Virtual Interaction Through Instant Messenger Chat

She writes, “We are now in constant and continuous communication with our friends, co-workers and family over the course of a day” (Wortham 394). Even though the author’s partner lived more than 3,000 miles away, she used apps like: Google’s instant-messaging application, Gchat and others in order to correspond by voice and video that made her and other people feel close even though it’s over the screen. Physical communication is the most effective way to engage with individuals, as people are able to feel and visualize the presence of real emotions, but having a app like the one mentioned by the author, but if it’s not possible to communicate that way, communicating through the screen will fill the

In an article written for the New York Times by Jenna Wortham called “I Had a Nice Time with You Tonight. On the App.”, Wortham discusses the pros of using social media in developing relationships. She talks of her personal accounts with dating apps to keep up with her long-distance relationship with her boyfriend and how she finds that communicating with him through video chat is pretty useful for maintaining her relationship. Wortham believes that communication through social media platforms like G-Chat (Google Chat), Skype, Facetime, etc., makes conversation feels more casual and that she feels a closer bond with the people she talks to “physically, even though it’s through a screen” (394). The audience she could be appealing to is anyone

Deborah Tannen’s essay really made me realize all of the ways that I, myself, mess up when talking to members of the opposite sex. Just as Tannen has expressed, I am a women who enjoys a good conversation, eye contact is a must, and without even realizing it I have expected my husband to be my “new and improved version of a best friend” (406).

With the lack of face-to-face communication, people are no longer required to use their sensory stimuli or social skills to click with a potential partner. Cullington references Jacquie Ream who states, ‘“[W]e have a whole a generation being raised without

Chatfield (2015) expressed that, “We began to weave constant availability into our conception of public and private space; into our body language and everyday etiquette (“I’ll get there for midday and give you a ring”)” (para.8); such statement made me agree with the author. We are constantly using devices to be up to date with the latest happenings anywhere, anytime, in which persons have become emotionally attached to their devices. It is important to be aware of current events and so it makes it convenient to always be connected. Also, another point made by the author was that, “…digital technologies mean my relationships with others and the world are extended and amplified beyond anything even my grandparents knew” (Chatfield, 2015, para.14). Although digital technology was invented for a faster and more efficient ways to communicate, it has made our lives less physically connected with others due to the lack of physical interaction. In the past, our grandparents had the pleasure of having verbal communication through physical connections, in which they were able to pick up on social cues, for example: facial features, gestures, body language and proximity; however, at present communication takes place with the connection of the internet with little to no social cues (Stewart, 2013). Digital technology is currently and

Within our own world, there was a study done by a group researchers with the Department of Psychology at the University of British Columbia and the Department of Information Science at Cornell University titled Talking Less during social interactions Predicts Enjoyment which is focused on the loss of human connection present within modern day social interactions. Within the study, they were able to use an app to observe how often people texted each other and what they sent. Through this program, the researchers were able to observe the social interactions between different focus groups. The pilot study was used to demonstrate, “How conversational properties of social interactions can predict psychologically meaningful outcomes, such as how much a person enjoys the conversation

Today, people think that when they are texting someone or direct messaging a person that it is the same as a normal conversation that would take place in person. In the article, “Screen Addiction Is Taking a Toll on Children,” Jane E. Brody agrees when she writes, “Technology is a poor substitute for personal interaction,” which is a very true statement. One is not fully interacting with a person without face to face interaction. People are lacking these social skills and becoming socially awkward because of isolation and not engaging in face to face contact. People get on their electronic devices for hours at a time and isolate themselves from everything. Not only are people lacking social skills, but they are lacking social bonds. Without the one on one connection and a conversation in person, a bond cannot be created. People are using technology as a poor excuse to not have to take time out of their day to actually create social bonds with people and practice their social skills. Not only that but the lack of social skills not only effects teens and adults but it can be a problem in young children when they are

The intimacy level of communication content is inversely related to information seeking (T12) and reciprocity rate (T13) and is positively related to liking (T14) and similarity (T15). Information seeking is positively related to reciprocity rate (T16) and is negatively related to liking (T17) and similarity (T18). Reciprocity rate is inversely related to liking (T19) and similarity (T20). Similarity and liking (T21) are positively related.

Social facility suggests that simply sensing how another person feels, or knowing what they think or intend, does not guarantee fruitful interactions. Social facility builds on social awareness to allow smooth, effective interactions. The scope of social facility includes first, synchrony or interacting smoothly at the nonverbal level. Second, self-

Central idea: Humans have always communicated face-to-face and the use of technology poses cognitive obstacles to communication. The lack of human presence during technology-mediated communication contributes to less nonverbal cues possibly creating a politer conversation if it is not face-to-face.

I initially found it awkward that people would just go somewhere to just socialize. Nevertheless, once I suspended my judgements to partake in this activity of replacing face book technology with face time interaction, I found the satisfaction of such activities. With Facebook, one must actively prompt responses to feel secure among friends by getting “likes;” at the club however, one feels secure just being surrounded by friends.

‘Content’ is important to interaction in the context of absent and connected presence because it informs the length, severity, time it takes to respond and in reference to absent presence influences my decision to contact others through ICTs despite already being engaged in face to face interaction. I based my choice around White’s research that connected

Imagine someone turning a big switch to the off position for the internet? What would happen to people who use Webcams, Skype and Face time? How would anyone who is more comfortable with online interacting verses face to face communications react? Could business meeting that happen from coast to coast be achievable? Since 1991 (Appunn and McAllister, 2014; Walters and Grinell, 2014) when webcams were first introduced technology has vastly improved, we no longer have to show up to a business meeting across the world or a family date at a restaurant. While it is very convenient to just open a laptop, tablet or Smartphone while trying to interact with someone it doesn’t give you the physical aspect of reading body language, ensuring engagement and seeing facial expressions as does face to face communication. In a Forbes article Mina Chang expresses "Face to face interactions build trust, understanding and a real sense of shared mission."(Chang, M. 2015). While not having to physically interact with someone it is not always necessary, more people of the older generation prefer it to the younger generation who find it acceptable with forming bonds through internet experiences.

Social sites are a beneficial way to communicate, however, it affects a person’s ability to communicate face to face with others. Many people spend much of their leisure time online rather than connecting with the offline world. In a specific article, a participant spends several hours each day updating her profile instead of talking face to face with others (Livingstone 399). Being online more than offline, decreases people’s abilities to interact with others who are disconnected. Furthermore, by communicating online also contributes to misrepresentation, which leads to misreading a text, leading to mixed emotions of a person who wrote the message. Therefore, social networking reduces an emotional aspect between people as it is hard to tell what a person is feeling through text. In addition, people lack confidence talking to an individual physically rather than virtually. In an

One of the first experiences I have of being deceived by what I was seeing is going to the barbershop. All barbershops have outside the famous barbershop pole which functions as a powerful visual illusion. This visual illusion occurs when a diagonally-striped pole is rotated around its vertical axis horizontally, it appears as though the stripes are moving in the direction of its vertical axis (Seckel, 2005). As a child I believed that the stripes were starting and ending anew in a fascinating infinite pattern. Only later did I learn that the barbershop pole plays on limitations of human perception in relation to vertical motion.