A 11, My Newest Coolest Friend!

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

11 My Sister: A Guinea Pig For Wallace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11: lvl 8 ogre mage seeks moon queen or druid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11.Where should I go in Thanksgiving?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Ramirez and Wang’s article, their hypothesis 3 stated “MS following a long-term association via CMC will provide social information that will be (a) evaluated more negatively and (b) uncertainty provoking relative to interacting via CMC” (12). This hypothesis was proven true in their study and is also proven true in my situation as described above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

A11: I'd rather not meet...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#11 Uncertainty and Expectation

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

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

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

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

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

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

11.0: Roommate from hell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assignment 11 - a fresh look at CMC

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

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

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

11.Do not leave virtuality...

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

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

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

11- Getting hitched in virtuality

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Me and Bill

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

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

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

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



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

The First Cornell Student I Ever Met

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

11. How Could I Be So Wrong?

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

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

1. The over-attribution process

2. Developmental Aspect

3. Selective Self-Presentation

4. Re-allocation of cognitive resources

5. Behavioral Confirmation

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

A11 :: Heidi Exits the Aircraft, Becomes Don

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

#11: Being yourself pays off

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


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

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