Research Proposal

I am planning to conduct a study that will determine how CMC can be a factor for two people to get intimate with each other.

I will try to survey and ask people how much time they talk with their boyfriend/girlfriend using CMC and face-to-face communication. Then I can determine if they use more CMC in developing their relationship or by using face-to-face communication.

blog # 7

january 5, 2009
11:00 AM-1:00 PM

psarenas: loc
theolozada: philippines
theolozada: you?
psarenas: wer in phili
theolozada: davao
theolozada: why, your from phil too?
psarenas: yes
psarenas: nem
theolozada: nem???
psarenas: nem
theolozada: where is that?
psarenas: nueva ecja
theolozada: ah
theolozada: haha
theolozada: so nagwewebcam ka?
psarenas: ou
theolozada: trabaho mo talaga yan?
psarenas: no, have fun
theolozada: so walang nagbabayad sau?
psarenas: wala
theolozada: waw
theolozada: hehe
theolozada: eh pero masaya?
psarenas: ok
psarenas: nghahanap kc aq ng job dito s net
theolozada: ahhh
theolozada: eh bat webcam2x?
psarenas: kaw
theolozada: wala lang
theolozada: sinubukan q lang 2ng chat2x
theolozada: first time ko pang pumasok d2 eh
psarenas: gnun b
theolozada: oo eh
theolozada: hehe
theolozada: tagal ka na di2?
psarenas: medyo naadik n
theolozada: haha
psarenas: location mo
theolozada: naghahanap sana aq ng foreigner na kachat kaso puro webcam ang gus2
theolozada: hehe
theolozada: davao aq
psarenas: kailangan tlaga un use of webcam
theolozada: diba pagwebcam mga private show yan lageh?
psarenas: hmdi nman gzto k lng mview qng ano itsura u
theolozada: ahhh ganun ba?
theolozada: hehe
theolozada: wala kameng webcam eh
psarenas: gnun nga
psarenas: kla q meron
theolozada: kaw nalang
theolozada: ptingin webcam mo
psarenas: cge
theolozada: haha
theolozada: lalaki k pla eh
psarenas: ou ah
theolozada: kala q gurl
psarenas: bkit kw
theolozada: lol
psarenas: haha
theolozada: makaparehas tau pare
theolozada: paano yan
psarenas: ah gnun b
theolozada: gwapo mo ah
theolozada: hahaha
psarenas: hnd nmam, d gusto u maguing fren
theolozada: haha
theolozada: aus lang
theolozada: wala pa ba kaung pasok ngaun?
psarenas: bkit wla kng cam
theolozada: eh home pc gamet namen eh
theolozada: tas di pa kame nakakabili ng webcam
psarenas: gnun b,kmi wla kc s house eh
theolozada: oo nga eh
theolozada: kta q netcafe nasa likod mo
psarenas: my tama k
theolozada: haha
theolozada: naglalaro ka netgames?
psarenas: my pic
psarenas: my pic k
theolozada: wala eh
theolozada: hehe
psarenas: ah gnun b
theolozada: fs siguro
psarenas: san k s davao
theolozada: sa lanang
theolozada: hehe
theolozada: bat ka nagtatanong?
psarenas: wla l;ngf
theolozada: haha
theolozada: kaw san ka sa nem?
psarenas: age u pla
theolozada: 16 ahaha
theolozada: mas matanda ka
psarenas: ang lau ng agwat
theolozada: kaw ba?
theolozada: 20 ka plang diba?
psarenas: hnd
theolozada: aw
theolozada: ano pla?
psarenas: 22
theolozada: aw
theolozada: haha
theolozada: kuya!
theolozada: haha
theolozada:
psarenas: ou nga
theolozada: graduate ka na?
psarenas: ou
theolozada: nung trabao mu ngaun?
psarenas: nghahanap plng]
theolozada: no pla cours mo?
psarenas: commerse
theolozada: ai saang college?
psarenas: up
theolozada: up?
theolozada: di nga?
theolozada: hehe
theolozada: galing a
psarenas: yes
theolozada: diliman?
psarenas: yes
psarenas: u
theolozada: eh bat la ka pa trabao ngaun?
psarenas: ngaabroad aq
theolozada: ahh
theolozada: wag na
theolozada: mas maganda di2 sa pinas
psarenas: qng my apportunity
theolozada: eh up ka eh
theolozada: siguro hahabulin ka naman
psarenas: gsto q mahal ang sweldo
theolozada: aw
theolozada: hehe
theolozada: so san mu plano pumunta?
psarenas: canada
theolozada: ahhh oo nga
theolozada: maganda dun


analysis:

