• It was mentioned and I also agree that there is little to no research on Internet use by children within Barbados, however, similar to industry stakeholders elsewhere (e.g., UK) studies are conducted regularly on aspects of Internet usage. As one of the major Internet service providers on the island Lime like the others should play a bigger role in protection of the youth online and its customers in general.
• One of the panellists shared his concern about the Internet allowing for ‘fantasy’ or living alternate lives online, however, psychological theory shows that identity exploration and experimentation are integral to development at adolescence and therefore should be supported. In relation to the physical world, cyberspace can be a much safer place for identity play. There is a need to distinguish between the cultural norms for ‘healthy’ early human development and what is necessary for this process as opposed to putting these young individuals on ‘virtual lockdown’.
• That said, we must not neglect to acknowledge these significant differences between various childhood developmental stages as this is particularly important if one wants to be successful in promoting Internet safety. For instance, it was noted that the computer should be located in a public place in the home. While this may be fitting for an ‘inexperienced’ child that requires heavy monitoring, for an adolescent who is soon to be a young and independent adult this can be a hindrance to the developmental process as supervision from afar may be more suitable.
• Another observation I made was that some persons seemed to be of the view that the Internet is not real and that there is a disconnect between online activities and regular life. I recall vaguely, someone mentioning ‘fake’ relationships or talking to ‘fake’ people online. Surely people online are living breathing individuals offline as well. Sometimes there are digital replicas of things in the physical world but these things exist in their own right online and are indeed ‘real’. For example, Internet infidelity results in the same hurt as if someone was unfaithful to his or her partner offline. Cyberspace exists within and impacts our ‘real’ world and that should be enough to validate its ‘realness’.
• Research from the UK shows that mediated by age there are roughly 4 areas of potential risks to the child online. While popular risk areas such as content and contact were well covered in the discussion, commercialism and exclusion from access were not. Commercialism typically speaks to breaches of privacy and targeted advertising at children, whereas, exclusion from access (often considered as a solution) refers to children not being given the opportunity to learn to use this vital technology or acquire this new ‘life skill’. Of course, we should not be contributing to the digital divide or disenfranchising our young ones by pulling the plug on online technology as this reduces opportunities for access to this vital and necessary tool in our contemporary society. Therefore, more focus needs to be placed on this particular online risk.
• One of the conclusions of the discussion that was not made clear is that Internet filters and similar equipment are not a total solution in itself but merely complimentary. As one of the panellists indicated, an adequate solution would include greater information and education offered by media/Internet/cyber literacy. Too often parents and other adults focus on the technical aspects (e.g., pushing buttons) of literacy and believe children (individuals below age 18) know how to ‘use’ technology, however, a critical understanding of the medium is also integral. Additionally, we need to ensure not only that they are able to access and understand this medium but to also create and participate in this new digital landscape. This is one of primary ways we can really ensure their future as global citizens and perhaps also effective Barbadian citizens as well.
• Following on from the above point, this is why I’m not thrilled about the decision to ban mobiles from schools when a comprehensive approach has not been devised at a higher level. In the absence of such a strategy, this move,
• I believe, has now increased the perceived value of mobiles by school children and amplified the negative effects.
• Nonetheless, though we can begin to implement a media literacy strategy immediately research is urgently needed to access the current state of Internet use by children within Barbados. As I have pointed out, this effort should not only include governmental agencies but also stakeholders in industry and higher education, all informed by pertinent research in the area and with consideration paid to our cultural context.
• Along these lines, some persons did express their intentions to launch projects that will help spread the word about Internet safety, this is definitely the right way to go.

Contrary to the above sentiments, I do support this measure. However, in the absence of complimentary measures proven to effectively deal with the main problems and if this is in fact all that there is to it, I am somewhat disappointed and say, “it is not enough”. If the aim is to reduce or stop the problems identified by the minister, then the banning of cellphones in schools is not a solution in itself. Is solely banning students from bringing or using mobiles at school going to stop them from recording sexual acts where ever? Is it going to let them know it’s not appropriate, moral or becoming as an individual? Is it going to empower them to make smart decisions about how they use new technology? Later in life when these naïve students have come to their senses, are these measures going to help them be successful in getting the ‘decent’ jobs they want? These measures are far from being at the least strategic and can be considered more as a reflexive move. A deliberate, well prepared plan and effort is warranted as we honestly cannot afford to miss the target here.

