Models of Cyberspace II

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

I think that 'hyperpersonal' communication certainly exists – I form this opinion definitely based on my experience in cyberspace but also because the model logically makes sense. It has many more communicative advantages over face-to-face interaction, a few examples being that there is already an immediate similarity between the users as they share the liking for the same medium of communication, creating an immediate attraction between them. Also, unlike face-to-face, users have the opportunity to create a positive first impression of themselves – whether it be fake or real – but they can certainly make any kind of impact that they wish. This is hard in face-to-face communication as people are unbelievably judgemental based on appearance, whereas in CMC, this factor is excluded in communication over the internet. There is more attention and focus on the content of communication, which again is another advantage over face-to-face. With f2f interaction, factors like social cues and emotional cues tend to distract people away from focusing on the communication. A lot of people prefer to use cyberspace to communicate with others and these can be the main reasons why. As Walther said, 'hyperpersonal' communication is “more socially desirable than we tend to experience in parallel face-to-face interaction”. This is the reason why CMC is so popular.

An interesting study by Duthler (2006) found that, after analysing requests made via email and voicemail, overall the email requests were more polite than the voicemail requests. Voicemail users had less control over preparation, composing, editing, the execution of the message, and have to manage more nonverbal cues than those who used email. This study just proves another advantage that communication via cyberspace has over face-to-face interaction.

2. Do you think group memberships are important to communication in cyberspace and why?

I think that group memberships are important to communication in cyberspace because cyberspace is much like the 'real' world, except different contexts and physicality's. However, in terms of things socially, it is still much a social based world. Society in the 'real' world is made up of different groups that people are a member of – literally and figuratively. So for cyberspace to be so popular still it needs to have those boundaries of group membership that exists in the 'real' world. Even just something as simple as joining an online forum. 'Groups' are distinguished in those as a result of the difference of opinions that the users have. Anonymity serves to only help people in cyberspace to become a part of any group that they wish – if they become a member of a forum, for example, that lets women talk about their experiences of abuse – it allows them to express their views within this group anonymously, disinhibited and without any responsibility for their words. Group memberships are just as, if not more important in cyberspace. It has the freedom for users to join without judgement. 

Early Models of Cyberpsychology

1.    Based on your experience in various cyberspace venues, is there, as Short et al, (1976), proposed, a lack of the presence of others when communicating and interacting online? And does this affect how you behave?

 I personally think there is some level of presence of others – whether this is just because when I have been in cyberspace, it has been in class, where I am physically surrounded by my peers, I am not sure – but there is some part at the back of my mind that still reminds me that the avatars I see on the screen are still people somewhere in the world. I am only speaking for my experience in Second Life here; as I think it is definitely different for text based communication (chat rooms). I would imagine my behaviour would be different in a chat room that it is in Second Life. In a chat room I think I would be more inclined to perhaps say things that I wouldn’t usually say or I’d say more than what I usually say. I would have lost all inhibitions and would have no sense of accountability and responsibility for anything I say. However in Second Life, there is a part of me that wants to slightly remain as myself, or at least come across as a good person, since I feel that my avatar mostly reflects my real self.

  

2.    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?

One of things this model claims is that visual cues and body language are cut out from computer mediated communication however this can certainly be overcome through the use of emoticons and ‘creative keyboarding’ to put across any emotions we may want to express. Sproull and Kiesler (1986) suggest that there are three types of variables that contribute to social context – geographic cues, organisational cues and situational cues. While some people may argue that these are filtered out online, they can be easily told during an online conversation. Just because we can’t immediately judge a person based on what they look like to conclude their class, age, gender etc, does not mean we still can’t find out what type of person they are. As Walther (1992) says, computer mediated communication is quite capable of transmitting these particular ‘social cues’. Walther (1995) even questioned whether they were important, particularly to help relationships between online ‘chatters’ to grow. Under the right circumstances, if you like somebody, then you cues like age, job, title, class and ethnicity don’t really matter.

Exploring Cyberspace

1. How do the affordances of Facebook and pure text-based chat rooms differ? Which of these differences do you consider may have led to the death of chat rooms and the meteoric rise of social network sites?

 I think the main affordance that differs between social network sites like Facebook and pure text-based chat rooms is the fact that there is hardly any anonymity on Facebook. Facebook provides you with a profile of that person – including a picture, full name, where they live and sometimes phone numbers, compared to chat rooms where you can simply pick a random nickname for yourself and you don’t know anybody in that chat room and they don’t know you – allowing all the consequences from the anonymity. It is more socially unacceptable to pretend to be somebody else and to create a fake profile on Facebook as it is seen as ‘weird’ and ‘stalkerish’, yet logging onto chat rooms where you don’t know the people seems an acceptable thing to do. On Facebook, you can ‘add’ friends, people you actually know physically, whereas on chat rooms, you are connected with random people who could be on the other side of the world. I think the fact that you can virtually connect with your ‘real-life’ friends on Facebook is what drove it to become more popular that text-based chat rooms. Even with just the added applications like being able to post statuses and post things on your friends’ walls, you are able to keep up with what your friends are up to. It is recorded for a longer period of time – in fact, the latest change to Facebook allows you to go as far back to when that person joined Facebook and see what they were posting at that time. Whereas on chat rooms, I don’t believe that the chats are logged and recorded for that long. Also, the fact that you can instant message on Facebook anyway means there is no need for the chat rooms – unless you do have a liking for talking to people you do not know. 

