Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!harrier.ukc.ac.uk!eagle.ukc.ac.uk!pk2
From: pk2@ukc.ac.uk (P.Kathuria)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: psychology of computer use.
Message-ID: <6254@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>
Date: 15 Jan 89 16:07:43 GMT
References: <8901092247.AA05892@multimax.encore.com> <312@gloom.UUCP> <14616@oberon.USC.EDU> <5333@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <14656@oberon.USC.EDU>
Reply-To: pk2@ukc.ac.uk (Paola Kathuria)
Organization: ex ISAP/Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Lines: 67

In article <14656@oberon.USC.EDU> greenwoo@mizar.usc.edu (al greenwood) writes:

>>[...] Computer Communications causes users to become more
>>polarized.  If you disagree with someone, it will be more violent over 
>>computer channels than in person, and if you agree with someone you will
>>more quickly become confidants.  Computer communications, be it real-time or
>>e-mail, lacks the dampers that society has imposed in most other forms of
>>communications.  

>Oh most definitely. 
>The question is what is causing this lack of inhibition.. lack of sight,
>anonymity, a form of deindividuation.Are these dampers something outside of 
>us that the computer will not transmit... or are they internal rules for
>our interactions which we for some reason ignore or dont apply to the computer.
>
>A friend suggested that the tenuous link with reality that computer comm. has
>contributes to this. (I mean where exactly is this conference located, and how
>we imagine others to be...) Nobody imposes rules on a fantasy..

I can't help replying although I have no research to back up anything I
say, only a year's experience of BBs, chat programs and multi-user adventure
games (usually packaged together), which I hope to make use of by collecting
transcripts and writing a paper.  My background is psychology and computing.

To Al's original question, yes, I'd disagree too; I tend to like people
quicker over the computer but I can also dislike them quicker too; there
is still a sizeable portion of just-okay people in the middle.  My feelings
are that having done away with handwriting, fashion, looks, voice,
mannerisms and even gender, all one is left with is the context and what
is said to build up an idea of someone you are communicating with.  For
instance, one can make some assumptions about people who write here from
their organisation and the fact that they have access to news.  Besides
this information, what people say becomes all important.  However this
medium can still mislead people.  In bulletin boards and e-mail people write
as much as they like without being interrupted, some are meticulous about
the appearance and accuracy of what they write and some are not.  But
because it is all people have to go by, I believe that these become  
more salient, and these are factors in addition to the actual content of
a message.

What I think is most interesting is communicating real-time in chat programs
or MUAGs.  Because of the medium and number of people involved, messages
are usually restricted to a line at a time (because the subject of the
conversation(s) change often and someone may reply before you) and so
people talk in a new way.  Some develop their own shortened vocabulary to
make conversation as close to the spoken word time-wise as possible, as
well as use smileys and atmospheres to qualify what they are saying (e.g.,
[smile], [wave], [hug]).  I have made some good friends on this medium
(and psychological research would explain this in terms of disclosure),
having spent many hours talking.   At times I had to pinch myself to
remind myself that there was a real person somewhere typing at a terminal
like me; sometimes it's like talking to oneself because there is no threat.

Although early on the model one builds up of someone is disjointed and
conflicting, over time I think one can have a good enough idea of what
someone is like in 'real life' to know whether you'll get on or not.
Most importantly, I believe people are more honest over this medium
because nothing will embarrass them but their own regret; there is no
feedback unless someone purposefully replies (I'm comparing this with
silences over the 'phone, a look that passes over the face).  Because
of this I value it because it forces us to accept people for who
they are inside rather than base any model on the conventional, and often 
misleading, first physical appearance.


---* Paola Kathuria       pk2@ukc.ac.uk   or   com0pk@cms1.leeds.ac.uk 
... whose paradise is a bag of jam doughnuts and a can of squirty cream.