As extensive research shows and and as I have previously discussed in this forum, the solution is literacy. Not ‘our’ type of ‘literacy’ that is solely concerned with one’s ability to use the technology or to merely ‘push buttons’ but to really understand and critically use it. Sad to say, this problem applies to the entire society, especially in the Caribbean. How many of you understand the critical issues and debates we are now presented with due to increased access to Internet technology? We as a society (not only the government or just parents) need to help the younger generation successfully acquire this new life skill as opposed to ‘pulling the plug’ on technology and in actuality on their future in this ever increasing global marketplace.

That said, what now are your views on the government’s move?

Cyberslacking, sometimes referred to as cyberloafing (Lim, 2002) has been defined as “employees’ non-work related use of company provided email and Internet while working”. However, with the increasing use of Blackberry messenger and other smart phone Internet-based services in the region, I prefer to extend this definition to include all Internet connections. So I subscribe to Whitty and Carr’s (2006) view of cyberslacking where it is seen as “the overuse of the Internet in the workplace for purposes other than work”. Cyberslacking goes by many names: cyberbludging (Mills, Hu, Beldora & Clay, 2001), non-work related computing (NWRC Bock, Quan, Liu & Sun, 2007) and lastly, cyberloafing (Lim, 2002). Remember being called or calling someone else a slacker? Usually we use this label to refer to those who avoid doing work or putting in the amount of effort necessary to get a job done. This at times included the long telephone chatters, people who take long lunches, those who gathered around the water cooler chatting and perhaps also those who couldn’t get enough of the rest-room. Now in recent times, it’s the Facebookers, online ‘window’ shoppers, online gamblers, illegal downloaders, those who look at pornography at work (e.g., news broke about SEC employees today) and many more variations thereof. Nonetheless, as you can appreciate, not all infractions of this nature should be regarded with the same degree of gravity and consequences. Therefore, some researchers (e.g., Anandarajan, Devine, Simmers, 2004) found it fitting to group these behaviours into 3 main categories; not perfect but handy for now. Firstly, disruptive cyberloafing refers to those who for instance visit adult web sites and play online games in the workplace. Secondly, recreational cyberloafing speaks to employees who engage in online shopping (including ‘window’ shopping) and purposeless surfing. Lastly, personal learning cyberloafing includes visiting professional groups and searching for news about current affairs including that of the organisation as well.

Over the next few days I’ll be covering issues pertaining to cyberslacking in the Caribbean workplace. Using research and pertinent theories in the area this series will include a light-hearted discussion with regards to the real problem cyberslacking poses to the workplace and also the benefits it offers to employees and by extension company operations. Additionally, I’ll chat about why employees ‘turn to a life of cyberslacking’ and what are some of the best ways to deal with it within the Caribbean workplace both from a personal and managerial perspective.

One of the best ways we can guarantee that this discussion is beneficial to everyone, it is by including everyone in this discussion. We all want and need to hear your (employees and managers) views on the matter. Please do not neglect to share as you would be doing everyone a huge disservice including yourself. You can leave comments anonymously or otherwise, really doesn’t matter. Additionally, comments are not initially moderated, they are posted immediately and you can also modify your comments (excluding those made anonymously) later if you wish.

To ensure that you don’t miss anything, it’s best if you subscribe to this blog’s RSS feed, it is totally free. If you are unsure about what ‘subscribing’ is or how you can subscribe kindly read this article for a succinct explanation and or watch this very short video.

Recently, as you know, the iPad was officially announced and is probably going to be bought by every Apple fanatic from here to the remote forests of the Amazon. Obviously, as I’m apart of the elite Apple family (, I have a Macbook pro – Lexi,) I am also one of those fanatics. However, sadly, I’ve yet to own an iPhone (for a number of unfortunate reasons) and I HAVE to get one. Therefore, it’s between the iPhone and the iPad. As much as I would sell the clothes off my back for both, I’ve yet to find a credible reason to buy the iPad now considering my everyday tasks and current financial situation. To make a long story short, as I’m an extremely practical person, I eventually realised that getting the iPhone is a smarter choice as it’s more suitable for me, blah blah blah. I’ll get the iPad for Christmas when my bank account recovers :)

The discomfort I felt when trying to make the decision between the iPhone (being practical) and iPad (satisfying an irrational desire), social psychologists term this reaction cognitive dissonance. It is described as a feeling of discomfort that happens when we realise there is inconsistency among our attitudes or our attitudes and behaviour. In effort to help you use your website to change visitor attitudes and or behaviour, I’ll use cognitive dissonance theory to show you how websites can leverage the cognitive dissonance experienced by visitors.

