The only relationship that I personally know of that began online and then eventually met in person (i.e., the relationship left virtuality) is that of my cousin and her husband. My cousin and her husband first communicated online through JDate. JDate is the most popular online Jewish dating community, and to join JDate, all one has to do is post a profile. Once one has a profile, one has the ability to share photos, email, chat, and IM with thousands of single Jews. After communicated through JDate for a week, my cousin and her future husband left the virtual world and met in real life. A year and a half later, they got married and have been married for two years.
In comparing my cousin’s and her husband’s relationship to theories we have studied in class, we find that this relationship is inconsistent with some theories and inconsistent with others. For example, their relationship is inconsistent with the Hyperpersonal Theory. There are five distinct parts of the Hyperpersonal Theory: over-attribution process, developmental aspect, selective self-presentation, re-allocation of cognitive resources, and behavioral confirmation. After an initial interaction, there is a reduction in the breadth (rate a CMC partner on fewer characteristics), but there is an increase in intensity (more intense/exaggerated ratings of the CMC partner). We can more directly see how the Hyperpersonal Theory is inconsistent with my cousin’s and her husband’s relationship. For example, the hyperpersonal model predicts negative outcomes for leaving virtuality (for my cousin this is untrue). The Hyperpersonal Theory states that CMC factors lead to inflated perceptions of partners (over-attribution). Also, the hyperpersonal model state that since one is online, the only information of the other person is what that person chooses to tell the other person, which are only positive traits (selective self-presentation). Connecting the above statements, one over-attributes the only (good) characteristics one knows of the other person. When the two people meet in real life, both parties are disappointed at what the other person is really like. In conclusion, this is a negative outcome. My cousin’s and her husband’s relationship is completely inconsistent with the Hyperpersonal Theory because neither were disappointed when they met in real life and eventually married.
Modality switch, or a shift from online communication to FtF interaction, reveals in some instances relationship-enhancing and in other instances relationship-dampening. In my cousin’s relationship, the modality switch lead to a relationship-enhancing situation.
Ramirez and Wang make the hypothesis: modality switch following a long-term association via CMC will provide social information that will be (a) evaluated more negatively and (b) uncertainty-provoking relative to interaction via CMC. Ramirez and Wang also make the hypothesis: modality switch following a short-term association via CMC will provide social information that will be (a) evaluated more positively and (b) uncertainty-reducing than interaction via CMC. These hypotheses held true when tested. These hypotheses also held true in my cousin’s and her husband’s relationship. They only communicated online for a week before they actually met. Their short-term association via CMC led to a modality switch that was relationship-enhancing.
1 comment:
Mallory—I think you made some great points showing how your cousin and her husband’s modality switch failed to support the Hyperpersonal Model. Since your cousin ended up marrying the man she interacted with online, their modality switch clearly didn’t result in disappointment or a negative outcome. However, I wonder if the intensification loop could have still played some role in their relationship, leading to a more positive outcome when they met face-to-face. Although the more common outcome consistent with the Hyperpersonal Model is that individuals will be disappointed if they had a positive impression of one another online, I wonder if your cousin’s experience may have been extremely positive partially because her face-to-face interaction led to improvements of any negative impressions she may have formed. It would be interesting to find out if there were any little things (misinterpreting online comments with lack of nonverbal cues, etc.) that could have led her to form any exaggerated negative impressions of her future husband that was cleared up after meeting face-to-face. Good job!
Post a Comment