I had a relationship that started out strictly on the internet.
It was a very personal relationship that eventually developed into a face-to-face relationship.
I do remember that it took me a much longer time to trust this person.
What made it so easy to disclose information to them though, was the fact that we were just exchanging information. This was the interpersonal information stage, if you will, of this relationship. We gathered information about one another. I'd ask a question, he'd ask a question, etc. It also made for good company. When no one else is around, you have your computer "friend" to talk to. Someone is listening to you, taking the time to think about what you are saying, and responding back.
Once we began talking daily, it started to become a commitment. It would be around the same time everyday, I knew he'd be online waiting to talk. The impression formation stage takes place around this time because we were very comfortable with each other. We knew a lot about each other, how we respond to certain situations, and understood little quirks. The quirks could be typos he'd always make on certain words, or little internet faces to help interpret the emotion behind the words. It becomes very real. There were many expressions of affinity between us, we loved each other's company. It's not like either of us were bored or had no life either. I was in two extracurricular activites and keeping a 3.8GPA, and he worked part-time while going to school. This was definatley the relationship development stage.
We obviously held positive impressions of each other, so consequently we wanted to meet. It was scary at first to realize we had gotten to that point. At one time I did stop and think, wow, am I ready to meet him? It sounds silly because we meet people all the time unexpectedly. This was different because it was like meeting your cyber journal. The unseen, unheard place where all of your thoughts and feelings are poured into everyday. There is the vulnerability factor that makes meeting such a huge step. There is the risk of being evaluated and judged by more than just your words.
Overall, this theory makes good points. I do agree there are differences between relationships online and in person. However, I don't think online relationships can be so cut and dry. There are a lot of people in the world who are on the internet. If you take into account all of the cultures, ages, and motives within each individual, the possibilites are endless. Each single interaction can be completley different. Just because my experience happened to follow most of the theory's statements, doesn't mean every online relationship will.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Uncertainty Reduction Theory
When I met my last boyfriend, I knew nothing about him. He was rooming with one of my dorm friends, so that is essentially how we met. I can relate to the uncertainty reduction theory on many levels, and also disagree with some of it.
For instance, when trying to learn more about him, I tried getting information from any avenue I could. I was passive, and watched him interact with my friend, and see how he interacted with his family. I also was active in the beginning and asked my friend and other people who knew him to tell me things about him I should know. Silly things like does he have any funny habits, how sociable is he, because I essentially wanted to reduce my uncertainty. Obviously, once we became a couple I would go the interactive route and come right out and ask him questions. I would try to derive all kinds of information from him, but he wasn’t as open as I would’ve liked. I would find myself asking a lot of cognitive questions because he wasn’t abiding by axiom1. It seemed like the more we talked, and the more I told about myself, the less I learned about him.
We did share some common ground, like having some of the same friends, so that did help with feeling comfortable. The uncertainty in that area did go down, so I do agree with axiom 8. Also, I was sort of relying on the “opposites attract” saying, so part of me wasn’t really relying on axiom 6 to feel the need to find similar activities and interests. However, that might’ve been part of our problem in the long run, and possibly why we didn’t last as a couple.
Lastly, I partially disagree with axiom 2 because in this relationship, he would nod and smile but it went somewhere else. I found that he would act like he was listening, but he really wasn't. So I do feel sometimes those non-verbal expressions can be misleading. Also, in this relationship I didn't really notice axiom 5 much. Even in the beginning, everything was almost lop-sided and not following the norm, which might've been why I was intrigued. Because this relationship was so different in certain ways, I think it followed some of the theory, and it didn't in other parts. In essence, I think with every situation, there are things that will not fall into these categories for this theory. Like any situation, different cultural values and individual characteristics are the true foundation for any relationship. A theory can pin-point reasons, but it cannot predict human emotion. Human communication does help to reduce our uncertainty of others, but it is not the only factor.
For instance, when trying to learn more about him, I tried getting information from any avenue I could. I was passive, and watched him interact with my friend, and see how he interacted with his family. I also was active in the beginning and asked my friend and other people who knew him to tell me things about him I should know. Silly things like does he have any funny habits, how sociable is he, because I essentially wanted to reduce my uncertainty. Obviously, once we became a couple I would go the interactive route and come right out and ask him questions. I would try to derive all kinds of information from him, but he wasn’t as open as I would’ve liked. I would find myself asking a lot of cognitive questions because he wasn’t abiding by axiom1. It seemed like the more we talked, and the more I told about myself, the less I learned about him.
