The Cyborg Advantage

In cyberspace individuals are presented with a unique opportunity where they have greater control over how they present themselves (Turkle, 1995) and the impressions others form about them (Walther, 1996). According to Walther, as some online communication channels (e.g. instant messaging, personal profiles, electronic mail) are asynchronous, individuals are given ample time to deliberate, to be somewhat selective and capable of portraying strategic versions of self in these mediums. With the additional time individuals have to compose their messages they gain the ability to better control the impressions others form about them (Walther, 1992). Literature on the presentation of self online has also revealed that individuals present varying versions of self to online audiences in various situations.

The Self and the Continuum of Anonymity

Due to the anonymity and lack of physical presence afforded by some online spaces (e.g., newsgroups), individuals are freed from some of the constraints (e.g., stigmatised physical features) of their embodied identity (McKenna, Green & Gleason, 2002). Therefore, they sometimes engage in identity exploration (Turkle, 1995) and in some cases even express a truer version of self than offline (Bargh, McKenna & Fitzsimons, 2002).

Research by Parks and Roberts (1998) revealed that individuals tend to divulge information about themselves that they would not normally disclose in face-to-face (FtF) circumstances. Analogous to Thibaut and Kelly’s (1959) stranger-on-the-train-phenomenon, this is said to occur due to the anonymity allowed by some online spaces where individuals feel more open and comfortable to disclose information they would not normally reveal in FtF situations (Whitty & Joinson, 2009). In harmony with this assumption, McKenna and Bargh (2000) notes that due to the anonymity individuals have in some online spaces, the risks associated with self-disclosure are significantly reduced online along with their concern for negative consequences of information disclosed.

However, with some online environments that are less anonymous, such as online dating sites, research (Yurchisin, Watchravesringkan & McCabe, 2005) reveal that aspects of self comparable to Markus and Nurious’ (1986) ‘now selves’ emerge. Additionally, in their study investigating identity re-creation in an Internet dating site, Yurchisin et al. found that participants’ online dating profiles also reflected their ‘hoped-for possible selves’. Markus and Nurious believe that individuals’ conception of self include two categories, the ‘now selves’ and ‘possible selves’. Now selves refer to known identities possessed currently by the individual whereas possible selves describe those identities that are not at the moment realised but that are hoped for or feared. Borrowing from Markus and Nurious, Yurchisin et al. described hoped-for possible selves as being socially desirable identities that individuals strive for and believe that they can be successful at attaining under the right circumstances. For instance, a great storyteller who could be a best selling author, if only (s)he had the opportunity to develop their literacy skills.

Extending this line of research to an even less anonymous environment, Zhao et al. (2008) investigated identity construction on Facebook subscribing to the above theories. They also found that participants’ presentations of self reflected that of their hoped-for possible selves as participants strived to project a self that emphasised their connections with friends and that was socially desirable. Participants included many group photos with them engaged in activities with friends on their Facebook profiles, and attempted to increase their social network size within Facebook to show how popular they were. Also, they highlighted ‘well roundedness’ in their self-descriptions by listing several interests and hobbies they had.

More Questions

Based on these studies we have a basic understanding of the new ways in which we see ourselves with the proliferation of connected technology. In several instances you may have identified with these findings and had an opportunity to look from a distance at how you and others present your selves online. For me in particular, this line of thinking has urged me to think about how this relatively new way of presenting the self, which is native to cyborgs, determines how they interact with each other in cyberspace and if that is different to the social conventions surrounding the same in the physical world. A proper sit down with Goffman is in order.

At present, these partnerships are increasingly being formed and managed on virtual platforms, as these technologies support communication, collaboration and the maintenance of relationships across geographical and organisational boundaries. However, such forms of computer-mediated interaction radically alter and create fundamentally different workspaces when compared to physical work environments and add an extra challenge to ensuring that alliance relationships are successful.

