I met my high school boyfriend at a mutual friend’s house. We were introduced briefly, but that was the end of our interaction that night. Based on that quick encounter I decided I thought he was cute and definitely physically “my type”. I decided he was someone I wanted to get to know a little bit more based on that physical attractiveness. Therefore, Wallace’s factor of physical attractiveness does not apply in my case; the order of attraction was not reversed, the “getting to know” online did not happen before we could establish a physical attraction.
After that first meeting he must have felt that I was physically attractive as well, as he got my AIM screen name from our mutual friend and we began talking online. I was very happy that we were talking on instant messenger because I was extremely nervous about our conversations. I was visibly on edge and awkward and I would obsess about exactly how I was responding to what he said. McKenna’s factor of interactional control was key to my looking semi socially capable in that situation until I gained the confidence and comfort talking to him that I wouldn’t need to fall back on the computer screen as a shield. I was able to control how he saw me, not including the incessant blushing, and I was able to have more time to craft my responses so that they would be witty and worded perfectly for the first little while. Also, I was able to control how long we talked and how often, because using instant messenger it was much easier to make smooth exits and, unlike with the phone, he wasn’t able to start a conversation unless I chose to be online. This removed the gate feature, another of McKenna’s factors, of my shyness and anxiety talking to him and later I found out that he was even more shy than I was and also was grateful for the time getting to know to each other online. We both were able to look more attractive because the text based conversations allowed for the removal of our anxiety and shyness which may have made our initial conversations feel awkward and been a “deal-breaker”. We were also able to establish Wallace’s factor of common ground. Finding out that we shared the same taste in music and had the same favorite band, for example, increased our attraction and led to our first date, a concert where they would be performing.
As we got closer we used aim less and less in favor of the phone or face to face interactions, but the first stages of our relationship were greatly helped by the leaner medium and the interactional control and removal of gate features.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The description and analysis of your initially computer mediated relationship with your high school boyfriend is a good example of the influence of McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors. You accurately described how both interactional control and the removal of gating features enhanced your relationship. Over AIM, you were able to selectively self-present yourself by choosing appropriate wording to sound “cool.” You were also able to move passed your gated features of shyness by communicating online. In addition to these two examples of McKenna’s factors, you mention Wallace’s common ground factor of attraction. I just wanted to point out that the common ground principle is essentially comparable to McKenna’s “connecting with similar others.” The similar interest in music that you found between you and your boyfriend can thus be accounted for by both McKenna and Wallace. In regards to McKenna’s relationship formation predictions, he says that relationships are anticipated by the ability to express one’s real self and the tendency to self-disclose. You did not mention if there was increased self-disclosure during your AIM conversations with your boyfriend. I am therefore interested in knowing if you believe self-disclosure not only occurred but also affected your relationship development as well.
I found it interesting to read your evaluation of your high school relationship. I agree completely that McKenna’s factor of interactional control is a key point early on in a relationship. It’s good that communicating through a leaner medium, with no non-verbal cues, allows you to develop confidence over time so that FtF interactions become more preferable. I’m glad that you found someone you were physically attracted to, and then went on to learn that more elements of attraction applied as well. Getting to know each other over AIM was probably a good thing, since it allowed for selective self-presentation on both ends. I’m also interested in whether or not the amount of self-disclosure between you two was higher or lower during the beginning of the relationship while still conversing mainly over AIM. I wonder if this form of getting to know one another also allowed for a positive hyper-personal view of each other. Finding out you both had the same favorite band helped the relationship move on to a FtF situation through that common ground, but did you feel like you learned more or less about him through the CMC than the FtF encounters?
Hi, Colleen, I could definitely relate to your post. My last boyfriend and I met pretty much the same way, and the early stages of our relationship also progressed in much the same way. I was also grateful for interactional control so he could not see how nervous I was. The common ground factor also gave us a lot to talk about at first, before we self-disclosed anything too personal. It also made it more comfortable to meet on our fist date. Overall, I thought you did a really good job at relating aspects of your relationship to McKenna’s Relationship Facilitation Factors.
Post a Comment