View and vote on the article here: Psychological Validity of Online Communities
Psychological Validity of Online Communities| Category | | | Summary | | As part of a research project, I have created a workup of whether or not as people, we view online and offline communitites the same way mentally. To do this, I compiled and examined the work of psychologists in this area, as well as conducted interviews |
| | Body | Psychological Validity of Online Communities
by Goliath
The world is much different than the one most of us were born into. Generation X was the first to come in mainstream contact with the digital ages in the early 90's during their teenage years, and Generation Y has never known a time before computers and the Internet. A psychological and sociological revolution is taking place before our eyes. For millennia, the human race has known communities mainly based on geographical, political, and religious boundaries. A new world, called the Internet, has changed all of that, where boundaries have all but disappeared. But, is the concept and structure of community fundamentally changing, or is it carrying over into this new world? Is community shaped by circumstance, or by human nature? The evidence can be a bit confusing. One hand, there is the nature of the Internet, which has changed not only the location, but all of the basic fundamentals of interpersonal interaction. On the other, the way that people are using this global forum is strikingly similar to how they act in the real world.
I have been a member of this new medium since its early beginnings. Starting in the early 80's with dial up message boards, and in then the Internet, I have witnessed the changes of online interaction and offline society's changing views of it. I have been at the forefront of many of these changes. In my experiences, I have found the workings of online society fascinating in its politics, structure, and operation. I have spent the majority of my life in the online world. What I've come to learn is that online communities hold the same psychological significance as real world communities. In other words, consider them to be real communities with substance and standards. Let's explore how this is possible in an environment so foreign to traditional communities.
As we know them, communities in the real world are based on relationships between people who share something in common. Countries, cities, religions, and even races are communities. Workplaces, college, our friends, our neighborhood; where ever we go in life, we are engaging in communities. It is no different when we go onto the Internet. To the uninitiated, cyber communities have no real substance. It is a false common belief that communities are mainly formed by geographical relationships. While this holds mostly true in our everyday world, the Internet has proven that communities can exist with no geographical commonality.
Let us first determine some common factors between the real world and the virtual world so that we can compare them through a common language. The real world is viewed and interacted with through our bodies, but to interact with the virtual world, we must look through a window, which is the computer screen. To communicate within it, we must use a keyboard, microphone, or even a camera. Beyond this, those things we see through that window are often given names that correspond with real world counterparts.
In the real world, we sit down and talk with people in a living room or a restaurant. In the virtual world, we sit down at our computers or in front of the TV with our laptops, and we go to virtual ?rooms? to chat with others. In the real world, we drive to someone's house to visit them, or drive to the theater to see a movie. In the virtual world, the act of driving to a place is called ?surfing to a site?. In the real world, when we want to talk to someone immediately, we give them a call. In the virtual world, an instant messenger is used to see if they are online and to hold private two way conversations.
Now that we are familiar with some of the parallels, we will start exploring the differences, and the effects on community psychology. To do this, we will rely on the work of John Suler, Doctor of Psychology at Rider University. His list of 10 Psychological Features of Cyberspace are as follows: reduced sensations, texting, identity flexibility, altered perceptions, equalized status, transcended space, temporal flexibility, social multiplicity, recordability, and media disruption (Suler 1). While the words themselves may sound confusing, understanding such concepts is easy. They are a well rounded way of understanding the differences between the real world and the virtual world and how the psyche is effected by them. As such, we will go over each and explore its effects.
Reduced Sensations is the fact that people cannot have physical contact through their computers (Suler 1). In most cases, they have no more contact than type-written conversation. This eliminates most of the other senses. For instance, a man and woman who are flirting, do not have the advantage (or disadvantage) of smelling each other's perfume or seeing the reaction to a joke. However, those who are experienced chatters have learned to overcome this obstacle by type-written emotion ques, sometimes referred to as e-motions. Examples of this are smiling :) , winking ;) , frowning :( , crying ;( , or surprise :o . This is part of what called Texting, or the act of using alternative methods of expression for presenting one's self in this limited environment (Suler 1).
