Gretchen Huntley

The past Revisited

Last night while working on homework for school, an old boyfriend started messaging me on my computer. It was not only shocking to hear from him; it caught me off guard. This old boyfriend who I had a horrible break up with, had begun to message me. Not only was this break up horrible, it spanned two continents. We broke up while I was visiting him in England. An expense trip for me to find out he didn’t want me there in the first place.

When he started talking to me last night, I was actually freaked out. I quickly messaged William, my best friend. Will said, “think of this as a final tease and then never talk to the jerk again.” At the same time I was messaging Will, I emailed Candice, another good friend. She emailed me back quickly “don’t talk to him, he treated you bad, and you have wasted too much time, money and emotion on him already.”

]]> As the minutes ticked by and I had to make the decision to respond, I did. I spent almost an hour talking to him. He was in the Navy, stationed in England when we broke up in 2003. We have not talked since. He moved home last year, and is now living Indiana I had since moved to Florida. We talked about family how much his family did not like me, and mine did not like him. We talked about going to school and when he would finally graduate.

It was good to talk to him, but still eerie. When I asked him why he decided to talk to me, he said, “we have a connection.” As I thought about what he said, I knew he was right. However, I did not want to acknowledge it. I think this connection has kept us together over time, and troubles. We talked about my mom and my grandparents. He had lived with my grandparents for about a year in 1999. The connection he mentioned was our first kiss. It was at my mom’s house, right after she cleaned the carpets. She went to McDonalds for something to eat and we stayed home. While she was gone, we kissed. The one thing we both remember about it was while we were in the middle of that awkward pause after the first kiss, in walks my mom with mayonnaise all down one side of her face. We both laughed and then moved on in the conversation.

We do have a connection, and as much as I do not want to see him there will be a day when I will. I fantasize about what it will be like when I finally do want to see him again. A nice dinner and then a walk in the park after we get coffee. I will talk about my two beautiful kids and wonderful husband, and catch up on what has happened since we last talked.

I think for now all we have is this connection. I will not call him a friend. For now, I will be content that we are speaking again and look forward to the day that we can meet as friends for coffee.

Leaving the Familiar

Recently I left everything I knew and moved to Florida, leaving all the people who knew me, and the things I held dear. I left friends and enemies behind at the UPS in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Whatever the relationship we had, when it came time for me to leave I felt a sense of longing. I wanted a different date and time, to go back and change the things that had shaped our relationship to what it was or fix what it lacked.

]]> No matter how I felt about them as I left I look back now and long for all of the things I never realized they brought to my life. The diverse group of people I worked with were my closest friends, as well as biggest enemies. We fought over trivial ideas, as well as important changes. They laughed when my lunch was stolen by a high school student as a joke, and cried with me when I lost a close friend. Through thick and thin they held me up and made me a better person. The day I left is a vivid memory, I gave the daily Pre Communication Meeting or PCM, and reminded them to play with heart, laugh at yourself, and listen to each other. I barely made it through my three minute speech without crying. I was leaving my family, the best friends I’d ever had.

I thought the toughest part of my day would be over once I made it through my speech and hit the work floor. I was in for a surprise; it only got harder from there. The mission was to get out of work quickly and unnoticed. Almost four hours later I had finally said goodbye to all the people at UPS, the ones that worked with me, worked for me or I worked for. Saying goodbye to my full-time supervisors was the most difficult, they had so many well wishes, and good things to say. It made me sad to leave a place that I had called home for over four years.

As I look back at past month and the move, I long for one more night with the gang, just to relax and talk about work, school and life. I have a new UPS family now, they are different and we’re still in the adjusting phase, but I know that I will never have family like the one I left behind.

I called my old job the other day, and it was like calling home for the first time from summer camp. You want someone familiar on the other end, but you don’t want to look like you miss your parents too badly. I will be the first one to admit, I do miss my family at work. Moving and leaving those you care for makes you realize all the good things you had but never thought to mention. I can’t wait to visit Michigan in May so I can tell everyone how much they mean to me, and how much I miss working with them.

Media Equation of Real Life

The Media Equation by Reeves and Nass regards computers, television, and other software as inanimate objects. Their theory suggests that although inanimate objects, people tend to react to them as if they were living. In the introduction of their book The Media Equation, Reeves and Nass take a glimpse into how people of all ages and educational backgrounds treat technology. They show that the confusion of real life and mediated life is not rare or unreasonable, yet very common (Reeves & Nass, 1996 p. 4-5). Reeves and Nass have identified in study after study that people equate media with real life. They expect that media will follow social and natural rules which have already been predetermined (Reeves & Nass, 1996). Watching television and movies is my favorite thing to do. I will compare experiences I have had with this visual media to the media equation and see how they match up. I will also compare the Media Equation to three other theories; those of technological determinism, expectancy violations, and cognitive dissonance.

]]> As stated above I enjoy television and movies. On a typical evening I can be found sitting in front of the television watching a crime investigation show. Last evening I was watching CSI: Miami with friends. This crime story was very good, and we were quite involved in it. It made me think about how we were responding to the television. I remember hearing one of us say, “no don’t go in that room, watch out!” We were talking to the television, voicing concerns over something written months ago and filmed weeks ago. As I look back on this, I realized nothing we said or did was going to change the story line or the ending, yet we were still yelling and trying to help the characters along. Utilizing this story as a backdrop for Reeves and Nass’ theory of Media Equation, I will analyze what was going on in my mind and how it relates to their theory.