Healthy Relationship Development Is Possible Online

Theoretical Proof

Early theorists concerned with relationship development online suggested that communication online could be considered as being somewhat impersonal and at times uninhibited and aggressive, especially when compared to face-to-face (FtF) communication (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Short, Williams & Christie, 1976). However, since these early perspectives, theories in the area of online relating has increased and evolved. It is now believed that though cyberspace has been theorised to be somewhat absent of non-verbal and social context cues, and thus appears to be less personal, that this does not imply individuals are unable to overcome these ‘deficiencies’ and even to capitalise on them (Lea & Spears, 1995). In agreement with these views, several theories (e.g., Witmer & Katzman, 1997; Parks & Roberts, 1998; Thibaut & Kelly, 1959; McKenna & Bargh, 2000; Walther, 1995; Walther, 1996; Walther, Slovacek & Tidwell, 2001) have offered insight that supports the notion of healthy relationship development online.

Empirical Evidence

In addition to having a strong theoretical backing, research has overwhelmingly given support to this claim as well. Investigating interpersonal relations among users of Internet discussion groups, Parks and Floyd (1996) found that the majority (60.7%) of their participants indicated that they had formed a personal relationship with others they met in that space.

Following up this study, Parks and Roberts (1998) explored relationship initiation and progression in MOOs (Multi-User Dimensions, Object Oriented). Results revealed that most participants (93.6%) reported that they had formed at least one relationship while being MOO users. Respondents mentioned several types of relationships that they got involved with, of these the majority (40.6%) were close friendships, followed by friendships (26.3%) and romantic relationships (26.3%).

Extending this inquiry to other contexts, Utz (2000) examined relationship development in Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs). This study found that the majority (76.7%) of the study’s 106 respondents reported that they had formed a relationship online. A fair portion (24.5%) of these participants indicated that their particular relationships were of a romantic nature.

Lastly, Whitty and Gavin (2001) who investigated the utility of social cues in building online relationships in chat rooms also offered further proof. Results from their study shows that both friendships and romantic relationships develop in this space as well. Moreover, several participants shared that they believed their relationships worked better by being just online.

Putting The Spotlight On Relationship Development Within Different Online Environments

As Whitty and Carr (2006) notes, it important to recognise that cyberspace is not just one generic space but is composed of many diverse spaces. Therefore, it is important that research focus on relationship development within different online environments and how it is affected by the unique features of these spaces. As there is little knowledge about the underlying social psychological processes involved in virtual business alliance relationships (VBARs), the virtual environment in which these relationships take place should be investigated to ensure adequate support is provided.

Closer Look Needed for VBARs

Similar to the differences observed in the development of relationships in other online spaces, in comparison to the progression of relationships offline, VBARs must also be studied to assess how business alliance relationships are affected by the changes brought about by virtual platforms. These changes in the work setting can affect the way individuals work, communicate, interact, express themselves, and form relationships with others. As a result, the unique process by which these relationships emerge, evolve and terminate needs to be understood, where after this knowledge can be leveraged to better inform participants and facilitate these processes using optimised virtual platforms.

The Significance Of Investigating VBARs

Such an enquiry is poised to demonstrate the serious need for closer integration between the social sciences and the information technology design field, where end-users can greatly benefit as a result. It will expand the literature on online relationship development by investigating business alliance relationships in the context of virtual spaces, from a socio-psychological perspective.

Social scientists concerned with the study of collaborative online technologies will be better informed about how healthy relationships develop between business partners using virtual platforms. Furthermore, such an enquiry will entice more social scientists to orient their investigations toward solving practical questions of interest to IT designers. This may in turn encourage technologists in the field to adopt the practice of also subscribing to the social sciences to design well-informed and well-crafted online technologies for end-users.

Published in: Advisory and Training

Published in: Advisory and Training

As much as you would not continue to throw money at a bad investment, constantly building, modifying and later recreating your company’s website or other online tools without a significant return on investment can be as disastrous for your profitability. After your company has just completed its website, launched an email or banner ad campaign, mobile site or app, what is next? How do you justify these investments or know that they are fruitful? Do you really understand the people who are interacting with your company online? Are they satisfied?

