Some people call me picky when it comes to the fairer sex. In my opinion, one of the most important qualities a girl must have is a sense of humor. Within that, which is more important, is that the girl must like MY sense of humor, regardless of how brutally pathetic my jokes can get. Dead silence after I deliver a joke is my kryptonite. My brother has completely exploited this trait, even withholding laughter after some of my greatest gems just to tick me off—and I am talking pure gold. In my interpersonal communication and attraction experiences with woman, I have found that this humor neurosis is only more evident.
The other summer, I began speaking with an old flame who I was involved with years ago, back when I was still in my proverbial macking diapers. I had met her through summer camp and since she lived far away from me, Florida, our reconciling conversations took place over AIM or sometimes via telephone. Wallace’s attraction factors were epitomized with my rekindled love for my lil’ Florida Orange and my quest to see if she obtained humor wisdom to be my…One True Funny Wuv.
Wallace’s first factor is Physical Attractiveness. Much of the current literature argues the sad but true reality that attractive people are more enticing to get to know. However, Wallace asserts that during CMC, this traditional sequence of being attracted to an individual and then wanting to learn about them becomes reversed; getting to know a person followed by physical attraction. Although I was one attracted to my female friend during summer camp, our relationship waned over the years as did my physical attraction to her. However, we began communicating via AIM and our good report during CMC eventually translated my once apathetic attraction into a more intense one. In our CMC interactions, my friend and I followed an attraction sequence more similar to Wallace’s opposed to the traditional progression.
This newfound attraction can also be greatly attributed to another one of Wallace’s attraction factors, Common Ground. This factor states that attraction is increased when there is a presence of mutually shared beliefs, especially when there are favorable proportions of shared to unshared beliefs. During our interactions, since humor is very important to me, I was very in tune to our shared interests concerning humor and comedy. When we shared a favorite movie or comedian, it was duly noted. In CMC, Wallace states that even though you may have fewer cues and learn less about a person, this greatly enhances his notion of proportion, which in turn, leads to greater attraction. The few shared comedic interests between my friend and I created greater attraction, potentially even greater than when we had interacted FtF in the previous years. This notion of few, but proportionally favorable shared beliefs can be somewhat related to the hyperpersonal’s “intensification process” and behavioral confirmation. I may have taken the few shared humor related beliefs and began treating my friend like we had the exact the same sense of humor, thus beginning the vicious cycle of perhaps false attraction.
Additionally, Wallace’s fourth factor, Disinhibition Effects, contributed to the attraction created by the CMC between my friend and me. The CMC environment made us feel perhaps more anonymous, causing an increase in self-disclosure. This ties into both McKenna’s predictions of relationships and facilitation factors. Mckenna asserts that with anonymity, there is more self-disclosure which leads to increased relationship development. Mckenna also argues that people like those who they disclose to and those who disclose to back to them. All these factors, both Wallace’s and McKenna’s, contributed the attraction and relationship that was created during my CMC with my old flame.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Summer Love Fading Away...(Assignment 5.1)
Three summers ago, I came to Cornell as a young, prospective high school senior. I was taking a few classes over a six-week period, and it was an exciting time for me since I was almost completely independent for one of the first times ever. One of my classes was a freshman writing seminar, “The Anthropology of Sports.” As you can figure, most of the students were male, with a few exceptions. One of these few girls caught my eye in particular, and before I knew it, we were in a relationship. We were together for the last month of Summer College, and when it was time to leave, we decided we would try to maintain the relationship. One problem: I lived on Long Island and she lived in the black hole known by most as New Jersey.
Summer College ended two weeks before high school began again, so we were able to travel to see each other two times soon after we left Cornell. I took her to the U.S. Open for some tennis, and we went to dinner and a movie by her. These two interactions left me optimistic that we could make this work. I, as usual, was wrong.
Like most other seniors in high school, I spent a good portion of my time on AOL Instant Messenger. This is how I kept in touch with most of my home friends during the summer, and I figured that I could stay in touch with my girlfriend via a combination of phone and AIM interactions. There was only one problem- she did not go on AIM nearly as much as I thought she would. She would log on a maximum of once a day for a half an hour period of time. We spoke on the phone often, but she was a very, very focused student, even in her senior year, so our conversations ended usually abruptly with a “I have to do some work, I will talk to you tomorrow.”
Once school started, the number of trips we made to see each other dwindled as well because of our conflicting home lives. We both played sports with demanding schedules, so it was extremely difficult to find a weekend that worked for us both. In addition, I did not have a car, so I need my parents to drive me to the Port Authority in the city, and then take a bus to New Jersey, which was just inconvenient in general. The result was one more trip to New Jersey and the eventual agreement to end the relationship in October.
One of Wallace’s factors that contributed to the failed relationship is lack of proximity. We were miles apart, in different states, and it was very tough to make trips to see each other. We did not video chat, so we could not see each other’s faces, which is a very difficult thing when you are so close with someone. In addition, as I mentioned she did not go on AIM often and only made shorter phone calls, therefore reducing our daily interaction time. We spoke and saw each other less, which was a large contributor to the loosening of the ties we had made over the summer.
Another Wallace factor is lack of common ground. We lived completely different lives at our respective homes. We did not have any common classes our senior years of high school, and we played different sports, and it seemed that neither of us was really interested in the other’s sport. She was not as social and outgoing as I was, so she did not go out to parties on the weekend as often as I did.
Lack of proximity and common ground were two factors that contributed to the eventual break up. Luckily, we remain on good terms today, which is a good thing since we both go to Cornell. I can only imagine how awkward it would be seeing her if we still hated each other’s guts like we did for a short period after the relationship…good thing I guess.
Summer College ended two weeks before high school began again, so we were able to travel to see each other two times soon after we left Cornell. I took her to the U.S. Open for some tennis, and we went to dinner and a movie by her. These two interactions left me optimistic that we could make this work. I, as usual, was wrong.
Like most other seniors in high school, I spent a good portion of my time on AOL Instant Messenger. This is how I kept in touch with most of my home friends during the summer, and I figured that I could stay in touch with my girlfriend via a combination of phone and AIM interactions. There was only one problem- she did not go on AIM nearly as much as I thought she would. She would log on a maximum of once a day for a half an hour period of time. We spoke on the phone often, but she was a very, very focused student, even in her senior year, so our conversations ended usually abruptly with a “I have to do some work, I will talk to you tomorrow.”
Once school started, the number of trips we made to see each other dwindled as well because of our conflicting home lives. We both played sports with demanding schedules, so it was extremely difficult to find a weekend that worked for us both. In addition, I did not have a car, so I need my parents to drive me to the Port Authority in the city, and then take a bus to New Jersey, which was just inconvenient in general. The result was one more trip to New Jersey and the eventual agreement to end the relationship in October.
One of Wallace’s factors that contributed to the failed relationship is lack of proximity. We were miles apart, in different states, and it was very tough to make trips to see each other. We did not video chat, so we could not see each other’s faces, which is a very difficult thing when you are so close with someone. In addition, as I mentioned she did not go on AIM often and only made shorter phone calls, therefore reducing our daily interaction time. We spoke and saw each other less, which was a large contributor to the loosening of the ties we had made over the summer.
Another Wallace factor is lack of common ground. We lived completely different lives at our respective homes. We did not have any common classes our senior years of high school, and we played different sports, and it seemed that neither of us was really interested in the other’s sport. She was not as social and outgoing as I was, so she did not go out to parties on the weekend as often as I did.
Lack of proximity and common ground were two factors that contributed to the eventual break up. Luckily, we remain on good terms today, which is a good thing since we both go to Cornell. I can only imagine how awkward it would be seeing her if we still hated each other’s guts like we did for a short period after the relationship…good thing I guess.
5 - opt 1: "lets keep in touch" - home friends and college friends
As college students, we can all identify with at least a few long distance relationships we have in common. We all have parents back home and we all have a completely different set of friends, at different colleges scattered around the country. I would like to focus this post on those friends back home. We all say it, at some point right before you left for college the phrase, “let’s keep in touch” was uttered. For me, and probably many other college students, this was not a reality. There are a handful of friends back home who I do remain friendly with, but for the most part those semi-close to distant friends have all but vanished out of my life. Now, what can account for this? I blame Wallace’s (1999) attraction factors, namely proximity and common ground.
First, I’ll take a look at those friends who nearly vanished out of my life. It was these friends who throughout high school I saw a decent amount and hung out with on occasion but definitely considered them to be a friend. I wouldn’t call them up every weekend or meet them for lunch during every lunch break, but we certainly had all the necessary ways of contacted each other (screen name and cell phone number). At graduation party after graduation party and those dwindling summer nights, these people were definitely, in my mind, worthy of a “lets stay in touch.” However, I believe primarily due to a lack of proximity and a lack of a very solid common ground, we lost touch. As I went off to college and my friends went to their parts of the country, proximity to one another decreased. Sure we could talk on aim, but we no longer saw each other, experienced the same things, or shared friends, teachers, classes, etc. Wallace says that the closer you are to someone, the more attracted you will become towards that person. Clearly, proximity diminished during the transfer from high school to college.
The distinction between these friends and those friends who I remain in touch with lies within the common ground attraction factor, also described by Wallace. Wallace (1999) explains common ground as mutually shared beliefs, assumptions, and presumptions and further states that you are more attracted to those people with whom you share this common ground. Now, my closer and closest friends, just like my more distant friends also went to all corners of the country, however we had much more common ground. Despite a decrease of proximity, we remained to have similar beliefs, thoughts, and interests. This enabled us to continue to enjoy having conversations, and allowed an easy flow of information, story telling, and intellectual debate/discussion. Ultimately in fact, our common ground enabled almost a mesh of college friends and home friends when I put my home friends in touch, by CMC, with some of my closest college friends who also shared a common ground. By having a strong common ground, the proximity factor didn’t matter as much.
First, I’ll take a look at those friends who nearly vanished out of my life. It was these friends who throughout high school I saw a decent amount and hung out with on occasion but definitely considered them to be a friend. I wouldn’t call them up every weekend or meet them for lunch during every lunch break, but we certainly had all the necessary ways of contacted each other (screen name and cell phone number). At graduation party after graduation party and those dwindling summer nights, these people were definitely, in my mind, worthy of a “lets stay in touch.” However, I believe primarily due to a lack of proximity and a lack of a very solid common ground, we lost touch. As I went off to college and my friends went to their parts of the country, proximity to one another decreased. Sure we could talk on aim, but we no longer saw each other, experienced the same things, or shared friends, teachers, classes, etc. Wallace says that the closer you are to someone, the more attracted you will become towards that person. Clearly, proximity diminished during the transfer from high school to college.
The distinction between these friends and those friends who I remain in touch with lies within the common ground attraction factor, also described by Wallace. Wallace (1999) explains common ground as mutually shared beliefs, assumptions, and presumptions and further states that you are more attracted to those people with whom you share this common ground. Now, my closer and closest friends, just like my more distant friends also went to all corners of the country, however we had much more common ground. Despite a decrease of proximity, we remained to have similar beliefs, thoughts, and interests. This enabled us to continue to enjoy having conversations, and allowed an easy flow of information, story telling, and intellectual debate/discussion. Ultimately in fact, our common ground enabled almost a mesh of college friends and home friends when I put my home friends in touch, by CMC, with some of my closest college friends who also shared a common ground. By having a strong common ground, the proximity factor didn’t matter as much.
