncle gathers all the necessary information to make a diagnosis without any nonverbal cues. Where Walther’s theory deviates from the case of my uncle is in the part which states that, the transition of information takes longer in CMC. The shift in technology to an online medium as opposed to a patient interaction first then diagnosis later medium was directly implemented to speed up the transition of information. When dealing with life or death matters as radiologists often do, speed is of the utmost importance. For this reason, there was a shift from the print medium to the online medium.

Next I looked at the Hyperpersonal Model (Walther, 1996) in regard to radiologists today. Walther claims that after an initial interaction, say the first time a radiologist “interacts” or looks at the information presented by a patient there will be reduced breadth and increased intensity. Reduced breadth refers to rating a CMC partner (think: patient) on fewer characteristics. Increased intensity refers to having more intense/exaggerated impressions of the CMC partner (think: patient). This is completely valid for the interaction which takes place between a radiologist and a patient, today. As a result of no nonverbal cues and an inability for the patient to state unnecessary information such as how many friends they have, it’s only natural that the radiologist will rate the patient on fewer characteristics. Additionally, because of the nature of medicine, the doctor, of course, makes a strong and intense impression and decision based on what information he has. After all, nobody wants a doctor who is not confident in their decision and diagnosis.

11.Do not leave virtuality...

In high school, I had gotten a brand new computer to start my high school experience off on the right foot. With the computer came access to the internet and with the internet came chat rooms. I was addicted to them at first, logging on and talking to every person that would converse with me. I finally befriended a male from Pennsylvania who was the same age. We hit it off pretty well talking about our similar interests in movies, music, television etc. We were in the same grade and connected well since we were in similar points in our lives. We continued talking here and there for over a year or so. He was like that distant penpal that you responded to when you got the chance. We kept the relationship online, since Im not much of a phone person and plus he was still a "stranger" so I figure speaking on the phone would be awkward.

I ended up staying at my aunts house one weekend who happened to live in Pennsylvania and so we met up. It was a rather dry conversation and just felt weird. I knew how to interact with this person online but in person it felt much different. This was consistent with Ramirez & Wang hypothesis in that a long term relationship of talking back and forth developed an over-attributed impression of the person. I thought highly of this person and had an impression set in my head that meeting them afterwards gave off a feeling of disappointment. If it had been a short term relationship then the face to face meeting would have been an enhancement on my part of my dwelling impression.

My experience with this individual also followed the uncertainty reduction theory (URT) by Berger and Calabrese. As I continued getting more information about the individual, the more I liked speaking with this person and conversations became more intimate and more in depth then the regular convo. It however predicts a positive experience when leaving the virtuality and our outcome was not so positive. The hyperpersonal model is a better fit for this interaction because inflated perceptions were made and a negative outcome arose out of leaving virtuality. I thought much more of this person than what I actually got. Guess sometimes it is best to not leave virtuality.

11- Getting hitched in virtuality

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E6DC143CF933A05750C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

It was love at first sight. He was wearing a kilt and a cape. She was with another man. Virtual love conquered all and soon after meeting through Ultima Online, Dean Morrel and Debra Sartore were married, both virtually and face-to-face. Ultima Online is a role-playing game set in medieval times. There are more than 160,000 players worldwide connected through a life of virtual trade, work, relationships and adoptions.

After Dean and Debra met they decided to move in together. Virtually. They shared each other's things and spoke intimately with one another. By all virtual means, they were a legitimate couple. Debra fell in love with Dean's generosity. He always gave to poor avatars, she said. Dean fell in love with Debra's intelligence. When Debra asked Dean to marry her (virtually of course), Dean misinterpreted it as real. He was surprised, but said yes. Eventually the miscommunication was realized but they both knew they wanted more. They decided to get married for real.

When they met for the first time face to face, Dean and Debra said the fantasy was realized. They grew more in love with each other after meeting which culminated in their physical marriage and virtual marriage. What bliss!

Debra and Dean's experience is most supported by Social Information Processing Theory and Uncertainty Reduction Theory. After initially meeting face to face, Debra and Dean reduced the uncertainty that their attraction would not last in person. As time progressed, they grew more and more in love with each other. According to the Social Information Processing Theory, overtime the relational development should be sufficient. Dean and Debra created a strong relationship via online Ultima, which supported the growth of their relationship in person. Their meeting in person was seamless and superfluous.

