Well, I’m nearly finished with this quarter, and preparing myself for the upcoming exams. It should be interesting…
One of my final assignments is a writing for ENG102. It’s supposed to be an argumentative writing, which shows off what all I’ve learned–meaning that I can properly research and cite works, and incorporate them into my own works. I dunno if I’ve done that, but….
Since I’ve published stuff before, I thought I’d do it for this one as well. Personally, I think this is the worst writing I’ve ever produced. Take a look for yourself:
Internet Infidelity:
Side Effect of APD and General Neuroses
Jeremiah Hall Palmer
Sullivan University
Abstract
The Internet has brought about many changes to our culture. Studies and reports by many authorities have shown various positive and negative effects of Internet use; mass media has been quick to broadcast these findings; however, with increasing use of instant message services and social network directories, infidelity hasn’t been given much attention. What attention that has been given to online affairs and cyber cheating has not led to any clear findings of susceptibility. This writing looks at these issues, gives fictional example, and theorizes that psychological issues such as avoidant personality disorder and narcissism may be at or near the root of all instances of Internet infidelity.
Internet Infidelity:
Side Effect of APD and General Neuroses
Much has been written about within recent years with regard to the affects of the Internet on a person’s social ability. Once the Internet became widely available to the public, and home users were given better access to networked services, uses other than information retrieval became the norm (Kraut et al, 2002). Internet Relay Chat services (IRC) and instant messaging services (IM) soon overtook bulletin board services and electronic mail as means to communicate and share ideas with people within the home user’s traditional social network via computer; as well as gave a means for expanding the user’s network to cover larger areas, leaving geographical boundaries behind. Within recent years, other means for creating larger networked opportunities have come through web-based communities and services such as MySpace, Facebook, Linked-in, and so forth. These changes and growths in Internet communications technologies have enabled society to achieve many positive advances in sharing ideas, thoughts, and other communiqués with ease. Unfortunately, controversy has also come from these developments.
In the late 1990’s, when the Internet experienced substantial growth in the public market, research began to be conducted on the effects of the Internet on the average home user. Results of these studies, namely that of Kraut et al.(1998), showed slight negative effects, including addiction and depression. These results were soon picked up by the media, and blown out of proportion, much like the media’s attention to the Internet being a large purveyor of pornographic materials (McKenna & Bargh, 2000).
The media has also focused on other negative aspects within our recent history, such as the ease at which children and teenagers can become victimized through the use of online communities or IM—with victimization ranging from sexual exploitation to death threats and even depression severe enough in which to enable suicidal thoughts. While these concerns are real to a certain extent, and require the attention of parents across the globe, one area of trouble in the Internet has little exploration, especially in psychological terms—online infidelity.
Infidelity, or cheating, has seen an interesting growth in the U.S. since the 1970’s and has become seemingly commonplace; similarly divorce rates have increased—with the majority of divorces being attributed to some form of cheating or unfaithfulness on at least one partner’s account. Many times, the cheating is in response to some deep-rooted feelings of neglect or abuse buried in the offending parties’ psyche (Drigotas & Barta, 2001). Research has shown that certain methods of therapy are able to mend the issue, or at least bring the once happy couple to a reasonable understanding before, during, and after the relationship or marriage ends. These techniques, however, do not seem to be applicable to treating patients who have fallen victim of the online form. It is being theorized that reasons for the ill-effectiveness of traditional techniques stem from how the techniques are delivered, the individual psychological aspects or reasons for the infidelity, and the difference in how the mind is affected chemically by the nature of the event.
Internet infidelity, be it in the form of viewing pornography, speaking in an adult only IRC, or flirting with someone via IM, differs from an actual physical occurrence of cheating (Aviram & Amichai-Hamburger, 2005)—the effects, while they may develop and move into a physical manifestation, are typically emotional in nature. A feeling of being unattractive, undesired, unloved, or sexually frustrated can easily be reversed by taking a simple flight of fancy (Aviram & Amichai-Hamburger, 2005), and going online. A housewife, feeling alone and undesired, can go online and exchange witty sexual banter with someone a great distance away. A man, being denied gratification from his wife can simply go to the other room and find the images of a fantasy woman willing to please. No sexual act, meaning that of intercourse, has taken place, yet in both instances the one partner was “unfaithful” to the other by letting desire take control (Drigotas & Barta, 2001). This point is where the electronic and physical forms of infidelity divide.
