Antisocial Behavior

I’ve always wondered if online addiction was a real disorder. The text in TLT made online compulsion and addiction seem less threatening than it is commonly believed to be, as it stated, “like cyberporn, the whole idea about ‘internet addition’ has been something of a moral panic.” The text also pointed out how the concept of Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) actually started as a joke by psychiatrist Ivan Goldberg in 1995. Since then, the idea of online addition as a disorder spread as parents became more watchful of the time and activities their children spent online and the emergence of ‘cyberwidows’—women whose husbands became absent due to their addiction to the internet. Joseph Walther and Larry Reid’s excerpt in the text also pokes fun at the concept of online addiction, as they compare internet addiction to their made-up disorder, acadaholism, a disease where one is addicted to academe. The text concludes the topic on online addiction with this: “If you call the internet addicting, then you have to call all powerful, evocative experience addicting.” TLT also takes a supporting stance on the internet for antisocial behavior. The text states how the internet can be “socially liberating” and the “Prozac of social communication.” I find it interesting and even a bit amusing how TLT is so one-sided and supportive of the internet, as the unit concludes with a positive description of the internet—“A great deal of what we do online today is productive, useful, and healthy.”

The online articles on Megan Meier, however, contrast dramatically with their perception of the internet. To summarize the story of Megan Meier, Megan’s friend’s mother created a Myspace account as an eighteen year old boy to first befriend, then bully the emotionally unstable Megan Meier. The constant bullying eventually caused Megan to commit suicide, and when word of this event got spread into the internet through Sarah Wells, a blogger, a cybermob outraged against the mother, whose name was Drew, ensued. This story is an extreme case of how the internet can be harmful, both for people like Megan who are socially dependant to it, and to people like Drew who eventually needed police protection from angry mobs that were spurred up by Sarah Well’s blog post. Though the internet can be “liberating,” “useful,” and “healthy,” the story of Megan Meier also shows how the internet can be harmful and destructive as well.


Discussion Questions

1. Did you think TLT’s stance on internet addiction was biased and too favorable of the internet? What is your take on internet addiction—do you think it is a real disorder?

2. In your opinion, do you think the internet is a cause to antisocial behavior or a remedy for it?

3.In connection to the last post on social cues and avatars, in what instance in the Megan Meier story do you recognize reduced social cues, avatars, or group dynamics in CMC?

Reduced Social Cues (RSC) and Avatars

In one of our class discussions, I made a comment on how I sometimes find CMC more difficult than F2F communication due to the lack of social cues in a computer mediated conversation. I pointed out that my inability to see the person’s expression, physical movement/gestures, and hear their tone of voice would make it more difficult for me to determine the intent and the direction of the conversation. The text in TLT addressed this issue of how the absence of social cues can negatively effect computer mediation as they referred to it as the Reduced Social Cues (RSC) model. According to the text, the RSC model supports the idea that the absence of social cues causes communication between two people to become “difficult to manage…less fluid…and altogether more effortful” (p.61). In addition to that, the lack of social cues can also increase aggressive online interaction—or flaming—in online conversations. Without social cues, the text states that people are likely to be less self conscious and concerned about other people’s judgment, or disinhibition, due their physical distance or anonymity. A common example of disinhibition would be an out-of-the-ordinary comment on one’s social networking profile by someone who would never make that comment to that person face to face, or an instant message conversation with someone one would not commonly converse with. But often it is this “freedom from responsibility” and what others think of you that cause inflammatory remarks and spur aggressive and harmful interaction. Some examples of this are abandoned cybersex, the disclosure of personal and private information to strangers, and unrestrained aggressive and inappropriate remarks. Reduced social cues can disrupt computer mediated interaction due to misinterpretation and uncontrolled disinhibition, which can lead to flammatory interactions.

