SL Conversations: Recreating Romance In-World

SL Conversations: Recreating Romance In-World

SL Conversations: Recreating Romance In-World
NMC Symposium on the Evolution of Communication
December 3-5, 2007, In Second Life.

Phylis Johnson, Ph.D., Associate Professor

Southern IllinoisUniversity, Carbondale, IL62901-6609

Dedicated to Sonicity Fitzroy & Shock Soderstrom

Abstract: What is it about an online environment that entices people to talk with strangers, ignoring the old adage and common sense? This paper examines how Second Life has changed the way we interact, date, and romantically engage online in virtual settings.

Introduction: Seeking Romance in Uncommon Spaces

In September 18, 2007, a couple made headlines when they met online in a chat room, but they had no idea that they were already married – and to each other. They struck up a conversation that turned into a heated online romance, and ended in a bitter divorce when both realized that they had “cheated” on each other, well sort of you might say. It would seem that they had more in common after all. You also might say, by divorcing, what they did was to cheat themselves out of that common bond that drew them together first in RL and later in SL. Remember the last time you traveled by plane, sitting next to a stranger. You wound up sharing your closest thoughts to a person who you would never see again – and perhaps you counted on that fact. Is there a place we need to go to confess and connect with others to seek answers to deeper, yet common, questions about our identity and relationships – from others who are willing to listen to our side of the story?

What is it about an online environment that entices people to talk with strangers, ignoring the old adage and common sense not to do so? Some might suggestthat circumstance is not much different from meeting a stranger in a RL club; indeed a SL space might be a bit more authentic and safe (not that SL hasn’t had its share of grief). This paper supplements my presentation, and offers to explore how Second Life has changed the way we interact, date, and romantically engage (or not) online in virtual settings. My review of on-relationship literature, and my speculation thereof, focuses on the virtual aspect of “communication” and veers away from much more adult considerations (wink). In this way, this paper shares recent communication research regarding online relationships, and considers how Second Life draws people into conversations and relationships through its ability to “romance” us with its mystery, magic, and makeover. First we begin with the mystery….

Revealing the Mystery of Self: The Stranger in All of Us

I met a young woman the other day – introduced by a friend of a friend. She is paraplegic, and seeks company through Second Life. I have spent a few hours here and there, interacting with her online. I can’t help but feel nervous about someone breaking her heart. She is beginning to date in SL. I can tell from her tone and her text that she is moving quickly in this regard. On the other hand, I feel the same about my 22 year-old daughter in Real Life. How do we determine if a particular partner or friendship is safe in comparison to another – by appearance and causal conversation; is that not superficial? I made a conscious decision that my avatar would be an improved version of me. But I know, after nearly one year, I am becoming increasingly like her or she like me in several ways. More interestingly, my husband and I are stepping up on our exercising and dieting to look more like our avatars. At times, I am aware that my avatar Sonicity Fitzroy has her own mannerisms. I am coming to know her as an individual, as well as know that she is intertwined into my being. Wow. Crazy. Sonicity and I were strangers, and now we share the same cosmic, virtual space.

Second Life provides a space to get to “know yourself,” all of your personality traits, even those hidden. As a college professor, I remain somewhat restrained in my actions on SL. And I would not compromise the integrity of Sonicity. Maybe that is merely my take on how SL has changed my perspective of myself. That insight is important to me because it helps me to understand my relationship with others to whom I interact with in various SL spaces.

The Stranger in Your Relationships

The introduction of this paper began with a news story about a married couple who were cheating on each other through their own avatars. How was their online relationship successful, but not their realmarriage? From personal experience, I enjoy not talking about bills in SL, nor do my husband and I argue online about who is taking the dog out for a walk. What if there weredesignated space where people could actually talk apart from the distractions of RL? For a moment, consider what is more authentic to relationship building – a sharing of your inner most feelings in a romantic setting, while dancing, or a sharing your disgust with your partner over dinner about the idiot at the office.

Consider the many divorces in the real world, and you begin to wonder can we ever really know someone. What don’t we know about each other, and what can we learn from each other apart from RL problems. That is not the point, however. The world is hungry for relationships, something beyond watching a Friday night video at home and something deeper than hanging out at a night club. Think about what Second Life can do – it can“get” people talking with each other, engaging them, in a completely different context that draws them together into a space – either through chat or voice. What do we know about SLers? We know that they like to communicate? That is a start. We know that they are probably looking to connect to others. We can also find out about them through their profiles, and that is easier than some awkward Q&A on the first meeting of someone in RL. You can find out their interests, by noting what circles they like to travel – the botanical club, the furry artists club, the weapons club. For example, if I noted that a particular avatar had joined the latter, I would TP out in a few seconds with a quick “Excuse me, I am experiencing lag. I must go now.” That again is a PERSONAL choice. Yes SL members could lie about themselves, but that problem is not so unique to in-world relationships.