We did share some common ground, like having some of the same friends, so that did help with feeling comfortable. The uncertainty in that area did go down, so I do agree with axiom 8. Also, I was sort of relying on the “opposites attract” saying, so part of me wasn’t really relying on axiom 6 to feel the need to find similar activities and interests. However, that might’ve been part of our problem in the long run, and possibly why we didn’t last as a couple.
Lastly, I partially disagree with axiom 2 because in this relationship, he would nod and smile but it went somewhere else. I found that he would act like he was listening, but he really wasn't. So I do feel sometimes those non-verbal expressions can be misleading. Also, in this relationship I didn't really notice axiom 5 much. Even in the beginning, everything was almost lop-sided and not following the norm, which might've been why I was intrigued. Because this relationship was so different in certain ways, I think it followed some of the theory, and it didn't in other parts. In essence, I think with every situation, there are things that will not fall into these categories for this theory. Like any situation, different cultural values and individual characteristics are the true foundation for any relationship. A theory can pin-point reasons, but it cannot predict human emotion. Human communication does help to reduce our uncertainty of others, but it is not the only factor.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Social Penetration Theory
I see the Social Penetration Theory alive and well almost everyday at my job.
I work in a salon & spa, so it’s pretty much an invitation to gossip.
As one of the receptionists, I am pretty much the liaison between client and stylist.
Not only can I see relationships developing between people and their stylist, I notice my personal relationships changing with our clients as well.
I have worked at the salon for a year, and to sit back and reflect on what has changed puts this theory even more into perspective.
According to the two core concepts, I’d have to agree that relationships can develop almost exclusively to the depth and breadth of self-disclosure.
The first time I met a lot of the clients, I didn’t disclose any personal information, and neither did they. It was the normal, boring, breadth without depth, “Hi how are you?” “Good.”
However, my counterpart, Robin who has been there for 2 yrs, had a very deep understanding of their lives.
Some of the clients would almost dismiss me and not bother to get to know me, because they were too busy disclosing information to Robin.
At first it was hurtful to not be noticed, but once it’s put in perspective when applied to this theory, it’s not so bad.
As the months passed I got to know more of the clients, and began to figure out their schedules.
I know who comes on what day with who and when. But that took some time, and so did the conversations.
Just recently have I been able to have conversations on the personal level with some clients.
It’s funny how people treat their conversations; almost like confessions…who else are they going to tell?
Obviously we don’t know their past boyfriends, their mother-in-laws or their homosexual boss, so we are safe.
There’s less risk involved telling a third party, and it gives them feedback from a different perspective.
Self-disclosure is definitely give and take, and when people feel comfortable in their usual environment with the same people week after week, thoughts start becoming chats.
I keep wondering if time really does play a factor in this pattern of self-disclosure, and I think to a certain extent it does.
You are more likely to confide in a familiar face than a complete stranger….and a year ago I was a stranger in my client’s environment.
I also think because it is a salon, social norms are even talked about, what we think is weird, not weird, funny, out of line, you name it and we’ve covered it.
And the stronger that part of the relationship becomes, the closer it gets to the penetration stage. I have seen this happen where people are very willing to release a ton of information all at once, and then just little by little.
Almost as if some of the clients are following the theory word for word.
As for the outcome dealing with the reward/cost analysis, the logic behind benefiting from any relationship is asking, “What does it do for me?”
In my case, as I stated earlier, with the salon there isn’t a huge risk of a personal secret being spilled.
We act as therapy for our clients. They come to us out of their busy little work worlds, and we invite them to come and relax.
When people don’t feel threatened, at risk, or uncomfortable it’s amazing how many layers they are willing to shed.
We pamper them, so in a way they have a feeling of intimacy, and trust because we help them look and feel better about themselves.
In this scenario, I feel the rewards definitely outweigh the cost, because in the end we all just need someone to talk to.
I work in a salon & spa, so it’s pretty much an invitation to gossip.
As one of the receptionists, I am pretty much the liaison between client and stylist.
Not only can I see relationships developing between people and their stylist, I notice my personal relationships changing with our clients as well.
I have worked at the salon for a year, and to sit back and reflect on what has changed puts this theory even more into perspective.
According to the two core concepts, I’d have to agree that relationships can develop almost exclusively to the depth and breadth of self-disclosure.
The first time I met a lot of the clients, I didn’t disclose any personal information, and neither did they. It was the normal, boring, breadth without depth, “Hi how are you?” “Good.”