The transition between an online relationship and face-to-face was very easy with Debra and Dean. They had established such a strong relationship that, in compliance with SIP, there was no definitive change in their relationship once they met in person. Their love simply grew. Where is my man in a kilt and a cape??

11. Me and Bill

Every March New York Circle K (the online/offline community I discussed a few blogs ago) holds it’s elections for the upcoming Circle K year. Some members are elected prior to our District Convention at the end of March and others are elected at the actual convention. I was running for an office at convention and since I was running unopposed I started to add the people who had won the elections prior to convention on Facebook so I could get to know the people I would be working with for a year.

One of my new Facebook friends was Bill. Once he accepted my add request I started to read through his profile so we could get to know each other since we had never met before. I soon learned that we both had really similar tastes in music and that we liked a lot of the same TV shows and movies. We also seemed to have a similar sense of humor based on our conversations back and forth. After a few weeks of being just Facebook friends, we finally got the chance to meet each other face to face at our District Convention in Utica. We got the chance to spend a lot of time together throughout the weekend and got the chance to know each other even better. I was able to learn a lot more about Bill and we continue to see each other periodically throughout the year and he’s now one of my best friends. We can joke around with each other and we have been able to travel around New York together and do a lot of projects through Circle K.

When my relationship with Bill moved offline my experience fits both the Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) and SIDE Theory. Although it seemed that Bill and I had a lot in common while we were talking online there were still some things that I didn’t know and wasn’t sure how to interpret. First, Bill only had a few pictures so I found it difficult to assess what Bill was like outside of Facebook and I wasn’t sure what to make of it. Also, I saw that Bill was a volunteer firefighter and I wasn’t exactly sure what to make of that and how important it was to him. After we met, a lot of the uncertainty that I had about Bill was greatly reduced and I felt more comfortable talking with him and I was able to see that he really was like what he portrayed on his Facebook profile.

Also, when Bill and I met online we both knew we were a part of the same social category of “Circle K member” but we had never worked together at a Circle K project or at a district event so we saw each other as individuals when we were interacting on Facebook. However, once we met at District Convention our group identity of “Circle K member” became much more salient and this also helped to make the transition from online to offline positive, which supports the prediction made by SIDE Theory.



Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/11/11-what-happens-when-you-meet-your.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/11/assignment-11-i-guess-its-not-really.html

The First Cornell Student I Ever Met

One of my biggest concerns about going to Cornell, besides the intimidating workload, was who I would be living with. But some of my apprehension was temporarily calmed when I interacted with one of my future suitemates online through the Class of 2008 website. For those of you who don’t know, the Class of 2008 site was set up like a less sophisticated and simpler facebook (no applications, no cool graphics) where entering Cornell freshman could log on, set up a profile, and meet fellow members of their class even before everyone arrived in Ithaca.
I actually ended up receiving a message from a girl (let’s call her Louise) who would be living right next door to me. I was definitely enthusiastic to learn more about her, and to my surprise we had a bunch of stuff in common. We were both from practically the same neighborhood and were interested in majoring in some type of science. Louise and I im’ed each other here and there and thought it would be cool to hang out at home before Cornell.
We did meet up, and to put it bluntly, I realized we were much more different than I had thought. It was a while ago (almost 4 years!) so I can’t remember exactly what we talked about, but I remember thinking that I hoped everyone else at Cornell was not like Louise!
This situation best fits with SIDE theory because when Louise and I interacted online, group identity was salient. SIDE theory predicts that online, individuating characteristics are kept almost hidden, so that the group is salient. Louise and I fit could identify with the same group. We were both in the same class, has similar academic interests, grew up in the same city, and were living in the same building for our first semesters at Cornell.
However, individual identities became much more salient in person, and despite the positive interactions in CMC, our FtF interaction was quite negative. According to SIDE predicitons, this differentiation that occurred between Louise and I in person decreased attraction because we realized our differences and group membership was no longer salient. This can partly be explained by the limited knowledge I had about Louise in the first place; since didn’t know a whole lot about her, the things that I did know made me feel like we were a part of the same group. When I did meet her in person and realized that both our interests (and even personalities) conflicted, I formed negative impressions of her. These negative impressions could have even been worsened by our initial CMC interactions because I was entering the situation with many expectations.
As it turned out, Louise didn’t get along with many people that we lived with in the beginning of our freshman year. She moved out of the dorm within a month. Hopefully, she has found a group that she can more closely identify with!

