Now a days, a person is considered extremely outdated if they do not use AIM , MSN, or any type of instant messaging system. The social norm or standard that has developed in these instant messaging systems are fillers such as “haha”, ‘LoL”, and “hehe”. All of us have used these numerous times when conversing through instant messages. And many of us probably have asked ourselves, “Why am I typing this in when I’m not actually laughing?” It has become such a convention that people automatically type in one of those “filler” responses in their instant message conversations.
How did this norm come about? It probably came about to fill awkward pauses in conversation. Because communication through computers is limited in terms of knowing the other person’s reactions, there had to be some sort of filler to show that a person was being receptive and essentially, at the other end. New comers probably pick up on this convention quickly because there would be awkward pauses in the conversation otherwise as well as the other, more experienced instant message user at the other end asking if the person was there or even asking if they got the message.
The Leviathan, which is the power that enforces our adherence to society’s norms and standards (in our case the fillers of haha, hehe, and LoL) in this case enforces the use of fillers by the potential shunning or ban from talking to a certain instant message user. In many cases, the person not using the fillers would be perceived as rude, unreceptive, and boring. If fillers are not being used, it could seem like the person is not interested, not there, or just has no manners by acknowledging the other’s comments. As a result, the next time the user in on instant messaging, those who were not conforming to the norms and using fillers, probably will not get an instant messages and most likely if they message other first, the other people will be unresponsive.
The use of instant messaging is obviously a leaner channel than FtF and therefore has fewer cues. As a result, people focus on the cues that are able to be seen, as we discussed in class, a reallocation of cognitive resources under the Hyperpersonal model. The reallocation of cognitive resources is all the resources seen in physical presence can be directed to one thing in CMC (e.g. instant messaging). Because our minds do this automatically, we tend to focus on the responses of the person we’re talking to on instant messaging very closely. If they use such fillers as we discussed before, then that shows that the person is being personable and responsive and therefore must be interested in the conversation. On the other hand, if they do not use the fillers, we generalize that the person is uninterested because of their lack of responsiveness.
COMMENTS:
http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/09/6-option-1-calorie-count-leviathan.html
http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-chinese-leviathan-is-great-wall.html
2 comments:
Grace,
That is a great observation of the reallocation of cues in CMC. I like how you related the Hyperpersonal Model to how the social norm came about. It’s interesting to see the changes made to cues when going from a rich media to a lean one. I didn’t even realize that I too use “haha” fillers all the time, even when I’m not amused by what the other person is saying. Out of courtesy, we need some kind of cue to let the other party know that we are actively receiving their texts and to give us time to think of a response. I admit, sometimes I get impatient when people are delayed in their responses because I think they are too busy to talk, when in reality, they could just be thinking of a reply.
Hi Grace, very interesting post. I believe that your analysis of the online Leviathan is closest to the social Leviathan that Thomas Hobbes theorized about. There is no one watching over our IM conversations (at least I hope) to allow or disallow certain actions in our communication. As you appropriately state, the Leviathan is imposed by ourselves, being “our adherence to society’s norms and standards”.
I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that you mentioned three different forms of online laughter –haha, hehe, and lol—I find that we are often so strict to follow our standards that some IM users pass judgment on each other based on the type of laugh. A certain online forum that I follow seems to reserve “lol” solely for ironic situations. Well, in such a lean channel, I guess this could possibly count as being close to non-verbal cues. I really liked the thorough analysis in your post—you really covered many psychological aspects of online laughter.
Post a Comment