Online Communications

This is a subject that has boggled me to no end for quite sometime and I would like to further investigate it.

Let me start off by defining the two categories used to further understand communication: Verbal and vocal.
The verbal part of communication is the text of the message.
The vocal is everything but the text used to get the message across, better understood as “how you say it.” This includes things such as body language and voice infliction.

Only about 7% of a message is weighed by the verbal aspect leaving the rest of the message to different means (Hoehn 1984).

When this assertion was made, there wasn't email, text messaging, instant messaging, chatrooms, forums, or any other significant form of communication that was based purely on relatively immediately to immediate text-based responding.

Without vocal cues, it is extremely easy to misinterpret text implications the messenger is trying to send to his/her receiver. That said, with fast paced text conversations via IMs and chatrooms, this problem is most prevelent.

When it comes to online/electronic forms of communication, what do you believe are the key factors for understanding and misunderstanding messages? What are your other thoughts on online communication? How does the anomity factor come into play for such means of communication?

When I think about it, I always say it's how the person pictures the messenger. If the person already know the messenger in real life, there's not as much misinterpretation for the receiver is able to determine normal speech and behaviorial patterns.

When it comes to a complete stranger, there is no voice or face to look upon as a mechanism to interpret this. What doe the reciever do? It is my untested belief that the receiver creates a temporary or imaginary voicebox to use for the unknown messenger. This voice is made based upon a few things:
1) The text of the message
2) How the text is being written (the spelling, grammar, internet abbreviations/slang, smilies, and things such as writing in all caps, alternative caps, boldface, and italics)
3) Where this person is placing their message (ie. a gamers' forum, a football chat)
4) Your background (Where you're from, your ethnicity, etc)
5) Your emotional state (How you're feeling at the time)
6) Your age
7) Your gender
8) Chronemics (the time between messages)

However, these created voices aren't accurate as I've been proven time and time again when listening to podcasts and Skyping with friends. Some people who I thought would have strong, powerful voices turn out to have meek, squeaky ones instead.
Is this self-deception or is it dual personalities? Although I believe it's a mixture of both, I lean more towards the dual personalities. Hardly anyone I know acts the way they do both online and in person.

Going back to interpreting messages, misinterpretations constantly occur. This is due to two key factors being omitted:
1) Seeing body language (includes facial expression, hand movements, etc)
2) Hearing vocal infliction (The stress of a word in a sentence, or perhaps just the overall tone of voice)

Without these two factors, it is extremely hard to tell if this sentence is meant to be taken seriously or sarcastically:
We need those, too.

Please, I'd love to hear some feedback on what everyone thinks =)

Re: Online Communications

Dear Jacki,
It may be a big job but if you browse the past comments in this pod and read what you find relevant I think you will get a lot of the information you are requesting here. If it seems like too big a task do it in sections reminding yourself that what we put into something is what we get out of it!
Ian.
()

Re: Online Communications

See, this is a great example of online communications, so I'll analyze.

“It may be a big job”
Do you truly believe this is a big job that could take days on end, or is this pure sarcasm intended to call me lazy and make the messenger sound like a humorous hero? Very easy to misinterpret.

“but if you browse the past comments in this pod and read what you find relevant”
This is under an assumption that the receiver never read anything on this board and decided to post willy-nilly. This is often a false accusation that people long acquainted with a community often make on new people.

“I think you will get a lot of the information you are requesting here”
Let me just double check the questions I posted:

“what do you believe are the key factors for understanding and misunderstanding messages?”
“What are your other thoughts on online communication?”
“How does the anomity factor come into play for such means of communication?”
And also, I am requesting feedback on my specific theory.

Out of all the posts within the community, the only bit that remotely addresses any of these questions is this one:
http://pods.zaadz.com/communicate/discussions/view/123116

However, seeing as I did not see that particular thread as fulfilling, I created this one to get more specific feedback, especially upon my theory.


“If it seems like too big a task do it in sections reminding yourself that what we put into something is what we get out of it!”
This is just clearly illustrates the messenger's original point. Seeing as this response is a mere two sentences long where-as my original message is significantly longer with researched materials, reading is something I'd highly suggest to levy the worries of the respondent.

Re: Online Communications

Well said Jacki, you clearly illustrate the fact that the the interpretation is in the mind of the reader.
()
PS. I do apologise for not answering all your questions specifically.