The article on The Proteus Effect also discusses social cues, but instead of discussing the effects of their absence, the article explains how the presence of individual cues such as avatars can influence one’s behavior and sense of identity. Unlike the SIDE model which emphasizes the effect of the group/social influence in the development of identity, as stated in the text in TLT, the Proteus Effect focuses more on how the identity is influenced by individual identity cues such as avatars. I particularly found the Proteus Effect interesting, as the article described how individual cues such as an attractive avatar versus an unattractive one influenced people’s behavior and sense of identity. In their study, participants with attractive avatars disclosed more information about them and stood at a closer distance with the confederate. The participants with unattractive avatars, in contrast, disclosed less information and stood at a greater distance away from the confederate. The effect of individual cues in the Proteus Effect reveals how appearance can greatly influence behavior, identity development and relationships. It seems to me that social cues lacking in CMC and the individual cues seen in the Proteus Effect are both important, as they are great influential factors in the development of behavior and identity.


Discussion Questions

1. Has the lack of social cues in a computer mediated conversation ever been a problem for you? Though the text did not give any examples, how do you think the negative effects of reduced social cues can be avoided in CMC?
2. What are some of the similarities between the avatars in the Proteus Effect and online dating sites?
3. Do you think that one’s avatar identity can ultimately influence his/her identity outside of the virtual environment? Or do you think two separate behaviors will emerge?

Plagiarism in online personal profiles

A friend of mine once had her entire website (blog) design lifted by someone else. Sometimes students get in trouble for careless copy-and-pasting into a research paper. I'm not sure where plagiarism of online personal ads fits into this, but it's certainly a sign of our digital times. From the Wall Street Journal article:

Original souls who discover they have been replicated say it's unethical and creepy. "I came across a guy who completely STOLE my profile message," posts one woman in Michigan. "I mean he had to have copied and pasted the whole thing and then just changed gender specific things to fit his own!!"

Creepy but also somewhat humorous, I'd say. Of course, I did marry someone who borrowed an ad.

Romantic Relationships

Online dating sites have been recieving plenty of attention these days, Chances are, you have looked into it yourself. We hear that in these sites, especially from Dr. Phil, lie a lot of potential for finding that "special" someone. But what is it that people are actually looking for? What does it take fror someone to initiate conversation? This is what Hitsch, Hortacsu, and Ariely report in their article, "What Makes You Click: An Empirical Analysis of Online Dating." They conducted a three month anaylsis of people searching for hetersexual relationships in San Diego and Boston through a popular internet sating site in 2003. First, they hired college students to assign physical attractiveness to profile pictures. For profiles without pictures, they determined physical attractiveness through profile information like height, weight, etc.They were also able to tally how many times a profile or photo was visited. Here are some interesting findings:

-Attractive men and women are much more selective about who they will date.
-The median man (in terms of attractiveness) can expect to hear back from a median woman with a 40% chance, while the median woman can expect a reply with a 70% chance.
-People with college degrees are 35% more likely to recieve first contact messages.
-Women prefer the same ethnicity much more than men.
-Men have a significant distaste from women poorer than them, women have a significant distaste from men richer than them.
-Women have a strong preference from a man with equivalent education.
-39% of users state that they are looking for a "serious relationship"

Another article, posted in the New York Times titled, "Love in the Time of No Love," shed light on the less commital internet dating websites.

The article gave us some pretty practicl reasons on why people are turning to online dating. People are marrying later these days, leaving less potential for finding their soul mate in highschool or college. And how about the work place? Well, sexual harrasment issues make things too complicated now. More especially, people turn to online dating because of "the comfort of facts." This way, we don't have to ponder like we do in FTF communication about whether a man/woman fits our criteria when it comes to income, politics, etc. The only risk here, is meeting up with that paper perfect someone and seeing that they don't exactly look like the dream guy/lady in the photos- which is what most online daters say they have atleast one anecdote of.

Maybe that's one of the reasons internet dating is becoming more casual. Now, ther are sites for casual sex dates. People are using online dating sites to avoid commitment too. Hey, if there are sites like Match and EHarmony to find your soulmate, then why not a site to hook you up with some lusty fun?

Here are some questions for discussion:
1) Would you ever consider trying out a dating site like Match or EHarmony? From reading the first article, what outlook did it give you on internet dating sites ? Did you find more or less faith in them?