When one begins to define the concept of stranger, an individual soon learns that the dictionary is only of marginal assistance. Let’s see howHoughton Mifflin Online Dictionarydefines stranger:“One who is neither a friend or an acquaintance, a foreigner, newcomer, or outsider …unaccustomed to or unacquainted with something specified…a visitor or guest.” Merriam Webster Online Dictionary notes that it is rooted in 14th Century Middle English, from Old French “from estrange.” It adds to the Houghton Mifflin definition: “one who does not belong to or is kept from the activities of a group.”

I might suggest that SLers are defined by their membership or by the fact that have a common interest in virtual reality, as one has an affinity for country-western clubs. Indeed, in SL, participation is limited to those with computer access and basic computer skills. Yet, that is more than is required for other public spaces, such as parks. In SL, when you meet someone in a park, you can click on profile, and perhaps learn more in 30 seconds about someone than in a chance meeting in a RL park. Voice offers greater potential for discernment of one’s character, to a point of course. Williams, Caplan, & Xiong (2007) found that the addition of voice to World of Warcraft was favorably received among game players who were pleased to be able to more accurately determine authenticity in gender, intelligence, and character, and this, in turn, increased levels of trust among relationships than when text-based communication was relied on exclusively.

As for my online relationship with my husband, I like him much better as avatar Shock Soderstrom at times, especially the quieter version of him that text allows in SL. I like the space that text allows for interpretation, although sometimes I have to ask him to explain his messages. I like to multi-task, watch TV, listen to RL music, and text provides such opportunities. I find myself a bit more creative in my text responses than when I use voice, and likewise Shock is similarly more experimental and romantic when keyboarding. Beyond that, at least by my perception, he seems much more nurturing in SLthan RL and wants to dance and take me places….of course that is because he doesn’t have to leave the comfort of his upstairs office in our house; I sit downstairs tapping away on the keys of my desktop. I have learned to appreciate the depth and diversity of his personality over the past several months and maybe more so than our two decades of marriage. Most of all, we have had fun in the process. Text provides room for one’s imagination to fill in the gap during a conversation, as each party perceives each others’ intentions. RL couples, for this reason, may have an advantage in reading between the lines than those who know one another only through Second Life. But that is not always the case, as already discussed.

Not being able to separate work from fun, I have documented the romantic experiences of Shock and Sonicity through photos and have taken note of the progression of their relationship. You can browse through that file included among the presentation materials. My SL experienceshave moved me as a media ecologist to examine the nature of online relationships (and friendships) in general, and specifically on SL.

Online Romance: The Wildermuth & Vogl-Baur Studies
Wildermuth & Vogl-Bauer’s (2000) study based from an undergraduate sample indicated that 46% of the respondents reported involvement in online romances or they knew family members or friends who had been involved in one, now or in the past. In 1998, Parks and Roberts reported that more than 90% of Internet users engaged in relationships online, and of this number more than 25% were “romantic in nature” (Wildermuth & Vogl-Bauer, 2007, p. 211). The 2002 Nua Internet Survey also reports that relationship building, which includes friendships and romantic partnerships, comprises more than 70% of the average Internet users’ time (2007, p. 211).

Wildermuth & Vogl-Baur (2007, p. 212) address the scarcity of scholarly studies dealing with online romance: “Research often subsumes romantic relationships, friendships, and sexual partnerships under the general category of online relationships (McQuillen, 2003).” They call for studies that provide greater depth into understanding the characteristics of such relationships, and those which might provide clarityamong “paradoxical” findings (p.212). Wildermuth & Vogl-Bauer (2007) point out, the problem however, is that much research has focused on Internet use as the central variable, rather than meanings within the communication, citing the work of Whitty & Gavin (2001).and Riva (2002) who depicts the user “as social actors who shape the online context for themselves” (p. 212).
In the Wildermuth & Vogl-Bauer study (2007, p. 215), approximately 70% of the respondents were female, and the majority of participants were White, USA citizens, and had attended college. Most respondents had attended “common interest” chat rooms, and 92% resided one hour or more away from their online partner, and more than 30% had an international partner (p. 215). Approximately 30% of respondents stated that they were either married or involved in a relationship apart from the Internet. Sixteen percent reported having a “mutual online friend” (p. 215). Forty-seven percent reported a successful relationship online, and almost 40% stated that they had met at least one online partner face to face. Wildermuth & Vogl-Bauer (2007, p. 215) stated that respondents experienced emotional intensity (87%) and “strong linguistic connections” (43%). Furthermore, their study indicated that more than 40% percent approached their relationships with caution. They conclude that when an online environment provides minimal contextual information (i.e., relying on text messages), participants are more likely to hold on to their idealized version of the relationship (2007).