Verbal Cues

In this conversation, we can clearly apply the theory of SIP. Though I haven't yet seen his face, i knew that he was bored and clearly not interested in the conversation. How did I know that? Through verbal cues. When a person only answers what you ask him, take a long time to answer, and doesn't propose topics himself, then we can assume that he is not that interested in the conversation. I however kept him going because I needed too. Somewhere in the middle of the conversation, things perked up a bit when he grew a little interested. He asked questions of his own and disclosed a little bit of himself. But at the end, he just clammed up so i figured the conversation was over.

Time taken to respond can also be taken as cues. When a person takes a long time to respond to you, then that means that he is not that interested in your conversation.

Extended time

IT took us two hours to exchange basic information( age, location, sex, job, alma mater) that would otherwise take only a few minutes in face-to-face conversation.

All in all, I say that we were successful in conversing, we discovered some things about each other that would make us acquaintances, same as in real life.

Social Information Processing Theory: Summary

Joseph Walther proposed the Social Information Processing Theory or SIP which wholly focuses on CMC or computer-mediated communication. CMC is communication that is not face-to-face. Furthermore, CMC is text based communication.

Contrary to what other theories propose, SIP suggests that CMC produces the same results as face-to-face communication; that even though nonverbal cues and other factors in communication are taken out, still effective communication can be maintained. Walther likened this to drinking. Even if you gulp directly from the bottle (face-to-face communication) or sip through a straw (CMC), the end result would stay the same. Whether you use one technique or the other, you will still empty the water.

How is this possible? This is possible if you satisfy two factors, namely Verbal cues and Extended time.

Verbal Cues

As we all know, successful communication is not determined by spoken words only. There are also other factors such as nonverbal cues that help the listener determine the purpose of the communicator. However, in CMC, nonverbal cues are factored out therefore, other theories suggest that communication cannot be complete and therefore is not successful.

However, experiments have shown that this is not so. Even though nonverbal cues are filtered out, they are successfully replaced by verbal cues. Therefore, the whole message is still relayed successfully.

Extended Time

If you compare a 2 minute face-to-face communication and a 2 minute CMC, face-to-face communication would fare far better than CMC. This is because, messages in CMC take longer to send than face-to-face communication. Technically, to have the same result, it would take CMC 4 times more than the time it would take forface-to-face communication. Therefore, extended time is essential in CMC for communication to be successful.

Hyperpersonal Perspective

CMC can produce relationships that are more intimate than if they met through face-to-face communication. Walther calls this thehyperpersonal perspective.

These are produced because of some factors unique in CMC.

Sender: Selective Self-Presentation

Because CMC does not involve to people physically seeing each other, then one can pretend. One can just disclose his appealing side but choose not to disclose his dark side. This can be misleading to the person one is communicating to and cause him to view one as a person that he technically is not in real life.

Receiver: Overattribution of Similarity

Because one can pretend to be someone else he is not, this sends a different picture of him to the person he is communicating with. One can also pretend to like this and like that, do this and do that-all for the purpose of presenting oneself as a good person though on the contrary, he really does not like to do this or that, so on and so forth. Walther says that the absence of NV cues does not prevent us from coming to a conclusion. On the contrary, it causes us to overattribute the little information that we have and create an image of the sender from that. However I stress that due to the lack of information, the created image most probably would not be like the true image of the sender.

Channel: Communicating on Your Own Time

Relationships need time so that it would develop. One of the causes of a breakup is because one doesn't have enough time for the other. This is not present in CMC. In CMC, you can communicate at your own time because you only send messages. You do not need to meet up so that you can talk. The stress caused by the need to coordinated time is eliminated therefore, it is easier to be intimate with each other.

So ends my summary of CMC.

Social Penetration Theory: Summary

The Social Penetration Theory or SPT was developed by Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor to explain how people get to know more about each other and how they become intimate with each other.

Basically, Altman and Taylor believe that people are like onions. We have our outer layers, which is the layer that people can see. It composes of our clothes, our skin color, our nationality, the color of our eyes-basically everything that can be seen by the naked eye.