• This theory suggests persuasion is a post-reactive response to discrepancies in beliefs or beliefs and behaviour where users rather maintain consistency between these (Dainton & Zelley, 2004). Take for instance, dating sites. They are usually faced with stigma and sometimes are not considered as being worth the money. This theory recommends that website content (, the persuasive message,) can take advantage of the visitors dissonance (thinking online dating is risky, taboo, not worth the money versus wanting to conveniently find love online) by offering advice that attempts to close the disparity between their incongruent beliefs and actions. Similar to Apple prominently stating on their website that the iPad is only $499 (affordable) as opposed to the $999 (expensive) false price tag floating around prior to the announcement. They reduced the dissonance experienced by those persons like me who were saying, “I want it but it’s going to be too expensive”.
• Alternatively, using your website, you can try to trivialise the contrasting attitudes and behaviours where as a result the degree of cognitive dissonance experienced will be reduced (Simon, Greenberg, & Brehn, 1995). “So what?!!! The iPad is worth it, cost is not a factor”.
• Another way cognitive dissonance can be leveraged is through what is called dissonance-induced behaviour change. Researchers (Stone, Wiegand, Cooper & Aronson, 1997) found that most individuals when confronted with their own hypocrisy attempt to reduce their dissonance by changing their behaviour providing the opportunity to do so is available. Take for example a charity’s website requesting donations for those living in poverty. Perhaps the site accompanied by a donate button can mention that Caribbean people (like you) are known for their charity, however, that a percentage of us don’t often support charitable causes. According to this theory, this appeal should induce cognitive dissonance within Caribbean visitors who see themselves as being generous givers and also who advocate for the eradication of poverty but didn’t donate as yet, and it urges them to do so now via the donate button.

The ELM stresses the importance of knowing your online target audience and the cognitive routes they take when processing your ‘persuasive message’. It assumes that there are two ways or routes (central and peripheral) to make decisions and consequently get persuaded. Individuals taking the central route scrutinize, ‘think through’ and elaborate on the logic of the message. Whereas those taking the peripheral route utilize several different cues (e.g., comparison, likeability, authority, commitment and consistency, and scarcity) to make quick decisions. Those taking this route hardly ever care about how strong and solid your argument is, they are more receptive when your conclusions matches their preconceived ideas.

• Either technique is used depending on the type of the situation and the nature of the presented argument (Baron and Byrne, 2004). With systematic thinkers the central route will be taken if circumstances allow for deliberation over the message or if the audience is well informed about the topic. However, if visitors are required to make a speedy decision or they are uninformed about the message, the peripheral route should be taken.
• The model suggests that when the audience is unmotivated, peripheral cues should be used whereby it is more effective for quick heuristic-based analysis. However, alternately it recommends the provision of strong arguments for a motivated audience as they process information objectively and elaborate on the message (Dainton & Zelley, 2004).
• Again using the example with the dating site, their homepage could probably introduce visitors in a speedy attractive fashion that is tailored for a good heuristic-based analysis appealing to the target audience through peripheral cues synonymous with successful online dating experiences. On second look it should inform the visitor about the website in a simple, easy to read and authoritative manner while also setting the tone for the remaining web pages. This is consistent with the evaluative requirements of Sillence et al.’s (2006) model of trust, mentioned here, and the ELM whereby motivated individuals at the second stage take an elaborative approach to processing website content.

Using this insight, your website strategy can be improved quite a bit. I won’t be surprised if a you can’t find more ways to benefit from these theories so please share with the rest of us here when any ideas come to mind.

To explain trust further in relation to sites I’ll use Bhattacherjee’s (2002) three main dimensions of trust: ability, integrity and benevolence.