A,5 O,1 - Bad Girlfriend
When my freshmen year of college started, I was not far from home. I am a local to Ithaca, NY and therefore was still very close to my girlfriend I had had since mid high school. However I did move out of my dads house and was at a college dorm room with lots of other people. I kept in touch with my girlfriend and still tried to do as much with her as possible. However with the hectic college lifestyle it was rather difficult at times. After a very short time our relationship turned sour, I felt as if I did not matter at all to her anymore and of course I felt as if I wasn’t even her boyfriend anymore. It got to the point where she was not even responding to my phone calls and text messages and was getting many from other guy “friends”. Of course as you can guess my relationship last no longer, she was cheating on me with other guys from high school and I was to stupid to realize that. I spent a lot of time in depression and almost ended up not coming back to college. According to Wallace’s attraction factors, my girlfriends dissolved attraction for me could have been a result of the lack of common ground between us two. I was in college now and living the college life, while she was still in high school, doing the same thing she had done the previous 12 years of her life. She was also still talking to me about how she hated her unsupportive mom and how her cheerleading coach hated her and it was the same thing all the time, while I was always happy and making new friends and enjoying my time at college and that is what I enjoyed talking about. Although I always supported her as much as I could I just could not always talk about the subjects she wanted to talk about. Another factor, lack of proximity to me could have been a factor. Even though I spent so much time trying to spend time with her and make things work it still was just not enough for her. More then likely the physical closeness that was lost in our relationship led to her distancing herself by not contacting me when I contacted her. With these two factors in mind I believe that her dissolved attraction for me happened as a result of these two attraction factors. We just had to little in common for her now that I was in college and not with her every single day. I apparently was not close to her as often to her to satisfy her needs and I just went on to live a much different life style.
5.1 This Blog Post is Group Therapy : realizing my relationship is a downward spiral
I am delighted to harp on the mediated long-distance relationship that I currently am involved in because unfortunately, it hasn’t been going so well. My girlfriend, who only lives two hours away, and I have been dating for sometime but recently have had to rely on various forms of mediated communication like text messaging, e-mail, Facebook, and phone calls to maintain our relationship. As our use of mediated communication becomes increasingly important, I have realized some not so attractive features about her (interesting that I’m using this blog as a mediated form of self-disclose some current personal information to people I could potentially meet face- to –face). I’ve noticed that although we are both in college and have somewhat similar time consuming activities outside the relationship, I have a different perspective on using these mediations as a form on interaction than she. Most apparent, is her usage of text messages. I find that the “beep!” or nagging vibration every minute is becoming an irritation and that the tasks of actually writing “I love you” or “good morning” have lost its potency. I’m really not insensitive, I swear, but I find that it doesn’t mean as much to me as it does her. This is where I can consider Wallace’s “common ground” factor.
Wallace brings into view the idea of complementary relationships online and discusses how a relationship can become strong with each similar attribute and shared belief. The proportion of those attributes, which represents attributes that you know about someone that is similar to yours, is usually around 100% in initial mediated meetings (the results are so high through a mediated form of communication because it lacks nonverbal stereotypes that come with being in a Ftf situation allowing it to stay close to 100%). My girlfriend and I differ in our beliefs about the use of the medium, which is something that causes initial dissonance. Also, however, I am realizing, not just through text messaging but through e-mail that she is reluctant to inquire about my life here. It has been, for the most part, a “newsflash” tool for her and she has been giving me updates on her life and spends most of her time talking about her. Now this is great, but sometimes it is repetitive and I really don’t need to know that she forgot to bring a pencil to class through an e-mail. It seems like a waste of bandwidth! In turn, our different perspectives have made me recognize some unattractive attributes (like her using a text message for intimate self-disclosure) and it ultimately reduces the proportions of similarities – something Wallace doesn’t really discuss in depth but I find it interesting that we met Ftf and with the mediated form of communication the proportions in the Law of attraction have decreased.
Another relationship factor that Wallace points to is the “physical attractiveness” factor. She states, “The powerful magnet of interpersonal attraction in real-life settings, dismaying though it may be, is physical attractiveness.” Moreover, she describes that physical attractiveness has consequences that affect our perceptions about others and can lead to positive or negative effects on other people as well. Why do I consider this when discussing my long-distant relationship with my girlfriend? Shallow as it may seem, I am questioning whether Wallace’s “physical attractiveness” was an important role in the initiation and ongoing of the relationship.
However, I think the recognition of unlikable attributes has been working both ways as I can almost guarantee her disapproval of my reluctance to engage in any real self-disclosure through a mediated form of communication—I’ll call this inhibition (or the opposite of Wallace’s disinhibition factor).
Wallace presents these relationship factors in a way to come to conclusions about the interactions on the Net. I think she presents the factors in a way that considers that a long distance relationship is easier to maintain than ever before because of the fast-paced, mediated world we are more than acquainted with. Though, as my relationship progresses and as we rely more on e-mails and text messaging, I find we have been on the fringes of a cliff, contradicting what Wallace suggests could be a unique and “enriching an ongoing romantic relationship.” It could just be that my relationship supports the “physical attractiveness” factor in a face-to-face meeting where we think higher of people who are physically attractive. I found it interesting, however, that we initiated and maintained our healthy face-to-face relationship, but now the relationship factors are acting against the relationship and instead of stabilizing it or even increasing self-disclosure; it has become somewhat of a detriment.
Wallace brings into view the idea of complementary relationships online and discusses how a relationship can become strong with each similar attribute and shared belief. The proportion of those attributes, which represents attributes that you know about someone that is similar to yours, is usually around 100% in initial mediated meetings (the results are so high through a mediated form of communication because it lacks nonverbal stereotypes that come with being in a Ftf situation allowing it to stay close to 100%). My girlfriend and I differ in our beliefs about the use of the medium, which is something that causes initial dissonance. Also, however, I am realizing, not just through text messaging but through e-mail that she is reluctant to inquire about my life here. It has been, for the most part, a “newsflash” tool for her and she has been giving me updates on her life and spends most of her time talking about her. Now this is great, but sometimes it is repetitive and I really don’t need to know that she forgot to bring a pencil to class through an e-mail. It seems like a waste of bandwidth! In turn, our different perspectives have made me recognize some unattractive attributes (like her using a text message for intimate self-disclosure) and it ultimately reduces the proportions of similarities – something Wallace doesn’t really discuss in depth but I find it interesting that we met Ftf and with the mediated form of communication the proportions in the Law of attraction have decreased.
Another relationship factor that Wallace points to is the “physical attractiveness” factor. She states, “The powerful magnet of interpersonal attraction in real-life settings, dismaying though it may be, is physical attractiveness.” Moreover, she describes that physical attractiveness has consequences that affect our perceptions about others and can lead to positive or negative effects on other people as well. Why do I consider this when discussing my long-distant relationship with my girlfriend? Shallow as it may seem, I am questioning whether Wallace’s “physical attractiveness” was an important role in the initiation and ongoing of the relationship.
However, I think the recognition of unlikable attributes has been working both ways as I can almost guarantee her disapproval of my reluctance to engage in any real self-disclosure through a mediated form of communication—I’ll call this inhibition (or the opposite of Wallace’s disinhibition factor).
Wallace presents these relationship factors in a way to come to conclusions about the interactions on the Net. I think she presents the factors in a way that considers that a long distance relationship is easier to maintain than ever before because of the fast-paced, mediated world we are more than acquainted with. Though, as my relationship progresses and as we rely more on e-mails and text messaging, I find we have been on the fringes of a cliff, contradicting what Wallace suggests could be a unique and “enriching an ongoing romantic relationship.” It could just be that my relationship supports the “physical attractiveness” factor in a face-to-face meeting where we think higher of people who are physically attractive. I found it interesting, however, that we initiated and maintained our healthy face-to-face relationship, but now the relationship factors are acting against the relationship and instead of stabilizing it or even increasing self-disclosure; it has become somewhat of a detriment.
Assignment 5 - Well, at least she wasn't a man...
While researching online romances for this assignment, I came across one that piqued my curiosity. This particular online romance unfortunately ended in tragedy. It involved a 17-year-old Chinese boy and the 19-year-old girl of his dreams… or so he thought. According to news reports, the boy chatted with the girl whose screen name was “flying skirt” for several days from an internet café. He became so involved with his online love that he wouldn’t leave the café. Eventually, the pair arranged to meet on the day after Christmas. Much to the boy’s dismay, his dream girl turned out to be unattractive and over ten years older than him. Sadly, their meeting went so poorly that the boy went home and hung himself.
The woman involved in this communication clearly engaged in identity-based digital deception. It is not made clear in the article if the two had exchanged pictures, but it is possible since the boy seemed to be under the impression that the girl was very beautiful. If this was indeed the case, then based on Donath’s research on the application of biological deception to human interaction (1998), the girl manipulated conventional signals in order to obscure her true identity. Her screen name, flying skirt, was a conventional signal because in and of itself, it doesn’t mean anything, but in the boy’s mind, it probably was a reflection of the girl’s youth and brought to mind images of the nubile young teenage girl of his dreams. If she did send a picture, I would argue that this was also a low-cost display because it wouldn’t have been hard for her to find a picture of a beautiful girl online that she could pretend to be, even though physical features are no themselves easy to change.
Hyperpersonal effects such as the re-allocation of cognitive resources, selective self-presentation, and overattribution, all seemed to come to play in this relationship. The woman was able to manage the impression she was making on the boy by carefully crafting her remarks and selectively presenting certain aspects of her persona. This whole process was undoubtedly easier because the woman didn’t have to worry about what sort of face to face impression she would be making and was able to concentrate on her online self. With relatively few cues to go on, the boy engaged in overattribution processes that intensified his impression of the girl’s personality. The boy most likely treated the woman like she was really 19 and this made her behave in this manner as well through a behavioral confirmation loop. Based on new reports, it seems like this relationship was relatively short-lived. The woman seemed to be a highly motivated liar, so it was likely that she would have continued to get away with her deception.
This interaction seems to fit in perfectly with Hancock’s feature based model of digital deception (2004). According to this model, lying is most likely to occur in a distributed, synchronous, non-recordable medium. In this relationship, the woman took advantage of the fact that she wasn’t in the same physical space as the boy and of instant messaging’s synchronicity to get away with her deception. The fact that instant messaging is relatively recordless probably put her at ease too.
In terms of relationship factors that brought about the development of this online romance, both Wallace’s (1999) and McKenna’s (2007) theories are applicable. There relationship blossomed because the boy was physically attracted to the girl, talked to her for hours everyday online (proximity), shared common ground in the sense that he thought that they were both around the same age and had similar interests, and felt disinhibited to self-disclose online. In terms of McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors, the boy probably considered the girl to be identifiable and similar to himself and both utilized interactional control. Gating features that ordinarily would have prevented the boy from having any interest in this woman were removed online. It doesn’t sound as if the boy tried to “get the goods” on his online love before they met. If he had, perhaps he would have become suspicious at the lack of information available about his sweetheart and could have avoided the intense disappointment that resulted in his tragic demise.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=367435: Yes, I did meet my best friend online and No, I'm not ashamed
Wallace talks about several factors that determine attraction over the internet; proximity, physical attractiveness; homophily (also known as common ground); and disinhibition. Although all are important when it comes to attraction, I feel that proximity and disinhibition are the most important factors when it comes to initial as well as long-term attraction.
I met one of my best friends online.
This was 6 years ago (approximately June 2001) on a then virtually unknown blogging site known as Xanga (www.xanga.com). Although our initial meeting took place in an online space, we actually had many “real-life” friends in common, so when she told me that she was 16/f/OH, I knew she was telling the truth. Before I had even joined Xanga, I had heard much about Monica through our mutual friends. To them, it was fun to joke around about how they had never met such polar opposites. I was a complete math and science person, she loved english and history. I was a coconut; brown on the outside, white on the inside (born in India,yet extremely assimilated into American culture). She, on the other hand, was born in America yet acted as if she just came from India. I’m a liberal; she’s conservative. I love the city; she loves the country.