Underneath this outer layer, there are more layers to a person's being. One layer would be our personality, our morals and beliefs etc. Then, we have our core which is the core of our very being. Our values, our deepest emotions and fears, and much much more.

Altman and Talor believes that we get close to a person by penetrating his layers. Furthermore, this penetrating can best be achieved by self-disclosure. Look at it like a wedge wedged in the onion. The wedge starts at the outermost layer. As you interact with a person, you learn things about him and the wedge cuts deeper into the onion. As the wedge cuts deeper into the onion, it penetrates more and more layers therefore disclosing more about the person. By doing this, one can draw closer to the person he is interacting with.

There are two aspects of self-disclosure. These are depth and breadth. If you have depth, then you penetrate deep into an area of a person's personality. Breadth on the other hand talks about how many aspects of the person do you know? For example, you may know about his love life, his family, his beliefs, and his dreams. All these constitutes different areas of his personality. Knowing more areas mean more breadth.


Regulating Closeness On the Basis of Rewards and Costs

Altman and Taylor maintains that we gauge how close we want to be with a person through perceived net of rewards minus costs. If both persons determine that the reward they will get from interacting more with the other person is greater than costs, then a friendship will develop between them.

Outcome

Altman and Taylor states that people try to predict the outcome of an interaction before engaging in it. If we see a favorable outcome, then we engage; if not then we withdraw. There are two reference points that help determine the outcome: Comparison Level and Comparison Level of Alternatives

Comparison Level

Comparison level talks about how we predict the outcome of an interaction on the basis of past relationships. For example, a person had very laid-back friends in high school. Then he was acquainted to his roommate in college who is very outgoing. With his relationship with his high school friends as a basis of comparison, he will not find a relationship with his roommate in college exciting.

Comparison Level of Alternatives

Comparison level of Alternatives talk about how we predict the outcome of an interaction on the basis of alternatives. For example, a conservative guy enters college. He needs to choose between pop music and rock music. Neither of the two is exactly appealing to him but he needs to choose. Therefore, we can guess that he will choose the more appealing one. The same principle applies in communication. If the same guy had to choose between hanging out with rocker dudes and hanging out with jazz lovers, then he would choose to hang out with the one that is more appealing to his conservative nature, therefore the jazz lovers.

This ends my summary of the SPT.

Expectancy Violations Theory: Summary

Expectancy Violations Theory or EVT is a theory developed by Judee Burgoon which seeks to explain factors in our communication with other people that leads us to decide how we will react.

EVT is rooted on the study of proxemics which according to Edward Hall is the study of people's use of space as a special elaboration of culture.

EVT is composed of three main concepts which are all interconnected to form one theory-EVT.

Expectancy

Expectancy is defined as what we expect the person we are conversing with, to do. For example if I am a VIP, I would expect that people will respect me therefore, they will stay at a respectable distance away from me. Expectancy are determined by several factors:1)By context which is the cultural conversational norm.2)by relationship which is how open you are to the person you are conversing with.3)By Communicator Characteristics which can refer to the characteristics of the person whom you are conversing with and which causes you to like the person therefore resulting in better communication.

Violation Valence

When you're expectancy of a person is not satisfied and what your conversation partner did was deviant from what you expected, we call that a violation; which leads us to Violation Valence. Violation Valence or VV(my personal abbreviation) refers to how we measure the degree of the violation committed. VV can be positive or negative. For example, a person behaved differently from how you expected him to behave. For example he may have rubbed his palm across your face, a gesture you didn't expect from him, therefore, he committed a violation. Now you determine whether you liked what he did or not-which can give you a positive or negative VV, after which you can now decide how to react.

However, not all violations are easily decoded and according to EVT, when the meaning of an action is unclear, we interpret the violation according to how the violator can affect our lives.

Communicator Reward Valence

Do you ever wonder why even if we are roughhoused by some people, we don't get back at them? One reason would be because we think that we can achieve more if we don't offend them. This is illustrated by the Communicator Reward Valence or CRV(my own abbreviation). CRV presents that we do a mental audit of our likely gains and losses if we react in a certain way. If we think that gains would outweigh the losses, then we react in a way that is appealing to the person we are communicating with. This explains why for example, our boss scolds us yet we remain passive because we know that by being so, we can retain our jobs and if we don't, we get fired.


