I entered a random aim chatroom that consisted of a few other people, but only one of them was actively responding. The other people would occasionally respond, but were preoccupied with other synchronous chatrooms and activities. Random users were constantly entering and giving their ASL along with a “wanna chat?” or a “check out my pics!” followed by their website. However, most of them quickly left the chatroom as they saw there was not much conversation happening. The people in the chatroom seemed to already know each other and were in the midst their own conversation, so it was difficult for me to get any chatting in. Thus, I was forced to take the initiative to make my presence known so that people would address me. I began by asking questions to get myself up to speed on not only what they were talking about, but also to get a feel of the personalities and who I would probably be speaking with the most. Most of my initial impression formations came from their screen names, which I later verified if they were as their screen name described. For example, one user had “military” in his name and another had “azn”, so I assumed and later confirmed that one was from the military and the other was Asian. After they responded to my questions, they began asking me questions. Since they had disclosed information about themselves; in return, they expected the same from me. After this mutual exchange of personal information, chatting came naturally.
One person appeared to be the “leader” of the chatroom and was the one I conversed with mostly. He showed traits of extraversion and openness, while the less talkative people responded in a manner that did not affect the conversation much. Either they were preoccupied or they were more conscientious so they would reply with a general agreeable response.
My experience most closely reflected the CFO perspective in that from my point of view and the other party’s, our lack of cues in the CMC led to undeveloped impressions. Thus, we did not show much of our personality, which is the main reason why most of the people that entered the chatroom, left so quickly. The interpersonal probes, in this case, only consisted of age and occupation (username usually gave away gender), did not occur until much later when it was apparent that I was staying in the chatroom. In the beginning, I felt hostility from the rest of the group because they were already conversing amongst themselves and did not respond to any of my greetings. Due to the reduced social context cues they first received from me, they excluded me from the conversations, leading me to form a negative impression of the group. Over time, as the group began conversing with me more, my overall impression lightened and I saw the group as warm and friendly.
1 comment:
Hey Sara,
I liked your post. I also went to a chat room and saw it from a CFO perspective. Your situation was very similar to mine in that I was initially ignored until I forced someone to read what I typed and respond to my messages. I also spent much time focusing on things like the screen names that the people used and emotion icons to form my initial impression which I later decided weren’t enough to conclude that I actually knew anything about the people with which I chatted. When I think of your experience and mine I think it comes down to how meticulous one is when they make an opinion about another person. For some it is hard to conclude that they have a strong bond with another person with an unsure conversation with no physical cues to help them. For others, it is easier to form an opinion based on factors that must be relied on in the absence of physical contact.
Post a Comment