Reeves and Nass would say that the sights and sounds drew me in, and elicited social responses were been built up in me over time (Griffin, 2003 p. 405). My brain was tricked then and every night I turn on my television. I ingest the media and let it reel me into its web of mystery, suspense, and drama. The media equation exerts that my brain is tricked by the new media of television, as it equates the images I take in as real. Reeves and Nass state it would take a great deal of mental effort on my part to convince myself that it’s only television. According to them this would also take away from the plot, losing the stories mystery and suspense.

I usually view television from about four feet away on a 32” television. Last evening I was 10 feet away from the same television, and I did not notice much of a difference in my reaction to the media. I would say I felt the same about the show at both the four foot distance as I did in the 10 foot distance. Reeves and Nass would say this was a poor study, however to their credit I was more aware of the action on the screen as the camera’s went in for close ups of different characters in key moments of the action.

Using Reeves and Nass’s topics of similarity and attraction I can dissect the characters on CSI: Miami, picking out characteristics such as domination, being forceful, friendly, congenial, and shy. I give the individuals on the screen those characteristics from watching the show; yet I do not equate their characteristics with the attributes the writers of the show want them to portray. I like certain characters because they exude characteristics I admire, and find similar to my own characteristics or those of my friends. I place similarity on them when it is most likely we have nothing in common at all.

Source credibility is the final attribute that Reeves and Nass deal with in the media equation. I place credibility on the messages I receive from Horatio Cane and the other detectives and investigators on CSI: Miami. I place them as the messengers when in all actuality the person who is sending the messages on CSI: Miami are the writers behind the scenes and ultimately the executives at CBS. Reeves and Nass leave their study on source credibility with this, “ social orientations to media indicate that it is natural for people to treat media socially, perhaps easier than treating media in any other way, including as a tool” (Griffin, 2003 p.411).

Prior to this study, I did not think much about how I was reacting to the shows I was watching; I was simply enjoying them. I now know I was using interpersonal distance to judge a show. I would place similar attributes on characters I wanted to identify with, as well as giving them credibility when they probably had little to none. I plan to not watch mindlessly every show I enjoy, but put thought into what I view, making it more beneficial for me.

Marshall McLuhan’s theory of technological determinism holds that inventions in technology invariable cause cultural change (Griffin, 2003 p. 343). A. N. Whitehead states “the major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the societies in which they occur” (McLuhan & Fiore, 1967 p. 7). The supposition that McLuhan’s theory puts forth is that content of a message plays little importance when compared to the medium in which the message is presented. The same episode of CSI: Miami would not have been as effective if it would have been played over the radio 30 years ago. McLuhan believes we are now in a global village where everything is overcome by the medium of television. Shows such as CSI: Miami resonate with everything else going on in the global village. When comparing technological determinism to the media equation, both theories agree that the medium of the message is more important than the message. Reeves and Nass believe that media is a tool we use; McLuhan believes those tools are shaping our existence.

The media equation supposes that when an image on the screen becomes closer to the viewer, they should experience stimulation. Judee Burgoon in her expectancy violations theory believed the same thing; unanticipated physical proximity would produce arousal in the person being violated. Reeves and Nass use expectancy violations theory as a way to analyze their own theory. Reeves and Nass felt the media equation should be able to hold true within the confines of any interpersonal communication research. The media equation when stacked up against expectancy violations theory validates Reeves and Nass’s belief that as proximity in media increases, so does a persons reaction to potential violation. When figures on the screen became too close for the viewer their vigilance increased as Burgoon predicted it would. Similar to close ups in CSI: Miami of suspects or crime scenes, Burgoons theory holds the media close ups cause the same reactions as real life, in your face encounters.

Cognitive dissonance is another great theory to view the media equation through. The media equation challenges common beliefs that people can differentiate real from fiction, which is also what cognitive dissonance does. People believe that televisions are inanimate objects but their behavior does not always match. Looking at the studies conducted by Reeves and Nass, alongside cognitive dissonance the two theories compliment each other well. The media equation causes a dissonance when one thinks about how they react to the television, therefore according to Festinger there would have to be an attitude change to reduce the dissonance. Reeves and Nass are not claiming this change in behavior will occur because it takes too much effort to change it.

The Media Equation is an interesting theory to look at, it has survived test after test to validate itself. I personally would not have thought much about my television viewing if I was not studying this theory. Each person reacts in an almost programmed way to television, radio, computers and other forms of media. Reeves and Nass have taken those reactions, studied them, and come to the conclusion; while we know better than to scream at a television or movie it takes too much effort to think about that while we are viewing the show. The media equation might not change how I view television in the future, yet it has made me aware of what I’m doing and made me feel a little silly for all those times I’ve yelled at the television.

References Griffin, Em. (2003). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: McGraw Hill. McLuhan, Marshall & Fiore, Quentin. (1967). The Medium is the Massage. New York: Touchstone. Reeves, Byron & Nass, Clifford. (1996). The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bruckheimer, Jerry (Producer). (2004). CSI: Miami [Television Series]. New York: CBS.