When Stories and Distinct Cultures Enter the Computers

When Stories and Distinct Cultures Enter the Computers

In partial fulfillment of the course requirements in
Communication Arts 101
(Introduction to Communication Theories)


by Jessa Loreta C. Billano
COMA101-B



Prof. Antonino Salvador S. de Veyra
COMA 101 (Introduction to Communication Theories) Instructor





March 27, 2008






When Stories and Distinct Cultures Enter the Computers


About 2000 years ago, at the birth of the abacus, a wooden rack holding two horizontal wires with beads strung on them, the history of computers starts out. Blaise Pascal is usually credited for building the first digital computer in 1642.
A lot of improvements have been made since then. One of these is the coming of the Internet.
Nowadays, computers and the Internet play a vital role in our lives. These give us a lot of possibilities. Generally, our works become easier and quicker. We are able to see the world without actually traveling but by just surfing the net. We are also able to communicate conveniently with other people anywhere in the world. Not just that, while we are conversing, we see them through computer cameras.
The Internet has revolutionized the way we communicate. E-mail has been the most rapidly adopted form of communication ever known. Less than two decades ago, not many people had heard of it. Now, many of us e-mail instead of writing letters or even calling people on the phone (http://communication.howstuffworks.com/instant-messaging1.htm).
However, sometimes even e-mail isn't fast enough. You might not know if a person you want to e-mail is online at that moment. Also, if you're e-mailing back and forth with someone, you usually have to click through a few steps. This is why instant messaging (IM) has become so popular (http://communication.howstuffworks.com/instant-messaging1.htm).

One of the most popular features of instant messaging is chat. The communication act below is a good example of it. This is a part (end part) of the conversation of my sister (codename: Loujan_02) and a man (Bee27) she just met online. Their conversation was done with Yahoo Messenger last March 17, 2008 at around 6:00 in the evening.

Bee27: you shuld not always go out with your girl friends
Loujan_02: but y? dey are my friends…and you don’t know dem
Bee27: juz do wat don’t said. You shud learn to be independent already
Loujan_02: i wont consider that
Bee27: you must
Loujan_02: no, i musnt….
Loujan_02: i don’t know you
Bee27: you know, if you kip on going out with them, you will be like my sister
Loujan_02: whats with your sister?
Bee27: Every Saturday morning, she goes out with her friends, they go shopping and watch movies
Bee27: then she goes home late in the evening and you know what happens to her face?
Loujan_02: what?
BUZZ!
Bee27: sum up all her friends faces
Bee27: she looks like them already! Scary! Haha!
Loujan_02: ur kidding? It is not funny.=l
Bee27: no im not
Loujan_02: i don’t want to argue with you
Loujan_02: bye…….
BUZZ!
Bee27: im not done yet

The medium used by the communication act above was a computer. It was a computer-mediated communication (CMC). Therefore, Social Information Processing Theory of Joseph Walther can be used as a tool for the analysis of this communication act. Deborah Tannen’s Genderlect Styles and Walter Fisher’s Narrative Paradigm was also used since it was a conversation between a man and a woman, and there was a narration or story told by one of the persons in the communication act.
According to Walther (as cited by Griffin, 2006), “the human need for affiliation is just as active when people communicate online as when they are with each other face-to-face.”
He also said that, “nonverbal cues are filtered out of the interpersonal information that we send and receive through CMC.”
Thus, in the communication act between Bee27 and Loujan_02, physical context, facial expression, tone of voice, interpersonal distance, body position, appearance, gestures, touch, and smell were all missing. However, these nonverbal cues that were filtered out were not essentially critical to a well-defined impression of the other or the relational development that it triggers in the communication act. Rather, the two features of CMC, verbal cues and extended time, presented by Walther, which were foundations of Social Information Processing Theory, were the ones that were necessary and crucial in the relationship development of Bee27 and Loujan_02.

The abstract of the Social Information Processing Theory (Griffin, 2006) states that:

Based solely on the linguistic content of computer-mediated communication (CMC), parties who meet online can develop relationships just as close as those formed face-to-face – though it takes longer. Because online senders select, receivers magnify, channels promote, and feedback enhances favourable impressions, CMC may create hyperpersonal relationships.