These concepts make up the theory of EVT and these can help us in our daily socializing. For example, I learned that the more you know a person. the more you can afford to commit violations without offending the person. However, if we don't know a person that well yet, then we better adhere to the social norms set by society.

Symbolic Interactionism: Summary

George Herbert Meade was the first who proposed the ideas that form up the theory of Symbolic Interationism. However it was a student of his, Herbert Blumer who gathered all his ideas together into a book. It was also Herbert Blumer who coined the term Symbolic Interationism which I will term SI for this blog.

There are three core principles of SI: The construction of Social Reality, The Construction of Meaning, and The Process of taking the role of the Other. These three core principles of SI deal with meaning, language, and thought respectively. Let’s talk about these principles one by one.

The Construction of Social Reality: Meaning

Blumer bases this principle on the premise that humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things. A person who sees another person in a certain light will act accordingly.
As an example, let me give this quote I received on text messaging; “how do you define a trashcan? To a toddler, it’s just a shelf for his ugly toys; to a pupil, it’s where she keeps her bad test papers; to a teenager; it’s a basketcase for the letters of an ex-lover; but to a street child, it’s the source of food for everyday living.” A trashcan is a single object, yet it can have several definitions according to different people; and to each of these people, their definition of the trashcan is the true definition of the trashcan. Furthermore, a collection of these definitions make up a person’s reality.

The Source of Meaning: Language

This simply suggests that meaning is formed by social interaction of individuals. As I mentioned in the pervious concept, each person has his own perception of certain things, objects etc. By interaction with another person, one can then see how the other person perceives a certain object, thing etc. For example, I define the word chair as a thing to sit on. Then I find out that my family also perceives the word chair in the same way. After that I find out, that the entire population of Davao City perceives the word chair in the same way that I do. Therefore, the word chair will be universally accepted in Davao city as referring to something which we sit on. In connection to this, if a collection of people perceive one object in the same way, then this perception becomes reality to them.
As Blumer stated, Meaning is negotiated through the use of language-hence the term symbolic interactionism.

The Process of Taking the Role of the Other: Thought

Blumer’s third premise is that an individual’s interpretation of symbols is modified by is or her own thought processes. Interactionists claim that thinking is like having an inner conversation otherwise called minding. Humans have the ability to think things through and therefore, they derive meanings from what they think.
However, we must have language before we can think coherently therefore; we must learn to interact symbolically. Furthermore, according to Griffin’s book, we must have social stimulation and exposure so that we can learn to grasp abstract symbols that we use in minding.

Mead also introduced the concept of taking the role of the other. Humans take the viewpoint of another person to better understand things. It is better understood as standing in another person’s shoes.

The Self

The three concepts stated above are all interconnected, and together they form the concept of self. Mead argues that there are two aspects of self. The me and the I. The I is instinctive. It is spontaneous, unrehearsed and impulsive. It is the part of self that causes us to do something even though we can’t provide a good explanation why we did it. In contrast, the me is the image of self seen in the looking-glass-which is a person’s image as seen through other people’s eyes. The me is therefore our image according to how other people sees us. The me conforms to society and its rules. The community forms the me to suit it’s structure.

How to lose a Guy in 10 days: Analysis

The movie How to lose a Guy in 10 days depicts the journey of a woman who wanted to make a guy fall in love with her then make him ditch her. The twist of the story is that the guy whom she picked had the task of making her fall in love with him. In the end though, they both fell in love with each other.

Let us analyze the movie by the core concepts of EVT.


The movie's storyline is heavy with EVT-inspired scenes. In their first meeting, the guy expects the girl to be cool because she knew how to create the image. She didn't immediately invade his private space, yet she portrayed an image that she also liked the guy. However as the week progressed, she began invading his space more and more and also portrayed out-of-context behavior, therefore leading to our next topic, violation valence.

As the girl tries to make the guy ditch her, she displays behavior that has great negative value of violation valence. By applying EVT, we can see that the behavior she displays-which is commonly regarded as bad behavior in American society-has great negative violation valence. If the guy have not been tasked to make her fall in love with him, he would have ditched her completely because of she was violating every rule in the how-to-get-a-guy book.

Communication reward valence now comes into the picture. The guy doesn't want to ditch the girl even if she was committing a lot of social violations because he knew that he had more to gain if he kept her and make her fall in love with him. As the prospect of the gains he would receive from keeping her far outweighs the losses he would get, he tried very hard not to ditch her.