Psychology of Online Virtual Relationships
Psychology of Online Virtual Relationships The most basic definition of community, as taught in introductory sociology, is a group of people who have resided in a certain geographic area for a length of time and share similar values. Since interactions on the internet do not take place in a definable geographic area and the users themselves are often hundreds of miles apart, many argue that there is not such thing as a virtual community. Although it is true that interactions on the internet do not take place in any geographically definable area, they take place in computer mediated space (CMS). However, not all interactions in CMS qualify as communities. In order to qualify as a community, a CMS would require that the people who interact (reside) in that space have a history of interactions and share common values. For the purpose of discussion, I suggest that we define community as groups of people who have interacted in a place for a length of time and share common values.
In Virtual Communities, Virtual Settlements & Cyber-Archaeology: A Theoretical Outline, Quentin Jones summarizes the two widely accepted and contrasting definitions of virtual community. The first definition, defines virtual community as "computer mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member generated content." This definition, which is derived mainly from internet entrepreneurs, implies that virtual communities are merely collections of ideas made possible by technology. Those who subscribe to this definition are generally business people, whose livelihood depends on creating moods within their CMS's to draw people into them. I disagree with this definition, because it negates the fact that virtual communities are sociological phenomena and implies the the CMS itself is the community. As Cliff states in, The WELL as a community, "The WELL itself is not a community, but the people who hang out here are. The people are the community, not the commercial service that provides the space. The people who share the space are the community, not the space itself...If nobody lives in a town, then how can it be a community. The streets and buildings and local honky-tonk are not the community."
The opposing view defines virtual community as, "social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace." This definition is a good starting point for my own definition of virtual communities. For now, I shall define virtual communities as groups of people who have interacted in a CMS for a length of time, share common values, and are effective due to some inherent characteristic. I would like to assert that the inherent characteristic that makes communities effective are the relationships of the people within the group.
Quentin Jones more thoroughly defines virtual communities and suggests that within virtual communities are Virtual Settlements. Jones's definition of virtual settlements is similar to my definition of virtual communities. Although Jones believes that there is a distinction between a virtual community and a virtual settlement, I feel that his argument is merely semantics. He defines virtual settlements in terms of "(1) a minimum level of interactivity; (2) a variety of communicators; (3) a minimum level of sustained membership; and (4) a virtual common-public-space where a significant portion of interactive group-CMCs occur." Jones seems to prefer the term "settlement" over "community," because "settlement" is an archeological term. The implications of defining virtual communities as settlements allows for Jones to suggest that these settlements can be studied in terms of their "tells, large mounds resulting from the accumulation of human debris over long periods of human habitation."
Since Jones was so through in his definition, I feel that I should revise mine in order to be more explicit. I will continue to use the term virtual community, strictly out of personal preference. My final definition of a virtual community is a variety of people who share similar values, communicating in a CMS for a minimum length of time and with a minimum level of sustained membership. I agree with Jones that we can conduct "cyber archeology" by examining the plethora of data left in cyberspace. However, I wonder whether the information left in these "cyber tells" would be an accurate reflection of society, or evidence of a sub-culture of society. In order to examine this idea further, perhaps I should explain what I have learned about virtual relationships.
For example, I would qualify people who have interacted for an extended period of time through a topic, intention or interest as having a virtual relationship. What makes these interactions virtual relationships is that they were cultivated in virtual reality. I do not consider the interactions of people who use the internet to communicate with friends as virtual relationships, because the characteristics of the relationship are different. First, these real life relationships were not formed in virtual reality, but in our physical lives. In addition, traditional relationships are usually an effect of proximity, physical attraction and mutual interests which are expressed through verbal and nonverbal language. In virtual relationships, the relationship is formed in virtual reality. The relationship is generally cultivated through typed words on a screen, and is based on the content of the individual's words. Dr. James would probably also add that these relationships are spiritual, because they are not in space and time.
In this manner, we can define virtual relationships as real, spiritual relationships that are created by the communication of minds through a topic, intention or interest. The virtual in virtual relationships, means that the relationship lacks a connected state. By this I mean that virtual relationships lack a physical connection, because computers are able to mediate individuals' communications over great distances. Despite time or distance, virtual relationships are effective due to the types of interactions between individuals involved in the relationships. Although the individuals in virtual relationships are not physically connected, they connect on a spiritual level. For example, members of an online cancer support group develop virtual relationships due to the commonality associated with having a disease. By discussing their very personal experiences, the people in the group develop an emotional bond. In an article from Interpersonal Computing and Technology Journal (1995) entitled, Creating a Real Group in a Virtual World, Dr. Gerald Phillips recalls how the people that he met on the net "became very real and became very much a part of my life." Statements like Dr. Gerald's reflect the power of virtual relationships.
However, I feel that it is important to point out that Dr. Phillips' observation is flawed. He neglected the fact that the people he met on the net were always "real". Dr. Phillips' who admits in the article that he initially harbored a great deal of animosity towards computers and viewed them as "evil things" that "tend to suck up the human soul" mistakenly equated online interactions to interacting with a computer. Once Dr. Phillips' came to terms with the fact that computers are merely communication vehicles, like letters and phone calls, he was able to acknowledge that the relationships he had cultivated were in fact "real".
