In what ways is interpersonal conflict in computer mediated communication different from interpersonal conflict in the real world?
In what ways is interpersonal conflict in computer mediated communication different from interpersonal conflict in the real world?
This essay will comment on the ways in which interpersonal conflict in computer mediated communication might be different from interpersonal conflict in the real world. It will look at both theories of aggression and recent research on the psychology of the Internet. It will begin by looking at the basic theories of aggression and go on to examine interpersonal conflict in the real world and interpersonal conflict in computer mediated communication. Finally it will comment on the differences between the two.
In psychological research on aggression there are two basic positions: one sees aggression as a form of behaviour, which is governed by innate instincts or drives; the other sees aggression as a form of behaviour, which is acquired through individual experience. There is also an intermediate position that integrates the concept of drive and learning, this is known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis.
The concept of aggression as an instinct can be seen in the framework of psychoanalysis. Sigmund Freud developed the idea of aggression as instinctive: a servant of the 'pleasure principle'. Aggression was seen as a reaction to frustration experienced in the pursuit of pleasure. Freud later developed a Dual Instinct Theory where, alongside the life instinct Eros, he conceived a second, death instinct, Thantos. It is assumed that aggressive behaviour diverts the destructive energy and tension associated with Thantos. Thus, Freud claimed that the displacement of negative energy of the Thantos onto others is the basis of aggression (See Ref. 1, Alexandra K. Smith). This led to the idea of catharsis.
While Freud focused on the death instinct as the cause of aggression, Konrad Lorenz looked at instinctual aggressiveness as a product of evolution. His approach, known as the ethological approach, saw aggression as an innate behavioural disposition arising from natural selection. Aggression is beneficial as it increases chances of survival and successful conservation of the species. Lorenz likens the build up of aggression to a continuously heated steam boiler: as pressure builds up, so steam must be continuously released. If the steam is blocked pressure build up is too high and steam (or aggression) uncontrollably explodes (See Ref. 2, Hewstone et al.). To avoid a release of uncontrolled aggression Lorenz recommends the continual and controlled discharge of energy through socially acceptable forms of aggression, such as through competitive sports.
The frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939) rejected the concepts of innate instincts as drives towards aggression. This model of aggression assumes that a person is motivated to act aggressively, not by innate factors, but by a drive induced by frustration. Frustration arises when goal attainment is blocked. In this theory frustration is the cause of aggression and aggression is the result of frustration. However, aggression is not always directed towards the cause of frustration, it may be displaced by target or response substitution. Thus, aggression discharges the aggressive energy produced by frustration: through this catharsis the readiness for aggression disappears. However, critics argued that frustration did not always lead to aggression. In his cue-arousal theory Berkowitz (1964, 1969, 1974) modified the frustration-aggression theory to include other instigating factors of aggression. He added that frustration leads to aggression if there are intervening cues, such as weapons effect: i.e. if there are appropriate environmental conditions for aggression present.
The above approaches see aggression as inevitable and the consequence of increased drive brought about by factors either within the person or in the external environment. Social learning theory does not attribute aggression to an internal mechanism, in this hypothesis aggression is initially learned from social behaviour and it is maintained by other conditions. Aggression is learned and maintained via instrumental conditioning and/or social modelling. Learning theory suggests a number of strategies to control aggression and is currently one of the most popular theories of aggression.
Aggression is expressed in many ways and for various reasons. ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The above approaches see aggression as inevitable and the consequence of increased drive brought about by factors either within the person or in the external environment. Social learning theory does not attribute aggression to an internal mechanism, in this hypothesis aggression is initially learned from social behaviour and it is maintained by other conditions. Aggression is learned and maintained via instrumental conditioning and/or social modelling. Learning theory suggests a number of strategies to control aggression and is currently one of the most popular theories of aggression.
