Based on your experience in various cyberspace venues, do you think that ‘hyperpersonal’ communication exists?

Last week, I described a model of CMC which focused on what is lost in online communication, and also described a main criticism proposed by Walther (1992), in which he correctly identified that the ‘cues filtered out’ theory does not explain a lot of online behaviours. Instead, Walther proposed a ‘hyperpersonal’ model, which suggests that, actually, people conversing online become hyper-personal i.e. they become more personal than when communicating f2f (face to face). In this model, the focus isn’t on what is lost during CMC, but areas in which online communication exceeds what would be common in meat space. He based this model on the discovery that CMC groups were consistently rated as being more affectionate than their f2f counterparts (Walther, 1995). Through further study, he identified key factors of CMC which contributed to this effect, including expectations of future communication, a zone for reflection, more attentional focus on the message and most importantly anonymity. In his model, time to reflect on and send the message allows for heavy editing to promote the best side of oneself (something that is physically impossible in meat space). This, combined with the lack of f2f cues makes the receiver more susceptible to the positive cues conveyed in the message, and as a result the receiver gains a very positive image of who they are talking to and begins to idolise. Noting similarities in who they are speaking to, e.g. similar hobbies or social groups, leads to an increase in reciprocal liking. Finally, anonymity (where people feel less inhibited to withhold questions, and divulge on their own lives) creates a situation where two or more people are very overly personal with each other; i.e. hyperpersonal. (See below for a diagram of this).

Hyperpersonal 'loop'

Based on my experiences in different venues, I have mixed feelings about whether hyperpersonal communication actually occurs. I have definitely used online mediums in order to splurge thoughts, and I have been more personal with people online than when talking face to face, however, in these situations I have not been anonymous. I sometimes chat about my personal life and problems/events on facebook to close friends, and I admit I’m more personal than if I was to speak to them in f2f, but I feel this is simply because I can arrange my thoughts more, and type out events and situations in a logical order. To me, it’s easier to type out what has happened, or a problem than it is to explain it in f2f communication because I feel more pressurised to remember the events correctly and to come out with it then and there. In this way, I do agree with hyperpersonal communication because in these examples, I do use these online mediums as like a diary, only with a receiver who can give me feedback, and a zone for reflection is a big factor which affects this. 
However, I don’t feel I become hyperpersonal when I’m anonymous and talking to somebody I have never met. In these situations a sort of ‘stranger danger’ situation takes over, where I feel more private because I don’t know exactly who I’m talking to, and I don’t want them to know personal things about my life. Recalling my 14 year old self on Habbo Hotel, if somebody asked me ‘ASL?’ I was always reluctant to answer, despite the fact that this venue held all the qualities that Walther argues would lead to hyperpersonal communication. I came onto the online venue wanting anonymity and to be anybody and do anything, and so for people to ask me what my REAL age was, what my REAL gender was, and even ask me where I lived was too personal. However, these are just my personal experiences and they might be very much due to my personality. To other people, the anonymity of an online venue might be a very liberating experience, and as a result I can easily see things becoming hyperpersonal.Therefore, hyperpersonal theory needs to take into account not just the factors of CMC, but also the venue, the wants and wishes of the person, and mostly the reason why they've come online. A person wanting to escape reality by playing as an imaginary character on second life might not want to become hyperpersonal because it is inflicting on them the very thing they want to escape, but somebody needing advice with a personal matter or a need to 'vent' will happily become hyperpersonal on venues such as 'yahoo answers' and other discussion boards. Therefore, though I agree hyper personal communication exists, i don't feel Walther's explanation is fully integrative and explanatory, simply because it still takes a technological determinist approach.

   

Until next time,
Philippa.

Which of the criticisms of the 'social cues filtered out' model of Sproull & Kiesler do you find to be the most compelling evidence against its validity... and why?

This week I'm going to focus more on the theory behind cyberpsychology - in particular arguing against a model that states there is a 'cues filtered out' aspect of CMC (computer mediated communication). So a bit of background: The 'Cues Filtered Out' model was proposed by Sproull & Kiesler in 1986 and, like the social presence model by Short et al (1979), is a model of CMC which focuses very much on what is lost through online communication. This model outlines that, when conversing through online mediums, there is a complete elimination of many of the cues which people use in order to understand social context and adjust their behaviour as a result. According to the cues filtered out model, these aspects are separated into three categories; geographical cues which communicate distance and place of the receiver, organisational cues which hint at hierarchical structures within society such as job status, and situational cues such as age and gender. Sproull & Kiesler expand further by placing these cues into two types; static cues, i.e a person’s appearance and environment, and dynamic cues such as the individual’s non-verbal behaviour. For example, upon meeting a person you may notice that they come from another country from their accent or dress sense (geographical cues), are a professional person from the name badge on their clothing (organisational cues), and that they are an older male (situational cues). All these aspects will go on to influence how you speak to the person and what you say, despite the fact that no discourse has actually taken place yet. Because these cues are 'filtered out' during CMC, the model suggests that people will become less focused on the receiver, and as a result become more disinhibited. This may then lead to extreme behaviours, such as 'flaming' or 'trolling'.

