I discovered Teresa's report by going to the Special Awards for All Generations page and clicking on various home pages there.  Teresa's stood out, as I mentioned above, because of its clarity and ease of use. I browsed 10 reports before I chose Teresa's. This was my initial search and I spent a lot of time reviewing each -- approximately 1 to 15 minutes each. 

How Drivers Communicate, by Teresa Query, is an interesting report that informs the reader about the different forms of communication while we drive, the importance of this communication and how we learn it from others. 

First she gives summary reviews of the following reports: Kristin Subia's "How Drivers Communicate With Each Other, "Andrew Shapiro's "The Effectiveness of the Gestural Communication Involving Drivers Requesting the Right-of Way," Kristin Evert's "How Drivers Communicated with Each Other: The Hardest Language to Learn," and, Mary Elizabeth Pacheco's "How Drivers Communicate with Each Other: What are We Saying to One Another?" With these summaries she points out different methods of communication such as: vehicular (i.e., horn honking, signals), verbal and gestural (i.e., "finger waves," "finger beckons," etc.), and in one, Pacheco's, she notes a wholly different form of communication, that of direct action (i.e., overtaking and changing lanes. 

Next, she reports on her own informal observational research. She cites four different incidents and gives specific communication forms for each including; dirty looks, lip movements, aggressive overtaking, honking, blinkers, arms out of window, waves, etc. The most helpful, Teresa notes, are the flashing lights warning of a speed trap or that her lights are not on at night. 

Teresa was a little disappointed with her research within the newsgroups. However, she found the frustration expressed by the various participants to be an important outlet for education in this area. Her other real life research and web research offered some interesting items: tips; "Avoid eye contact with aggressive drivers," and Don't return any gestures made by other drivers." and, 3M's in car computer to inform on upcoming hazards. 

Finally, she offers further areas of reference for future research especially for the use of future generations. 

I enjoyed reading Teresa's report on communication between drivers. It was well written and easy to follow. She defined a number of types of communication and how they were used. I would have been interested in more motives behind the use of different types of communication from pleasant to rude or obscene. I know that, when I lived on the mainland, I used the horn quite frequently. However, when I moved to Hawaii, I was warned by various people to not use it at all because, if that driver was of a certain ethnic background and big then I could be in real danger. But, if I really had to use the horn in order to get someone's attention before we crash, then I better pretend that I thought they were a friend of mine and wave or the other driver could get very offended. That is just one example of different motives drivers may have for using one form over another to communicate and one needs to learn the edicate of the region in order to communicate effectively. Teresa does mention, in the section on newsgroups, a driver from Florida who states that people rarely use signals there because if you indicate your intentions then other drivers then they will not allow you to proceed. On the other hand, if you just do what you intended without signaling then the other driver is caught off guard and must respond to your assertion. This shows great encouragement towards aggressive driving in Florida. 

In all, Teresa Query's report was very easily read, informative and well organized. Again, the only thing I would have liked to see was more discussion of motive behind the methods or even discussion of how people learn these methods of communication. 

Three other students from G9 reported on the same topic, Carolyn Agmata, Lisa Ann Hamura , and Dayle Lee. Although each of these reports had more in-depth summaries of prior reports, none of these reports included personal observations. They were fairly well presented though. Carolyn's was more difficult to read because of the background color chosen, and Lisa Ann's choice of text color was hard to read. Dayle Lee's report was not as in-depth as the others. 
Return to top of page

I must admit that I chose David Altenburg's report on "Internet Road Rage" due to the fact that he is in our class and he seems to know his way around the web. I also liked the combination of the subjects "internet" and "road rage" and felt intrigued as to how he would explore and expose these issues. 

It was quite easy to find David's reports since he had emailed our class and suggested that we look up his pages in G8 and G9. So, I simply went to each of his sites through the Index to all Generations and chose the report that most interested me. I browsed all of the home pages in this generation spending 1/2 to 3 minutes each since I knew already which I was going to choose. 