We “met” when we joined the same blogring. A blogring, for those who may not be familiar with Xanga slang, is a group that joins together Xanga blogs/users under common themes. For example, I belonged to “Dashboard Confessional: We Adore You”, and “Dancing is my passion” among others. At the time, you were only allowed to join 5 blogrings, so they basically helped an online reader get a quick 30 second glimpse into who you were. Monica and I belonged to the same blog; the aforementioned “Dancing is my passion”.
In each blogring, all the blogs are shown in the following format; Title of blog, Last Update date/time; short blurb about what the blog is about. Monica’s blog intrigued me, although I could not tell you what exactly made me decide to choose hers to visit that day. Her most recent post was about how Indian parent’s just don’t understand what living in America as an adolescent was like. I completely agreed, and so our friendship started.
Proximity, when it comes to attraction in online relationships, refers to “intersection frequency.” This is defined as how often you interaction with the other person on internet. In the case of Monica and me, interaction started off slow. We started to leave comments on each other’s blogs whenever there was a post that particularly peaked our interest. But it wasn’t till December 2002 that we actually became best friends. December was when my “real-life” best friend died. I used xanga as a tool for my frustration and anger with the world. Monica could relate. Her close friend had died a couple of years before mine. In order to talk more often, we decided to switch over to AIM, which allowed us to talk with greater frequency. The more Monica and I talked, the closer we got. Talking progressed to using the telephone and then frequent visits. Now almost 5 years later, we are the closest of friends. I call her my other half of the soul, since we have so little in common when it comes to most things, but we are joined together by what is most fundamental.
Disinhibition refers to the amount of self-disclosure on the net. More specifically, that as one gets closer to another, more will be discloser and a greater intimacy will be achieved. As mentioned above, Monica and I started become closer due to an instance of self-disclosure. As time went on, we let each other know about all those things you are afraid to tell someone else. Those secrets were told with increasing rates as we became almost like sisters. We would talk up to 20-30 hours a week easily, if not more.
Yes, I met my best friend online, and you know, I’m not ashamed of it. Maybe it was the fact that it was online, or maybe it was fated. All I know is that I have someone who knows everything about me and still loves me. Aren’t you jealous?
First Commenthttp://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/from-online-to-best-friends.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/5-means-to-end.html
*This little addition is an addendum, and was done not at the same time as the original post*
Although I agree that common ground was a factor, I still think that proximity and disinhibition were more important as factors. I could have included common ground, but I feel like that is a factor that is so obvious sometimes. "Birds of a feather flock together" kind of idea is very commonplace, and so I didn't want to be common.
5. A nice day for a 'Second Life' wedding
For those of you that have never heard of Second Life, it basically = (Sims + Grand Theft Auto + World of Warcraft + EBay + Facebook) ^ Sketchy + (Craigslist Personals * Porn). You design a virtual avatar and navigate a three dimensional online world where you can chat with millions of other users worldwide, change your appearance into a kangaroo with dragon wings, go to dance parties, buy real estate and get kinky all in one messed up universe.
What is interesting about Second Life and this article in particular were two people who found Second Life to be a richer form of media than Ftf. In fact, they met each other from opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean in a virtual world and eventually got married Ftf. "We'd both been in chat rooms before, but there was so much extra depth in Second Life, It lets you explore other people's creativity, and that was something that really attracted us to each other.” Second Life takes online dating and social networking to the next level. Because users have almost infinite control over the appearance of their virtual identity, or avatar, they can express themselves much more freely than one could by altering their assessment signals in a different medium. Physical attractiveness, a very important feature in Wallace’s attraction rules, becomes somewhat of a non issue when any user, with enough time and effort, can look like Jessica Alba. Imagine how our Ftf society would change if every person could choose to look like a supermodel at will. Though some users design their avatars in their own true image, deception through their visual presentation is almost the norm. It would be extremely interesting to experiment on how an avatar’s physical attractiveness affects hyperpersonal reactions from other users or identifiability and their own self disclosure. Gating features such as gender, race, and physical attractiveness are all thrown out the window. In Second Life people also can create their own content (clothes, plants, body parts) as well as write their own scripts for avatar movements. In class talked about the ability for one to express “the real me”; what if you were best expressed by an avatar of Prince and all you wanted to do was dance? This alone makes Second Life a much richer medium than many other CMCs in that users have much greater interactional control through use of their action scripts and in world accomplishments instead of through words. Also, getting the goods is usually not an option as users in Second Life are given completely new identities with few links to the real world.
While there is no main objective in Second Life other than to live and learn as you would in Real Life, users do not have a common ground principle as they might in other online games like World of Warcraft where players are sometimes achieving a common goal. In this article, the two users did connect because of a similar interest in designing objects within Second Life. However unlike a dating site, users may or may not anticipate future Ftf interaction. The two users in this article seemed honest enough and began dating in Second Life on a virtual resort. However, the liberating idea of Second Life is for users to explore identities that they may not be able to portray in Real Life. This creates a divide between users that only want short term online only relationships and users that are using Second Life to further their Ftf socializations.
How do we evaluate a medium in which there is a mix of users with/without anticipated future interaction, deception is encouraged, and users are not grounded at all to a real life identity?
The CNet Article can be found here: http://news.cnet.co.uk/gamesgear/0,39029682,49252232,00.htm
5.2 The case of lonelygirl15
It's hard to believe that YouTube, the home of "Ask a Ninja" and "Chad Vadar- Day Shift Manager", was the home of the most widespread example of digital deception to date. In a medium where it appeared no one was taking things seriously, millions of Americans were deceived into caring for the fictional teenage videoblogger "Bree". If you are unfamiliar with the story of the 19 year old amateur actress turned 16 year old videoblogger, you might want to look here for some background.
The case of lonelygirl15 serves an interesting intersection of relationship factors, digital deception and the media frenzy that goes along with it. As a case of digital deception it's certainly unique because of the collaborative effort and number of participants. While most cases of digital deceptions are the work of an individual looking to escape their own lives, lonelygirl15 was the work of a number of producer/story editors in addition to several actors all operating under a non-disclosure agreement. Despite the vast departure from a standard internet deception case, this example was perpetuated in much the same way all digital deception is. It relied on the truth bias. We believe, by default, that the things we are told by others are the truth and lonelygirl15 aimed to exploit that very element of human nature.
lonelygirl15 made many people rethink the relationships they had developed online and used a variety of methods to manipulate traditional relationship factors.
In the end, it seems that the masterminds behind lonelygirl15 did their research (and perhaps even read Patricia Wallace's book), because they marched out every trick in the book to manipulate relationship development and facilitate online deception.
The case of lonelygirl15 serves an interesting intersection of relationship factors, digital deception and the media frenzy that goes along with it. As a case of digital deception it's certainly unique because of the collaborative effort and number of participants. While most cases of digital deceptions are the work of an individual looking to escape their own lives, lonelygirl15 was the work of a number of producer/story editors in addition to several actors all operating under a non-disclosure agreement. Despite the vast departure from a standard internet deception case, this example was perpetuated in much the same way all digital deception is. It relied on the truth bias. We believe, by default, that the things we are told by others are the truth and lonelygirl15 aimed to exploit that very element of human nature.
lonelygirl15 made many people rethink the relationships they had developed online and used a variety of methods to manipulate traditional relationship factors.
- In an effort to gain a rapport with viewers, the videoblog was reasonably interactive. Bree would often mention real bloggers by their SN's and reply to user comments in an effort to both build more personal relationships and to seem grounded in reality.
- As Bree often discussed very personal topics on her videoblog the degree of self discloser was very high.
- Bree also had a high level of virtual saliency. She has a tremendous number of youtube entries and was a frequent commenter on some other blogs. She also had a myspace profile to further develop her online presence.
- In perhaps their most effective method of artificially developing online relationships, the creators of the show chose to cast the very attractive Jessica Rose as the "headlining" character. It is hard to believe (and also a bit sad) that America would not have been as riled up over an unattractive "lonelygirl".
In the end, it seems that the masterminds behind lonelygirl15 did their research (and perhaps even read Patricia Wallace's book), because they marched out every trick in the book to manipulate relationship development and facilitate online deception.
5.2 Poems story
I met two interesting stories happened in BBS(Bulletin Board System)
BBS is a public website everyperson registered a username can post or command in this web, but only the administrators can delete any post. But inside-web emails can be sent between users.
There is such a BBS, that people post poems here. Gradually, there emerged two poets writting great poems. And it turned out they were two administrators. And it turned out they were a boy and a girl. These two people began to post more poems really fast. And when it reached extrem, the BBS was just like their love "back garden" Things changed until one day, the boy posted a sad poem, and following, the girl abdicated the administrator position. Some other day, the boy posted a announcement, approximately saying"////, I can recognize you whatever name you are under. From now on, you post, I delete". People discussed. At last, it was found these boy and girl met each other. And this is the end of the story.
There is anther BBS, just like the one above, poems BBS. And there were another "couple". The only difference was they were not administrators. They two continued to post for three years, during when many users gone and many come. Three years later, they met. It was a couple waiting three years. I don't know what happened but they quited this BBS at the same time. Some other day, someone posted saying he found them. It turned out they bulit their own BBS and that was their love "back garden". If the information in the web was ture, it was a beautiful girl with a not that hansome boy. And this is the end of the story.
They don't have direct self-disclosure (honesty, amount,intention), if any, it is in the poems. They don't have nonverbal cues, meanwhile they may don't have direct verbal cues. What they have are the poem lines, the indirect verbal cues. They present themselves through literature. One image the other through the poetic words. He (let me use a HE for example) just read the words and think what kind of people can write out a poem like this and put this portrait to the author. This can be true, but meanwhile, it can be totally wrong. Are they honest? They post poems expressing the feelings. But they don't express themselves directly. Are they intentional? At first, mabe not. But I think they are intentional later on. Are they valence? Maybe, through words. About amount? Maybe has some relation with the number of poems......They can imlpy many things through poems without any direct decriptions..........I find there is some problem between direct factors and indirect factors, I am confused of it.
And is there any deception in these two stories? I don't know, actually........It is very possible an exquisite poem is written by an ugly, short fat girl. After the two meet each other, the boy may feel being decepted. But is it deception actually? As the girl writes only poems, nothing else. You know, writting poems is self-feeling expression. So I don't think it is self-presentation manipulation nor selection, neither a deception. The wrong information one gets is justs the wrong results of one own images. But meanwhile, the other side may really have implications.
What are the differences between these stories? What leads to the different results? Is it time?
BBS is a public website everyperson registered a username can post or command in this web, but only the administrators can delete any post. But inside-web emails can be sent between users.
There is such a BBS, that people post poems here. Gradually, there emerged two poets writting great poems. And it turned out they were two administrators. And it turned out they were a boy and a girl. These two people began to post more poems really fast. And when it reached extrem, the BBS was just like their love "back garden" Things changed until one day, the boy posted a sad poem, and following, the girl abdicated the administrator position. Some other day, the boy posted a announcement, approximately saying"////, I can recognize you whatever name you are under. From now on, you post, I delete". People discussed. At last, it was found these boy and girl met each other. And this is the end of the story.
There is anther BBS, just like the one above, poems BBS. And there were another "couple". The only difference was they were not administrators. They two continued to post for three years, during when many users gone and many come. Three years later, they met. It was a couple waiting three years. I don't know what happened but they quited this BBS at the same time. Some other day, someone posted saying he found them. It turned out they bulit their own BBS and that was their love "back garden". If the information in the web was ture, it was a beautiful girl with a not that hansome boy. And this is the end of the story.
