Category: Internet Relationships

Not every mass online interaction makes up a community.

by Joe Redman, joseph.redman attt wsu.edu

https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2019/05/05/11/04/coin-4180241_960_720.jpg

We have seen the comments on YouTube. They come flooding in, attempting to get the YouTuber’s attention with little regard to if other viewers see them. Nothing happens and they move on to the next video. This sort of shallow interaction does not represent a digital community especially when platforms designed for such a thing exist.

To this end, Sanz-Martos, Martinez and Creus studied online activity surrounding two popular video games:

  • League of Legends (LOL)– a free-to-play massively multiplayer online game with a competitive focus
  • Minecraft– a single or multiplayer game with a focus on creativity

The researchers examined online communication of these titles through two web forums: leagueoflegends.com and mundo-minecraft. They also examined two YouTube channels: Vegetta777 for Minecraft content and RevenantLOL for LOL content. In forums, they examined posts and comments. For YouTube videos, they looked over the comments.

An online community resembles communities put together in person. It must contain a cohesive group of people who interact, build relationships, and form commitment around a shared interest or practice. The team found real communities within both game forums, but not on YouTube for a handful of reasons:

  • The game forums examined require users to have a LOL or Minecraft account to interact. Members have profiles based on roles like moderator. This provides a sense of belonging. YouTube only requires a basic account to post comments. The only roles are the creators and viewers.
  • The forums developed around the games they focus on. Each forum has its own rules that benefit interactions around the game. YouTube contains mixed content. Viewers must search for the game they want to see content of. YouTube has universal rules in place.
  • Though a YouTube video may receive many more comments than a forum post, original forum posters tend to intervene in conversations around their posts more than Youtubers do.
  • YouTube viewers depend on creators to upload specific content. Viewers comment in hopes of the creator seeing. It appears only one-way interactions occur as creators do not often respond to comments.
  • Forum users are more likely to engage in thorough conversations even if they have the same profile status.  This makes forum users more likely to recognize each other and engage as if they know each other over time.

The authors concluded that based on how users behave and interact with the different platforms, not every gathering of human ideas online represents community. Even if members of a forum leave, the forum will remain active if interest remains.

So, when browsing the internet remember that some sites are better suited for communal interaction than others. With the flexibility of the Internet, many online platforms exist to provide users a sense of belonging. The users in these forums belong to them, share content, and engage in thorough conversations. The YouTube comments section is considered a mess because users are not there to commit but drop in and out however they please. A community, online or off, is something that must foster real human interaction.

Sanz-Martos, S., Martinez, S., & Creus, A. (2018). Talking about games: Gamers’ digital communication spaces as the object of study. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, 10(2), 231–245.

Youth, sexuality, and social media

By Guest Author Kaitlin Slorey: kslorey {} yahoo.com

As with many things young people use social media for, making sense of sexuality is one of the most important and life-affecting.

It holds, then, that as a society, we need to better understand how rapidly social media technologies are transforming, and how this could overwhelm our youth. Youth face a continuous struggle of contradicting beliefs regarding sexual values and norms. Deciding which behaviors on social media should be supported or disciplined puts forth an unclear sense of “controlled freedom” for youth interacting on social media.

“a Wave of Social media” by winxEsther, licensed under CC BY-ND 3.0

Before social media, there were (and still are) beliefs that sexuality is something to be thought of as harmful to our youth, and thus has caused over-protection from sexual knowledge and openness. However, with highly sexualized popular media, these messages are nearly impossible to avoid.

When young people encounter sexual material in the media, they express moral concerns about such content, while equally valuing it as a source of information and learning.

Although young people seem more open-minded about sexuality than previous generations, Ridder suggests that they enforce stricter self-guiding morals on themselves.

Because of fast-paced changes in this digital age, this leaves little to no room for questioning or negotiating the behaviors that sexuality and social media bring about. We need to consider social media’s material as well as each platform’s important functions (particularly Tinder and Snapchat).

The results were based on 14 focus groups of Dutch-speaking youth in Belgium, including 89 participants from diverse backgrounds (52 girls and 37 boys), between the age of 14 and 19. The first 8 focus groups were conducted in 2012, and the last 6 took place in 2015. In doing so, the research was purposeful within the rapidly evolving culture of social media.

