From two years ago till this summer I was a participant in the online world known as World of Warcraft. This online space proved to be a fruitful place to form friendships, despite the fact that it features computer mediated communication instead of face to face interactions. I will focus on one particular individual within the group of player I frequently played with in the game.
Wallace uses proximity as core a factor in online attraction. Proximity is defined in an online space as the frequency of intersection between individuals. Users who often cross paths in a space, such as two posters on a message board who frequently reply to each other, are said to have close proximity, whereas users who may see each other only once or twice in space have much less proximity. In the space of World of Warcraft, I encountered my friend quite often through group quests (multiple individuals work together to accomplish a set task within the game) and “hanging out”, so to speak, in the game's main area. This close proximity lead to familiarity, and then to trust, both of which are key to building a relationship. This proximity increased even further when I joined his guild (a group of players who share common interests and goals.) Our intersections were more numerous as I gained access to the guild only online chatting withing WoW, as well as access to their discussion forum (asynchronous communication) and voice chat server (synchronous.) It is at this juncture that our friendship truly formed, as almost any time I played WoW, he was either on the voice chat server, or in game.
Wallace also defines common ground as an attraction factor online. Common ground as used by Wallace is the impression that the person one is observing has similar interests, beliefs, and background as oneself. She also mentions something called the “Law of attraction,” which states that the amount of attraction is proportional to the observed set of shared beliefs and interests. The implication of the proportion being based on observed similarities is if one knows less about the other subject, but observes more similarities, they will be more attracted than if they knew more, but observed a lesser percentage of them as similar.
At each stage of proximity in our friendship, my observed set of shared beliefs was very high. When I knew him merely through the game, we knew relatively little about each other, but what we knew had a high proportion of similarity. In each stage of escalation in the relationship (in game friends to acquaintances, to guild mates, to good friends) the proportion declined a little, but remained high enough that I still remained interested in getting to know him more.
Comment 1
Comment 2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Good post with clear references to and explanations of theory from class. What would be interesting to know is if you've continued interacting with your friend after leaving World of Warcraft (WoW), do you still talk on AIM, and if not, what part of the theory explains the cessation.
It's intriguing to compare your success at making a friend in WoW with my lack at making a new friend in WoW and how theory still supports my case. I rarely play WoW and often wonder what I pay for. As such, despite having met a lot of people and initially hitting it off as fast friends, most likely due to common ground (I play WoW, and the other person plays WoW, 100% in common), none of the relationships have held over time. This can be seen with my proximity, or rather lack of proximity, factor. Since I barely ever play, I rarely intersect with the people I meet and thus the relationship takes a dive. It's interesting to see our different experiences being explained so well with the same theory.
Nice post!
I would also like to know if you continued to interact with this individual after you stopped playing WoW. I've found that at times, when the primary proximity factor (the game itself, in this case) is removed, online relationships tend to eventually peter out because it nixes the "common ground" element to a degree.
I'd hypothesize that the probability of this occurring is gradually lessened the more the participants have in common and the frequency they interact outside of the primary space. As you said, you began to talk to him on the discussion forum and in voice chat and, theoretically, these two factors would facilitate an enduring association.
Post a Comment