They don't have direct self-disclosure (honesty, amount,intention), if any, it is in the poems. They don't have nonverbal cues, meanwhile they may don't have direct verbal cues. What they have are the poem lines, the indirect verbal cues. They present themselves through literature. One image the other through the poetic words. He (let me use a HE for example) just read the words and think what kind of people can write out a poem like this and put this portrait to the author. This can be true, but meanwhile, it can be totally wrong. Are they honest? They post poems expressing the feelings. But they don't express themselves directly. Are they intentional? At first, mabe not. But I think they are intentional later on. Are they valence? Maybe, through words. About amount? Maybe has some relation with the number of poems......They can imlpy many things through poems without any direct decriptions..........I find there is some problem between direct factors and indirect factors, I am confused of it.
And is there any deception in these two stories? I don't know, actually........It is very possible an exquisite poem is written by an ugly, short fat girl. After the two meet each other, the boy may feel being decepted. But is it deception actually? As the girl writes only poems, nothing else. You know, writting poems is self-feeling expression. So I don't think it is self-presentation manipulation nor selection, neither a deception. The wrong information one gets is justs the wrong results of one own images. But meanwhile, the other side may really have implications.
What are the differences between these stories? What leads to the different results? Is it time?
5: Means To An End
Up until November of last year I was involved in a serious, long-distance relationship. It was not until the relationship ended that I realized just how much the relationship was dependent upon mediated communication, as we spent almost three quarters of the 30-month relationship apart.
The relationship began at the end of my sophomore year in high school, and my boyfriend, who I will refer to as “Ben,” was about to begin his freshman year of college. Wallace attraction factors, such as physical attraction and common ground, made the FtF relationship meaningful enough to pursue a long-distance one. We were extremely attracted to one another and felt that we understood each other better than most others ever could.
Talking on the phone and text-messaging were key during the first few months of Ben and my relationship. Letters and heartfelt e-mails were exchanged from time to time. Facebook proved to be another valuable form of mediated communication for us. Now that we could see who the other person was talking to or taking pictures with, elements such as desire and jealousy came back into play in a new form. Because of this, Ben and I, in a way, used Facebook to remind one another of the physical attraction we shared. Video-chatting was one of the best forms of mediated communication for our relationship. Video-chatting combines auditory and visual elements to create a more intimate communication experience. Connecting across space and time via mediated communication certainly helped Ben and I get from one visit to the next.
Ultimately, after two and one half years of long-distance communication, it soon became clear that the physical distance and age difference between Ben and I would tear us apart. Once I came to college I realized that mostly mediated communication was just not enough anymore. Finding time to talk on the phone, text message, instant message, e-mail, or video-chat is difficult, especially when both parties are also trying to juggle schoolwork, separate social lives, and long-distance love. So although McKenna factors like disinhibition and lack of shyness in our mediated communications allowed Ben and I to get to know each other on extremely personal levels, nothing could effectively replicate having a relationship with a partner in close proximity.
Although the relationship went sour almost a year ago, I feel no regrets in spending such a long time in a mediated communication relationship. Being with someone in close physical proximity is certainly enjoyable and offers constant gratification, but long-distance relationships can be just as rewarding, granted in different ways. A great thing about long-distance relationships is that they challenge you to ask whether the ends will justify the means. If they are worth all of the effort mediated communication can entail, at least you know you’ve got something worth working for.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/summer-love-fading-awayassignment-51.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/a5-o1-bad-girlfriend.html
The relationship began at the end of my sophomore year in high school, and my boyfriend, who I will refer to as “Ben,” was about to begin his freshman year of college. Wallace attraction factors, such as physical attraction and common ground, made the FtF relationship meaningful enough to pursue a long-distance one. We were extremely attracted to one another and felt that we understood each other better than most others ever could.
Talking on the phone and text-messaging were key during the first few months of Ben and my relationship. Letters and heartfelt e-mails were exchanged from time to time. Facebook proved to be another valuable form of mediated communication for us. Now that we could see who the other person was talking to or taking pictures with, elements such as desire and jealousy came back into play in a new form. Because of this, Ben and I, in a way, used Facebook to remind one another of the physical attraction we shared. Video-chatting was one of the best forms of mediated communication for our relationship. Video-chatting combines auditory and visual elements to create a more intimate communication experience. Connecting across space and time via mediated communication certainly helped Ben and I get from one visit to the next.
Ultimately, after two and one half years of long-distance communication, it soon became clear that the physical distance and age difference between Ben and I would tear us apart. Once I came to college I realized that mostly mediated communication was just not enough anymore. Finding time to talk on the phone, text message, instant message, e-mail, or video-chat is difficult, especially when both parties are also trying to juggle schoolwork, separate social lives, and long-distance love. So although McKenna factors like disinhibition and lack of shyness in our mediated communications allowed Ben and I to get to know each other on extremely personal levels, nothing could effectively replicate having a relationship with a partner in close proximity.
Although the relationship went sour almost a year ago, I feel no regrets in spending such a long time in a mediated communication relationship. Being with someone in close physical proximity is certainly enjoyable and offers constant gratification, but long-distance relationships can be just as rewarding, granted in different ways. A great thing about long-distance relationships is that they challenge you to ask whether the ends will justify the means. If they are worth all of the effort mediated communication can entail, at least you know you’ve got something worth working for.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/summer-love-fading-awayassignment-51.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/a5-o1-bad-girlfriend.html
5.2 For Love or Money?
A year ago, there was an Internet love story that simply went awry. What started out as an ideal relationship between Raymond Merrill and Regina Rachid ended in Raymond Merrill’s death. The relationship started wonderfully, Raymond believed that he had an “immediate rapport” with Regina after his first conversation. They both met on an online dating site (the article could not disclose which one) and the relationship that developed seemed wonderful, Regina even wrote poems to Raymond that were incredibly poetic, loving and heartfelt. Their relationship developed into something quite serious; Raymond even traveled from Cleveland, OH to go visit her in Brazil, where she lived. He visited her on numerous occasions and their relationship seemed extremely genuine and real.
On Raymond’s final visit to Brazil to visit his newfound love, something really disturbing happened; his lover’s intentions were not really love at all. It turns out, Regina was not trying to find love at all on the Internet, instead she was trying to find a naïve and desperate guy to swindle money out of. During Raymond’s final visit to Brazil, he went missing and all of his bank accounts had been drained and all of the money had been put into Regina’s account. It turns out Regina had an accomplice, her boyfriend, to aid her in this scheme to steal money, and to help her strangle and dispose of Raymond by burning him in a car. A relationship that started out by exchanging a few words online ended in the death of an innocent man seeking true love.
This article touched upon the issue of deception, but in a way that is different from most stories that discuss people lying about their age, identity, weight, height, gender etc. Deception is so easy on the internet given the tremendous ability to be anonymous and create a persona of yourself that may or may no be true. This article demonstrates the lengths people will go to simply gain a few dollars. Regina and Raymond engaged in quite a serious relationship for an extended period of time, investing a tremendous amount of time and effort. Although one person was honest about their intentions, the other one was not.
There are two types of deception: message based and identity based deception. It is apparent in this story that Regina did not exhibit identity deception that is, she did not falsely manipulate the identity she presented to Raymond. She didn’t lie about her appearance, or any of the traditional assessment signals. Regina and Raymond met on numerous occasions so there were clearly a number of assessment signals used to confirm what they said to one another over the Internet was true. This article however, exhibits a great deal of the second type of deception, message based. While it did not go into much detail about their conversations with one another, it was clear that Regina was manipulating the information she conveyed to Raymond to deceive him into believing that she did in fact love him (i.e. love letters and poems).
According to Wallace, we often are attracted to a person who is close to us in space or time, this article demonstrates that proximity doesn’t necessarily mean geographically close (one person live in Brazil and one person live in the U.S), rather, there are in the same place at the same time when the are talking on a dating website. Both Raymond and Regina had an “immediate rapport with one another” meaning that they had a tremendous amount of common ground and had similar opinions on a variety of subjects. In addition, this ‘immediate rapport’ actually contradicts the notion of disinhibition effects that Wallace mentions. Regina and Raymond were not wary of one another they simply understood one another and self-disclosed a great deal of information from the start.
McKenna’s concept of identifiability, that as people learn more about each other, they tend to self disclose more also known as the stranger on the train effect. This brought both Raymond and Regina closer to one another since it encouraged both of them to disclose more details about themselves since both their private self awareness was high, even though Regina’s information was deceptive. Since much detail of the conversations between Regina and Raymond was not disclosed, it’s hard to assess whether there was a removal of gating features. Interactional control played a major role in this scheme, by manipulating the media by which Regina communicated with Raymond, she could convince him of her love and fake feelings in a much easier way (i.e. e-mails, letters, im chat) than constantly having to lie and be convincing of her love to his face which is much more difficult. And finally, the most important aspect to this deception, McKenna’s concept of ‘getting the goods’. Regina had to know that Raymond had significant funds in his bank accounts and learn a great deal about him to know that he was worth investing so much of her time and effort. It’s amazing the lengths people will go to con a person out of a few dollars and how they will stop at nothing to achieve this.
Monday, September 24, 2007
5.1: The Friend Nobody Likes.
For someone who is only 19 years old, I have been presented with countless opportunities to form and maintain long-distance relationships. This is because my mom has forced me to attend so many summer camps all over Massachusetts (she still claims she did it “because she loves me”…right). I have been to basketball camp, softball camp, and my FAVORITE…God camp. At each camp, I wasted a week of my life with weird strangers and over-perky counselors. Thanks, mom.
Now, for those of you who have not experienced these places of hell, let me introduce you to a completely new world. It goes a little something like this:
It all starts when your mom or dad wakes up one day and decides, “I think I’m going to make insert your name here miserable for a week. I’m going to send him/her to softball/God/sewing camp”. Your fate is sealed from that moment on, and you are doomed. The worst is when you finally arrive at camp and you realize that you are roomed with some psycho with a cat obsession. It is going to be a super week.
The camp week always passes as slow as humanly possible, and you make “friends” in the meantime. When everyone is ready to depart, there is a frantic exchange of email addresses, screenames, and sometimes phone numbers.
When you get home, you immediately add all of your little camp pals to your buddy list, and recognize that giving away your screename was the biggest mistake of your life. For some reason, the people who now have your screename think it’s kosher to IM you every day. Patricia Wallace had this same problem when she went to summer camp and hypothesized why people feel the need to do this.
She said that these camp friends/stalkers might think that they have common ground with you because you were both at the same camp. Common ground means that you share similar beliefs, assumptions, and presuppositions with someone. As well as going to the same camp, your camp roomie may feel a connection with you because she really likes cats and, hey!, your grandma has cat-print pants! If that’s not common ground, I don’t know what is.
Wallace also stated that increased physical proximity at camp might have caused their obsession with you. Now that you are not near them anymore, they feel as if they must remain close (emotionally) through instant messenger. You just wish they would stop.
Maybe if you ignore cat-girl she’ll get the hint? Let us hope so.
Now, for those of you who have not experienced these places of hell, let me introduce you to a completely new world. It goes a little something like this:
It all starts when your mom or dad wakes up one day and decides, “I think I’m going to make insert your name here miserable for a week. I’m going to send him/her to softball/God/sewing camp”. Your fate is sealed from that moment on, and you are doomed. The worst is when you finally arrive at camp and you realize that you are roomed with some psycho with a cat obsession. It is going to be a super week.
The camp week always passes as slow as humanly possible, and you make “friends” in the meantime. When everyone is ready to depart, there is a frantic exchange of email addresses, screenames, and sometimes phone numbers.
When you get home, you immediately add all of your little camp pals to your buddy list, and recognize that giving away your screename was the biggest mistake of your life. For some reason, the people who now have your screename think it’s kosher to IM you every day. Patricia Wallace had this same problem when she went to summer camp and hypothesized why people feel the need to do this.