Discussion topics included displaying sexual identity, relationship status, exploring and experimenting with sexual desires through texts (status updates, hashtags, etc.), pictures (from profile pictures to selfies and snaps, etc.), and communicative interactions (chatting, commenting, texting, etc.). As opposed to direct experiences of the participants, this emphasized knowledge about values, and exploring the struggles youth face in a sexual culture in relation to social media.

Ridder noted, “When I asked young people about everyday intimate and sexual practices on social media, they usually talked about related risks and how to avoid them. Whether we talked about a relationship status on Facebook, posting or sending sexy pictures, looking for dates, or sending sexual messages, they found it smart to see sexuality as mostly private matters intended for outside of social media.”

Managing an online reputation and social media use, while balancing ambiguous social norms, was seen as a personal task where the individual is in charge of making these moral decisions. There is not one single way to understand what “good” sexual practices in social media are, but rather is heavily influenced by peer control.

Defining what is too private or what is unacceptable to share online was difficult for the participants to distinguish, but was commonly motivated by these individual moral judgments.

It was common for participants to distance themselves from their peers who behaved in a risky or inappropriate way. Whether talking about sexy pictures, messages, or dating, many of them acknowledged these kinds of behaviors causally, but the moral distancing played out as a way to respond to it in a competitive manner.

Final Thoughts

Competitive value judgments between the different focus groups may suggest a new sense of conservatism in young people’s knowledge on what’s considered “good” sexual values online. This conservatism is a way of dealing with the complexity of both perceived and real online risks in rapidly transforming social media. Relying on traditional values may be comfortable for youth, or makes this mindset of individuality a “smart” choice.

Ridder suggests society should start to engage with young people’s social media lives, interrogating what people hold as normal, natural, and healthy. Addressing the current conflicts about sexuality in the context of social media can further involve how to deal with social media overload, overlaid with issues of how society feels about sexuality and young people.

Ridder, S. D. (2017). Social Media and Young People’s Sexualities: Values, Norms, and Battlegrounds. Social Media + Society, 3(4), 1-11. doi:10.1177/2056305117738992

Deception in online dating

By Guest Writer Christina Arnold

Manti Te'o on sideline
Manti Te’o

On the internet, it’s easy to create an online persona that radically differs from your offline self.  When it comes to online dating, it seems even more likely that people will be deceptive about their true selves in an effort to get a date.  But are there certain attributes that make it likely that someone will exaggerate about themselves?  And how much will someone lie to score a date?

In the article “Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: The effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits”, researchers examined what factors make it more likely that a person will misrepresent themselves to a potential online date.

The user of an online dating service is able to customize their profile to exactly how they want it, which may make it more likely that they  will misrepresent themselves to appear better to a potential suitor—especially because of the high amount of competition that can be found on these sites.  However, since online dating sites usually encourage face-to-face meetings early on, most users are discouraged from any blatant deception about themselves.  The anticipation of a face-to-face meeting, along with the knowledge that your profile can be saved or printed out and looked at later, helps to stop any obvious misrepresentation since it would easily (and quickly) be found out.  Because of this, any misrepresentation is usually small, and is usually explained away by the user as their desirable (and potential) ‘future self’ (for example, their ‘future self’ may be thinner or more fit than their current self).

The authors looked to evidence in Evolutionary Psychology to create hypotheses that could help predict what could lead to deception in online dating.  Evolutionary Psychology suggests that women are more likely to look for men that have more resources and are committed for the long-term.  Both of these traits show that the man is willing and able to take care of any future offspring in the long-term.  Men, on the other hand, look for women who show signs of fertility (e.g., whether they’re young and healthy).

From the surveys, the authors found that men were more inclined to lie about their personal assets (i.e., resources), personal interests, and personal attributes than women were.  Women, on average, misrepresented their weight to a higher degree while men were more likely to lie about their age (it’s safe to say that the older a man is, the more likely he is to be more financially stable and have more resources).  However, older women  tended to misrepresent their age more—which goes back, again, to the Evolutionary Psychology theory that men look for signs of fertility (like youth).  Men were also more likely to lie about characteristics that signaled they were interested in long-term relationships.

The authors also discussed the “Big 5 personality traits” that might help predict deception—neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness.  They found that extroverts lied about past relationships more (because they were more likely to have a variety of sexual encounters), but misrepresented their personal interests less.  People low in conscientiousness misrepresented more because they didn’t have a strong concern for future consequences, and those who were less open to new experiences were more likely to misrepresent themselves to look like they were more interesting.

