Posted by Rzip on October 15, 2000, at 22:35:35
In reply to Re: Hypotheses » medlib, posted by Dr. Bob on October 11, 2000, at 12:25:27
> Dr. Bob,
I am not sure which hypothese this exactly fits, but I just want to say that one of the downfall of on-line communication is having the DEGREE AND DEPTH of one's emotions/actions misunderstood. The overwhelming benefit of on-line communications is of course, the chance to "freely" express oneself and see how it measures up to what one imagines the responses to be.
Rzip
> Abstract: A lengthy, useful, but not altogether accurate "first pass" at describing the nature of online support groups.
>
> Well, you have to start somewhere! :-)
>
> > > > [A] 1. A person with a history of chaotic relationships, physical trauma, or strong feelings of shame or guilt tends to experience online text communication as safe. (1.3, 1.4, 2.4)
> >
> > Anonymity can confer a sense of safety, but not necessarily a feeling of trust. Online communication without anonymity confers neither. I'm wondering how, and/or if, meeting f2f (as some Babblers have) affects this effect.
>
> My hypothesis would be that people feel safer online, even if they're not anonymous. Not necessarily completely safe, but safer than they'd feel in person. How about that?
>
> I think trust is a great issue to consider. What goes into trust?
>
> I'd also be curious what the effect of meeting in person has been, if anyone who's done that would like to comment...
>
> > > > [D] 2. With online text communication, a person can be less inhibited and -- deliberately or not -- more likely to act out. (2.2)
> >
> > > > 3. With online text communication, a person can be -- deliberately or not -- more guarded about aspects of themselves, including their "true self". (6.3, 8.4)
> >
> > Well, if one is affected at all, s/he is likely to be one or the other, don't you think?
>
> Right. But do you think there's likely to be an effect? And, if so, which one? :-)
>
> > > > 6. With online text communication, others try to help more quickly by giving advice or problem-solving. (11.2)
> >
> > More quickly than what? Do you mean "People with problems can find advice/support more quickly online than from other sources" or "People are more likely to respond quickly to an online call for help than to a similar request in "real life"?
>
> Sorry, that was poorly worded. I meant something more like: "With online text communication, others try to help more quickly, for example, by giving advice or problem-solving rather than by initially exploring the situation further."
>
> > General comments:
> >
> > 1) If these statements really are hypotheses, how are they to be proved or evaluated?
>
> That's a good question. I think it's important that they be framed so that they could be tested. By comparing online and in-person groups, for example.
>
> > 2) For me, "can" is a wishy-washy word--as difficult to disprove as to prove. Most things "can" be; I think that both descriptive and predictive value lie in more definitive verbs--i.e., "is" or "isn't", "does" or "doesn't".
>
> I agree -- and did try to be definitive. As has been pointed out several times, however, these are generalizations that aren't going to apply to everyone. So if they're going to be tested, the results are bound to be along the lines of "tends to" (ie, more wishy-washy).
>
> > 3) You asked (I believe) one poster about online therapy groups. For me, an online therapy group would have to closely resemble an offline one: limited (max and min), closed membership; member commitment to a minimum posting requirement and an individual therapeutic goal for some agreed-upon minimum of time; and a potentially active leader who monitored all posts and was willing to intervene when necessary to facilitate therapeutic movement.
>
> Thanks, that's a nice set of parameters!
>
> > Since I can't afford med tx, rxs and therapy, your online support groups are particularly valuable to me. Thanks much.
>
> You're welcome, and thanks for all your contributions here.
>
> BTW, although I'm jumping in all the time on this thread, everyone doesn't have to direct their comments just to me. Maybe I should be quiet for a while...
>
> Bob
poster:Rzip
thread:844
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20001011/msgs/1105.html