However, my counterpart, Robin who has been there for 2 yrs, had a very deep understanding of their lives.
Some of the clients would almost dismiss me and not bother to get to know me, because they were too busy disclosing information to Robin.
At first it was hurtful to not be noticed, but once it’s put in perspective when applied to this theory, it’s not so bad.
As the months passed I got to know more of the clients, and began to figure out their schedules.
I know who comes on what day with who and when. But that took some time, and so did the conversations.
Just recently have I been able to have conversations on the personal level with some clients.
It’s funny how people treat their conversations; almost like confessions…who else are they going to tell?
Obviously we don’t know their past boyfriends, their mother-in-laws or their homosexual boss, so we are safe.
There’s less risk involved telling a third party, and it gives them feedback from a different perspective.
Self-disclosure is definitely give and take, and when people feel comfortable in their usual environment with the same people week after week, thoughts start becoming chats.
I keep wondering if time really does play a factor in this pattern of self-disclosure, and I think to a certain extent it does.
You are more likely to confide in a familiar face than a complete stranger….and a year ago I was a stranger in my client’s environment.
I also think because it is a salon, social norms are even talked about, what we think is weird, not weird, funny, out of line, you name it and we’ve covered it.
And the stronger that part of the relationship becomes, the closer it gets to the penetration stage. I have seen this happen where people are very willing to release a ton of information all at once, and then just little by little.
Almost as if some of the clients are following the theory word for word.
As for the outcome dealing with the reward/cost analysis, the logic behind benefiting from any relationship is asking, “What does it do for me?”
In my case, as I stated earlier, with the salon there isn’t a huge risk of a personal secret being spilled.
We act as therapy for our clients. They come to us out of their busy little work worlds, and we invite them to come and relax.
When people don’t feel threatened, at risk, or uncomfortable it’s amazing how many layers they are willing to shed.
We pamper them, so in a way they have a feeling of intimacy, and trust because we help them look and feel better about themselves.
In this scenario, I feel the rewards definitely outweigh the cost, because in the end we all just need someone to talk to.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Expectancy Violations Theory
When watching the Grammy Awards show the other night, I started to notice something about Ryan Secrest. He was very personable and energetic while interviewing. However, as he was interviewing people, his microphone would inch closer to their face, and Ryan would inch as well. I remember distinctly John Mayer taking a few steps back when Ryan interrogated John about Jessica Simpson. I started to wonder if it was the subject matter that made John shy away, or maybe it was the Expectancy Violations Theory at work.
Once I noticed that John was not the only one moving further away from Ryan, I started to think about the three core concepts of EVT. All of the relationship factors play a role in this situation. The familiarity of the red carpet interviews, relative status of celebrity and similarities between awards shows and how they are conducted. John and other music artists had formed certain expectations about the evening. The context factor in this situation is apparent, the media and entertainment industry form their own culture. However, what this country sets as cultural norms also applies. In this case, Ryan was too close for comfort in Hollywood and to the average viewer. Furthermore, Ryan has been a host of many shows, and was also on radio. His communicator characteristics are very polished. He is professional, entertaining, and too involved to realize his proximity towards others. The violation valence in these encounters is ambiguous. I feel this is the case because not one celebrity was hostile towards Ryan, and it was an unexpected interaction that they dismissed easily.
Overall, the reward valence was positive. Even though Ryan had proxemic violations, the artists were unsure how to interpret them. I continued to watch as the night progressed, and found something of interest happen. Ryan was holding a microphone, and had also provided one for his celebrity.
Once I noticed that John was not the only one moving further away from Ryan, I started to think about the three core concepts of EVT. All of the relationship factors play a role in this situation. The familiarity of the red carpet interviews, relative status of celebrity and similarities between awards shows and how they are conducted. John and other music artists had formed certain expectations about the evening. The context factor in this situation is apparent, the media and entertainment industry form their own culture. However, what this country sets as cultural norms also applies. In this case, Ryan was too close for comfort in Hollywood and to the average viewer. Furthermore, Ryan has been a host of many shows, and was also on radio. His communicator characteristics are very polished. He is professional, entertaining, and too involved to realize his proximity towards others. The violation valence in these encounters is ambiguous. I feel this is the case because not one celebrity was hostile towards Ryan, and it was an unexpected interaction that they dismissed easily.
Overall, the reward valence was positive. Even though Ryan had proxemic violations, the artists were unsure how to interpret them. I continued to watch as the night progressed, and found something of interest happen. Ryan was holding a microphone, and had also provided one for his celebrity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)