So while, yes, there is a likelihood that a person will lie about themselves to some degree on a site, I don’t think it should turn anyone away from online dating.  Any lies that you’re told can usually be discovered upon your first face-to-face meeting with this person.

Hall, Jeffrey A., Namkee Park, Hayeon Song, and Michael J. Cody (2010). “Strategic Misrepresentation in Online Dating: The Effects of Gender, Self-monitoring, and Personality Traits.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27,: 117-35.

Reading Between the Lines: What Our E-mails Say About Our Near and Far Relationships

By Guest Author Elizabeth Worlein

As a busy woman, a girlfriend in a long-distance relationship, and friend that is hard to reach by phone, I have wondered how my use of technology impacts my relationships. What does my use of e-mail say about my relationships with my friends, my romantic partner, and my family?

Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig, and Wigley attempt to answer this question in a recent study. Two hundred and twenty-six college students submitted their personal e-mail messages that they received in one week. The researchers examined how the e-mails maintained the students’ relationships with family, friends, and romantic partners. The researchers also examined how relationships were maintained between people that were geographically close, and those that were long-distance. Researchers observed five main behaviors people exhibited to maintain their relationships in the three types of relationships:

Family:

  • Openness (sharing your experience, feelings, etc.)
  • Social Networks (references to events, school, or other relationships)
  • Positivity (e.g. “Have a great day!”)
  • Assurances (e.g. “I love you.”)
  • Joint Activities (e.g. “See you Monday!”)

Friends:

  • Openness
  • Social Networks
  • Positivity
  • Joint Activities
  • Miscellaneous (Sign-offs, emoticons, etc.)

Romantic Partners:

  • Assurances
  • Openness
  • Positivity
  • Social Networks
  • Referring to cards, letters, or calls

This study illustrates that through the use of e-mail, we can continue to maintain our relationships when we are not face-to-face. What we communicate over e-mail, such as assurances or positivity, is similar to what we use to maintain our relationships when we are face-to-face with the person. The results indicate that our interactions over e-mail are not very different if we are near to or far away from the person.

What does this study’s finding say about our relationships?  Perhaps what we are communicating illustrates what we value in that relationship. For example, we may maintain friendships and family relationships to talk about our everyday experiences. For our romantic partners, we seek to communicate the importance of our relationship through assurances and openness. From all of these relationships, we are seeking positivity and openness, among many other values. Nothing radical happening on e-mail compared to any other venue–just another venue upon which to share the human condition.

Johnson, A., Haigh, M., Becker, J., Craig, E., & Wigley, S. (2008). College Students’ Use of Relational Management Strategies in Email in Long-Distance and Geographically Close Relationships. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 381-404.

Long-Distance Warps Our Perceptions of Romantic Partners

By Guest Author Lyndsey ChamberlainRabby blog cell phone

As a person in a long distance dating relationship (LDDR), I found it interesting that couples in a LDDR say they are happier then geographically close dating relationships (GCDR). I also was interested to learn that idealization of each other in a long distance dating relationship can adversely affect the relationship when a couple reunites.

In a survey of 122 heterosexual couples from a large Midwestern university, Stafford and Merolla looked at whether idealization may influence why LDDR are more stable and in some cases more satisfied with their relationship.

They also factored in days between face to face communication and other forms of communication, i.e., telephone. Stafford and Merolla found LDDR spend less time together than GCDR face to face and there is no great difference between how much LDDR and GCDR communicate by other means. They also found that idealization in LDDR increased when the time between face to face communications increased. LDDR also seemed to say they were happier with their relationships then the GCDR did. This is an example of how idealization can form false impressions of a partner.

In a separate survey of approximately 400 Midwestern college students, Stafford and Merolla conducted a second study, based off the first, saying idealization, type and frequency of communication, and other relational characteristics can predict long-term stability for LDDR who remain long distant or become geographically close.

Participants completed a survey on quality of marital index adapted for dating partners, global commitment scale, idealistic distortion scale and a whether or not each partner want to live in the same location as their partner. They looked at research points from the time they contacted the couples and then again after 6 months had passed to inquire about the couples relational status. Of the sample, half stayed distant and the other half moved closer.  82% of couples that moved close ended the relationship and only 40% that stayed distant ended the relationship. Stafford and Merolla found there is more stability in LDDR that stay distant then ones that become close. They determined idealistic distortion kept the LDDR intact. They also found couples who became geographically close and had more face to face communication during the separation had more stable relationships than others in the study.

