After trying to log-in into many chat rooms, I finally found a psychological space that did not require any information except a nickname. I ended up staying in an anonymous and synchronous chat room for “lonely college students” and personally sent a message to a male from
Taking an impression formation shortcut, I immediately relied on his nickname and the name of the chat room as cues that influenced my first impression of him. Curious 1 appeared to be exactly as his nickname and the chat room title said he was, curious and eager. We instantly tried to categorize each other by asking for features that are fundamental to an initial impression (s/a/l). He appeared to be satisfied with the basic information and began to use emoticons such as a smile =), which added warmth to the nonverbal online conversation and continued to enhance the socioemotional content of all his messages. Although CMC interaction proved to be not as “warm,” slow, and interrupted than it would be face-to-face (ftf), I was able to form an impression within 75 minutes.
I engaged in queries about his interests, and college-life with the understanding of the concept of reciprocal self-disclosure. Analyzing him based on the Big Five Personality Traits, I made the following observations. Based on his self-presentation, I would rate him high on the extraversion scale. He was very talkative and proceeded to tell me multiple stories about his social life such as how he would always be the last one to leave every party. In terms of agreeableness, he seemed considerate and friendly. I would also rate him high on openness due to his curiosity about me. Based on his ability to lead a comfortable discussion with such enthusiasm, I would rate him low on neuroticism. Although I was able to rate him on those traits, it was difficult assessing his conscientiousness.
When compared to ftf interactions, the initial impression formed through a CMC seems to be lower on breadth but much higher on intensity, which confirms the Hyperpersonal Model. I had to rely on the limited cues he chose to present to me (selective self-presentation) and over-attributed them to form an impression. For example, when he began asking personal questions such as how I look like I immediately assumed that he was eager. Perhaps because I assumed and continued to speak to him as if he was very eager, he found himself acting more forward than usual, which only confirmed my expectations (behavioral confirmation). Also, unlike ftf interactions in which one is provided other cues such as facial expression and hand motion, I found myself concentrating on just the conversation (re-allocation of cognitive resources). The Hyperpersonal Model may not be true in all cases but it justly explains my experience with the Curious 1.
4 comments:
I find your first paragraph interesting in the sense that is what I wanted to do as well. I wanted to go into “one” of those chatrooms to learn about the kind of people that frequent them. Kudos for doing that.
Anyway...
I was wondering what you thought about “Curious 1” after your tests for the “Big Five.” Did you feel he was accurately describing his true self? I know we have went over in class (and it has showed up in Wallace numerous times) that people tend to embellish or even outright lie about themselves in online communication. Did you ever get that feeling from him? If not, why do you think that is? Was it his ability in using text to converse something that allowed you not have a doubt about who he/she/what really could be?
I agree with your Hyperpersonal Model experience because you did explain how you could only judge him on those few cues you could extract through CMC. It seems like this made you have a more positive outlook about him...
I found your blog very interesting. I always wonder why people who seem to have such large social lives enjoy spending time online talking to strangers in chat rooms. Maybe he likes meeting new people? Maybe he is making himself seem more popular and self confident than he really is, therefore feeling better about himself? The issue of trust keeps popping into my head after every blog I read. Maybe I am just paranoid, but I find it hard taking complete strangers word and believing it. But who knows, he could be a kid just looking for good conversation.
Lina, while reading your blog one thing really sparked my attention. This being that this boy’s screen name was “Curious 1”, however it seemed as though he was the one doing most of the talking and not the one to pose the questions. This makes me curious (no pun intended) as to why he would be considered a part of the Hyperpersonal Model because he did not live up to the assumptions made about him, especially since he dubbed himself “Curious 1”. I would have assumed that he would have tried to understand more about the people he was corresponding with or regarding the internet and try to show that through CMCs to live up to his name. Just like how we talked in class if a girl’s screen name was “Sexy 1” then we would assume that she would communicate and portray herself as sexy.
On the other hand though, your points are valid and do conclude with the Hyperpersonal Model: facts about the breath and intensity and the Big 5 Traits as well. I was just kind of taken aback with how “Curious 1” seemed to lack curiosity and seemed to be infatuated with sharing things about him to you.
It's interesting that you would classify the subject as extraverted. Certainly you said he was outgoing so it makes some amount of sense. That said, there seems to be some sub-communicated (non-verbal?) evidence that he might not be quite as outgoing as first appears. First, he was in a chatroom for "lonely college students." If he was really so extraverted then why was he lonely? Second, he said he was always the last one to leave the party. Having my own house and the occasional party, I can say from consistent observation that the last guy to leave the party usually does so to make one last drunken pass at some girl and then ends up going home alone. While I'm not saying it's impossible that he's an extravert by any means, it seems at least possible that the truth is more complicated than it would first appear.
Post a Comment