Published in: Advisory and TrainingStrategy and Growth

Published in: Strategy and Growth

Some things I didn’t get to share or comment on:

• It was mentioned and I also agree that there is little to no research on Internet use by children within Barbados, however, similar to industry stakeholders elsewhere (e.g., UK) studies are conducted regularly on aspects of Internet usage. As one of the major Internet service providers on the island Lime like the others should play a bigger role in protection of the youth online and its customers in general.
• One of the panellists shared his concern about the Internet allowing for ‘fantasy’ or living alternate lives online, however, psychological theory shows that identity exploration and experimentation are integral to development at adolescence and therefore should be supported. In relation to the physical world, cyberspace can be a much safer place for identity play. There is a need to distinguish between the cultural norms for ‘healthy’ early human development and what is necessary for this process as opposed to putting these young individuals on ‘virtual lockdown’.
• That said, we must not neglect to acknowledge these significant differences between various childhood developmental stages as this is particularly important if one wants to be successful in promoting Internet safety. For instance, it was noted that the computer should be located in a public place in the home. While this may be fitting for an ‘inexperienced’ child that requires heavy monitoring, for an adolescent who is soon to be a young and independent adult this can be a hindrance to the developmental process as supervision from afar may be more suitable.
• Another observation I made was that some persons seemed to be of the view that the Internet is not real and that there is a disconnect between online activities and regular life. I recall vaguely, someone mentioning ‘fake’ relationships or talking to ‘fake’ people online. Surely people online are living breathing individuals offline as well. Sometimes there are digital replicas of things in the physical world but these things exist in their own right online and are indeed ‘real’. For example, Internet infidelity results in the same hurt as if someone was unfaithful to his or her partner offline. Cyberspace exists within and impacts our ‘real’ world and that should be enough to validate its ‘realness’.
• Research from the UK shows that mediated by age there are roughly 4 areas of potential risks to the child online. While popular risk areas such as content and contact were well covered in the discussion, commercialism and exclusion from access were not. Commercialism typically speaks to breaches of privacy and targeted advertising at children, whereas, exclusion from access (often considered as a solution) refers to children not being given the opportunity to learn to use this vital technology or acquire this new ‘life skill’. Of course, we should not be contributing to the digital divide or disenfranchising our young ones by pulling the plug on online technology as this reduces opportunities for access to this vital and necessary tool in our contemporary society. Therefore, more focus needs to be placed on this particular online risk.
• One of the conclusions of the discussion that was not made clear is that Internet filters and similar equipment are not a total solution in itself but merely complimentary. As one of the panellists indicated, an adequate solution would include greater information and education offered by media/Internet/cyber literacy. Too often parents and other adults focus on the technical aspects (e.g., pushing buttons) of literacy and believe children (individuals below age 18) know how to ‘use’ technology, however, a critical understanding of the medium is also integral. Additionally, we need to ensure not only that they are able to access and understand this medium but to also create and participate in this new digital landscape. This is one of primary ways we can really ensure their future as global citizens and perhaps also effective Barbadian citizens as well.
• Following on from the above point, this is why I’m not thrilled about the decision to ban mobiles from schools when a comprehensive approach has not been devised at a higher level. In the absence of such a strategy, this move, I believe, has now increased the perceived value of mobiles by school children and amplified the negative effects.
• Nonetheless, though we can begin to implement a media literacy strategy immediately research is urgently needed to access the current state of Internet use by children within Barbados. As I have pointed out, this effort should not only include governmental agencies but also stakeholders in industry and higher education, all informed by pertinent research in the area and with consideration paid to our cultural context.
• Along these lines, some persons did express their intentions to launch projects that will help spread the word about Internet safety, this is definitely the right way to go.

This Ban Is Not Enough

Contrary to the above sentiments, I do support this measure. However, in the absence of complimentary measures proven to effectively deal with the main problems and if this is in fact all that there is to it, I am somewhat disappointed and say, “it is not enough”. If the aim is to reduce or stop the problems identified by the minister, then the banning of cellphones in schools is not a solution in itself.

Is solely banning students from bringing or using mobiles at school going to stop them from recording sexual acts where ever? Is it going to let them know it’s not appropriate, moral or becoming as an individual? Is it going to empower them to make smart decisions about how they use new technology? Later in life when these naïve students have come to their senses, are these measures going to help them be successful in getting the ‘decent’ jobs they want? These measures are far from being at the least strategic and can be considered more as a reflexive move. A deliberate, well prepared plan and effort is warranted as we honestly cannot afford to miss the target here.