One of the more important aspects of online communities is Identity Flexibility. This is where it really starts to get interesting! Unlike real world communities, where the only way you can change the way you present yourself is by changing hair style or clothing, the virtual world allows for much more change. The very basic web surfer is invisible, an outsider to the community. From there, a person can rise up out of the darkness in almost any likeness they wish. The amount of change can be very dramatic. A person's age, race, sex, social class, nationality and even their personality can be presented any way they wish, whether true or false, and at any time, disappear back into the darkness of anonymity (Suler 2).
Here we must stop and ponder the true impact of Identity Flexibility because of its significance. It presents one of the most fundamental variables in an individual's psychological interaction with the online world. It allows one to play out whatever fantasy their ego wishes. Many people, for different reasons, go as far as creating multiple online identities. Doing so, they can be saint and sinner. One could experiment with playing the bad guy, without fear of the same real life consequences. As Suler puts it, ?Anonymity has a disinhibiting effect that cuts two ways. Sometimes people use it to act out some unpleasant need or emotion, often by abusing other people. Or it allows them to be honest and open about some personal issue that they could not discuss in a face-to-face encounter? (Suler 1). This also leads us to two another aspects; Equalized Status, meaning that all are equal (e.g. a prince could play the pauper, or the pauper a prince), and Social Multiplicity. Social Multiplicity means that either using one or more personalities, we can carry on multiple conversations at once (Suler 1). One can talk to their father in a private chat window, a group of Britney Spear fans in a chat room window, and send e-mail in another window.
Next on the list is Altered Perceptions. This is when a computer user engaged in the act of interacting with other people can be a surreal experience on par with a dream state (Suler 1). I have observed many persons, especially those involved in full motion multiplayer games, who talk about how real it all feels to them after long sessions. One comical example of this happened a few years ago while I was engaged in a multiplayer shooter game. With all of the lights off in the room, I was playing as a sniper waiting in a dark corner of the ?map?, or game area. In an instant, three simultaneous things happened. As I saw an enemy sniper suddenly appear across a field, a shot rang out through the headphones I was wearing as I saw the explosion from his gun, and coincidently, my pager went off which was set to vibrate mode. Half a second later, I was laying flat on my back, having knocked myself literally out of my chair. The vibration of the pager was all it took to send my psyche into a frenzy and my reality had instantly changed from the surreal feeling I always get when playing games into a very real reality. For a few seconds, I forgot where and who I really was. For a few seconds, I was a wounded sniper crying out from pain and shock of the shot in my hip at the location of the vibrating pager. For a few seconds, my only thoughts were where I could run and hide.
That brings us to the last three concepts more concepts, Temporal Flexibility, Recordability, and Media Disruption. Temporal Flexibility is the fact that even with real time conversations, not all people are online at the same time (Suler 1). Thus, a conversation can stretch out over long matter of time. Recordability is the fact that everything gets documented (Suler 1). This makes Temporal Flexibility possible, and the fact that thoughts and ideals can be brought back from the past into a current conversation in the blink of an eye as if from a perfect, limitless memory (Suler 1). But, all is not perfect, because of Media Disruption. In real life, we do not normally stand talking with someone only to find for no apparent reason that we lose our voice for a few minutes. But, in the virtual world, communication channels can fail because of errors, thus causing disruptions in conversations and interactions (Suler 1).
Let us summarize what we've seen. The virtual world holds many similarities to the real world. But when we look at the special circumstances of the virtual world, we see a large difference in how humans operate. The Internet is a land in which you can be anyone, anywhere, anytime. People there are omnipresent, virtually omniscient, shape shifters with almost unlimited resources. It's easy to surmise that it is a land of mortal gods. In such a place, one would think that chaos would reign. But, the fact is that the people who interact in the virtual world are not gods, but simple humans. And as such, our true personas come through. This includes the way we treat people and function within communities. According to Suler, ?Many of the classic social-psychological principles of group dynamics can be applied in understanding and improving the functioning of these groups - such as issues concerning leadership, communication patterns, group boundaries, cohesion, alliances and subgroupings? (Suler 1).
It must be understood that while the virtual world may operate very differently from the real world, people still tend to act and form relationships basically the same way. For all of humanity's ingenuity to create such a fantastic world and ways to use it, we still project our real world concepts into the virtual world. This is because of the way the human mind works. As we've seen, the Internet User tends to see the online world as a real place. They thus treat it as such.