In most cases of physical cheating, once the desire has been met and fulfilled, re-occurrences rarely happen—the thrill and curiosities associated have been extinguished. In a virtual world, opportunity still exists, where the fantasy has yet to become a reality. This is the largest sticking point in a therapist’s ability to counsel a couple, when the issue has been brought forward. The partner who committed the act may not feel that there is an issue, where a physical boundary hadn’t been crossed; however, since a thrill had been achieved in doing so, the offending partner may unknowingly and unconsciously have a desire to commit the act again (Young, 1999; Young et al, 2000). A therapist must be able to find a way to diffuse the issue, and persuade the offender to not commit an act of that nature once more, without coming across as accusatory; furthermore, the therapist must also explain to the other partner that
ridicule might act to drive the offender to repeat, if not leave the relationship.
Further analysis into the reasoning behind the offender’s motives are necessary as well though may prove to be difficult. The patient who committed the act, as stated, will most likely be in a sense of denial, where he or she fails to see where a wrong had been committed, where the area is grey as opposed to black or white. This will undoubtedly cause the patient to become defensive, possibly aggressive, in discussion. Generally, the patients’ description of leading causes to their infidelity will place blame on the partner. These accusations may even show evidence of a deeper underlying psychosis.
As noted earlier in this writing, a few studies have revealed negative side-effects of relying upon Internet communiqués such as depression and addiction. Also mentioned was the fact that some with this reliance are or have been suffering a negative impact within their relationship, thus turning them to the outside—yet confined—sources that the Internet has to offer. Furthermore, mention had been made that these neuroses—which might have only manifested while introduction of the Internet was made—might give clues to deeper or pre-existing disorders. Given these examples, it could easily be assumed that there are a set of personality traits which might make one more susceptible to an online form of cheating—traits which are inherent in a person who might be diagnosed or whom exhibits symptoms of Avoidant Personality Disorder (APD).
Given the nature of the Internet—the anonymity, safety, and distance between others (Suler, 2004)—it would be very attractive for the APD sufferer. By definition, the avoidant personality would tend to stray from the social gatherings of the physical realm due to inner esteem issues or other fears and feelings of inadequacy (American Psychological Association, 2004). In the virtual world the Internet has to offer, the awkwardness and fears associated with an avoidant personality would diminish, if not disappear at all—allowing the sufferer to finally be one with others. For the avoidant personality, the Internet can become a strong enabler, releasing inhibitions, bringing new feelings of freedom and joy (Suler, 2004)—feelings nearly euphoric, and even drug-like in nature. These effects are also what can make the Internet become an addiction (Young, 1999).
If we were to take the housewife model discussed earlier a step farther and incorporate other social anxieties into her psyche, could we better understand why she started speaking to an outsider via IM? Let us give her a name and history, and find out.
Mary is a married woman in her late twenties. She has two elementary-school children, and a loving husband who works in a nearby city. She spends most of her day at home, performing housework, paying bills, and studying for her college classes. Even with so many activities during the day, she still finds herself with too much time during the day, and during these times where there is nothing to do, she finds herself reflecting upon her life and her own self-image. These down-times between work become down-times in an emotional and spiritual sense. During her reflections she thinks about alternatives to past decisions she had made, and what other outcomes may have been. Mary grows depressed and lonely.
Being a person who doesn’t necessarily enjoy social events or groups, Mary goes online as a means to escape her depression. She signs into her IM client while browsing the web for ideas of what to cook for dinner. Once the IM program has logged onto the server, and displayed her available contacts, she notices that none of her friends are available—which was to be expected, as they are all at work, or running errands as usual. She does notice that a friend of her husbands’ is available—again, not a surprise, as he’s a stay-at-home dad. Since the two have common ground, Mary thinks nothing of speaking to the male friend, and asks him what he’s been doing, and whether he has any ideas of what she should offer her family for supper.
An innocent exchange of meal plans turns into much more as time progresses. As the days go by, Mary and the friend speak to each other regularly, and strengthen their friendship, at a rapid rate. Exchanges of likes and dislikes, thoughts on child-rearing, political discussions, and even religious debates transpire. It seems that the two are quite compatible, perhaps even more compatible than Mary is with her husband. Mary, unknowingly, ends up falling in love with the friend. Eventually, her messages to her friend become more risqué, and more daring. The high she receives from speaking with someone who connects so strongly on so many levels eventually leads to the undoing of her secret online relationship—her husband finds a stray piece of paper with the name of the friend written all over it.
Mary’s fanciful dream and new-found love uncovered many hidden or unknown truths in her life. While she had the strong desire to have a family, she had never actually set out to date, and simply leapt into the arms of her husband when their paths had crossed so many years ago. As time and their marriage progressed, however, they had discovered many differences where they had naturally been a bit protective of each other’s identities when they first met; a common occurrence which 50% of the time leads to divorce or separation of couples (Hill, Rubin, & Peplau, 1976). These indescrepencies weren’t present in the discussions between Mary and the friend, and a much stronger bond was built at a rate nearly ten-fold of what she and her husband had built—but why? First, let’s look at the type of cheating that took place.
