Posted by medlib on October 11, 2000, at 0:24:47
In reply to Re: Hypotheses about Online Text Communication, posted by Pritzker on October 10, 2000, at 19:17:18
> > Dr. Bob,
> > Hypotheses about Online Text CommunicationAbstract: A lengthy, useful, but not altogether accurate "first pass" at describing the nature of online support groups.
Full text:
> > A. Characteristics of online text communication
> > 1. A person with a history of chaotic relationships, physical trauma, or strong feelings of shame or guilt tends to experience online text communication as safe. (1.3, 1.4, 2.4)Anonymity can confer a sense of safety, but not necessarily a feeling of trust. Online communication without anonymity confers neither. I'm wondering how, and/or if, meeting f2f (as some Babblers have) affects this effect.
> > 2. A person's writing style reflects aspects of their personality, and changes in it reflect changes in their thoughts and feelings. (6.1)
Yes. The current emotional state of posters comes through clearly. It's been interesting (and somewhat disheartening) to me that my written communications are every bit as socially inept as my f2f efforts.
> > 3. The "handle" a person chooses reflects aspects of their personality. (6.4)Probably so, at the moment of choice, but this is just a snapshot-in-time which may not have any long-term import.
> > 4. If a person has a web site, it reflects aspects of their personality. Having others visit it and visiting those of others is emotionally significant. (7.6)I have no idea if this is true for others, but, for that subset of us who are in the information business, personal websites usually reflect interests, not personality, and represent professional contributions, not emotional mirrors. Often, visitors have more to do with how the site is promoted and the value of the site to other researchers. It may be mildly gratifying to have visitors, but hardly emotionally significant.
> > B. Positive aspects
> > 1. The act of writing fosters self-expression, self-reflection, and cognitive restructuring. (1.2)It's hard to disagree with a statement this general. However, the degree of benefit that writing confers may be affected by the degree of impulsivity the writer exhibits.
> > 2. Online text communication that does not take place in "real time" enhances impulse control, self-reflection, and cognitive assimilation. (4.1)Not necessarily. Even "real time" chat has a composing/reading delay. And we've seen some pretty impulsive, "thoughtless" posts on this board.
> > 3. Receiving online text communications from others can promote the development of steady, supportive, reality-testing, ego-building "internal voices". (1.7, 4.4)Probably so, if you're emotionally equipped to accept and/or believe others' expresions of positive regard. Some of us, however, appear to have flunked the child psychiatrist Erickson's first developmental stage--"Trust vs. Mistrust."
> > 4. The opportunity to send online text communications to others, even before --- or without -- any replies, can help a person feel the others are available. (4.3)I really don't see this one. I believe that in advance of, or in the absence of, replies, posters' anxieties and/or self-doubts may actually be heightened.
> > 5. A person can use online text communication as a way to explore and experiment with new behaviors or different aspects of their identity. What they learn or rehearse online can be carried into their offline life. (7.2, 7.3)I'll be interested in Babbler's reponses to this item. Personally, as a result of what I've learned about myself online, I make far *fewer* attempts to connect with others offline. So, I guess that the second statement is true for me.
> > 6. Online text communication can desensitize a person to social interaction and build social skills. (7.4, 7.5)This can only be true if the previous statement is true--ergo, this is a corollary. Perhaps it can, but *does* it? I think its clear that writing reflects life, but unclear that life reflects writing.
> > 7. Access to online information tends to be empowering and transformative. (7.10)From my experience, one can be transformed without being empowered--and vice-versa. I think that information leads more often to empowerment than to transformation.
> > C. Negative aspects
> > 1. Online text communication is more subject to "simple" misunderstandings and conscious and unconscious distortions of meaning or intent. (2.1)Personally, I doubt it. I believe that most misunderstandings arise from hearing/reading the communications of others through personal filters or biases. I'll bet that visual stereotyping causes as many misunderstandings as other visual nonverbal cues avoid.
> > D. Potentially positive or negative aspects
> > 1. With online text communication, a person can be less inhibited and -- deliberately or not -- more open about aspects of themselves, including their "true self". (2.2, 6.2, 7.1)But, is the "confessional" behavior observed a function of online communication, or only of *anonymous* online communication?
> > 2. With online text communication, a person can be less inhibited and -- deliberately or not -- more likely to act out. (2.2)
> > 3. With online text communication, a person can be -- deliberately or not -- more guarded about aspects of themselves, including their "true self". (6.3, 8.4)Well, if one is affected at all, s/he is likely to be one or the other, don't you think?
> > 4. Ambivalence about intimacy can be expressed as a preference for online text communication and its blend of openness and distance. (2.3)Quite true. I wonder how many will read/hear this statement as meaning its reverse?
> > 5. Saved text can reduce errors in recall -- or be taken out of context, distorting its meaning. (3.2, 3.3)Certainly. It "can" also be used to preserve valuable information for later use, or any number of other possibilities.
> > 6. With online text communication, others try to help more quickly by giving advice or problem-solving. (11.2)More quickly than what? Do you mean
"People with problems can find advice/support more quickly online than from other sources" or "People are more likely to respond quickly to an online call for help than to a similar request in "real life"?
> > E. Online support groups
> > 1. Online support groups benefit from having rules about appropriate behavior, effective enforcement of those rules, and knowledgeable and confident leaders. (10.1)Most "groups" respond positively to a sense of direction and a certain minimum of structure. I believe that these are absolutely necessary for a support group to be experienced as supportive.
> > 2. Online support groups tend to be less cohesive. (10.3)This would seem to be a factor of membership stability--or lack of it.
> > 3. In online support groups, a person can explore and experiment with different "identities" at the same time. (10.7)I doubt that the personae of most are quite so "fluid." I believe that differences seen are more often reflections of a complex "true self."
> > F. Therapy
> > 1. Differences in status are less apparent in online text communication. Clinicians tend to be perceived less as authorities and more as consultants or even "twins". (11.4)True. An online "group" has, almost by definition, only 2 levels--the moderator/administrator and the participants. Formal status is automatically conferred upon the first. Informal status may be awarded to those participants (and leaders) whose contributions are perceived as valuable.
General comments:
1) If these statements really are hypotheses, how are they to be proved or evaluated?
2) For me, "can" is a wishy-washy word--as difficult to disprove as to prove. Most things "can" be; I think that both descriptive and predictive value lie in more definitive verbs--i.e., "is" or "isn't", "does" or "doesn't".
3) You asked (I believe) one poster about online therapy groups. For me, an online therapy group would have to closely resemble an offline one: limited (max and min), closed membership; member commitment to a minimum posting requirement and an individual therapeutic goal for some agreed-upon minimum of time; and a potentially active leader who monitored all posts and was willing to intervene when necessary to facilitate therapeutic movement. I do agree that online communication could be a useful adjunct to traditional treatment--I just can't figure how one would bill for it!
Since I can't afford med tx, rxs and therapy, your online support groups are particularly valuable to me. Thanks much.---medlib
poster:medlib
thread:844
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20000813/msgs/958.html