Despite the fact that this model makes some pretty convincing points, and can explain the above behaviours over CMC, it most certainly isn’t the whole picture. I personally feel the most damaging evidence against this model comes from Walther (1992) who highlights that, despite the communication occurring online, these social cues are so salient that people use innovative ways to overcome their absence in cyberspace. Last week, I discussed the use of creative keyboarding, which is a perfect example of individuals doing exactly that. There are elements of truth to the cues filtered out model; online communication does lack non-verbal aspects, but people compensate for this quite easily by conveying emotions, emphasis and mannerisms through text instead. Though Walther agrees that it is probably faster to gain information on age and status through face to face communication, people still gain this information online. He argues that, given an unlimited amount of time, the amount of information gathered online compared to face to face communication will be exactly the same. This argument was confirmed in a later meta-analysis conducted (Walther et al., 1994). 

Second Life Online Venue

Referring to virtual environments, such as 'Second Life' and (my personal favourite from when I was about 14) ‘Habbo Hotel’, the first thing that normally happens when meeting somebody new, is that they’ll ask you ‘ASL?’, which is basically short for ‘Age? Sex? Location?’. Aren’t these the very cues which Sproull & Kiesler argue are completely filtered out online? And as soon as the asker receives a response, they can start building up a visual image of the individual they are talking to. The cues filtered out model also doesn’t exactly explain how individuals can form intimate relationships online either; surely, if cyberspace was as absent of social cues as Sproull & Keisler suggest, the idea of forming romantic attachments would be almost impossible. Even the fact that many online venues have visual avatars, where people can convey aspects of what they actually look like, or their personality or identity, is trying to replicate the non verbal aspects of human communication. Because the ‘cues filtered out’ model completely fails to acknowledge that people use creative keyboarding, and other ways to overcome what is lost over CMC, and can accomplish many of the things that individuals achieve in meatspace, it will never be a comprehensive model of computer mediated communication. 

Lastly, this model is not one I completely agree with because it does not recognise the adaptability, or plasticity, of human behaviour. Even if CMC didn’t ‘work’ because it was completely devoid of everything that conceptualises interpersonal communication, humans will adapt in order to MAKE it work, and in the case of online communication, they certainly have.

Until next time,
Philippa.

An overview of the main reasons why I selected 'Alana Bolton' for my Second Life avatar!

Alana Bolton, my selected avatar.

Meet Alana Bolton! As part of the module, I was asked to choose an avatar - an online representation of me - from a selection of characters; here I will outline the main reasons why I chose this particular avatar. 

 

When I was selecting an avatar, I was left to choose based on the appearance alone, as we were given just images of each of the avatars on offer. However, I don’t feel descriptions of traits, likes and dislikes, or any other information would really have affected the choice I made. Most of the judgements made about online avatars are based on appearance, the way the character is controlled and what is said on chat, so really any descriptions provided to help my selection would be fictional; Alana Bolton is purely what I make her to be.  Now onto why I chose this Avatar in particular.

Firstly, I set myself on picking a female character - which instantly ruled out any possibility of playing as a male - simply because I view being female as being quite an important aspect of my identity. I don’t think I could carry off ‘being male’ very well and be convincing enough to really start identifying with my character, and feel the effects of being recognised as male, as opposed to female, by my peers. 

The main reason why I picked Alana Bolton, as opposed to any other female avatar, is because I felt she reflected my personality. I found quite a lot of the avatars were quite boldly dressed, and this was not something I particularly wanted to portray with my character. I felt she had a similar casual dress sense to me, and the knitted jumper particularly drew me because it hinted at a sense of shyness, which again I wanted to portray. I didn’t want my avatar to look particularly ‘fashionista’ or dressy, but instead friendly and approachable, as this is the sort of personality I wanted to represent. 

However, I also liked that she didn’t look entirely like me, and so it allowed me to experience a different identity and explore the world through the character of another; I feel if the avatar looked exactly like me, any anonymity I would have felt would be completely gone and I’d feel drawn to trying to act like myself rather than explore the personality of ‘Alana Bolton’. In particular, I was quite drawn by her ginger hair, because when I look at my own appearance, I tend to view myself as quite plain, and so seeing a character with a very distinct feature allows me to express an individuality I don’t feel in meat space. I find that when I create characters on games such as ‘The Sims’ they always seem to have a simple but individual look; they are dressed casually but definitely have some distinguishing and unique feature about them; either striking green eyes or fiery red hair, and I feel my choice of Alana Bolton is no different in expressing this preference. 

Initially, I was inclined towards Aurora Bolton, as that is my middle name and so felt an instant connection to that avatar because of this. However, when I looked at the avatar she did not speak ‘me’ at all, which did steer me away from the character. This tells me that, even though a name is important to identity (the first thing you do when you want to deindividualise somebody is take away their name), the appearance and the sort of feel and personality I get from the avatar is far more salient to me. 

After only a few sessions on Second Life, I am already starting to become attached to my avatar, to the point where I can’t really picture myself portrayed by any other character within the Bolton ‘clan'. Because of this, I know that I have picked a representation which accurately portrays 'me' and the sort of impression I want to give to others in cyberspace.

Until next time,

Philippa