To get a user's perspective, Internet chatters were asked if they consider online communities ?real?, why they think that, and what makes online communities appealing. Leto, a regular of chat, and advanced systems administrator of CyberArmy believes that ?online communities provide the opportunity for a broader range of individuals to intermingle without worrying about their differences such as race, nationality, size, weight, age? so where they lack many of the strong communal ties of real world communities, they add aspects that real world communities often lack? (Leto).
Another administrator echoed those thoughts, stating that he finds the, ?online and offline communities to be sort of equal, but the online communities have a couple of benefits, easier to reach/find and usually can provide higher state of anonymity? (wa1800z) .
Other chatters also tended to agree with this idea (TheOmlet), but I feel one person stated it best. Julia, a female chatter, summarized the feelings of all those questioned best. She said, ?Do I consider online communities to be as valid as real world communities? I'd have to say yes? What be this magic, this trickery, to speak to faceless people about interests you share? [Some people say it] is a lie in itself, but I tell you, my brothers and sisters, it is real!? (Julia).
While the rules may be a bit more relaxed online, basic tenants of common community morality and norms still apply. The facts are obvious in that the environment is extremely different from that of the real world. However, for all of the extra perceived ?powers? that the user has, none truly hold power of any other person. Even in those chat rooms where certain users hold a position of moderation power, they tend to act civilly and with proper authority. The reason for this is simple, in that one cannot force users to a location. If those who have some controlling power are not fair to the users, the users will simply leave, and the moderators will be left with an empty space and no authority. It is this type of structure that presents us with the true nature of the Internet as a gathering of communities. Only those places that treat the user as they wish to be treated remain active. As the nature of a person does not change when they enter the virtual world does not change, no matter what personality they choose to express, they will tend to choose groups that fill their needs in the same way that they do in the real world. Suler describes the process of people organizing with groups of similar interest in his description of Transcended Space as a psychological effect within people to gravitate towards certain people, but on a grander scale.
After reviewing all of the information, we can see that real world and virtual communities are seen in much the same light by participants in each. If you look at the American community, it is lead by our leaders, whether political or role models. They influence how our community operates. However, they are liable to the will of the people who follow them. Thus, the leaders of individual communities have partial control, and the populous holds the majority of control. When either conflicts, the entire community acts in ways to return to equilibrium. Usually, the communal rationality overrides that of a single individual in the forming of group norms and rules. The same principles of community apply to online communities.
Peter Kollock and Marc Smith, from the Department of Psychology of the University of California, state that, ?Any successful community will have a set of rules -- whether they are implicit or explicit -- that govern how common resources should be used and who is responsible for producing and maintaining collective goods. However, it is important that the rules are tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of the group? (Kollock). From the model we have reviewed of how Internet communities are formed, by users choosing groups that suit their needs, and from the views they themselves hold, it is obvious to see that Internet communities form not only in the same basic structure and manner as real world communities, but more efficiently as real world communities are hindered by factors of class and geographic location, even when considering the limitations of the computer interface. It is then easy to see why online users find online communities appealing and ?real?.
Works Cited
- ?The Basic Psychological Features of Cyberspace.? The Psychology of Cyberspace. Suler, John. Jan. 2002. Dept. of Psychology, Rider University. 03 April 2002 <http://www.rider.edu/users/suler/psycyber/basicfeat.html>
- ?Identity Management in Cyberspace.? The Psychology of Cyberspace. Suler, John. Apr. 2000. Dept. of Psychology, Rider University. 03 April 2002 <http://www.rider.edu/users/suler/psycyber/identitymanage.html>
- Wa1800z. Internet Interview. 03 Apr. 2002
- TheOmlet. Internet Interview. 03 Apr. 2002
- Leto. Internet Interview. 03 Apr. 2002
- Julia. Internet Interview. 03 Apr. 2002
- Kollock, Peter, Marc Smith. Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Ed. Susan Herring. Amsterdam. 1996: 109-128. U of California, Las Angeles. 03 April 2002 <http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/vcommons.htm>
|
|
This article was imported from zZine. (original author: Goliath)
There are no replies to this post yet.
|