If interested in lowering the idealization for a partner, it is important to increase face to face communication and be honest with each other and the changes in one another’s lives. To reduce idealization, be realistic when thinking of a long distant partner’s true qualities.

A problem that LDDR couples encounter with their partners when they become geographically close is having overly optimistic views of one another. They may feel like they know each other completely but then feel like they reunite with a stranger. More realistic people may experience less relational trouble when they reunite because they can be better prepared for the changes. LDDR should also increase the frequency they talk about important beliefs rather than avoid them to avoid disagreement during one of the few face to face interactions. This will help a couple because they will not have a false impression of future plans.

Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 37-54

One Experiment of How People Judge You on Facebook

By Guest Author Kirsten Bergstrom

In an experiment by Utz, 124 Hyves (a popular Dutch Social Network Site, or SNS, similar to Facebook) users gave their impression about a mock profile of Anouk Jansen using a 5-point scale.  The subjects judged Anouk based on her profile picture (extroverted, lively facial expression vs. introverted, sitting alone on the edge of a river), number of friends (82 vs. 382), and her friend’s profile pictures (extroverted pictures vs. introverted pictures).  The participants judged three factors:

  • Popularity (unpopular/popular, unsocial/social): Anouk was judged to be more popular when she had an extroverted profile than an introverted profile, had 382 friends, and had extroverted pictures of friends.  Self-generated information (profile picture) had the strongest impact.
  • Communal orientation (unfriendly/friendly, dishonest/honest):  The difference between Anouk’s introverted profile picture with introverted friends and Anouk’s extroverted profile with extroverted friends had little significant difference.  However, when the extroverted profile had introverted friends and the introverted profile had extroverted friends, her communal orientation score dropped significantly.
  • Social attractiveness (“I would like to spend time with Anouk”): When Anouk’s friends had introverted profiles pictures, she was perceived as more socially attractive with 382 friends than 82 friends.  When they had extroverted profile pictures, Anouk was slightly, but not significantly, more socially attractive when she had 382 friends than when she had 82 friends.

Utz, S. (2010). Show me your friends and I will tell you what type of person you are: How one’s profile, number of friends, and type of friends influence impression formation on social network sites.  Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 314-335.

More Evidence that Online Communication Leads to Feelings of Closeness to Others

By Guest Author Hannah A.

Once again, one of the primal questions of how people relate on the Internet–is the presence of Internet communication helping or harming their relationships? In this case, we look at teenagers and pre-teenagers.

794 Dutch adolescents, between the ages of 10-16, were given a series of questionnaires within their school classrooms.  The research conducted by Valkenburg and Peter focused upon three main points:

  • How Internet communication affects closeness to friends
  • How the users perceive the breadth and depth of the communication
  • How loneliness and social anxiety could alter the results

Teenagers use Internet to help relationships by Frerieke; Internet relationships; teenagers Their research leaned toward the hypothesis that most adolescents use the Internet to become closer with the friends that they already have, as opposed to using it to talk to strangers.  They found that, in addition, adolescents feel closer to their friends when they talk to them on the Internet, showing that this communication only helps strengthen the relationships in all age groups that were tested.

In regards to how much breadth and depth can be reached through online communication, 30% of the sampled group thought that online communication can be more effective for self disclosure and sharing private information than offline discussions.

Lastly, this study supported the rich-get-richer hypothesis, in that it showed most adolescents who pursue online communication are generally not lonely or socially anxious. Rather, doing so enhances existing relationships or promotes new ones.

The evidence here suggests that the Internet is not having a negative effect on the lives or development of adolescents in this generation, at least in terms feelings of connectedness to others.  For parents, this means not worrying if that if your child talks with their friends online, this can indicate anti-social behavior.  They are disconnected from the real world, but rather are enhancing their relationships.  For adolescents, this study indicates that reliance should not be solely on the internet, but on the symbiosis that can be achieved with existing friendships and those online.

Valkenburg. P.M., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents’ and Adolescents’ Online Communication and Their Closeness to Friends. Developmental Psychology, 43, , 267-277.