Throughout the movie there doesn’t seem to be much online deception occurring. Although neither character shared that they had a significant other in their “offline life,” since they had decided not to share personal details neither of them intentionally tried to create a false belief in one another regarding this issue. The fact that Joe and Kathleen didn’t seem to lie in their e-mails supports the Media Richness Theory. This theory states that as richness decreases, the amount of deception would decrease since individuals will choose to use a richer medium for deceptive communication.
Wallace’s (1999) attraction factors which consist of physical attraction, proximity, common ground, and disinhibition effects can be used to analyze the success of the online relationship described in this movie. The common ground factor mentions that individuals are attracted to those whom they share beliefs or attitudes with. Therefore, it makes sense that Kathleen and Joe began e-mailing regularly after realizing that they both loved books, music, and New York (interests that aligned them on a categorical basis). The Law of Attraction mentions that the greater the proportion of these mutual beliefs and attitudes, the greater the attraction. In CMC, individuals frequently know less about each other than they would if they were speaking FtF. Therefore, these three similarities which they found represented a large proportion of likeness, leading them to believe they are very similar.
The proximity factor emphasizes that the more familiar individuals are with one another, the more attracted to each other they may be. Online, familiarity is based on intersection frequency or how often individuals come across one another on the Internet. In this particular situation, since the characters were both using AOL and checked their e-mail frequently, they could keep in contact easily by simply replying to one another’s e-mail.
Wallace targets physical attractiveness as possibly the most important variable for relationships and interpersonal attraction. While in FtF, people first are attracted to another by physical appearance and then proceed to get to know them, in CMC individuals get to know each other first and then eventually may judge one’s physical attractiveness when a face-to-face meeting comes up. While waiting to meet Kathleen for the first time face to face, Joe exemplified this point by revealing to his friend: "this woman is the most adorable creature I've ever been in contact with, if she turns out even to be as good looking as a mailbox, I'd be crazy not to turn my life around and marry her." This quote clearly portrays the idea that he is already completely attracted to Kathleen and her appearance is not of high priority at all anymore.
Lastly, disinhibition effects relate to the intensification loop which is found in the hyperpersonal model. As the relationship between Kathleen and Joe developed and more e-mails were written to one another, there was increased self-disclosure. Both characters moved from sharing random thoughts and experiences (e.g. seeing a butterfly in the subway) to sharing deep feelings (e.g. Kathleen deeply missing her deceased mother). As more information was disclosed by one, the other would disclose more information as well, leading to a greater sense of openness.
Comments:
http://comm245red.blogspot.com/2007/09/assignment-5-my-cornell-friend-before.html
2 comments:
Alyssa, I’m not sure if this is what you meant in your discussion of proximity, but I think it is hard to relate intersection frequency to this situation. While their contact with each other was frequent, it was purposeful and direct; they didn’t merely run into each other in various online spaces. Therefore, I don’t think intersection frequency applies here. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said. I like how you brought up the ratio of what we know about a person to what we have in common. The fact that these people did not share so much information helped them feel that they had a lot in common. An interesting point that you bring up is the fact that they agreed not to share personal details. It’s certainly hard to measure deception and/or interactional control when both parties agree not to share certain things. Your example is perfect: they both neglected to tell the other they had a significant other. This was not deception, however, because they agreed not to give this type of information. You raise a good point.
Hi Alyssa, excellent post! I never knew so much appropriate analysis could be shed upon a Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan romantic-comedy. It really is interesting to see that each one of Wallace’s attraction factors works perfectly in the movie’s plot development. What really interests me is that it could be that the film’s writers studied the process of development of online relationships, and adapted the screenplay appropriately. But I really wonder how many social psychologists Warner Bros. Pictures employed to ensure accuracy in the movie? Probably not many.
With regards to your intersection frequency analysis, I’m not too sure if it’s incorrect. On page 140 of Wallace, she states how people can control intersection frequency in using buddy lists, so therefore, it seems that intersection frequency can be voluntary, purposeful, and direct—but I am not confident. Overall, even though this is a fictional situation, this is a great idea for a post.
Post a Comment