Throughout first semester of last year, I developed a quasi-relationship with a boy who will we will hereby refer to as “Billy.” Though, by the time he went abroad for spring semester, our little fling wasn’t the most serious of college relationships I’ve seen, Billy and I meant enough to one another to commit to keeping in touch as best we could. A romantic connection is not the easiest of relationships to maintain via cyberspace, but we made it work and, in fact, strengthened our relationship despite the distance.
McKenna’s relationship facilitation factors were particularly applicable to my and Billy’s situation last spring. The removal of gating features was one factor I found particularly striking while communicating via CMC. By gating features, I refer to the guards he was able to let down when communication took place over the Internet, sans the many easily observed FtF cues. Billy’s shyness in talking about his emotions was a gate which I often had trouble opening when we were together. Once separated by such great distance, there was no other way to maintain our feelings for one another than to discuss them. Because he felt more comfortable talking about his innermost feelings when he didn’t have to see my FtF reaction, he revealed much more to me via instant message, phone calls and e-mail than he was ever able to in person. He was able to be more honest and emotional when not worrying about potential aversive reactions I might visibly experience to what he said.
Interactional control, or the jurisdiction we exercise over self-presentation when in control of media choices, was another factor that came into play more than a few times throughout the months we spent apart. Obviously, I wouldn’t Skype with Billy when I looked bad. On the way out for the night, I always loved to Skype so that the impression Billy would maintain of me was a good one. When wearing a retainer or zit cream, I’d usually blame my unwillingness to Skype on my roomate’s studying or the “nap” she was taking. In addition, I usually chose text to communicate with Billy (as opposed to calling) when I was out at loud parties. This way, he wouldn’t have to hear the loud crowds and worry that anything fishy was going on: all he read was all that he could perceive of where I was and what I was doing. I hoped that this mode of self-defense helped to maintain his trust in me.
Finally, getting the goods was a factor of our relationship that kept us honest. We didn’t necessarily find everything out from one another before seeing pictures posted on Facebook from the night before. Having photographic information about one another before discussing with each other, Billy and I often pulled information out of one another if we had not yet admitted to a specific occurrence or event. In the end, this made our bond both strong and honest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think you're right on the money in your discussion of the relevance of the McKenna relationship facilitation factors to your particular scenario. I think there are also some interesting parallels to be drawn to O’Sullivan’s impression management model. Billy’s shyness and difficulty in expressing his feelings to you face to face, contrasted with the relative ease with which he was able to communicate these to you via CMC channels is a perfect example of O’Sullivan’s second hypothesis, which suggests that when the valence or subject is self, we tend to prefer mediated interaction channels. Similarly, you chose to use leaner channels when you weren’t looking your best or were at a party, so as not to give Billy a negative impression of you physical appearance or arouse any suspicions, which is consistent with O’Sullivan’s third hypothesis, that we most strongly prefer mediated channels when the locus is our selves and the valence or outcome is expected to be negative.
Post a Comment