Part of The Solution

As extensive research shows and as I have previously discussed in this forum, the solution is literacy. Not ‘our’ type of ‘literacy’ that is solely concerned with one’s ability to use the technology or to merely ‘push buttons’ but to really understand and critically use it. Sad to say, this problem applies to the entire society, especially in the Caribbean. How many of you understand the critical issues and debates we are now presented with due to increased access to Internet technology?

We as a society (not only the government or just parents) need to help the younger generation successfully acquire this new life skill, as opposed to ‘pulling the plug’ on technology and in actuality on their future in this ever increasing global marketplace.

Site visitors can be considered as being in a vulnerable state. They are sometimes not knowledgeable in a certain area and therefore seek to gain information to help them make an informed decision or they trust that when they purchase something online that they actually would receive it. As sites provide, request and gather information, and also try to influence behaviour, support and process online purchases, and even strive to form strong relationships that would result in favourable outcomes for the site owner, getting visitors to trust site owners and their site is of very high importance.

To explain trust further in relation to sites I will use Bhattacherjee’s (2002) three main dimensions of trust: ability, integrity and benevolence.

• Ability speaks to your knowledge, skills and competence as a business or professional in whatever area. For example, as you are my site visitors, you may question if I am qualified to give advice in this area or if I am capable of communicating my knowledge to you well. Also, perhaps, you aren’t too keen on paying bills on a certain site as their online system crashes often.
• Integrity refers to your visitors’ belief that you are honest and reliable, and will act in a credible way. Are they confident that you will keep your promises and live up to expectations? Do you give them reasons not to? Do you say you will offer online discounts and add hidden charges at checkout? Do you give your word that information will be published on your website today and it shows up 2 weeks later?
• Benevolence is the degree to which your clients’ believe you have only but good intentions for them. More or less speaks to you treating your clients fairly while doing business.

What measures can you implement within your website strategy to build trust?

Detailing how visitors assess trust in sites, Sillence, Briggs, Harris and Fishwick (2006) provided a three-stage model from which website strategists can benefit.

Stage 1

This stage suggest that visitors are presented with numerous websites and will make a decision based on heuristic analysis of the website’s design. Considering this, the website design should feature characteristics that effectively exude the image you find most advantageous to your cause, for example, your brand.

A bank may want to convey their integrity and reliability to their current and potential customers online. They may express this through their colour scheme, layout and overall design. Not surprisingly though, these researchers found that not having a clear focus for one’s site and using many adverts on pages reduce the perceived trust of a site. Of course, strategists should also stay inline with web standards. For instance, having the website optimised for fast webpage loading and simple, uncomplicated navigation. We still need to be technologically savvy and consider such matters, don’t throw pragmatism out the window.

Stage 2

At this stage the model purports that website visitors take a closer look at website content. They examine the purpose of the website, its language use and tone, the level at which published content is directed and its source, and the website’s integration with other relevant websites. This firstly highlights the importance of stating clearly your website’s purpose and underlying motivations. For example, depression sufferers may feel uneasy acquiring information from a support website operated by a pharmaceutical company.

Secondly, it stresses that you should know your audience and compose your information accordingly. Lastly, take for example my site. As I am a social psychologist, by linking to other reputable websites (e.g., national/international psychological associations) in the area to offer more information sources I may increase the perceived trustworthiness of my site. In contrast, associating your site with an untrustworthy site or entity may be detrimental.

Stage 3

The final stage of the model refers to the website’s interaction and relationship building with the user so it is concerned with long-term engagement.

It is recommended that your site should have a more personal touch by trying to stay away from using generic content. One way you can accomplish this is by acquiring user information, however, this is a trust issue as well. Including more interactivity into your site is also helpful. For instance, using quizzes, forums, chat rooms and keeping visitors updated via other communication channels (e.g., email, texts, status updates). Also, you need to provide visitors with new information, features and so on periodically. Keeping your site up-to-date is of high importance at this stage.

Lastly, letting visitors have their say is also beneficial for encouraging engagement over the long-term. Reviews along with other user-generated content can make your ‘trust meter’ go off the charts so it is something I would recommend to implement in some way or fashion.