She said that these camp friends/stalkers might think that they have common ground with you because you were both at the same camp. Common ground means that you share similar beliefs, assumptions, and presuppositions with someone. As well as going to the same camp, your camp roomie may feel a connection with you because she really likes cats and, hey!, your grandma has cat-print pants! If that’s not common ground, I don’t know what is.
Wallace also stated that increased physical proximity at camp might have caused their obsession with you. Now that you are not near them anymore, they feel as if they must remain close (emotionally) through instant messenger. You just wish they would stop.
Maybe if you ignore cat-girl she’ll get the hint? Let us hope so.
#5- Starry Nights No More
It was the beginning of my freshman year here at Cornell, and I entered relationship-free. The summer before, I had spent several sun-kissed days with my then-boyfriend Mike on the lake, sharing picnics and playing tennis. However, with the start of the school year, I predictably ended our bliss with the cliché excuse, “I want to meet new people and experience new things, so…I just can’t see us together right now.”
A few months after starting the semester, a few wild nights and unfortunate regrets, I started to reminisce about summer nights spent under the stars. Of course, I used my favorite medium- CMC via instant messenger to begin talking to Mike again.
Using McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors, removal of gating factors, interactional control and getting the goods are relevant components that can be applied to the beginning of Mike and my long-distance relationship.
One of the problems with my relationship before was that I was not especially physically attracted to Mike. Since we had such a great time together when we were in person, I chose to ignore the lack of physical chemistry for me. I felt that personality far-outweighed my physical preferences. When we interacted over CMC, the gating features of physical appearance and social skills were removed. I was no longer concerned with our lack of physical chemistry, since I could visualize a handsomer version of Mike online or choose to “forget” our passionless personal relationship. During our face-to-face relationship, I was also concerned with our differences in social settings. I am very outgoing and personable, while Mike tends to be reclusive and unsocial. Since Mike’s social skills weren’t apparent on instant messenger, another gate was removed.
Since Mike and I were most competent in conversation, clever banter and humor, the internet was the perfect place for us to rekindle our relationship. Using interactional control, via the internet, we could chat online and really emphasize the strong points of our relationship. Through CMC, we felt our relationship was doing better than ever. Both of us also were able to selectively self-present ourselves to the other. I could fail to mention the crazy nights I had at Cornell, and Mike could tell me about the fun times he had been having at parties (contrary to his previous anti-social behavior). We were both catering to the others’ preferences through chatting on instant messenger.
Through the internet setting, we were also able to “get the goods” by checking on each other via facebook before we can “seeing” each other again online. In this way, we had the ability to get information about the other through posted pictures, wall posts and about me, without actually physically meeting or talking. We could also continue to check up on one another throughout our relationship without seeming like a bitchy significant other.
5:1 Wish she would have told me this when we were together!
I chose to do option one because I was recently thinking about the trip I took to Florida during the summer between my sophomore and junior year. I went on a mission trip and met tons of new kids my age and it was awesome! We painted a house, help construct another house, and cleaned up many yards of people who were unable to do it themselves. Though there were many girls that I interacted with there was one girl I hardly ever spoke to during the quickest week I have ever gone through. Don't ask my why I didn't speak to her. Maybe it was because I was shy, maybe it was because she was drop dead gorgeous! Anyways, at the end of the week, everyone said there goodbyes and of course screennames were exchanged.
As most of you know where this is going, we began talking, and the more we talked the more I HATED her! I mean we had everything in common but the thorn in my side was the fact that she never mentioned all of our similarities before we SEPARATED!!!!
*On a side note, why is it that guys are expected to initiate conversation? Why can't the girls come up to us guys? I might be willing to pay a girl (I mean this is in the best way possible) whom I didn't know to come up an initiate a conversation with me!
Moving on, while I returned to South Carolina, she returned to Ohio. I, however, found out that we had just about everything under the sky in common with each other. Now when we were physically close, she still looked pretty good. However, the more we had in common, the HOTTER her visual image in my head was. I believe this fall's under Wallace's Attraction factors, specifically the factor of "common ground." This factor states that the more beliefs and views shared by both people, the more attractive they become. By the time we were done talking after a week of being apart, I was ready to fly to Ohio! That, however, did not happen. Go figure..........
Another factor that I wanted to relate to this relationship was proximity, and it's negative effect on this relationship. Now Wallace states that the closer you are to someone, i.e. proximity, the more attracted you would become to them. Even though I was ready to fly to Ohio right after we had seperated, she didn't have a myspace!!!!! With every day that passed that we didn't speak, the less attractive my visual image of her was. In this particular case, proximity had a negative effect on our relationship and I am sad to say that we no longer communicate with each other.
Go figure.......
Comment 1 to Matthew Birnbaum: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=2984359494398290494
Comment 2 to William Martin: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=2796094120127013873
As most of you know where this is going, we began talking, and the more we talked the more I HATED her! I mean we had everything in common but the thorn in my side was the fact that she never mentioned all of our similarities before we SEPARATED!!!!
*On a side note, why is it that guys are expected to initiate conversation? Why can't the girls come up to us guys? I might be willing to pay a girl (I mean this is in the best way possible) whom I didn't know to come up an initiate a conversation with me!
Moving on, while I returned to South Carolina, she returned to Ohio. I, however, found out that we had just about everything under the sky in common with each other. Now when we were physically close, she still looked pretty good. However, the more we had in common, the HOTTER her visual image in my head was. I believe this fall's under Wallace's Attraction factors, specifically the factor of "common ground." This factor states that the more beliefs and views shared by both people, the more attractive they become. By the time we were done talking after a week of being apart, I was ready to fly to Ohio! That, however, did not happen. Go figure..........
Another factor that I wanted to relate to this relationship was proximity, and it's negative effect on this relationship. Now Wallace states that the closer you are to someone, i.e. proximity, the more attracted you would become to them. Even though I was ready to fly to Ohio right after we had seperated, she didn't have a myspace!!!!! With every day that passed that we didn't speak, the less attractive my visual image of her was. In this particular case, proximity had a negative effect on our relationship and I am sad to say that we no longer communicate with each other.
Go figure.......
Comment 1 to Matthew Birnbaum: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=2984359494398290494
Comment 2 to William Martin: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=2796094120127013873
#5- A Relationship Gone Wrong
As I left my hometown for my freshman year at Cornell, I was somewhat involved with a boy from home. He was my boyfriend from freshman year in high school, and while we broke up after only a few months of the relationship, we were still very close throughout the four years of high school. We had both agreed that we would attempt to start a relationship again if neither of us were involved in a relationship after the first semester of college.
Once at Cornell, I kept in touch with my friend regularly. We mostly used AIM, but we also called each other every few days. However, after a few weeks of college, I was absorbed with both the new college friends I had made and the workload at Cornell. After just a few weeks, I felt like I connected more with my college friends than I did with my friends from home. My friend from home, on the other hand, had a hard time adjusting to college life. He tried to contact me often, but I usually ignored him because I was too busy with other matters.
Like many long-distance relationships, my relationship with my friend eventually dissolved. We never got back into a romantic relationship because I had found someone new at college. My friend and I stopped keeping in contact with each other, and now I rarely speak to him.
The eventual division between my friend and me could be attributed to a couple of Wallace’s attraction factors. Lack of proximity probably played a large role in our relationship falling apart. Because I became so busy with my college activities, I went on AIM less, which made it harder for my friend to keep in touch with me. When he did IM me, I often ignored him, distancing myself from him. Our interaction frequency steadily became lower as time went on. Physical proximity was also a factor; since we were no longer in the same town, it difficult to see each other without making plans in advance. Since we interacted less, we were less connected.
A lack of common ground was also a factor in the detachment between my friend and me. I loved college life, but my friend was having a difficult time adjusting to it. In our conversations, I would often talk about my friends and the activities I was doing, while my friend would complain about how he was doing at college. We soon ran out of things to talk about since our lives were so different. I became frustrated with my friend’s complaints, which was part of the reason why I stopped making the effort to keep in touch with him. We no longer shared the same interests, which made it difficult for us to have a good conversation.
The combination of lack of proximity and lack of common ground led to a downhill spiral in the relationship between me and my friend. Since I was far away and leading a different life from my friend, we had less in common. If we had still lived in the same town and still saw each other regularly, our relationship may have ended very differently.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=2796094120127013873
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=9070365686384661296
Once at Cornell, I kept in touch with my friend regularly. We mostly used AIM, but we also called each other every few days. However, after a few weeks of college, I was absorbed with both the new college friends I had made and the workload at Cornell. After just a few weeks, I felt like I connected more with my college friends than I did with my friends from home. My friend from home, on the other hand, had a hard time adjusting to college life. He tried to contact me often, but I usually ignored him because I was too busy with other matters.
Like many long-distance relationships, my relationship with my friend eventually dissolved. We never got back into a romantic relationship because I had found someone new at college. My friend and I stopped keeping in contact with each other, and now I rarely speak to him.
The eventual division between my friend and me could be attributed to a couple of Wallace’s attraction factors. Lack of proximity probably played a large role in our relationship falling apart. Because I became so busy with my college activities, I went on AIM less, which made it harder for my friend to keep in touch with me. When he did IM me, I often ignored him, distancing myself from him. Our interaction frequency steadily became lower as time went on. Physical proximity was also a factor; since we were no longer in the same town, it difficult to see each other without making plans in advance. Since we interacted less, we were less connected.
A lack of common ground was also a factor in the detachment between my friend and me. I loved college life, but my friend was having a difficult time adjusting to it. In our conversations, I would often talk about my friends and the activities I was doing, while my friend would complain about how he was doing at college. We soon ran out of things to talk about since our lives were so different. I became frustrated with my friend’s complaints, which was part of the reason why I stopped making the effort to keep in touch with him. We no longer shared the same interests, which made it difficult for us to have a good conversation.
The combination of lack of proximity and lack of common ground led to a downhill spiral in the relationship between me and my friend. Since I was far away and leading a different life from my friend, we had less in common. If we had still lived in the same town and still saw each other regularly, our relationship may have ended very differently.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=2796094120127013873
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=9070365686384661296
A5:1; I see you! now learn more about me...
During one of my summers in high school, I took a few classes at a boarding summer school in Massachusetts. During the five weeks, I spent all of my day, every day with a select group of friends with whom I was able to build strong relationships that would inevitably lead to long-distance relationships when we all returned to our respective homes.
Back at home, the simplest means of communication defaulted to the instant messaging realm. Personally, I noticed that I was more inclined to keep in closer contact with the more physically attractive friends (ie. the ladies of our close group of friends). Since I had first met these people in a face to face environment, it was only expected for this to occur, I would try to get to know the more attractive members of our group. Almost every day, I would initiate mindless, random conversation with my friends. I noticed that it was easier to talk to and get to know the couple of friends who were online at the same times that I was online. With our online times frequently intersecting, I was able to talk to them more often take more interest in the friends with whom I shared more “proximity”. Wallace’s proximity attraction factor states that in a psychological space familiarity grows as the encounters increase in frequency. Furthermore, it became very difficult to get to know the people who weren’t around during the times that I was online, for the obvious reason that they just weren’t available for a conversation. To my dismay, I have yet to reconnect with these friends.
Meanwhile, I drawn to take greater interest in my frequent friends, I must have come to the realization that the common grounds that my friends and I shared caused them to be more identifiable to me. The more I knew about them, I had more characteristics to compare to my own personality, likes and dislikes. To further our growing attractions, my self-disclosures warranted their self-disclosures and vice versa. We were able to expand our common ground. Then, to further confirm Wallace’s attraction factors, the more I had talked to them, the more interesting they became which then in turn led to a stronger desire to interact with them more frequently.