Through the concept of virtual archeology, it would be possible to study the process of Dr. Phillips' realization. Dr. Philips was likely a member of a virtual community, if the community was well established there would likely be "cyber tells." From these cyber tells, it might be possible to see how Dr. Phillips' virtual relationships grew and how his interactions with the people he met online changed. Furthermore, if we assume that virtual relationships are real relationships and hold that "there is a predictable relationship between technology and people's behavior, then we may also assume that virtual relationships will eventually be governed by certain norms. By studying cyber tells, it would be possible to define norms of behavior in cyberspace. I have heard avid computer users call such proper online behavior, "netiquette." However, it seems to me that the norms of behavior in cyberspace might be very different from the norms in real life.
Some net users enjoy engaging is MUD's and MOO's where they assume a character of their choosing. I believe that this type of role playing is fairly harmless, because all of the participants are aware of the situation. However, in other instances if people present themselves differently, and those interacting with are not aware that the individual is altering their personality, someone could get emotionally hurt. Unfortunately, it is very easy to present yourself as someone else on the internet, since the other people cannot see or hear you. In addition, the typed words on the screen that represent someone else can be somewhat dehumanizing. Even nice people can act immorally on the internet, when they forget that they are not communicating with a computer, but another human being with real thoughts and feelings.
Once, I received and ICQ ping from someone who had accidentally dialed into my computer instead of their friend's computer. I tried to tell the person that they had made a mistake, but she (I'm guessing) thought that I was just teasing her. It was so easy just to type some words onto a screen. I tried to explain to this person that she had made a mistake, but she was would not believe me. I am ashamed to say it, but I played along. I typed very non-specific questions like: "What is going on?" "Who is ____?" "So what are your plans?" She offered information so easily, and I was able to deduce that she was having an affair with some guy and his roommate (apparently who she thought I was!) Her boyfriend, who was married, was supposed to be getting a divorce so that this girl could marry him! After about ten minutes, I started to feel really guilty.
I had become caught up in a twisted game, and forgotten that there was another person on the other side of my screen whom I could have easily shattered with a few key strokes. Finally, I told her in no uncertain terms that she had made a mistake and was not speaking to anyone she knew. I told her that she and her boyfriend should come up with some kind of code or something to verify their identities. I then blocked her from being able to ping me again! This unfortunate experience reinforced just how easy it is for people to deceive others, and be deceived themselves, on the internet. One listserv participant gives good advice when he cautions that just as in real life, we need to be "street-savvy" out in cyberspace.
Despite my lack of virtual relationships, I use the internet to keep in touch with my friends on the mainland. I appreciate the near instant gratification that email and chat software like ICQ affords me. I can email a letter and know that the news will still be news when it arrives at its destination. Sometimes, I even prefer to use email instead of the telephone. For one thing it is a lot cheaper, and some things are easier to write than to say.
Most recently, my best friend from high school and I have re-kindled our friendship after several years of not speaking to one another. We initially began commuting again via letters and then graduated onto email. In those first few months when we were getting reacquainted, email was very helpful. I am not always able to talk about things that are bothering me, so I tend to chose writing as my vehicle for difficult subjects. With email, I could send my message and get a reply relatively quickly. The speed of email kept me from spending days worrying about the other person's reaction.
Now, I find that I simply like the flexibility the computer affords me. Although I talk to my friends on the phone almost every week, we cannot always get a hold of one another due to the time difference. With email, we can type letters at anytime. In addition, email is very economical for poor college students!
However, for those who are so inclined, there are infinitely many places to meet people. I have discovered that people meet in chat rooms, newsgroups, bulletin boards, through web sites, email and MOOs and MUDS! Since my limited experience meeting people on the internet was negative, I am cautious about participating in such things. I have never participated in a newsgroups and I am still confused about the appeal regarding MOO's and MUDS! However, from my searches, it seems as though the majority of meeting places are arranged according to common interests. Additionally, I have found regional and miscellaneous subject meeting places. When I searched the internet for "chat rooms," I got over 220,000 matches! This brief list of links is a small sample of places to meet on the internet.
As a result, my approach this report different than my classmates. Most of my classmates summarized the information, gave explanations of various type of meeting places on the internet, and explained their own personal experiences on the internet. Although their reports were all well done, I chose to take this tangent, because I really wanted to define for myself what I thought about virtual relationships and virtual communities. Although my report is somewhat untraditional, I think I was able to get my message across to the reader.
I think the most important thing that I want future generations do is to keep an open mind and critically examine their web experiences. The internet is a unique environment that can foster person growth, but only if you let it. I started with a negative attitude and it made me wary of the internet. However, as one well participant said:
Guralnik, D. B., (Ed.). (1986) Webster's new world dictionary of the american language (2nd ed.). Cleveland: Simon and Schuster.