Making Contact

A recent study by Anderson & Emmers-Sommer (2006) explored the predictors of relationship satisfaction in online romantic relationships. Those predictors, according to the researchers, are “intimacy, trust, and communication satisfaction” (p. 166). They continue, “as partners grow close and depth increases, trust develops and as trust increases, so do levels of intimacy” (p. 166). Wright (2004) noted online relationships tend to progress quickly through a sense of openness that leads to increased intimacy (Anderson & Emmers-Sommer, 2006, p. 166):

…the role of intimacy in predicting relationship satisfaction in this
study is consistent with a wealth of personal relationship [research]
that indicates intimacy is a key component of relationships and marital
satisfaction (e.g., Feeney, Noller, & Ward, 1997; Hassebrauck & Fehr, 2002).

Indeed, Anderson & Emmers-Sommer (2006) remind us that the “online relationship is the relationship,” so it makes sense that one’s contentment with one’s relationships would be directly related to “communication satisfaction” (p. 166). Relationship experts on talk shows taut books and seminars that offer to provide effective communication strategies to mend marriages and friendships.

In an earlier study conducted by Parks & Floyd (1996), it is suggested that online relationships need proximity, eye contact, voice communication, and physical appearance to mature into intimate, authentic experiences.Wildermuth & Vogl-Bauer (2007), in contrast, dismiss such variables as unnecessary qualifications, and suggest through their findings and conclusions that perception has a much greater role than has been otherwise assumed. With that in mind, might a virtual experience like SL lead to greater emotional investment and intensity for online romantic relationships? The perception of proximity could then be as much an indicator of successful contact as such fulfillment in RL:

…eye contact, body language, facial expressions, vocalization, hugs,
pats on the back, cries, embraces, kisses and giggles are fundamentals
of our evolutionary social emotional well-being.” (Nei, 2001, p. 432)

Wildermuth & Vogl-Bauer (2007)’s speculate that authentic relationships need to be “tactile” to create “a lasting bond” (p. 224). Can a tactile bond be accomplished through a mediator such as an avatar? That is also merely speculation at this point. Wildermuth & Vogl-Bauer (2007) conclude:

There is an irony here in that the technological and disembodied
world of ICTs that has often been depicted in depersonalized terms
may also provide a haven where authenticity, negotiation, and the
development of trust may lead to romance. (p 220)

Hardey (2004) presents a historical account of courtship to dating, and tells us that “significant changes during the second half of the twentieth century” have redefined our relationships (p. 208). Hardey (2004) points out that modern dating has become centered on the individual, and authenticity and trust are considered worthy components to a successful relationship, with a big part of that trust determined by communication. Gaming virtual worlds, in which identities are drawn from fantasy, counter this notion. Hardey suggests, however, that “authenticity is finally ‘tested’ when people move from mediated communication to meeting in the flesh” (p. 208).

Aesthetics of Relationships as Learned Experiences
Wildermuth & Vogl-Baur (2007) draw briefly upon the work of Marshall McLuhan, the medium being the message (McLuhan & Fiore, 1967), and the idea that the Internet allows one to extend their relationship reach (Levinson, 1999; McLuhan, 1964; McLuhan & McLuhan, 1988). I would like to extend upon that premise, for McLuhan (1964)envisioned technology as a means toward the global village. He wrote on how technology was an extension of our humanity, social and physical. Might Second Life be that global village, if we are particularly discussing the notion of mediated communication? The automobile allowed us to experience a new freedom and mobility, as noted by McLuhan (1951). He envisioned television as a means to link households with the world. Virtual spaces offer similar experiences but within our imagination. These experiences are contextualized within visual and aural aesthetics Second Life extends our communication across national borders and into the homes of strangers.

As an instructional designer as well as a media professor, practitioner, and scholar, I would be amiss to overlook the significance of the message design, once we have established the need and the essence of the message. The setting or context of our conversations and experiences are relevant to relationship building, albeit work, home or on the dance floor at a SL club.

On Valentine’s Day, we light a few candles on the dinner table, or better yet head for a nice romantic restaurant. So why should setting or context be alien to other experiences, online or offline? Certain settings work better than others, depending on the goals to be achieved. You want to have a late night intimate swim with a friend; well a public pool is not the appropriate setting. Image is important. Yet, a message delivered apart from an appropriate context risks being not validated by the receiver. We learn about romance through our experience, as well as from talk show experts and books. We learn what works, what doesn’t. I make brief note of Albert Bandura’s theory of social cognition to remind the reader that how individuals engage in context is an experience that draws upon personal, social, and environmental influences.We learn from others, and from watching others, but we respond uniquely based on past experiences and the situation at hand. In general, however, we can make some general assumptions about human behavior.

Romance is not merely a state of being; it is the end product of learned social behaviors. The Van GoghMuseum in Starry Starry Night conveys romantic ambience within SLwhether or not, I have a partner with me to enjoy the virtual art and the interactive exhibits. Romance novels stimulate our imagination, and reading is a solo activity for the most part. Some of the popular SL spots are Caribbean Breezes Jazz Club, Jade’s Jazz Lounge, and MidSomer Isle, and these sites encourage interaction because the majority of dance and pose balls are created for couples. Second Life allows us to encounter romance in various settings, with various people. The other person often helps us to validate our perception of romance as adventuresome, reflective and interactive (with others and/or the environment).