For awhile, I had been synchronously chatting on msn with a friend from Texas. We were acquaintances from mutual friends, but never talked face to face so our friendship has developed solely over the internet. From chatting on a regular basis, we became “close” friends and grew comfortable enough to use a web cam. This was the ideal rich channel for us since we had a distance barrier. Granted it was not entirely videoconferencing since my microphone did not work, so our cues were primarily visual and partly audible (from his computer). Now that we were actually able to see each other react to the messaging, I became more aware of what I was saying and how I reacted to the conversation. However, the combination of our closeness and chatting/web camming caused him to admit that he developed feelings for me which I did not reciprocate. I was in complete shock because I did not understand how feelings could arise from communicating only on the internet. After this, things became extremely awkward and I almost instantly stopped using the web cam with him. Due to this series of events, along with workload, our messaging became less frequent so he began emailing me, in which I reluctantly, but cautiously, responded.
According to the O’Sullivan model, this scenario occurred in the self locus and dealt with both positive and negative valences. In the beginning, when we started becoming better friends, we were in the positive valence and used rich channels (videoconferencing) to communicate. As described in the Media Richness Theory, during this time of web camming, it was more efficient for us to use a rich media because we spoke frequently and for long periods. However, once I had confessed to him that I saw our relationship as purely friendship, our communication media downgraded to emailing (lean channel). Just as in the O’Sullivan model, I definitely felt emailing was a more suitable media because I became overly cautious in my replies to ensure that I was not giving him a wrong impression. Not only did it allow me buffer time to come up with response from his accusations, but it also put me in control of the direction of the conversation. This overall experience closely reflected the O’Sullivan model because of the dealings with the self.
4 comments:
Sara,
I definitely see where you're coming from on this situation. I also do not completely understand how certain people develop certain feelings for others through pure communication over the internet. At the same time, I sometimes believe it could be a better thing because if they developed these feelings from mostly conversing, maybe it is more meaningful than meeting someone at a bar or club. In a sense, it makes the people less superficial and maybe could lead to more meaningful relationships.
From what you shared about your experience, I feel like the guy used the over-attribution process through your relationship. I'm guessing he liked some of your characteristics you portrayed (or he thought you portrayed) through chatting and later on through web camming and amplified them into what he finds attractive.
It is also interesting and a good move on your part to switch to a leaner media channel to distance yourself from him. I thought you handled the situation well and brought up great points from the O'Sullivan Model.
This is pretty interesting. It seems like your purpose (task) all along was to maintain a friendship with this person, but your means of communication changed. I think this would hint that the purpose was equally equivocal before and after his confession. Yet, you still choose to move from a richer media to a leaner media. This seems to go against media richness theory, which says more equivocal tasks leans toward richer media use. I think your post highlighted the main difference between media richness and O'Sullivan. Media richness only considers one dimension for the purpose of communication. As you've demonstrated, there are additional considerations when choosing your medium.
Hi Sara! Very good post, with some very interesting aspects of human interaction brought up. What was most interesting to me was your acknowledgement of how switching from a leaner medium (messaging) to a richer medium (video chat) led you to become much more aware of not only how you interacted, but how you reacted. One of the most fascinating parts of social psychology, for me anyway, is how unaware most people are of how much mental processing time is devoted to monitoring ourselves and our reactions in social settings. I think one reason media such as instant messaging and text messaging have caught on is because their leaner nature relieves us from the cognitive strain of self-monitoring, especially in terms of body language. How often do we type “haha” or “lol” (meaning Laughing Out Loud) in a conversation when all we are actually doing is smiling? Add to this the additional benefit of a time lag, even if it is considered synchronous, that allows us to plan out what we will say next more carefully, instead of having to stay constantly involved in the conversation. I think your experience of the effect by actually switching media with an acquaintance makes your post original and interesting to read. Nice work!
Hi Sara. Your blog was very interesting to read. I have the exact same questions as you do as to how someone can develop feelings for another person over the Internet. I find it so interesting how the different stages in your relationship required different forms of media. I am not sure as to whether your use of these different forms during the relationship follow more closely O’Sullivan’s model or the Media Richness Theory. However, your choice of media seems to mirror actions that one would use in a similar situation during face-to-face contact. For example, when a friend likes you and you do not feel the same way, you avoid that friend by not sitting next to her/him at the lunch table. I find that so similar to your use of email rather than web cam when he confessed his feelings for you and you did not reciprocate.
Post a Comment