Much analysis has already taken place in the low-cues CMC environment, particularly about how any sort of relationship can form in such a medium, but more study needs yet to be done on how language itself plays a role in establishing those relationships. As a small amount of trust and familiarity is gained in any medium, language changes drastically and in a variety of ways, and that very language change may prompt more trust to be extended. Barrett and I are researching common ground and trust in a CMC environment, preferably IM. We aim to see if a difference exists in language use when a subject has a minimal level of trust for another and when they don’t, and we predict that the difference between the two conditions is simply common ground.We have two potential ideas for the experiment. First, we could hint or overtly state to a subject that the other either should or should not be trusted, giving them a legitimate reason why. If both parties are working to get to know each other, for example, each will extend a certain amount of trust. If a seed of doubt has been planted that the other’s objective may be different or even contrary to the subject’s, they may act differently – more guarded? – toward the other. Alternately, we could set up two conditions. In one condition, two students meet briefly in person before being escorted to separate CMC rooms to talk online. The common ground: they’re both students, they’re both participants, and they both are probably doing the experiment for the same reason…credit. This is immediately established and a small amount of trust is extended. The other condition is where one person is led alone into a CMC conversation with someone they haven’t met, either a confederate or another subject. At the outset, they’re unsure if the other is a fellow student subject, a confederate experimenter, or even some unknown third party. Without the original condition’s common ground, no trust is initially extended. Language used between the two conditions may change drastically. One possible change in language (though this is far from a working hypothesis) is that explicit signaling may become implicit as trust is gained. For example, in a non-trust condition, a subject may say “Shall we begin?” or “So we’re supposed to get to know each other,” both signals for the conversation to proceed that trusting individuals probably aren’t as likely to use. This is only one example of how language may vary between the two conditions, and many more will be considered before a hypothesis is decided upon and an experiment designed.
Barrett Amos
Sam Warren
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Great concept and experimental design ideas. Just another idea: In the "trust scenario" you could tell the participant that he is working with the other person in order to achieve a goal (make them allies), and in the "no trust scenario" you could tell the participant that he is competing with him and (hinting he is trying to sabotage him etc). Once you narrow down the details of your experimental design I think you have a great concept going for you. It's also rather easy to assign a 5 or 7 point Likert scale and ask people about how they felt about trust, so you shouldn't have any trouble quantifying your data.
I personally think that this is a very interesting topic and is definitely worthy of studying. However, I still agree with what was said in class today about possibly having too many variables present. I think the idea that was put forth in today suggesting that both of the students are to be put in the same room and asked not to talk while something is shown on a television, is the best way to limit variables and artificially create common ground. I still think this is a great idea and am very interested to view your findings, best of luck.
I think that this topic can have much validity behind it if the research is conducted well. As a small amount of trust and familiarity is gained in any medium, language does change drastically and in a variety of ways. As a result, communicators
become more comfortable with each other and that very language change can lead to additional trust to be extended. Common ground is essential in order for strangers to interact with each other and become more relaxed in the conversation. I feel that all the testing methods that you guys have provided have pros and cons to them. In the end, I think the method that illuminates the necessity for common ground between communicators should be used.
Post a Comment