11. How Could I Be So Wrong?

I am a bit embarrassed to admit this but upon my acceptance to Cornell University, I decided to message people on Facebook who seemed like they had some common interests with me. I wanted to make some friends before I arrived at Cornell, particularly with people who would be living near me in my dorm. A particularly salient interaction was with a guy named ‘Eric’, I decided to send him a message since he went to high school with some of my cousins and would be living next door to me. We messaged back and forth and talked about people we knew and similarities that we had with one another. We were both pretty excited about meeting each other since we had so much in common. I really thought that we would end up being really good friends given our interaction and our proximity to one another in the dorm. Even though we lived on the same floor and were in the same wing, we didn’t end up meeting one another until about two weeks into school. When we finally met one another, he was nothing what I had anticipated him to be. From the pictures that I saw of him, it was as though I was meeting an entirely different person. Despite our great conversation online, it did not persist in our face-to-face interaction and it was as though we had nothing in common, even though we did. After this initial meeting with ‘Eric’ our friendship did not continue, he was just not the person I had originally thought he would be after I met him face-to-face.

My negative face-to-face interaction after leaving the virtual world with ‘Eric’ can best be explained by Walther’s (1996) Hyperpersonal Model. The Hyperpersonal Model explains how people form exaggerated impressions of people we interact with online and is comprised of five elements:

1. The over-attribution process

2. Developmental Aspect

3. Selective Self-Presentation

4. Re-allocation of cognitive resources

5. Behavioral Confirmation

The aspects of this model that are most applicable to my interaction with ‘Eric’ are the over-attribution process and selective self-presentation. With regard to the over-attribution process, fewer cues lead us to form more stereotyped impressions of people. With the few cues that were given through my CMC interaction with ‘Eric’, it caused me to over-attribute my perceptions of ‘Eric’. We both thought we had so much in common with one another, our mutual friends and similar interests created an exaggerated impression of ‘Eric’ that was not very accurate. In addition, selective self-presentation also influenced my perception of my online friend ‘Eric’. He manipulated his image by only telling me things that he thought would make me like him better and by only posting images of himself that portrayed him in an attractive way. For quite apparent reasons, ‘Eric’ specifically chose images of himself that made him appear tall and good looking. In addition, he neglected to tell me that we really did not share many common interests aside from the fact that we had mutual friends and that we would be living next door to one another. This something I would have picked up on after a few minutes of conversation face-to-face where more cues are available.

A11 :: Heidi Exits the Aircraft, Becomes Don

I was introduced to Don via AOL Instant Messenger; for the first month, we’d converse as VelvetStones67 and HeidisHead79. Until we met face-to-face, I often referred to him as Heidi.

Don’s mother met mine during an elementary school fundraiser. Young Don, his mother explained to mine, had spent the last quarter of his life in Australia, but was planning to reunite with his mum in America and remain "through uni.” More words and phone calls were exchanged between parents, and soon it was agreed that I was to be Don’s handler when he arrived in America – at least until summer was up.

Before we met face-to-face, Don and I met online. We probably chatted for a total of 6 hours, spread over the course of ~7 asynchronous sessions. Our first session involved a series of queries attempting to debunk each other’s seemingly alien childhood life (I was 12 at the time and he was 13): do you hunt often? Have you ever been to a baseball game?

Don and I realized that, myths and geographical distinctions aside, we shared many of the same interests: Madden NFL, basketball, the beach, et al. I became very excited to recruit Don for Lego battles and pick-up games – the activities I engaged in with friends. The over-attribution process of Walther’s Hyperpersonal model had affected my perception of Don; self-selective presentation was also at play (in reference to Don’s athletic skill). I had, as Ramirez and Wang explain, positively evaluated Don and “developed idealized expectations” of our similarities.

When we first awkwardly shook hands on the playground, I was jolted into remembering that Don was Australian (Hypothesis 2 correctly predicted the modality switch would incur “social information perceived as less expected”). His wild accent made me chuckle much more loudly than would be polite – I’d expected Don to look and talk as my friends did, but his textual diction did not convey the accent, nor his more formal FtF style. It became, in some sense, an in-group/out-group affair, with the social cues being our accents and style of dress (physical attributes I had not consciously expected to matter). “Physical reality intrudes” upon our idealized expectations formed during online conversations. The violation of my expectations led to a wholly uncomfortable meeting.

