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.