Physical attractiveness may have initiated my interest in my long-distance friends but our common grounds and proximity on the instant messaging space allowed for a strengthening of our friendships and a growth in our attraction (interest) in each other. This however did not imply that these friends were the more interesting of the bunch. Some of them had terrible online personalities. Given their characteristics, it would have been quite simple to deduce the outcomes of the different online relationships I had maintained with my friends by looking at Wallace’s attraction factors.
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/can-money-buy-love.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/5-option-2-second-life-taking-over-real.html
Back at home, the simplest means of communication defaulted to the instant messaging realm. Personally, I noticed that I was more inclined to keep in closer contact with the more physically attractive friends (ie. the ladies of our close group of friends). Since I had first met these people in a face to face environment, it was only expected for this to occur, I would try to get to know the more attractive members of our group. Almost every day, I would initiate mindless, random conversation with my friends. I noticed that it was easier to talk to and get to know the couple of friends who were online at the same times that I was online. With our online times frequently intersecting, I was able to talk to them more often take more interest in the friends with whom I shared more “proximity”. Wallace’s proximity attraction factor states that in a psychological space familiarity grows as the encounters increase in frequency. Furthermore, it became very difficult to get to know the people who weren’t around during the times that I was online, for the obvious reason that they just weren’t available for a conversation. To my dismay, I have yet to reconnect with these friends.
Meanwhile, I drawn to take greater interest in my frequent friends, I must have come to the realization that the common grounds that my friends and I shared caused them to be more identifiable to me. The more I knew about them, I had more characteristics to compare to my own personality, likes and dislikes. To further our growing attractions, my self-disclosures warranted their self-disclosures and vice versa. We were able to expand our common ground. Then, to further confirm Wallace’s attraction factors, the more I had talked to them, the more interesting they became which then in turn led to a stronger desire to interact with them more frequently.
Physical attractiveness may have initiated my interest in my long-distance friends but our common grounds and proximity on the instant messaging space allowed for a strengthening of our friendships and a growth in our attraction (interest) in each other. This however did not imply that these friends were the more interesting of the bunch. Some of them had terrible online personalities. Given their characteristics, it would have been quite simple to deduce the outcomes of the different online relationships I had maintained with my friends by looking at Wallace’s attraction factors.
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/can-money-buy-love.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/5-option-2-second-life-taking-over-real.html
#5 Option1: Although I have not seen him in real world yet, I can say he is a good friend of mine
About five years ago, I once enjoyed talking to random people online. ‘buddybuddy.com’ was Korean website that I usually went to meet new people. In buddybuddy.com, there were hundreds of chatrooms, forums and online communities. Buddybuddy.com also had its own instant messenger program, so if you made friends there, you could add them on your messenger program and talk to them if they were online. This is when I met a guy named hwang912. On that day, among the chatrooms categorized by age, I went to the one for teens. Inside the chatroom, there were about four people talking. hwang912 was one of them. As usual, all of us told our asl. hwang912 was a year older than me, living in
Common ground means mutually shared beliefs, assumptions and propositions. This can be divided into conversational and categorical common ground. As a result of common ground, people find others more attractive as they share more common grounds.(Lecture Slide) As we kept talking we found out that we had common interest in old Korean pops. In our first conversation, we already had three things in common: nationality, age and interest in old pop songs. These categorical common grounds made it much easier for us to connect to each other and to continue our conversation. I remember we spent almost five hours in our first conversation. At the end, we gave each other email address and nickname for the instant messenger.
After the first talk is when proximity started playing a major role in developing this relationship. “Familiarity breeds attraction” shows how proximity takes place in relationship and interpersonal attraction very well. As friendly as person A becomes to person B, B finds A more attractive and desires to continue or even strengthen the relationship with A. In online spaces, proximity is measured differently from FtF. Online familiarity flows from intersection frequency. (Lecture Slide) After the first conversation, we kept talking on the instant messenger and sending emails to each other. At first, we talked almost every day. Because of a fourteen-hour difference between
#5, 1 Coast to Coast Long Distance Relationship
Having experienced a long distance relationship for the majority of my freshman year, I became very familiar with interacting with my boyfriend through CMC. Although we were apart for so long, with him being in California and me in Ithaca, the ability to use CMC allowed us to continue to develop and strengthen our relationship. The means of communication we used ranged from facebook messaging, to instant messaging, to video chatting, to the telephone, but instant messaging was a critical way for us to really express and share information about ourselves. Since both of us sometimes had problems putting into words exactly what we wanted to say to get our point across in the right way, the use of IM’s allowed us to take our time to really say exactly what we wanted.
Our relationship was affected greatly by McKenna’s relationship facilitation factor of identifiability. While sitting alone in our own rooms, we could feel a sense of anonymity. No one else could see the screen, therefore making it seem as if we had the freedom to say what we wanted without being judged in any way. This visual anonymity thus led to an increased private self-awareness, where we were able to really focus on ourselves and not care about others. By feeling as if no one could really see us, not even each other, we could have intense conversations, revealing our feelings and ultimately being able to have increased self-disclosure. The division that we felt by having a sense of anonymity led us to throw away any inhibitions and really get across what we felt, thereby strengthening our relationship.
Another one of McKenna’s factors that played a large role was interactional control. Since we were so far apart, and could not see each other over this media, there was an option of what we wanted to share with each other. Therefore, we could selectively choose what we wanted to say about ourselves and our day and leave out those items that could cause doubt or questioning. Also, the ability to have time to think of a response in IM’s allowed for time to get a handle on the situation when there was an argument. We could strategically plan what we wanted to say to make ourselves look best when being targeted in a fight, which goes along with O’Sullivan’s idea of choosing a leaner medium when the valence is negative and the locus is the self.
Overall, I am thankful for having the opportunity to use CMC because without it I don’t think my relationship would have survived as long as it had. It prevented our relationship from being held at a standstill during our time apart and instead helped it to thrive and keep developing.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=178883087812137184
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=2576315265304753333
Our relationship was affected greatly by McKenna’s relationship facilitation factor of identifiability. While sitting alone in our own rooms, we could feel a sense of anonymity. No one else could see the screen, therefore making it seem as if we had the freedom to say what we wanted without being judged in any way. This visual anonymity thus led to an increased private self-awareness, where we were able to really focus on ourselves and not care about others. By feeling as if no one could really see us, not even each other, we could have intense conversations, revealing our feelings and ultimately being able to have increased self-disclosure. The division that we felt by having a sense of anonymity led us to throw away any inhibitions and really get across what we felt, thereby strengthening our relationship.
Another one of McKenna’s factors that played a large role was interactional control. Since we were so far apart, and could not see each other over this media, there was an option of what we wanted to share with each other. Therefore, we could selectively choose what we wanted to say about ourselves and our day and leave out those items that could cause doubt or questioning. Also, the ability to have time to think of a response in IM’s allowed for time to get a handle on the situation when there was an argument. We could strategically plan what we wanted to say to make ourselves look best when being targeted in a fight, which goes along with O’Sullivan’s idea of choosing a leaner medium when the valence is negative and the locus is the self.
Overall, I am thankful for having the opportunity to use CMC because without it I don’t think my relationship would have survived as long as it had. It prevented our relationship from being held at a standstill during our time apart and instead helped it to thrive and keep developing.
Comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=178883087812137184
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=2576315265304753333
#5, Option 1: More CMC, Less Communication
Due to an enjoyable and thoroughly productive summer as friends and business partners, my Californian friend and I sought for ways to remain connected (note: this was only a two-month-old friendship). We decided to use Skype, the VOIP application, and a program/widget with chat functionality (Gmail Quick Contacts has been a nice simple chat function).
I knew that any type of mediated communication we used would lack the vital non-verbal (specifically, somatic) and immediate verbal cues exchanged while talking face-to-face. Further, it is much harder to brainstorm and bounce ideas and thoughts around when exchanging information becomes a more asynchronous and cumbersome act. Both of these have become issues between my friend and me. The expedient non-verbal cues used in quick, fiery conversations are absent, and with them, some of the motivation to attempt such conversations at all.
Proximity—familiarity between parties that arrives with frequent intersection—has not really been an issue, as we intersect through various media fairly regularly. The topical and length components of our conversations, however, have changed. Even though we share common ground—
Our CMCs contradict or supersede identification with McKenna’s Relationship Facilitation Factors. Gating Features are obviated by our CMCs, and the whole “assessment” component detailed in “Connecting to Similar Others” has been flipped on its head in our case: rather than developing a relationship from less cues and gradually including more, we are going backwards. The goal of our relationship is heading against the current assumed by McKenna’s Factors. As of my current understanding, many CMC relationship theories fail to accommodate for FtF-originating relationships that are maintained via CMC. But what an interesting concept? Perhaps in my friend and I were romantically involved, more of Wallace’s and McKenna’s factors could apply as we fantasized or became sentimental. But this is not the case here. The range of cues offered by our means of communication, partially because it is more pragmatic than romantic, has not strengthened our relationship (and may have injured it).
Assignment 5, Opt. 1- From online to best friends....
Two years ago I had gone to Puerto Rico to attend my cousins wedding. Had a great time, was all ready to come back to NY not knowing that my trip would be extra special. Once I had arrived back home I told my cousin to put the wedding pictures up on her myspace so that I would be able to see them. I then got an invite from a friend of hers who was also at the wedding. I remember we had spoken briefly at the reception but it was really a hi and bye sort of thing. Her name was Jackie and she had just written Hi and that she remembered me from the wedding. I responded back with a "yea I remember you as well, how’s everything going?". From there we just hit it off, writing to each other everyday back and forth. It then moved onto phone conversations for hours and hours nonstop. Mind you, I am not a big phone person but the conversation just flowed. We talked about everything from school, friends, family, Puerto Rico, pets and life. It helped that we both were from Puerto Rico, were in the same grade, and knew pretty much the same group of people. After six months of CMC, it was time for a FtF interaction. I flew to Puerto Rico for a week and hung out with her. Ever since then, we each made trips back and forth to visit each other. She loves NY and I love going to Puerto Rico so we benefit either way. We are still up to this day the best of friends and it’s funny because at times we will think about how our friendship started with a random hello on myspace.
McKenna relationship facilitation factors definitely played a role in our friendship. Removal of gating factors helped initiate the conversation. I am a shy person and don’t really do the whole random conversation with strangers. The was no shyness or blocking off based on attractiveness or socially interactive. The absence of FtF helped eliminate most of those extra features and helped us focus on ourselves and who each other was as a person based on what we wrote. Connecting to similar others was also a factor that helped. We both had similar roots and interests that we could relate to. We knew the same people which is how we ended up meeting. Both were from Puerto Rico so it was kind of a sense as if we knew each other already. We also enjoyed the same hobbies and interacted similarly. We understood where each other was coming from seeing as we were the same age with the same stresses of teenage life. I never thought I would end up making a friend online and she ended up being the closest person to me.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/5_relationship_gone_wrong.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/can_money_buy_love.html
McKenna relationship facilitation factors definitely played a role in our friendship. Removal of gating factors helped initiate the conversation. I am a shy person and don’t really do the whole random conversation with strangers. The was no shyness or blocking off based on attractiveness or socially interactive. The absence of FtF helped eliminate most of those extra features and helped us focus on ourselves and who each other was as a person based on what we wrote. Connecting to similar others was also a factor that helped. We both had similar roots and interests that we could relate to. We knew the same people which is how we ended up meeting. Both were from Puerto Rico so it was kind of a sense as if we knew each other already. We also enjoyed the same hobbies and interacted similarly. We understood where each other was coming from seeing as we were the same age with the same stresses of teenage life. I never thought I would end up making a friend online and she ended up being the closest person to me.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/5_relationship_gone_wrong.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/can_money_buy_love.html
#5, Option 1...an internet relationship turned "real"
Back when I was a timid sophomore in high school, I had a friend in a band (Mike) who invited me to one of his band's concerts. Mike and I had been going to school together for quite a few years and we knew each other pretty well, but his other bandmates went to our rival high school, and I did not know them at all. So a few of my friends and I went to their show and took a mental note of how adorable the lead singer was (naturally), so the next day, in true high school fashion, my friends and I tracked down what we thought to be his AIM screen name and started talking to him online. However, at the beginning of the conversation, we discovered that who we had contacted wasn't actually the lead singer, but was the drummer (who I didn't remember very well since I was so smitten by the lead singer). But regardless of the fact that he wasn't my first choice, the drummer and I kept talking, and we actually found out that we had a lot in common: we liked similar music, we had some friends in common, we had the same taste in movies, and we had a very similar sense of humor.