2) The second article is an easy read that takes into the life of a man that does more than just his share of casual internet dating. Based on his testimonial, and the information gathered in article one, what pros and cons do you see in internet dating?

3) What do you think lie in the future for internet dating sites?

4) any other comments?..

Identity On and Offline

Since Kassandra covered the Boyd and Heer Friendster study, I'll go ahead and highlight some topics that the book went over that will help us understand how people create identities in both offline and online environments.
Identity acts as a sort of symbolic marker in a two-fold sort of way. First- our identity is how we want to be seen by others and second-our identity is how others actually see us. While scholars have traditionally described identity to be a fixed part of our nature, more modern arguments tend to define identity as an ongoing process, fluid and flexible. This description of identity has become particularly relevant upon the advent of the internet and CMC. Where identity had been previously defined by physical appearance (race, class, religion), in an virtual online community, these traits are made invisible, thereby avoiding any sort of social hierarchies that dominant ideologies have constructed. With the construction of online identies, people are able to choose different symbolic markers to represent who you are. For example, simply from reading a person's Facebook profile (hometown, political views, favorite things, etc.) we can get a pretty goo idea of what type of person they are (or so we think). When constructing such an online profile, we are able to choose various symbolic markers (ie. pictures, quotes, favorites) to piece together a representation of ourselves. Daniel Chandler refers to this process as bricolage.
Sherry Turkle suggests that online identities are a sort of "second-self"-- a self that is anonymous and disembodied. Because of this anonymity and disembodiment, people are able to have further control over how they wish to be seen online and offers more room for identity play, or acting as something you are not.
In conclusion, it has become evident that identity can no longer be described as a fixed and an inherent part of our nature, especially within CMC. Identity in all forms is a performance that we create as a way of offering others a way to view us.
With this in mind, here are some possible discussion questions:

1. Do you consider online identities real? What are the factors that constitute a "real" identity. How has CMC challenged the traditional definitions of identity?
2. Is online identity more controllable than offline identity? If so, in what ways? What are some positive and negative aspects of controlling identity in an online environment?

Friendster and the problems that arose

(Post by Kassandra, who due to technical difficulties, is unable to post to the blog)

FRIENDSTER and the problems that arose.

The first reading discussed the ways in which Friendster enabled interaction between other individuals. It briefly discussed FtF communication and came to the conclusion that FfF could create more appropriate contexts to communicate. It expressed ideas similar to that of previous class readings. Communication through Friendster seemed difficult to evaluate because it challenged the forms of traditional communication.

Firstly, they argue that CMC does not provide an identifiable audience; as sometimes individuals will write on blogs and there is no way of knowing who, if anyone will attend to these blogs. Secondly, they argue that 'essential contextual cues' are missing from conversations, such as facial expressions or someone's tone of voice. Thirdly, they argue that the nature of Friendster is simultaneously public and private, which is also something that traditional forms of communication have never experienced.

The study points out how pictures, profile descriptions and friend testimonials may be used to makeup for the cues lost from FtF. These problems are also made more resolvable as the digital communication moves to real life and vice versa.

The reading also brings up a very relevant problem with Friendster communication; and that is the merging of the workplace and the 'pub setting'. Obviously people act differently with their friends than they might with their bosses or co-workers. In FtF this can be mediated, whereas in CMC, your profile is viewable to anyone you accept as a friend. (How can you deny acceptance to a boss?)

On ONLINE DATING

This article highlights the importance of self-presentation and self-disclosure in all forms of communication and it highlights how this is possible through dating sites. The article argues that dating sites allow for a much more strategic planning of expressing your information, which is something we discussed in class. People can edit their profiles constantly and mold themselves to appear to be whatever personality they would like.

The study argued that we have "three domains of the self" and that the internet allows for a better representation of these selves.