Aggression is expressed in many ways and for various reasons. It is often expressed as part of a conflict, either, between two people, within a group or between groups. It is prevalent in modern society, specifically in the technologically advanced society of the Internet:
" Aggression is expressed in many forms, some of which are physical and some not. It could be expected that in Computer Mediated Communication (CMC), where physical aggression is unavailable, expressions of aggression would be less varied than in "real" life (RL). Yet, an observation of online media such as mailing lists, Usenet newsgroups, IRC (Internet Relay Chat), MUDs and MOOs (Multi User Dungeons and MUDs Object Orientated) and the World Wide Web reveals an astounding range of online expressions of aggression."
(See Ref. 3, Yaara Di Segni Garbasz).
The Internet community is divided into groups, some of which correspond to those that exist in real life (e.g. religious or political affiliations) while some are unique to the Internet (e.g. hackers and AOL users). Like in real life conflict between these groups due to racial or religious prejudice, political disagreement, bias against a certain group, or personal dislike can lead to expressions of aggression. Aggression may also occur in response to a violation of accepted social rules or norms, or for no apparent reason. All social groups have rules/norms and the Internet is no exception. In computer mediated communication violation of netiquette is a major source of conflict. Violations of netiquette include: using inappropriate language; asking questions that have already been answered via FAQs; criticising others for their spelling or grammar; posting large messages; and spamming. As in real life, those who break these social norms will offend members of the Internet community, therefore it is important to watch and learn the rules before jumping.
Interpersonal conflict in the real world and interpersonal conflict in computer mediated communication both lead to expressions of aggression. Aggression can be expressed in many different ways. In the real world verbal and physical aggression is possible, because most CMC is written this is not possible in the Internet community and so language is the prevalent form of aggression. Because the written language used in CMC is very informal it is similar to verbal communication. Therefore, written forms of aggression online resemble verbal forms of aggression in the face-to-face world.
As in the real world, there are many different expressions of aggression in CMC. Flaming is a written form of verbal aggression. It resembles interpersonal conflict in the real world in that words are used to insult and hurt others: flame wars are very similar to verbal battles. Flooding is an aggressive act, which is used to disrupt online activity by flooding a user's screen with text. Sexual and physical aggression using words to describe acts can also occur in CMC, as it does in the real world. Also, the lack of visual expression in CMC has been compensated for by the development of a rich visual language consisting of ASCII art and other uses of keyboard combinations (See Ref. 3, Yaara Di Segni Garbasz). Emoticons are used to indicate emotions; words and phrases enclosed in parentheses of various kinds indicate emotional reactions and physical acts (e.g. *blush*) and writing in capital letters indicate SHOUTING! All of these can be used to express aggression.
Getting to known somebody online via CMC can be positive, as everyone starts on an even level. Prejudices against age, race, attractiveness, socio-economic status etc do not interfere due to pseudonymity and anonymity. There is the opportunity to talk, to exchange ideas and feelings and to assume personae of your own creation. This comes under the concept of depaysement:
"...Sherry Turkle (1996) describes the concept of depaysement. Appropriated from anthropology, depaysement, meaning literally to "decountrify" oneself, is defined as the experience of (re) seeing...Cyberspace is rich with opportunities for depaysement: we can experiment with how it feels to be the opposite sex or sexless, we can change our ethnicity or the colour of our skin, we can develop relationships with people we would never meet face-to-face, all of which enable us to experience a different perspective from which to (re) view the self and real life constructs."
(See Ref. 4, Andrea Chester and Gillian Gwyne)
However, there is a lack of non-verbal cues in CMC that are present in face-to-face encounters. The human face and body are rich in meaning and emotion; there are no voices, facial expressions or body language in CMC. This may lead to misinterpretation, and therefore interpersonal conflict. Without the usual non-verbal cues and well-established etiquette that exist in the real world other problems can arise in CMC:
" ...the absence of the rich nonverbal cues that guide us well in face to face encounters are absent, so the "cold" nature of online communication can lead to problems...Because of this loss of nonverbal cues, the online activities preserve, and perhaps amplify, a number of well-known social psychology problems, such as fundamental attribution error, where we interpret others' misbehaviour as representative whereas our own mistakes have good explanations rendering them atypical: Your e-mail has spelling errors because you are an ignorant, clumsy slob, whereas I was just distracted by the silly doorbell this time."