So the drummer, Tim, and I got to talking on AIM very often, up to a couple hours a day, and this went on for a few weeks I'd say (in the pre-facebook era), before we actually met face-to-face (FtF). After this initial meeting we started hanging out a lot and have actually been dating for almost 5 years since then. Our relationship first got started with our talking in a Computer-Mediated-Communication (CMC) setting, and since then we have had a lot of instances where our relationship has relied on various forms of mediated communication, simply because he is a year ahead of me in school, we go to different schools, and he studied abroad in Italy last semester, so there has been quite a bit of interacting via AIM, e-mail, facebook, and of course the telephone. While our entire relationship has at times relied on various forms of mediated communication, I feel that our initial CMC interactions are the most important to discuss because they really formed the basis of our relationship and functioned in a way that was more significant and interesting than mere necessity, and therefore the attraction and relationship facilitation factors were more important in these initial mediated encounters.
In reflecting on my particular experiences, I feel like all of Wallace's attraction factors played a major role in the early development of our relationship, and that these factors hit home with me more than McKenna's relationship facilitation factors, perhaps simply because our initial CMC interactions happened before we knew anything about each other, before we read or posted on blogs or had any form of website or online social networks. So while all of Wallace's attraction factors apply to my experiences, I will discuss the factors of proximity and disinhibition. According to Wallace, the idea of proximity means that in an online environment (as with FtF environments), familiarity breeds fondness, comfort, and attraction, but that since this can't mean physical proximity in online interactions, intersection frequency is what breeds familiarity, meaning that the more often you "intersect" with someone online, the more attracted you are to them because they become more familiar to you. The proximity factor had a large impact on my initial relationship with Tim because by that time in the AIM environment, Tim and I (and all of our friends) were chatting online for hours after school, and even when we weren't on chatting, we were still signed on with an away message, so that people could leave us messages. This allowed for us to intersect in an online environment quite frequently, allowed us to talk at a much higher frequency (for multiple hours per day) than would have been possible in a FtF environment, and so we became very familiar with each other very quickly and therefore became attracted to each other and comfortable with each other very quickly.
Second, the disinhibition effects of the online environment played a large role and went hand in hand with the proximity factor in the development of our relationship. According to Wallace, due to the anonymity of the online environment, we are less inhibited in our interactions, and self-disclosure becomes more important to us because of the reduced cues in the online setting. The Hyperpersonal processes also come into play here, as the portions of ourself that we choose to disclose to the other become intensified. This factor played an important role in the development of our relationship because due to the lack of other cues (such as nonverbal cues) that exist in FtF interactions, we were forced to self-disclose things about ourselves to each other online in order for the relationship to develop. While this did lead to an intensification of the information we received, it was not in a strictly negative Cues-Filtered-Out way, but rather in the Hyperpersonal sense that while initially there was a forced intensification due to the lack of cues, over time, the more we were forced to self-disclose, the more we learned about each other. This also interacted with the proximity factor, in that the more were intersected in the online environment, the more familiar and attracted we became to one another, and the less inhibited we were with self-disclosing information about ourselves, and the more we ended up learning about each other. So although some people have the view that the development of a relationship online would be less legitimate than a relationship that gets its start in FtF interactions, our initial CMC interactions really allowed us to get to know each other more intensely and at a faster pace because we were more forced to disclose information about ourselves (because that was the only way we could get to know each other), and also because we were able to intersect and therefore become familiar with each other and attracted to each other at a much faster pace than we would have been able to do in strictly FtF encounters.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/as-college-students-we-can-all-identify.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/51-this-blog-post-is-group-therapy.html
So the drummer, Tim, and I got to talking on AIM very often, up to a couple hours a day, and this went on for a few weeks I'd say (in the pre-facebook era), before we actually met face-to-face (FtF). After this initial meeting we started hanging out a lot and have actually been dating for almost 5 years since then. Our relationship first got started with our talking in a Computer-Mediated-Communication (CMC) setting, and since then we have had a lot of instances where our relationship has relied on various forms of mediated communication, simply because he is a year ahead of me in school, we go to different schools, and he studied abroad in Italy last semester, so there has been quite a bit of interacting via AIM, e-mail, facebook, and of course the telephone. While our entire relationship has at times relied on various forms of mediated communication, I feel that our initial CMC interactions are the most important to discuss because they really formed the basis of our relationship and functioned in a way that was more significant and interesting than mere necessity, and therefore the attraction and relationship facilitation factors were more important in these initial mediated encounters.
In reflecting on my particular experiences, I feel like all of Wallace's attraction factors played a major role in the early development of our relationship, and that these factors hit home with me more than McKenna's relationship facilitation factors, perhaps simply because our initial CMC interactions happened before we knew anything about each other, before we read or posted on blogs or had any form of website or online social networks. So while all of Wallace's attraction factors apply to my experiences, I will discuss the factors of proximity and disinhibition. According to Wallace, the idea of proximity means that in an online environment (as with FtF environments), familiarity breeds fondness, comfort, and attraction, but that since this can't mean physical proximity in online interactions, intersection frequency is what breeds familiarity, meaning that the more often you "intersect" with someone online, the more attracted you are to them because they become more familiar to you. The proximity factor had a large impact on my initial relationship with Tim because by that time in the AIM environment, Tim and I (and all of our friends) were chatting online for hours after school, and even when we weren't on chatting, we were still signed on with an away message, so that people could leave us messages. This allowed for us to intersect in an online environment quite frequently, allowed us to talk at a much higher frequency (for multiple hours per day) than would have been possible in a FtF environment, and so we became very familiar with each other very quickly and therefore became attracted to each other and comfortable with each other very quickly.
Second, the disinhibition effects of the online environment played a large role and went hand in hand with the proximity factor in the development of our relationship. According to Wallace, due to the anonymity of the online environment, we are less inhibited in our interactions, and self-disclosure becomes more important to us because of the reduced cues in the online setting. The Hyperpersonal processes also come into play here, as the portions of ourself that we choose to disclose to the other become intensified. This factor played an important role in the development of our relationship because due to the lack of other cues (such as nonverbal cues) that exist in FtF interactions, we were forced to self-disclose things about ourselves to each other online in order for the relationship to develop. While this did lead to an intensification of the information we received, it was not in a strictly negative Cues-Filtered-Out way, but rather in the Hyperpersonal sense that while initially there was a forced intensification due to the lack of cues, over time, the more we were forced to self-disclose, the more we learned about each other. This also interacted with the proximity factor, in that the more were intersected in the online environment, the more familiar and attracted we became to one another, and the less inhibited we were with self-disclosing information about ourselves, and the more we ended up learning about each other. So although some people have the view that the development of a relationship online would be less legitimate than a relationship that gets its start in FtF interactions, our initial CMC interactions really allowed us to get to know each other more intensely and at a faster pace because we were more forced to disclose information about ourselves (because that was the only way we could get to know each other), and also because we were able to intersect and therefore become familiar with each other and attracted to each other at a much faster pace than we would have been able to do in strictly FtF encounters.
Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/as-college-students-we-can-all-identify.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/51-this-blog-post-is-group-therapy.html
5. Keeping the Long Distance Relationships Alive Online
The Internet has allowed for a number of relationships to grow and prosper over time despite earlier beliefs argued by Cues Filtered Out (CFO) perspectives that argued that the Internet was a cold and cruel place. On the contrary, a great deal of research has supported the Hyperpersonal Model which argues that the Internet always for much more intense impressions and relationships to be formed through the Internet. There are a number of factors that help to form and maintain these relationships. McKenna argues that there are five main relationship facilitation factors online: identifiability, removal of gating features, interactional control, connecting to similar others, and getting the goods. I have seen these relationship facilitation factors at work in my own life in my long distance relationship.
I’ve been dating my girlfriend for almost 2 years now, which means that I started a long distance relationship during my freshman year here at Cornell. Because we’re about 4 hours apart and both extremely busy with both school and extracurricular activities we’ve had to rely heavily on cell phones and AIM for a vast majority of our communication. Although we always set times to meet up for a weekend the time can often be limited and our communication is for the most part mediated in some form. I feel that McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors are most clearly evident in our communication in AIM.
First, using AIM allows us each to have interactional control over our conversations. This means that we can select what we want to share with each other and potentially keep other things hidden. It allows us to choose our language carefully and word things in the right way to make sure that the correct message is being conveyed. We even have control over what form of media we choose to use for various conversations whether it’s the phone, AIM, or e-mail.
I’ve noticed interactional control in our relationship mostly through our selection of media; we tend to use AIM when there is something difficult to talk about because it allows us to think about what to say and allows us to be as clear as possible through our choice of words. For example, when my girlfriend first started college all of a sudden there were these pictures tagged of her on Facebook with other guys with their arms around her. I really didn’t know what to make of these pictures at first so I brought it up to her in AIM because I felt that I would have control over the situation and would be able to send her the links to the pictures I was talking about. Not wanting to seem like a crazy-jealous boyfriend I chose my words carefully and did my best to not sound accusatory. In the end I learned that the guys were actually her suitemate’s boyfriends and they were trying to make her feel better because she was sad that I wasn’t there that weekend when all of her friends had their boyfriends there.
I’ve also noticed McKenna’s relationship facilitator factor of connecting to similar others through our interactions online. Connecting to similar others goes along with the common ground principle argued by Wallace saying that it is easier to identify with people with similar interests. Connecting with similar others is also easy to identify with the mutual friends feature on Facebook.
Since we have been dating for almost two years Kristen and I have had a lot of time to self disclose to each other and learn a lot about each other over the past two years (and the year and a half we knew each other before we started dating). Although we differ in our political affiliation and a little bit in our musical taste, we’ve learned that we really do have a lot in common from our favorite TV shows, to movies and to more serious matters like what we want in a family in the future. We are also really involved in Circle K, a community service organization. This has allowed to us to see another side of each other as we perform community service throughout our hometowns and around New York. I’ve been able to see that we both interact with other people in a very similar way and that we are both rather altruistic just through our interactions in Circle K. And finally, we have 211 mutual friends on Facebook just adding to how we both connect with similar others.
Although it can be hard at times being in a long distance relationship the internet and cell phone have really made it possible to carry on a meaningful and serious relationship for a substantial amount of time. The relationship facilitator factors that McKenna has introduced really capture how individuals interact online and how the Internet does allow for meaningful relationships to form through multiple interactions.
My Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/51-friend-nobody-likes.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/5-option1-although-i-have-not-seen-him.html
I’ve been dating my girlfriend for almost 2 years now, which means that I started a long distance relationship during my freshman year here at Cornell. Because we’re about 4 hours apart and both extremely busy with both school and extracurricular activities we’ve had to rely heavily on cell phones and AIM for a vast majority of our communication. Although we always set times to meet up for a weekend the time can often be limited and our communication is for the most part mediated in some form. I feel that McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors are most clearly evident in our communication in AIM.