In what Rusbult, Drigotas, and Verette (1994) refer to as the investment model, Mary had made a commitment to her relationship with her husband. Mary had decided that rather than leave her husband early in their relationship she should stay and work things through in order to achieve her goal of having a family. It was also this strong commitment that kept her with her husband during the period in which she spoke and fell for the friend. Despite the feelings she had, which led her to believe that a life outside of her current marriage would be better, she weighed the situation, and found that the risks associated with losing her husband were too great.
Even though Mary went into her fantasy, all the while knowing that nothing could ever come to fruition—based on the investment model—why did she do it? Why did Mary allow her fantasy to overtake her emotions, and begin to control her everyday life? The reasons could be many, and all would have some part in her psyche, and the “natural” influence of the Internet.
As stated, the Internet can allow for a person to feel less inhibited—freer, or loosened-up. The user is “invisible” to any parties on the other side (McKenna & Bargh , 2000). Studies and tests have been performed, and have shown that people react differently when another isn’t seen. An example of this is the test where people are sat together in a darkened room, where no one person’s face is revealed. When these people are asked to talk amongst themselves, more intimate details or emotions are shared, as opposed to when a group of people are i
n a normally lit room (Spears & Lea, 1994). Loosing the ability to see facial cues leaves a person without the ability to see whether there is concern or disapproval for one’s comments or thoughts. For an avoidant personality, this makes communication easier, whereby there are no worries of adverse effects to sharing themselves.
This ability to open-up and share more, allows for the individual to reveal many more pieces to the puzzle which make up his or her inner self. These feelings are naturally reciprocated by the other party or parties, where they too experience the same feeling. This becomes an equalizer of sorts, bringing the parties involved on a fair and even playing field—stronger bonds are then capable of being built (Byrne, Clore, & Smenton, 1986; McKenna & Bargh, 2000).
Adversely, by not seeing visual cues, and not hearing bits of inflection in one’s voice, the mind is easily left to interpret meanings into the words of another. One might also mentally project his or her own voice into the opposite person’s text as it is read off of the screen, thereby creating even more disinhibiting effects (Suler, 2004), where the end user now has a sense of talking to one’s own self—a feeling which may feed into deeper issues, such as narcissism (Seiden, 2001). This narcissistic affect can then lead to further—perhaps even false—feeling of empathy or sympathy; i.e.: “He truly understands me.”
It is therefore entirely possible that negative effects of the Internet aren’t cause by the use of the various uses; but that the effects are merely awakening or bringing into focus the various psychoses of the end user. Further study must take place in this area, in order to fully understand what transpires in the mind of an Internet user, and those who have fallen victims to their own fantasies via IM, chat, and other electronic communications. Denouncing an end-users relationship with any other party on the opposing end, as being merely illusory infatuations must be avoided, as it is entirely possible that actual emotional bonds have been created between the parties involved. Therapists and psychologists should also expect to see a growing number of people being diagnosed with personality disorders, such as APD; expectation should also be made of these disorders playing a pivotal role in Internet-based infidelity, as well as any Internet related addiction.
References
American Psychiatric Association, (2004). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR (Text Revision). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Aviram, I., and Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2005). Online infidelity: Aspects of dyadic satisfaction, self-disclosure, and narcissism. Retrieved February 25, 2005 from: https://web.archive.org/web/20130129220115/http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/aviram.html
Byrne, D., Clore, G. L.,&Smeaton, G. (1986). The attraction hypothesis: Do similar attitudes affect anything? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1167–1170.
Drigotas, S., & Barta, W. (2001). The cheating heart: scientific explorations of infidelity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 (5), 177-180.
Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147–168.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53 (1), 1017-1031.
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. H. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4 (1), 57-75.
Rusbult, C.E., Drigotas, S.M., & Verette, J. (1994). The investment model: An interdependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phenomena. In D. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 115–139). San Diego: Academic Press.
Seiden, H. M. (2001). Creating passion: An Internet love story. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 3 (2), 187-195.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427–459.
Suler, J. (2001). The online dishinhibition effect. In The Psychology of Cyberspace. Retrieved February 25, 2005 from https://web.archive.org/web/20070707032956/http://www.rider.edu:80/~suler/psycyber/disinhibit.html
Young, K. S. (1999). Cybersexual Addiction. Retrieved February 25, 2005 from: https://web.archive.org/web/20090907084053/http://www.netaddiction.com:80/cybersexual_addiction.htm
Young, K. S., Griffin-Shelly, E., Cooper, A., O’Mara, J., & Buchanan, J. (2000). Online infidelity: A new dimension in couple relationships with implications for evaluation and treatment. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 7 (1/2), 59-74.