David's report begins with an introduction of his topics questions and a background of his research and interest in the subject. His research has been ongoing for three years prior to his report and he was glad to have a forum to apply it. He goes on to introduce the web page references used in his research, Dr. Leon James, Dr. John Suler and Ryan Shintani. Proceeding with his report, he describes the use of MUD's (multi user domain - web games) and what the intended rules of the game are. He then states his hypotheses: 1.) Much of the aggression people demonstrate on the internet stems directly to their own 'real life' personal problems and backgrounds. 2.) There are limitless ways, not yet fully mentioned in CyberPsychology to achieve 'getting even' with a person on-line who angers you on the internet. 

His examples of observed behavior consisted of a MUD user whom he secretly observed over time and of two personal friends who were aware of his observations. These three individuals he spoke with personally, other observations were done with MUD users that he never interacted with irl. For the most part, David noted that these observations showed each person becoming, to differing degrees, more aggressive, dominating and hostile than he had observed them to be in real life. Each person, it should be noted, was male. (It would be interesting to see if females responded in kind.) Further in David's research, he finds some responses that back up his first hypothesis. By inquiring why players would 'kill' another player on the MUD he received answers that, "...generally tended to point in the same direction, something had angered the person in their lives away from the computer and they wanted to release some aggression." 

Next, David jumps to 'Methods of Getting Even.' Here, he focuses on methods used by those who have a deeper knowledge of web manipulation. These methods are: Crashing and Force Loading, Overloading Computers, Ping Abuse, 'Poisoned' Cookies, Punters, ANSI and Email Bombs, PWS and Batch File Viruses, Hacking and Trojan Horses. 

In his conclusion, David asserts that the tendency is towards player's using their MUD character to escape the problems they have in real life. When their problems follow them into the game their continued frustration leads them to using the above methods of getting even. 

This is the type of report that I really enjoy reading. I learned both about technical aspects of the web and about how and why people behave negatively while they are interacting on the net, more specifically, in a MUD site. 

I would like to know how often 'internet road rage' occurs on the MUD site. I assume it's not the majority if it is anything like actual road rage on the highways and byways. If it is more often, then my perspective of people is more naive than I would care to admit (actually my boyfriend would laugh at this statement because to him I have a very innocent view of peoples' motives). I do believe that most people attempt to not cause harm to others most of the time. If not, the world would be much more savage than it already is. What motivates people to not harm others may be explained by a theory I learned. 

David's report reminded me of this theory which I learned about in a social psychology class years ago. It held that people follow ethical behavior out of one or more of three different levels of its incorporation into their psyche. The first level is one in which the person is only concerned whether or not they will get caught if they do the unethical action. The law and its enforcers and/or other direct negative consequences are the only deterrents to the person's behavior. Second, is the level wherein a person follows the example of an admired person or a religious belief. What this person or religion says is good becomes the ethical code that the individual follows. And, third, is the level in which the ethical principle is incorporated into the persons psyche. It is following an ethical concept from principle, one knows and understands its relation to oneself and the world and the person has no desire to go against it (although one could struggle from temptation). One would say that a person who operates out of this level has character. While reading David's report, I couldn't help myself from categorizing each of the observed individual's into the first level. They were not concerned about their behavior on-line since it would have no consequences for them in real life. 

There were no reports done by other students on this subject. Most of the reports that I glanced through, did not go as in-depth into their topic as David did. The appearance of David's to the others in his class seemed more serious. Others appeared to be exploring their creativity, while David was down to business. 
Return to top of page

I chose Chris's report on "Definitions of Traffic Psychology - How I Stack up" because of the subject matter and Chris's approach to the subject. She has a very simple yet easily accessible web page. 

After spending some time in the more recent generational pages, I decided to preview some of the older generations. I was a little wary of going back too far because I felt the sophistication of the web sites would leave much to desire. While this is mostly true, the content of the work done was just as good so, I targeted the topics and found the one I felt was most interesting. I browsed about 5 reports in this generation and spent about 1 to 5 minutes reviewing them. 