First, using AIM allows us each to have interactional control over our conversations. This means that we can select what we want to share with each other and potentially keep other things hidden. It allows us to choose our language carefully and word things in the right way to make sure that the correct message is being conveyed. We even have control over what form of media we choose to use for various conversations whether it’s the phone, AIM, or e-mail.
I’ve noticed interactional control in our relationship mostly through our selection of media; we tend to use AIM when there is something difficult to talk about because it allows us to think about what to say and allows us to be as clear as possible through our choice of words. For example, when my girlfriend first started college all of a sudden there were these pictures tagged of her on Facebook with other guys with their arms around her. I really didn’t know what to make of these pictures at first so I brought it up to her in AIM because I felt that I would have control over the situation and would be able to send her the links to the pictures I was talking about. Not wanting to seem like a crazy-jealous boyfriend I chose my words carefully and did my best to not sound accusatory. In the end I learned that the guys were actually her suitemate’s boyfriends and they were trying to make her feel better because she was sad that I wasn’t there that weekend when all of her friends had their boyfriends there.
I’ve also noticed McKenna’s relationship facilitator factor of connecting to similar others through our interactions online. Connecting to similar others goes along with the common ground principle argued by Wallace saying that it is easier to identify with people with similar interests. Connecting with similar others is also easy to identify with the mutual friends feature on Facebook.
Since we have been dating for almost two years Kristen and I have had a lot of time to self disclose to each other and learn a lot about each other over the past two years (and the year and a half we knew each other before we started dating). Although we differ in our political affiliation and a little bit in our musical taste, we’ve learned that we really do have a lot in common from our favorite TV shows, to movies and to more serious matters like what we want in a family in the future. We are also really involved in Circle K, a community service organization. This has allowed to us to see another side of each other as we perform community service throughout our hometowns and around New York. I’ve been able to see that we both interact with other people in a very similar way and that we are both rather altruistic just through our interactions in Circle K. And finally, we have 211 mutual friends on Facebook just adding to how we both connect with similar others.
Although it can be hard at times being in a long distance relationship the internet and cell phone have really made it possible to carry on a meaningful and serious relationship for a substantial amount of time. The relationship facilitator factors that McKenna has introduced really capture how individuals interact online and how the Internet does allow for meaningful relationships to form through multiple interactions.
My Comments:
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/51-friend-nobody-likes.html
http://comm245green.blogspot.com/2007/09/5-option1-although-i-have-not-seen-him.html
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-
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-
#5 option 2: Second Life taking over Real Life?
I found an article online about how the game Second Life is threatening a couple’s marriage. Ric Hoogerstraat (age 53) is married to Sue Hoogerstraat in real life. But in Second Life Ric, who controls the avatar Dutch Hoorenbeek (age 25), is married to the avatar Tenaj Jackalope-Hoorenbeek. Tenaj is controlled by Janet Spielman (age 38). Ric spends all of his spare time as Dutch, managing his virtual strip club and going on virtual motorcycle rides with Tenaj. Ric has never met Janet in person and they have no plans to do so in the future. They simply chat through instant message and interact through their avatars. Sue feels as if she has been widowed. Ric is barely aware of his actual physical surroundings, including his real wife Sue. Ric and Sue met a couple years earlier on an online chat room and eventually met and got married. They both connected on the fact that they were divorced and had two adult children (common ground). Sue’s children are pushing Sue to divorce Ric, but Sue is not ready to leave him yet.
This type of digital deception mainly involves identity based deception. Ric is really 58 years old, but he pretends to be 25 in Second Life. This type of deception is an assessment signal. Assessment signals are typically difficult to change, but the reduced cues online facilitates alteration of assessment signals. However, it is interesting to note that Ric did not commit complete identity based deception. For example, Ric changed his age and his first name, but Ric did not change his physical appearance much. Dutch looks like a younger version of Ric. Also, Ric changed his last name from Hoogerstraat to Hoorenbeek, which is not a drastic change. Similarly, Janet changed her name to Tenaj, which is Janet spelled backwards. Thus, although some identity based assessment signals were altered, drastic changes were not made. Deception was used to ensure anonymity, and not to deceive or manipulate. Conventional signals were also used by Ric who made his avatar wear leather jackets and ride a Harley in order to portray a young, hip guy. A major appeal to Second Life is that you have total control and are able to manipulate and engage in self-presentational tactics, since you are not FtF.
I don’t think that Second Life in this case was used to deceive or manipulate anyone. Rather, Ric and Janet have a very close relatively honest relationship. They are involved on a social and emotional level. When Ric needed real life surgery, Tenaj tried to make Dutch feel better. When something bad happens in Second Life, Ric will be upset; and when something positive occurs, he is happy in real life. Ric and Janet, along with their other avatar friends have developed a strong bond, even though their real names and ages are not known. Janet states that there is a “huge trust” between them and that they “tell each other everything.” Dutch and Tenaj met at the virtual mall, where Dutch has some business ventures. Thus, their proximity and the physical attraction between their avatars led them to form a relationship. Further, Dutch and Tenaj share a liking for dogs (common ground), which led to further attraction. They currently own three dogs together. Also, the anonymity of Second Life, no doubt leads to disinhibition effects which causes an increase in self-disclosure and an intensification of feelings.
article: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118670164592393622.html
comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=5362986580580629833
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=8892796185387529067
This type of digital deception mainly involves identity based deception. Ric is really 58 years old, but he pretends to be 25 in Second Life. This type of deception is an assessment signal. Assessment signals are typically difficult to change, but the reduced cues online facilitates alteration of assessment signals. However, it is interesting to note that Ric did not commit complete identity based deception. For example, Ric changed his age and his first name, but Ric did not change his physical appearance much. Dutch looks like a younger version of Ric. Also, Ric changed his last name from Hoogerstraat to Hoorenbeek, which is not a drastic change. Similarly, Janet changed her name to Tenaj, which is Janet spelled backwards. Thus, although some identity based assessment signals were altered, drastic changes were not made. Deception was used to ensure anonymity, and not to deceive or manipulate. Conventional signals were also used by Ric who made his avatar wear leather jackets and ride a Harley in order to portray a young, hip guy. A major appeal to Second Life is that you have total control and are able to manipulate and engage in self-presentational tactics, since you are not FtF.
I don’t think that Second Life in this case was used to deceive or manipulate anyone. Rather, Ric and Janet have a very close relatively honest relationship. They are involved on a social and emotional level. When Ric needed real life surgery, Tenaj tried to make Dutch feel better. When something bad happens in Second Life, Ric will be upset; and when something positive occurs, he is happy in real life. Ric and Janet, along with their other avatar friends have developed a strong bond, even though their real names and ages are not known. Janet states that there is a “huge trust” between them and that they “tell each other everything.” Dutch and Tenaj met at the virtual mall, where Dutch has some business ventures. Thus, their proximity and the physical attraction between their avatars led them to form a relationship. Further, Dutch and Tenaj share a liking for dogs (common ground), which led to further attraction. They currently own three dogs together. Also, the anonymity of Second Life, no doubt leads to disinhibition effects which causes an increase in self-disclosure and an intensification of feelings.
article: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118670164592393622.html
comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=5362986580580629833
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2015420513633824972&postID=8892796185387529067
5.2 Can money buy love?
There are baseball coaches. There are football coaches. And with the popularity of online dating, there are even online dating coaches. From perfecting your picture through professional photoshoots and photoshop, to providing a professional critique of a profile, online dating coaches do it all.
A NY times article from March 2007 describes the success story of Ms. Kost, who paid an online dating coach $2000 to help her in the online search for the perfect mate. In addition to changing her profile and picture, her coach encouranged her to tell more specific stories as well as to carefully screen potential dates thorugh e-mail and the phone. Ultimately, she found Stephen Micallef "who, like her, is an engineer. She immediately liked how he spoke of his daughters. 'I liked his values,' Ms. Kost said. 'He seemed emotionally mature and very open.'"
So what attracted Stephen to her profile? According to the article, Stephen was attracted to Ms. Kost because of her pictures and how well written and well thought out Ms. Kost's profile was.
(And in case you are wondering and don't have time to read the enitre article, they intend to get married).
This scenario highlights two key factors that influence the formation of a relationship. First, Stephen was initially attracted by how Ms. Kost looked, which highlights Wallace's factor of physical attraction. The more physically attractive one finds the other, the better chance for a relationship. The attraction between these two online daters occurred in the same direction as it would have in a face to face interaction- he saw her picture first and then contacted her.
It is extremely apparant by Ms. Kost's description that the common ground principle played a huge role in their relationship formation. According to Wallace, the more that people share beliefs, the more attracted to one another they will be. Ms. Kost and Stephen have the same values and even share the same profession.
Online deception played an equally important role in making this relationship happen. The author of an article in Scientific American eloquently observes that "One could even argue that deception is a necessary part of wooing a potential partner." Have you ever lied about really liking a tv show because someone you were interested in liked it too? The deception that takes place in Ms. Kost's situation is directly related to the asynchronicty of the online dating scenario. This coincides partly with the Social Distance theory of deception, which postulates that the more socially distant a medium the more a person will lie. For example, she was able to plan out her entire profile and picture with the help of a coach before posting it, which can be compared to the preparation that goes into an e-mail. While Ms. Kost didn't blatantly lie about anything as far as the article goes, she doesn't necessarily tell the whole truth, and the truth she does tell is not necessarily in her own words. How much of that profile was truly her own writing? How much did they photoshop her picture? What parts about herself did she choose to leave out? But in the end it doesn't matter, she still won her perfect guy.
Comment 1
Comment 2
A NY times article from March 2007 describes the success story of Ms. Kost, who paid an online dating coach $2000 to help her in the online search for the perfect mate. In addition to changing her profile and picture, her coach encouranged her to tell more specific stories as well as to carefully screen potential dates thorugh e-mail and the phone. Ultimately, she found Stephen Micallef "who, like her, is an engineer. She immediately liked how he spoke of his daughters. 'I liked his values,' Ms. Kost said. 'He seemed emotionally mature and very open.'"
So what attracted Stephen to her profile? According to the article, Stephen was attracted to Ms. Kost because of her pictures and how well written and well thought out Ms. Kost's profile was.
(And in case you are wondering and don't have time to read the enitre article, they intend to get married).
This scenario highlights two key factors that influence the formation of a relationship. First, Stephen was initially attracted by how Ms. Kost looked, which highlights Wallace's factor of physical attraction. The more physically attractive one finds the other, the better chance for a relationship. The attraction between these two online daters occurred in the same direction as it would have in a face to face interaction- he saw her picture first and then contacted her.
It is extremely apparant by Ms. Kost's description that the common ground principle played a huge role in their relationship formation. According to Wallace, the more that people share beliefs, the more attracted to one another they will be. Ms. Kost and Stephen have the same values and even share the same profession.
Online deception played an equally important role in making this relationship happen. The author of an article in Scientific American eloquently observes that "One could even argue that deception is a necessary part of wooing a potential partner." Have you ever lied about really liking a tv show because someone you were interested in liked it too? The deception that takes place in Ms. Kost's situation is directly related to the asynchronicty of the online dating scenario. This coincides partly with the Social Distance theory of deception, which postulates that the more socially distant a medium the more a person will lie. For example, she was able to plan out her entire profile and picture with the help of a coach before posting it, which can be compared to the preparation that goes into an e-mail. While Ms. Kost didn't blatantly lie about anything as far as the article goes, she doesn't necessarily tell the whole truth, and the truth she does tell is not necessarily in her own words. How much of that profile was truly her own writing? How much did they photoshop her picture? What parts about herself did she choose to leave out? But in the end it doesn't matter, she still won her perfect guy.
Comment 1
Comment 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)