4. Overview the main reasons you chose the SL avatar you did.

I personally chose my Second Life avatar based on what resembled me the most (out of what was left anyway). For me, the physical looks of the avatar were important in order to reflect me in the virtual online world. I tried to match hair colour, hair style and the type of clothes as much as I could to what my hair looks like and the kind of clothes I would wear.

Affordances of Cyberspace

1.   How do the current characteristics of the internet environment shape our behaviour and affect our psychology there? 

 One of the main characteristics of the internet environment is identity flexibility. The internet is the biggest identity laboratory in the world, allowing people to become whoever they want. Lack of face to face cues has an impact on how people present their identity in cyberspace as there is no need to be honest about who you really are, you can choose to become any personality you wish. The fact that the main source of online communication is text-based; this allows people to remain themselves, reveal only part of their real identity, or assume total anonymity. 

Anonymity has a disinhibiting effect. It reduces responsibility and allows people to behave in a way – mostly in a negative, malicious way – that they wouldn’t normally in real life. McKenna and Bargh (2000) argue that anonymity will lead to great self-disclosure: “under the protective cloak of anonymity, users can express the way they truly feel and think”. There is nothing to say that there is an innate trait in people that they cannot or do not want to express in real life, but the anonymity of the internet allows them to express this ‘true’ part of themselves without having to deal with the consequences that would occur in real life.

One of the earliest cases of online identity deception was of two popular figures in the online community in the 1980’s. Van Gelder (1991) studied the spectacle of Joan and Alex. Joan had a physical disability which rendered her reluctant to meet people face to face. She therefore created several online friendships with women, and was a confidente to several who had real-life affairs with Alex. However, it turned out that Joan was in fact a persona developed by Alex. Other reported cases by Feldman (2000) involve that of people joining online support groups claiming to have illnesses that they do not actually have. 

My personal opinion is that unless being these alter personalities affects you or other people in any way whatsoever, then there should be no problem continuing it. As McKenna and Bargh (1998) believe, creating online personas of possible selves (a future self that one wishes to become) may serve as an incentive to follow up and act this self in real world – possibly one of the only benefits of creating a virtual identity. 

I came across this wesbite - http://www.noteful.com/publicportal/ 
 It allows people to confess online to anything. Again, the anonymity here means people can do this without feeling the guilt of revealing secrets and without feeling the judgement they may get from friends and family if they were to confide in them. 

Defining Cyberspace

1. How does' the internet' differ from what we conceive of as 'cyberspace'?

The 'internet' is simply the means in which 'cyberspace' can be used. It is the hardware, the physical objects that make up the tools that enable consumers to use and engage in 'cyberspace'. In the same way that a CD player provides music, the internet provides cyberspace.  We think of ‘cyberspace’ as an electronic environment, somewhere we can go to, mentally rather than physically. One dictionary definition of ‘cyberspace’ describes it as a ‘notional environment in which digitized information is communicated over computer networks’.
 
2. Does cyberspace possess the qualities of a real world space?

In some ways it does, but in others it doesn’t. Take ‘Second Life’ for example. In this 3D Online Virtual World, a person can literally create a second life for themselves. Homes can be built, employment can be given, land can be rented and businesses can be started – all dealing with real-life money and other real people across the globe. However, ‘cyberspace’ is more of an environment that doesn’t physically exist, you can’t touch cyberspace. Real-world space includes places where we can physically go to and physically exist in. It is a very fine line but this is where the differences lie.

3. Does the lack of regulatory control on the internet lead a state of adaptive and productive independence or is it fostering expression of, perhaps latent toxic behaviours and danger?

I think that having no control over the internet means people can choose to apply any persona to themselves that they wish. They don’t have to be the person they are in ‘real-life’, and this may be for many reasons, usually for unorthodox reasons. For example, the story of Gemma Barker who, over the internet, pretended to be three different boys in order to lure girls in and sexually assault them. This wouldn’t have been possible without the internet hiding her true identity, and allowing her to be the other three personas she created. It can cause problems psychologically to the people who choose to do this as they become so engrossed in the opposite personalities they create that they eventually start to believe that they are that person, and recreate them in real life.

4. What do you think the future holds for cyberspace? How might it shape society in the future?

I think there are good points and bad points in terms of cyberspace becoming an even more important and relevant part of our society and culture. Social skills, for example, may become more advanced and easier for people with learning difficulties or physical disabilities that leave them unable to speak. Also for people that find it difficult perhaps emotionally to voice their thoughts, feelings and opinions, through the use of cyberspace, they can successfully and easily do this. However, in terms of real-life socialising, this will deplete as people will lose the ability to speak to someone face-to-face. They will not be able to handle real-life social situations and will prefer to hide behind a computer screen before they can easily talk to someone.