For one, Don displayed a less than impressive physical prowess, despite his boasting over AIM. Though this violation elicited disappointment, the accent and the British-Manner-style of dress were more affecting – in accordance with Hypothesis 2 states, these traits I “perceived [to be] more relationally important.”

The most immediately impacting expectation violations were quite superficial, i.e. accent and outfit. The relatively short time we spent in CMC, then, allowed enough “uncertainty-reducing” for Don and I to overcome this immediate physical discrepancy and eventually neutralize my expectancy violation. (Perhaps a longer CMC session would have introduced other negative expectancy violations relating more to personality judgments.) By the second FtF meeting some time later, we reconciled our shallow (though jolting) physically-manifest differences and re-discovered the mutual interests that had led to an enjoyable CMC experience.

Assignment#11: If it were LTA, I am not sure whether my friend would have had her first boyfriend at that time.

In my junior high school year in Korea, it was popular to make friends online usually through online chat. After club activities, my friends and I stayed in our club room and went to online chatting website called ‘Sayclub.’ Since there was only one computer available, we all watched my friend, Yoonjung, looking for a new friend. She wondered around several chat rooms under the category of junior high and high school students. After a while, she found a room with about 5 people. All of them exchanged ASL as usual. Among them, she found a guy who goes to a high school in the same town. As common ground factor predicted, same age group and location fostered developing a positive impression of each other. My friend continued to talk to him four or five more times afterwards. They decided to meet eventually. Since cell phone was not popular at that time, in order to meet, they exchanged their pictures and told what kind of clothes they would be wearing on that day. When they had MS from CMC to FtF, they even liked each other more and started dating. This is how my friend, Yoonjung, had her first boyfriend.

Yoonjung’s experience is consistent with the results discussed in the Ramirez & Wang paper. This case was examined under Hypothesis 4 that MS following a short-term association via CMC will provide social information that will be evaluated more positively and uncertainty-reducing than interacting via CMC (Ramirez & Wang, 2004). In total, Yoonjung and her boyfriend had about only five or six times of conversation before MS to FtF. So, this case can be considered as STA. Based on Hyperpersonal perspective, spending relatively short time online lets both communicators to less idealize or over-attribute partner’s image. Then, encountering real person in FtF interaction would likely yield less disappointment. Therefore, social information provided by MS has high likelihood to be evaluated positively and positive impressions help communicators to reduce uncertainty as Yoonjung and her boyfriend liked each other more after MS. As Ramirez & Wang discussed in their paper, timing was an important factor in my friend’s case. If they exchanged more personal information for a long period of time, they should have developed a strong over-attributed impression of each other. MS to FtF would likely show that their partner was actually a normal, common student, then, expectancy violation would be incongruent with past information or impression they have been building. As EVT predicted, it increases uncertainty and has relationship-dampening effects. There was one more factor which played a major role in this case: exchange of each other’s photo. People in this website used picture as their best tool to glamorize themselves. Yoonjung and her boyfriend also had their best picture up online. So, this very selective self-representation encouraged them to develop positively over-attributed impression of their partner.

#11: What happens when you meet your facebook stalking victim?!?

Modality switching (MS) is moving from online communication to FtF interaction. MS affects relationship evaluations. An example of a MS occurred in my life recently. On facebook you often become familiar, or at least feel familiar with certain people that you have never met before. Well what happens when you actually do meet one of these “familiar” facebook people in real life? This is exactly what happened to me: I met the person I was stalking on facebook.

Last year on one of my random facebook surfing procrastination sessions I came across this guy, named “Elmo”. He looked cute and interesting in his pictures so I decided to go ahead and read his profile, wall posts, groups, etc. From what I gathered from his facebook profile and pictures, I thought Elmo was a loud, outgoing, fun loving, party boy type guy. He seemed to live a really interesting and exciting college life. I also thought he would have a lot to say about everything; kind of a jerk. This described the hyperpersonal effect where I developed an exaggerated and intense impression formation of Elmo. I kept coming across his online profile (I guess we had mutual friends in common), until this year when our interaction shifted to FtF because he ended of being in one of my classes. The class is small and he sits in front of me so when we do group work we are usually in the same group. He turned out to be completely different from what I expected. He wasn’t loud or outgoing at all. He is actually very quiet, shy and studious. Frankly, he is pretty boring, and not overly friendly as I had assumed. I was shocked! Our FtF meeting violated my expectations of Elmo. Elmo clearly had used self-presentational techniques online to give of a persona of a frat-boy. The hyperpersonal model led to over-attribution and exaggeration of feelings that ultimately led to disappointment when MS occurred. I thought that Elmo was going to be an interesting and fun person who would make my class fun with stupid/funny wise-cracks, but instead he is boring and not so interesting after all.