(See Ref. 5, John Mueller)
This lack of non-verbal cues and well-established etiquette also means that people feel less constrained by convention, and therefore, say and do things that they wouldn't say or do in the real world. People loosen up, feel more uninhibited and express themselves more openly: this is known as disinhibition effect (See Ref. 6, Suler, J). CMC has been associated not only with higher levels of self-disclosure, but also antisocial behaviour, which are both linked to disinhibition effect.
There is a high level of aggression online, perhaps more so than in the real world. Disinhibition effect may be one reason. It may also be because the Internet environment is relatively new and unfamiliar for many; this may lead to frustration, anxiety and misunderstanding. This means that there are appropriate environmental conditions for aggression to occur. The lack of physicality in CMC means people are able to separate their actions from their real world, a phenomena known as dissociation. They can be anonymous, therefore do not have to take responsibility for their actions. Anonymity and pseudonymity can lead to acts of aggression. However, the right for an individual to remain anonymous is important, privacy of the individual in CMC is valuable.
Another theory as to the high level of aggression online is that people regress when talking on the Internet, expressing sex and aggression as they never would face-to-face (See Ref. 7, Norman N. Holland). Flaming, sexual harassment and excessive generosity are, according to Holland, the three major signs of this. We flame to the person as if they were an insensitive thing, a machine that cannot be hurt. The computer takes away some aspects of human communication, but it adds others. When communicating on the Internet the people get less human and the machine gets more human, this results in a lack of inhibition. People express love and aggression to a degree that they never would in the real world.
In conclusion, theories of aggression and recent research on the psychology of the Internet show that interpersonal conflict in computer mediated communication resembles interpersonal conflict in the real world in many ways, though some differences can be found. The Internet community is divided into social groups and has a set of accepted rule or norms. Like in the real world, if these rules are broken it is a source of conflict, often leading to acts of aggression. The way in which aggression is expressed is different in the real world as there is the ability to use verbal and physical forms of aggression. However, the written form of aggression used in CMC resembles this and, as in the real world there are many different forms of aggression. Flame wars are similar to face-to-face verbal battles, and sexual and physical aggression occurs both in the real world and in CMC. Anonymity and pseudonymity mean that individuals open up much more than they would do in the real world. They may say or do things in CMC that they would never say or do in the real world. This can be a very positive thing, but in may also lead to antisocial behaviour and increased aggression.
REFERENCES
. Alexandra K. Smith (1999)
"Theories of Aggression. In Biology 202"
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web3/smith.html
2. "Introduction to Social Psychology"
Second Edition
Hewstone, Stroebe and Stephenson
996
Blackwell Publishers Ltd
3. Yaara Di Segni Garbasz (1997)
"Flame Wars, Flooding, Kicking and Spamming: Expressions of Aggression in the Virtual Community. In Contemporary Issues in Psychoanalysis."
University of Shefield
4. Andrea Chester and Gillian Gwyne (December 1998)
"Online Teaching: The Delights and Dangers of Pseudonymity"
Department of Psychology and Intellectual Disability Studies
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue2/chester.html
5. John Mueller (March 16, 2000)
"Review Essay: The Psychology of the Internet by Patricia M. Wallace.
In The International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning
Volume 4, Number 3
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll//volume4/mueller.html
6. Suler, J (June 2001)
"The Online Disinhibition Effect. In The Psychology of Cyberspace"
http://www.rider.edu/users/suler/psycyber/disinhibit.html
7. Norman N. Holland (January 1996)
"The Internet Regression. In The Psychology of Cyberspace"
http://www.rider.edu/users/psycyber/holland.html
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 4
"Interpersonal Conflict in Computer Mediated Communication and the Real World: An Examination of Their Differences."
By
Nathalie Cornish
(95500596)
Bass 4
Please note:
I tried in vain to get the books recommended:
Gackenback book not available in libraries. Wallace book: only one copy in university library and one in Central library, both out on loan (and overdue) for past couple of weeks.
I found this essay very difficult to do without these textbooks and feel I have not answered the question as I would have liked.