Some extra tips offered by research

• Ensure that your website has no spelling mistakes or broken links.
• Do not use unfamiliar terminology, for example, jargon.
• If you take information from visitors, please make available a privacy statement and privacy policy. Stick to it!
• Include real world elements into your design, for example, photographs.
• The verdict is out on the utility of ‘seals of approval’ but using them won’t hurt.

Example of Important Questions Raised by Cyberpsychology

One research paper that illustrates this on a very simple level is authored by neuroscientist Ian Robertson. He discussed the challenges we experience when trying to remember friends’ mobile numbers and even our own. Can you remember your mother’s mobile number? Like me, if it’s kinda sketchy in your head, that’s exactly what Robertson is talking about. He believes that there is a connection between the ability of our gadgets to store such information and our ability to recall this information.

Though on the surface this appears rather simple, this may have serious implications for our memory and its capacity to hold information. Let’s think about it. Perhaps such technology allows us to better use our memory by concentrating only on important details or on contrary, it reduces our ability to remember. Who really knows these things anyways? Cyberpsychologists do!!!

Not All of Us Research Social Media

Coincidently as we’re now well into an ‘age of social media’ and several high profile research studies emerging from the field are concerned with social media (e.g., Facebook, Myspace, Flickr, Youtube), we can’t simply disregard cyberpsychology as being a case of supply and demand. Yes we are interested in these online services but cyberpsychology goes far beyond this.

There are researchers (e.g., Mark Griffiths) looking at online gaming, gambling and addiction, some who focus on identity online (e.g., Jill Arnold and Hugh Miller), education (e.g., Phil Banyard) and even how the journey of finding love translates online (e.g., Monica Whitty).

Currently I work as an online media consultant helping Caribbean organisations build their online presence successfully. Leveraging my specialist knowledge about online behaviour and years of experience in website design and development I work alongside marketing, communications, public relations and information systems professionals helping their organisations connect better with their online audience and build lasting relationships with them.

Not Saying Social Media Research Is Not Important – It Is Needed, God Knows It Is!

Considering all those new online professionals (e.g., social media ‘experts’/‘scientists’) coming out of the woodwork, I am one of those people who believe that giving advice in this area requires specialist knowledge and training in an area where the differences between how we behave online and offline are appreciated and well understood. Currently some of these ‘professionals’ are trying this method and the next method because it worked for a big company or some other significant entity. This methodology is at the least scaring me silly. What happened to using the scientific approach for business, doesn’t it apply anymore? Or is there a problem with its validity and or relevance when it comes to social media? Apparently, social media resides outside the boundaries of science or so others would like us to believe. Did we forget the scientific approach could be used when studying social phenomena? Do please look up social science.

Of course disciplines such as marketing, communications, public relations, information systems etcetera still have relevance in this area but they all subscribe to psychological theory in one way or another. Therefore, they will all greatly benefit from being informed by the science of psychology which comprehensively considers the complexity of human behaviour both online and offline, and was doing this ‘since Adam was a lad’.

Coming Clean

Before I finish up here I just want to be honest and mention that before doing my Masters at Nottingham Trent University in Cyberpsychology, I was honestly convinced that I would be merely ‘filling in the gaps’ in my knowledge and would receive some evidence in the form of a degree for my future employers to confirm my professional prowess in the area. However, I quickly dismissed those thoughts once I started the degree as my perspective was beginning to change drastically. This does not mean that I don’t blame those individuals who are naïve about the area though, like me at the time, they were not giving it enough thought to see its many worthwhile applications.

I began to not only apply established psychological theories and research in cyberpsychology to understand current behaviour but more importantly, to me at least, I found myself elaborately thinking about what can be possible when technology and people become more integrated and the best way this can be done. Simon Watts, who was one of my lecturers at NTU comes to mind. He gave us a paper entitled ‘Social Psychology as History’ to take a look at and I remember feeling quite frustrated while reading it but soon I came to terms with this frustration and saw it as a challenge to be more forward thinking, to embrace my inner trekkian spirit I believe this approach characterises cyberpsychology and what it ought to be. With technology changing so fast there really isn’t any other approach that can be taken.