• Ability speaks to your knowledge, skills and competence as a business or professional in whatever area. For example, as you are my site visitors, you may question if I am qualified to give advice in this area or if I am capable of communicating my knowledge to you well. Also, perhaps, you aren’t too keen on paying bills on a certain site as their online system crashes often.
• Integrity refers to your visitors’ belief that you are honest and reliable, and will act in a credible way. Are they confident that you will keep your promises and live up to expectations? Do you give them reasons not to? Do you say you will offer online discounts and add hidden charges at checkout? Do you give your word that information will be published on your website today and it shows up 2 weeks later?
• Benevolence is the degree to which your clients’ believe you have only but good intentions for them. More or less speaks to you treating your clients fairly while doing business.

Detailing how visitors assess trust in sites, Sillence, Briggs, Harris and Fishwick (2006) provided a three-stage model from which your website can benefit.

This stage suggest that visitors are presented with numerous websites and will make a decision based on heuristic analysis of the website’s design. Considering this, the website design should feature characteristics that effectively exude the image you find most advantageous to your cause, for example, your brand. For instance, a bank may want to convey their integrity and reliability to their current and potential customers online. They may express this through their colour scheme, layout and overall design. Not surprisingly though, these researchers found that not having a clear focus for one’s site and using many adverts on pages reduce the perceived trust of a site. Of course, you should also stay inline with web standards, for instance, having your website optimized for fast webpage loading and simple, uncomplicated navigation. We still need to be technologically savvy and consider such matters, don’t throw pragmatism out the window.

At this stage the model purports that website visitors take a closer look at website content. They examine the purpose of the website, its language use and tone, the level at which published content is directed and its source, and the website’s integration with other relevant websites. This firstly highlights the importance of stating clearly your website’s purpose and underlying motivations. For example, depression sufferers may feel uneasy acquiring information from a support website operated by a pharmaceutical company. Secondly, it stresses that you should know your audience and compose your information accordingly. Lastly, take for example my site. As I’m a social psychologist, linking to other reputable websites (e.g., national/international psychological associations) in the area to offer more information sources, I may increase the perceived trustworthiness of my site. In contrast, associating your site with an untrustworthy site or entity may be detrimental.

The final stage of the model refers to the website’s interaction and relationship building with the user so it is concerned with long-term engagement. It is recommended that your site should have a more personal touch by trying to stay away from using generic content. One way you can accomplish this is by acquiring user information, however, this is a trust issue as well. Including more interactivity into your site is also helpful. For instance, using quizzes, forums, chat rooms and keeping visitors updated via other communication channels (e.g., email, texts, status updates). Keeping your site up-to-date is of high importance at this stage. You need to provide visitors with new information, features and so on periodically. Lastly, letting visitors have their say is also beneficial for encouraging engagement over the long-term. Reviews along with other user-generated content can make your ‘trust meter’ go off the charts so it’s something I would totally recommend to you to implement in some way or fashion.

• Ensure that your website has no spelling mistakes or broken links.
• Do not use unfamiliar terminology, for example, jargon.
• If you take information from visitors, please make available a privacy statement and privacy policy.
• Include real world elements into your design, for example, photographs.
• The verdict is out on the utility of ‘seals of approval’ but using them can’t hurt.

One research paper that illustrates this on a very simple level is authored by neuroscientist Ian Robertson. He discussed the challenges we experience when trying to remember friends’ mobile numbers and even our own. Can you remember your mother’s mobile number? Like me, if it’s kinda sketchy in your head, that’s exactly what Robertson is talking about. He believes that there is a connection between the ability of our gadgets to store such information and our ability to recall this information. Though on the surface this appears rather simple, this may have serious implications for our memory and its capacity to hold information. Let’s think about it. Perhaps such technology allows us to better use our memory by concentrating only on important details or on contrary, it reduces our ability to remember; who really knows these things anyways? Cyberpsychologists do!!!

Coincidently as we’re now well into an ‘age of social media’ and several high profile research studies emerging from the field are concerned with social media (e.g., Facebook, Myspace, Flickr, Youtube), we can’t simply disregard cyberpsychology as being a case of supply and demand. Yes we are interested in these online services but cyberpsychology goes far beyond this. There are researchers (e.g., Mark Griffiths) looking at online gaming, gambling and addiction, some who focus on identity online (e.g., Jill Arnold and Hugh Miller), education (e.g., Phil Banyard) and even how the journey of finding love translates online (e.g., Monica Whitty). Currently I work as an online media consultant helping Caribbean organisations build their online presence successfully. Leveraging my specialist knowledge about online behaviour and years of experience in website design and development I work alongside marketing, communications, public relations and information systems professionals helping their organisations connect better with their online audience and build lasting relationships with them.