Chris starts this report by defining traffic psychology, "... the study of traffic and the effect it has on the driving behavior of all road users... it serves to enlighten us..." Next, the three domains of driving behavior are explained, the affective, cognitive and sensorimotor. Chris then reviews five different studies on the subject by; Lori Kim, Raenee Yamashiro, Jae Isa, Phuong Wataoka, and Cherilyn Okasaki. Her comments toward these studies focused on the shared feelings of the importance and need of traffic psychology. 

The importance of traffic psychology was further emphasized as her report continues. The main thrust of it being, of course, creating a safer environment in which to drive. There are an assortment of types of roadway users who could benefit from education on traffic psychology. They include: passengers, pedestrians, moped riders, and of course, motor vehicle operators. Chris points out both the responsibilities of each type and the dangers they face from aggressive drivers as well. 

Chris's report covered the topic well with very clear, concise and understandable explanations. Her approach to the report was very personalized and made it interesting and fun to read. Along with this, I was left with a few unanswered questions. The way Chris presented the need for and potential accomplishments of somehow incorporating education of traffic psychology left me feeling that it was not going to work and that it was too idealistic. 

Considering my own use of the roadways as a driver, passenger, pedestrian and bicyclist, I know that when I am in any one of these modes of transportation, I have the stance of, "My rights are most important and how dare the other driver/pedestrian/bicyclist (or whoever is in my way) get in my way." Of course, I am a very courteous driver but more out of being safe or gracious. It does not preclude my sense of self importance whether a driver or pedestrian. Now, it must be noted that I am also a mild case in the relative world of traffic psychology and I was raised to be a 'good' person so, I will take the ideas Chris expressed in her report and do my best to apply them. However, I am well aware that others are very different and are not so easily persuaded or educated. So, I would have liked to have seen some problem areas discussed and ideas for solutions. 

The overall appearance of Chris's report was easy to look at and more interesting than others I saw. Some of the others experimented with using colors in a way that did not work for me as a reader. Since this was one of the earlier years, I was not expecting too much as far as page design, but Chris and some of her classmates did well. There were only a couple of other students who did the same report as Chris and they were comparable. 
Return to top of page

She goes on to explain how, through a 'cybernaut's' exploration on the web, via choosing links and creating bookmarks to these links, virtual communities get created.  Common interests, the web link's appearance, content and accessability, and constant marketing brings people together to form these communities.  Spirituality is also a part of cyberspace through clicking. 

She goes on to further discuss other classmates responses to the ideas of cyberspace and the mind.  And, concludes with her own experiences in exploring the vast world of virtual reality. 

Kathi's enthusiam about her subject kept my interest going even though her two page paragraph made it hard to follow.  I actually have mixed responses to this paragraph. It is hard to read with its multiple ideas all piled together. However, there is a sort of 'poetic license' possible here because as I read it I was filled with an experience of the vastness and complexity of the web. Whether or not Kathi had this intention, this is the effect it had on me and so I enjoyed the content displayed in this manner in a strange sort of way. 

The comparisons of the mind / brain connection with the cyberspace / computer connection reminded me of Carl Jung's theory of the collective unconscious. "The great problems of life . . . are always related to the primordial images of the collective unconscious. . . . The unconscious is not just evil by nature, it is also the source of the highest good; not only dark but also light, not only bestial, semihuman, and demonic, but superhuman, spiritual, and, in the classical sense of the word, "divine."Carl Gustave Jung." The Kathi mentioned, "Communal mind exists and grows in cyberspace." It's as if by creating this new world in virtual reality we have achieved a simulation or an artificial collective unconscious wherein, by joining the virtual communities we have access to each others thoughts, ideas, creativity, feelings through their communication on the web. For those interested in reviewing Carl Jung's ideas click here. Of course, we are not really accessing the actual collective unconscious just as by being in cyberspace we are not accessing each other's minds but the simulation seems to be there.  (This idea comes from a complete novice of Jungian theory -- me -- please excuse me if I have confused his ideas and email me with feedback.)  
 

Kathi's report was not as easy to read as others, but her approach to the content of her subject was interesting and thoughtful. 
Return to top of page

I feel my presentation is comparable to others in my class.  Most of the reports are well organized and easy to read.  I find this impressive given that we are all new to this.