Bee27 and Loujan_02 were not able to develop a hyperpersonal relationship, which was Walther’s term (as cited by Griffin, 2006), to describe computer-mediated communication (CMC) that can develop relational intimacy that surpasses what’s available through face-to-face communication. Time was an important factor to explain this. Relationship development through CMC requires a longer time frame since information exchange is much slower than that of face-to-face. In CMC, impressions are formed at a reduced rate. Bee27 and Loujan_02 chatted only for a very short time and that made the relationship development fail.
Another feature of CMC is verbal cues. “When motivated to form impressions and develop relationships, communicators employ any cue system that’s available” (Griffin, 2006).
In the communication act, the use of an “emoticon” is visible. Loujan_02 used a sad face to convey her disappointment to Bee27. She used an emoticon given that it was the only cue system that was available for her to express what she felt.
As stated earlier, “online senders select, receivers magnify, channels promote, and feedbach enhances favourable impressions” (Grifffin, 2006). In CMC, senders choose what they send, receivers interpret the messages sent by the sender by creating an impression, and the channel makes the communication possible by letting the users express themselves the way they want and when they want.
“BUZZ!” was used in the communication act. It is a button in the chat window and a verbal cue that is used when you want to get the attention of your chat mate. Loujan_02 used “BUZZ!’ after she asked Bee27 if what the matter with his sister’s face was. Bee27 took a long time before responding to the question that is why Loujan_02 became impatient and wanted a response immediately. We can see the act of selecting what the sender wants to reveal and the receiver’s magnification of the situation.
Bee27 and Loujan_02's verbal cues also reflect the cross-cultural communication between men and women.
As presented in the Abstract of Communication Theories (Griffin, 2006), Deborah Tannen’s Genderlect Styles states that:

Male-female conversation is cross-cultural communication. Masculine and feminine styles of discourse are best viewed as two distinct dialects rather than as inferior or superior ways of speaking. Men’s report talk focuses on status and independence; women’s rapport talk seeks human connection.