I would consider my interaction with Elmo a long-term online association since I came across his facebook profile several times. Since we had a long-term interaction, I had a wider array of expectations of him and more exaggerated opinions. Thus when we met FtF, there was more expectations that Elmo violated than if we had had a short-term online association. Consequently, more negative and uncertainty provoking evaluations of Elmo ensued. This corresponds to Ramirez & Wang’s results in the “When On-line meets Off-line” paper.


comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=1062921613633588784

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=388136332196202726

#11: Being yourself pays off

After my uncle’s recent divorce, he was eager to get back into the dating world and meet some new women. As a well-off man in his mid-50’s, he was a “catch” and therefore knew he would have no problem getting a date. In order to make his search process easier though, he went to match.com and met many women through it. He started talking to them and after speaking with them for a couple weeks, he picked three of the best ones to start dating. Although he had only been communicating through the Internet until this point, he was able to find out many things about these women beforehand so he felt extremely comfortable with them once they finally met in person. After a few dates with each other them, my uncle chose Anne, a warm, kind, intelligent woman, to date exclusively. They have now been together for about six months and are extremely happy with one another.


My uncle claims that although he thought the other women he started dating were perfectly nice, they weren’t completely true to what he initially thought they would be like based on their communication online. This shows that the Hyperpersonal model got in the way of his impression formation. Through the over-attribution process, he made assumptions about these women that turned out to be not true and were ultimately disappointments. Also, the women chose to selectively present themselves to only show their most positive qualities. After meeting these women though, my uncle saw that they were not as amazing as he had thought. The only one that held up to his assumptions and actually surpassed his expectations was Anne, who entertained him and used her warm tone and friendly manner to really attract him to her.

Therefore, in this case, the Internet meeting provided an advantage when the woman came off as even more impressive in Ftf. They did not communicate long enough online to really develop a complete relationship before meeting, which did not allow all the impressions to be formed accurately or fully. Since Anne portrayed herself in a way true to herself, however, it turned out to be a great advantage when finally meeting and my uncle realized her full beauty inside and out.

Assignment 10- I think I still like my first life better.

Upon being given this assignment, I was excited to finally have the opportunity to explore one of the virtual worlds that I had heard so much about in class. I decided to make an account on Second Life, partly because it’s free and partly because I used to love playing The Sims so I thought I would like Second Life as well. I didn’t have as great a Second Life experience as I thought I would. For one thing, my computer didn’t seem to be able to handle rendering the 3D virtual environment. It froze several times and ran really slowly in general. I attempted to fix this by changing the graphics options, but my system still crashed several times. Most of the time I did get to play in Second Life was spent attempting to figure out how to use my avatar and how to navigate through the virtual world.

The avatar I picked looked like she was ready to go out to a club. Like almost all females in Second Life, she was thin and wearing a skin tight outfit. I didn’t really feel like looking “sexy” made me stand out at all. I don’t think the Proteus effect applied to the interactions I had with others. I wasn’t outgoing and friendly because my avatar was attractive, I behaved in this manner because I was trying to get a feel for the Second Life world and the people that inhabited it. Rather than conforming to individual identity cues, as is dictated by the Proteus effect, I found that group identity was much more salient to my interactions with people. I was very aware of the fact that I was a “newbie.” Contrary to what I had heard about entering Second Life as a newbie, it was my experience that most people just ignored me. In various articles I have read on the subject, it was made to seem that people were often nice to new players and went out of their way to show them around. While I did manage to find some resources for new players, I had to seek these out on the Internet because I was too inept at navigating through Second Life’s GUI to figure out where I should go.

Overall, I think my Second Life experience was unduly affected by technological problems and I didn’t get the opportunity to make an informed judgment about self-perception and its effect on one’s interactions with others. My interactions in Second Life were primarily based on two group identities – that of a newbie and that of a member of COMM 245 attempting to gather information for a blog. The fact that I looked like I should be dancing on top of a bar at a dance club had little impact on my behavior.