Disinhibition: Why we fall in love online Of the many effects of computer-mediated communication, disinhibition is the effect that explains how intimate bonds can be created in online spaces between strangers
Of the many effects of computer-mediated communication, disinhibition is the effect that explains how intimate bonds can be created in online spaces between strangers

Of the many effects of computer-mediated communication, disinhibition is the effect that explains how intimate bonds can be created in online spaces between strangers

Delta Milayo Ndou #Digitaldialogue

The reason people can fall in love with strangers online is that they self-disclose to an extent that the person is no longer perceived as a ‘stranger’ but rather as confidante — as someone to be trusted.

EVER wondered why people fall in love with strangers or casual acquaintances online and plan a future with them or why they jeopardise existing relationships to the point where marriages crumble because of evidence gleaned from WhatsApp chats, Facebook posts, text messages, Twitter and other Internet enabled platforms?

What really drives a person to fall in love online with a person they don’t know and have never met or whom they know casually, but had never been close to? Conventional courtship rituals relied mostly on face-to-face communication and physical proximity, but in contemporary times courtship is often a computer-mediated process in which we express ourselves via non-vocal and non-verbal means. In the past you might have had to either physically track down the person you want to communicate with or send a runner to pass on your message, but now the ‘runner’ you send is a keyboard/keypad on your computer or touchscreen on your phone.

This phenomenon of communicating with someone from a distance via gadgets is referred to as computer-mediated communication though it applies to phones and other devices that aren’t computers. Of the many effects of computer-mediated communication, disinhibition is the effect that explains how intimate bonds can be created in online spaces between strangers, casual acquaintances until they are sharing deeply personal and private matters. Computer-mediated communication involves, in a literal sense, communicating ‘to a gadget’ so that the gadget can pass on your message to the person you want to address.

You have to get your message to the other person by first giving it to the device you are using and this process often involves a subconscious lowering of one’s guard because until the point you click on ‘send’ — what you have typed in is between you and your ‘computer’ or device. You still have the option of clicking ‘delete’ and no one will be the wiser as to what you are thinking.

When communicating face-to-face with someone, your demeanour is informed by self-awareness, social cues, body language and the other person’s micro-expressions — you inhibit yourself to fit what is expected of you in a given communicative context. However, when typing on your device, those inhibitions are lowered because it’s only you and your gadget that knows what your thoughts are — up until you click on send — you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

We feel we can entrust our thoughts and feelings to our device, because we still have the power to delete if we want to, but more often than not — we don’t reflect deeply before clicking ‘send’ — the urge to click ‘send’ is compulsive. When you click send and share something deeply personal, you place pressure on the other individual to make similarly private disclosures in reciprocity — then you get attached and develop feelings for them because you think ‘I have never told this to anyone before’.

Why people request for and agree to — send nudes

By relying on computer-mediated modes of communication we share things we ordinarily wouldn’t and open up in ways we shouldn’t and lower those inhibitions that act as protective mechanisms to help us avoid social gaffes and errors in judgment. A good example of bad judgment occasioned by computer-mediated communication and lowered inhibition is sending nudes, which can be mistakenly or deliberately leaked. Because self-disclosure drives relationships — the more one discloses the more one deepens their bond to the person they are sharing with. So, when you think about it, it’s not so surprising that people develop feelings for people they may have never met, but feel they ‘can tell anything’. What computer-mediated communication has proven is that out of sight does not necessarily mean out of mind.

Benign disinhibition, a concept coined by psychologist John Suler, describes behaviour in which people might self-disclose more when using computer-mediated communication channels than they would in real life. For example, sexting is a form of benign disinhibition that can (and does) lead to exchanging nudes as the sexting sessions ‘escalate’ to remotely heighten the sense of titillation between lovers. Sometimes from a ‘distance’ one gathers the courage to say things they may not have had the guts to say to someone’s face or to make requests they might have been hesitant to ask for in person — like asking to see someone’s nudeness.

I have come across some leaked WhatsApp sexting messages in our tabloids and the language used is often graphic, crude and extremely vulgar in describing body parts or what sexual activities are anticipated because the senders have both lowered their inhibitions. Sharing desires and communicating via a gadget allows them to feel less self-conscious and more willing to intimately self-disclose through sexting.

That is why I feel it is such a profound violation to leak such deeply personal material and an equal breach to distribute the same. Using gadgets to communicate can lead to lowering of behavioural boundaries and the result is evident in attachments such as flings and flirtations online and via instant messaging platforms like WhatsApp. Usually self-restraint in how one communicates, in what one chooses to communicate and when one chooses to communicate is lower in the context of computer-mediated communication so individuals inexorably cross lines and unless the individual they are communicating to actively discourages such familiarity — it develops into ‘something’.

The reason people can fall in love with strangers online is that they self-disclose to an extent that the person is no longer perceived as a ‘stranger’, but rather as confidante — as someone to be trusted. So inspect how you interact with people, even ‘innocent flirtations’ can blossom into something more and if one is already in a committed relationship — such flirtations can jeopardise their stable relationships. Most times when people are caught in inappropriate interactions with members of the opposite sex they try to downplay this by saying ‘it doesn’t mean anything’ or ‘its just jokes’ — they exhibit what is referred to as dissociative imagination.

Dissociative imagination refers to that ‘its just a game’ mindset that some people adopt online because they don’t feel their actions online have any ramifications on their ‘real’ lives or any impact offline. They feel that the person on the other end of their communication is just ‘a character’ — so they can be as insensitive as they wish because its ‘just social media’ and ‘its not that deep’.

Toxic disinhibition: Why strangers fight other strangers online

Toxic disinhibition is another concept coined by John Suler to describe behaviour that includes rude language, threats, and visiting places of pornography, crime, and violence on the Internet — places the person might not go to in real life. The tendency of strangers fighting with one another online is part of certain online subcultures with concepts such as trolling and ‘twars’ (short for Twitter war) gaining prominence to encapsulate the aggressive interactions that are displayed online.

Sometimes people who engage in such behaviour are genuinely ‘nice people’ in ‘real’ life, but when they are online they portray behaviour antisocial or disagreeable behavioural traits because ‘its just a game’ or because ‘these people don’t know me anyway’ — they feel they can get away with it online. When insulting someone online, the fear of physical reprisal is limited and so one’s inhibitions are lowered whereas if the interaction where occurring in face-to-face communication the consequences of retaliation would be a real deterrent to both parties.

If you know the person you are insulting on Facebook can’t reach out and clap you senseless, you are likely to feel emboldened to say whatever you want. Some people go online feeling like they have left their ‘real’ identity somewhere safe and then entered a space where their actions have no consequence — its called dissociative anonymity — the ‘none of these people know me or know where I live and they can’t touch me’ mentality. Associated with the dissociative anonymity is the minimising of authority in certain computer-mediated communication contexts where other users may feel everyone is ‘equal on the platform’.

Most people who would never insult a politician to his face, have no qualms doing so on Twitter or Facebook and their lowered inhibition makes it easy for them to be combative and ‘fight’ their perceived enemies. If you behave in a certain online than you do in offline contexts — then you likely exhibit one form of disinhibition or another.

I suspect we subconsciously all do. However, self awareness is crucial in how we choose to communicate regardless of the medium we use to express ourselves otherwise we might self-disclose to people who are undeserving of being entrusted with our deepest secrets.

Delta is Head of Digital at Zimpapers and a PhD scholar researching on digital media, disruptive technologies and journalistic practice. Follow her on Twitter: @deltandou

You Might Also Like

Comments