Men’s desire for status and women’s desire for connection was very evident in the communication act. Bee27 told Loujan_02 to stop going out with her friends and learn to be independent.
This simple statement strongly showed that Bee27 do not want connection or a bond with other people. Life for him was maintaining your status – your position above others.
Loujan_02 on the other hand refused and said the she will not obey him since those were her friends. She needs the connection, which she has already developed with her friends. And in the first place, Loujan_02 said that they do not know each other.
However, Tannen does not believe that men and women seek only status and connection,
respectively, but these are their primary goals.
The following types of talk which shows that women value rapport talk, and men value report talk were also apparent in the communication act: public speaking versus private speaking, listening, asking questions, telling a story and conflict.
According to Tannen (as cited by Griffin, 2006), “men seek to establish a one-up position.” This was typical on Bee27’s lecture style of telling Loujan_02 not to go out with her friends and learn to be independent. “Tannen finds that men use talk as a weapon. The function of the long explanations they use is to command attention, convey information, and insist on agreement” (Griffin, 2006).
The communication act was done in public; we can clearly see that Bee27 said more things than Loujan_02. Loujan_02’s ideas were not thriving to let him know her opinion because he keeps on talking without listening.
Men speak more in public because they feel the need to defend themselves against others to maintain their status. They are silenced in private conversations because they feel that they already do not have to talk to protect that status. On the other hand, women’s rapport style of relating, according to Tannen (as cited by Griffin, 2006), “doesn’t transfer well to the public arena, where men vie for ascendancy and speak much more than women do.”
However, Loujan_02 carefully listened to what Bee27 had to say. This was evident because she responded with her questions “what?” and, “what’s with your sister?” and so on. This also implies that women ask more questions than men because it is their way of establishing connection with others.
Bee27 seemed to be so indifferent with listening because he wanted to be just the one who must be talking. He tried to control the conversation and did not want to be interrupted. As what Tannen (as cited by Griffin, 2006) explains, “men regard any interruption as a power move to take control of the conversation.”
When Loujan_02 refused to obey his advice to stop going out with her friends and learn to be independent, she reasoned that she does not know him. Bee27 thought of that statement as a sign of taking control of the conversation that is why he tried to go back to the topic they were talking about. He made use of telling a humorous story about his sister to do this. For him, a humorous story could persuade Loujan_02 to do what he wanted her to do.
Tannen (as cited by Griffin, 2006) recognizes that, “the stories people tell reveal a great deal about their hopes, needs, and values…men tell more stories than women – especially jokes. Telling jokes is a masculine way to negotiate status. Men’s humorous stories have a can-you-top this? flavor that holds attention and elevates the storyteller above his audience.”
However, Loujan_02 was not convinced by Bee27’s story. She seemed to be irritated and she didn’t find the joke and story of Bee27 funny and realistic. Instead of staying in the conversation and argue with Bee27, she chose to say goodbye to avoid getting into conflict with him.
It is because, “to most women, conflict is a threat to connection – to be avoided at all costs” (Ibid, p.150).
Yet Bee27 still wanted to continue their conversation even though it seemed that they could not really understand each other. His desire to continue their conversation and more likely to persist their argument was seen when he said, “I am not done yet.”
Tannen (as cited by Griffin, 2006) believes that, “since they [men] see life as a contest, many men are more comfortable with conflict and therefore less likely to hold themselves in check.”
In addition, according to surveys and laboratory experiments, men admit to more aggression than women do. For example, by administering what they believe are hurtful electric shocks (Eagly & Stephen, 1986; Hyde, 1986). Psychologists refer to aggression, not to assertiveness but to the physical or verbal behaviour intended to hurt someone (Myers, 1990).
Bee27 may not be too aggressive but he became sarcastic with his words, “I am not done yet,” words that may lead to hurtful words for Loujan_02.
As said earlier, Bee27 told Loujan_02 a story about her sister. Walter Fisher (1978, 1984, 1987) believes that humans are natural storytellers. We express our stories through the narration of the things happened in sequence. In his theory, The Narrative Paradigm, he defined narration as “symbolic actions – words and/or deeds – that have sequence and meaning for those who live, create , or interpret them” (1987, p.58).
Bee27 used that to persuade Loujan_02 not to go out with her friends and learn to be independent. For him, “telling a compelling story is more persuasive than scads of statistics, expert testimony, and logical deduction” (Fisher, 1978) (as cited by Wood, 1997).
Yet, Bee27's story was not able to convince Loujan_02. That is because his story was not persuasive.
Fisher (as cited by Wood, 1997) stated that, “not all stories are equally compelling; that is, not all stories have the same power to gain or belief.” He then presented the concept of narrative rationality for judging the quality of various stories.
Two standards for assessing narrative rationality were identified by Fisher: coherence and fidelity.
The coherence criterion asks whether a story makes sense. For Loujan_02, Bee27’s story was nonsense. It had no internal coherence which means that it lacked important details for it to be believable. Bee27 also distorted the parts of the story for it to be funny which made it again violate coherence. Loujan_02 didn’t think of it as an effective story rather, it was just a joke that was not even funny.
The second standard for narrative rationality is fidelity which Fisher (1987) defined as “the extent to which a story resonates with listener’s personal experiences, values, beliefs, and self-concepts.”
According to narrative theorists (as cited by Wood, 1997), “we find stories believable when they are consistent with their experiences in our lives, and we find characters believable when they act as we do or else we would like to see ourselves acting.”
Loujan_02 found the story of Bee27 implausible since it did not fit her experiences and present knowledge. She used to go out with her friends but never did they change faces with each other or never did she get her friends’ faces. She also thought that those things were really impossible.
To sum up all that were discussed, Social Information Processing Theory explains the inherent differences between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and fac-to-face communication. Likewise, it pointed out that both of the two could develop a hyperpersonal relationship which was Walther’s term (as cited by Griffin, 2006), to describe computer-mediated communication (CMC) that can develop relational intimacy that surpasses what’s available through face-to-face communication.
The advancement of technology, specifically the advancement of computers and the Internet, makes the people do many things that were once seem to be impossible. Now, with these developments, we can already see a lot of communication theories which were, in the past, just present in face-to-face conversation. An example is the Genderlect Styles of Deborah Tannen, which sates that men and women’s styles of discourse are not viewed as superior, or inferior ways of speaking rather, these are best viewed as two distinct dialects making it a cross-cultural communication. Another example would be the Narrative Paradigm of Walter Fisher which tells us that human beings are natural storytellers and we use compelling stories to persuade other people.
In conclusion, time was a very important factor in the communication of Loujan_02 and Bee27. Relationship development through CMC requires a longer time frame since information exchange is much slower than that of face-to-face. However, they only chatted for a very short time.
Moreover, they were not able to agree on things they talked about since they have different views, opinions and desires. They, being a girl and a boy, have different cultures. Men’s report talk focuses on status and independence; women’s rapport talk seeks human connection.
Furthermore, Bee27 was not able to persuade loujan_02 with his story since he did not observe coherence and fidelity, the standards for narrative rationality.
Therefore, in the communication act of Bee27 and Loujan_02 hyperpersonal relationship development is a failure.




Literature Cited


Griffin, Em. A First Look at Communication Theory. 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill, 2006.

Meyers, Jeremy, “A Short History of the Computer” [Online] Available (March 21, 2008)

Myers, David G. Social Psychology. 3rd ed. New york: McGraw Hill, 1990.

Wood, Julia T. Communication Theories in Action. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1997.

(http://communication.howstuffworks.com/instant-messaging1.htm)