- the actual self : attributes an individual possesses
- the ideal self : attributes an individual would ideally possess
- the ought self : attributes an individual ought to possess

A study found that because of this precise molding of personality, many aspects of identities were misinterpreted, 'most commonly age (14%), marital status (10%), and appearance (10%)'. The article discussed how people created an 'ideal self', and how other users were able to identify when someone was being honest and what techniques they would use to attract their target daters.

Similarly, the final article reflected on the large problem of false identity. It mentions that 66% of the people who use online dating believe it to be dangerous in some way. However, as online dating has become more and more successful, people are more willing to try it. There are various testimonials and various examples of couples who have emerged through online dating sites, and so, more and more people are drawn to participate in it.

Like many of the studies on CMC, a major issue that arose on the online dating websites in Madden's article, is that of a false representation of a self. Many of their statistics back this up; nonetheless, those genuinely seeking working relationships are less likely to lie, as they seek lifelong partners to love them for being them.

Possible discussion questions:

1. Have you ever found it difficult to address someone through a social networking site? Not knowing what words to use, what to say? Do you find it more difficult that addressing someone FtF?
2. All of us have a profile on a social networking website. Do you agree that it is easier for us to establish our "three domains of self", and to what extent do you feel that being able to communicate these online have made it easier for you to present yourself in FtF communication?
3. Elison, Heino and Gibbs' article on online dating discusses how users pay close attention to spelling and sentence completion to evaluate a person's education or dedication level. What other cues can you think that you have used to establish when a person is lying or when evaluating if you would like to pursue a further friendship?
4. Using the arguments and statistics discussed in Madden's article on online dating, consider whether you would ever participate in online dating. Why, or why not?

Super week of superlative laden super days (aka Language and Impression Formation)

Greetings, and happy Superbowl Sunday (which happens to be 2 days before Super Tuesday). Sorry for the delayed post, it's been a busy time around here. Anyway, getting down to business...

This week's readings studied the use of language in CMC and how it differs when compared to FtF. TLT's chapter on language focused on several primary issues, including resistance to new forms of internet-based language, or 'netspeak'; the existence of speech communities, both in society and online; the dominance of English as a language on the internet; and finally, netspeak as a language.

TLT opened their chapter with the claim that many media outlets believe that new technologies have been dramatically changing languages, to the point where they are destroying proper language. TLT argue that language cannot be destroyed by webspeak or any other type of language because it is, in essence, its own language. TLT argue that there is nothing inherent in language that makes one language better or worse than any other language, rather it is a matter of social convention that some languages are looked down upon.

TLT next looked at dominance of English as a language on the internet and the existence of the digital divide between rich and poor nations. While English no longer maintains its complete dominance over the web, it still accounts for over 35% of the websites on the internet. Other developed countries are catching up to English speaking countries in terms of web-content, however there is still a disproportionate amount of web-content in English. This has led to some resistance to the dominance of English, as some people feel that smaller, less well known languages need to be protected from an ever-shrinking world.

Finally, there is netspeak and netlingo... TLT discusses the growth of netlingo in the English language. netlingo includes but is not limited to abbreviating words or using acronyms (TLT, FtF, CMC, etc.) lack of capitalization and punctuation and using word blends like netlingo. also, spelling isnt concidered too bee improtant. (Basically, this entire paragraph). Netspeak is very similar, only it is used more often in synchronous CMC, like our discussion last Wednesday.

That's enough of TLT, on to Walther... (I'll keep it brief)

Walther focused on emoticons, which we went over in pretty good detail last week. The study was fairly interesting, so I suggest you read it... basic argument is that CMC lacks verbal cues, therefore we use emoticons :)

Now for some fun:

Acronyms so you don't feel like an idiot when in a chat room

What if the internet were to disappear tomorrow, oh wait, it did last week

Finally... we're almost there...


Questions for possible discussion:
1) How has internet jargon (webspeak) spread to the mainstream?
2) TLT also argue that people using one language tend to organize around each other, forming a speech community. This works fairly easily FtF, but is it possible in CMC?
3) Do you see the dominance of English on the web as a problem in a globalizing world? If so, how can it be combated?
4) Anything I may have missed that you feel was important from the readings.