Considering all those new online professionals (e.g., social media ‘experts’/‘scientists’) coming out of the woodwork, I am one of those people who believe that giving advice in this area requires specialist knowledge and training in an area where the differences between how we behave online and offline are appreciated and well understood. Currently some of these ‘professionals’ are trying this method and the next method because it worked for a big company or some other significant entity. This methodology is at the least scaring me silly. What happened to using the scientific approach for business, doesn’t it apply anymore? Or is there a problem with its validity and or relevance when it comes to social media? Apparently, social media resides outside the boundaries of science or so others would like us to believe. Did we forget the scientific approach could be used when studying social phenomena? Do please look up social science. Of course disciplines such as marketing, communications, public relations, information systems etcetera still have relevance in this area but they all subscribe to psychological theory in one way or another. Therefore, they will all greatly benefit from being informed by the science of psychology which comprehensively considers the complexity of human behaviour both online and offline, and was doing this ‘since Adam was a lad’, for the most part :)

Before I finish up here I just want to be honest and mention that before doing my Masters at Nottingham Trent University in Cyberpsychology, I was honestly convinced that I would be merely ‘filling in the gaps’ in my knowledge and would receive some evidence in the form of a degree for my future employers to confirm my professional prowess in the area. However, I quickly dismissed those thoughts once I started the degree as my perspective was beginning to change drastically. This doesn’t mean that I don’t blame those individuals who are naïve about the area though, like me at the time, they weren’t giving it enough thought to see its many worthwhile applications. I began to not only apply established psychological theories and research in cyberpsychology to understand current behaviour but more importantly, to me at least, I found myself elaborately thinking about what can be possible when technology and people become more integrated and the best way this can be done. Simon Watts, who was one of my lecturers at NTU comes to mind. He gave us a paper entitled ‘Social Psychology as History’ to take a look at and I remember feeling quite frustrated while reading it but soon I came to terms with this frustration and saw it as a challenge to be more forward thinking, to embrace my inner trekkian spirit :) I believe this approach characterises cyberpsychology and what it ought to be. With technology changing so fast there really isn’t any other approach that can be taken.

Psychological studies (e.g., Zhao, Grasmuck, Martin, 2008) including my own (Bernard, 2009) have shed some light onto how persons use Facebook and more specifically the things they value as Facebook users. Research has shown consistently that Facebook users present what is called ‘hope for possible selves’, in laymen terms it’s an aspect of self that reflects the more social and desirable aspects of self. This explains the countless notifications you receive on Facebook saying ‘Jenna is a level 5 street Lord’ or ‘Carly has a new endangered animal’. It does not mean they are proud to be a street lord or a zookeeper but it does show how social they are, which appears to be the currency that drives Facebook.

So if you are into rousing up the crowd for your initiative or to get them mobilised for your cause, a good way to do this is to capitalise on this need to appear socially desirable. Say perhaps you want to encourage individuals to save water. As the coordinator of this initiative or company providing this commodity, you may want to create a ‘Facebook app’ that posts weekly or monthly water usage measurements on profiles. In so doing, app users will be able to show and also compare their usage with friends, which would promote the cause (reducing water wastage) and most likely paint the picture that these individuals are environmentally conscious. After all there is research which shows that people so as to seek social approval donate more money under public conditions than when in private (Satow, 1975), I believe the same applies here.

I said it would be quick :)

Founded in 2005, Youtube represents 10% of all Internet traffic. It is the 3rd most visited site on the Internet and is listed in the top 5 most visited websites list for several Caribbean islands. It’s clearly an opportunity. Before I go on though, merely out of convenience and to keep order in my head, I’ve found it helpful to divide Youtube users into viewers and producers/video creators for the purposes of this post.

Last January Youtube exceeded 100 million viewers for the month. Youtube users can view, rate, comment on and share videos uploaded by others the world over. Almost anything can be found on Youtube to watch, from the first manned mission to space to those Sesame Street clips you still remember and love, it all happens on Youtube. Youtube users search high and low for the most interesting, funny, heart-wrenching or heart-warming videos to keep themselves entertained and to share with friends via other spaces such as Facebook. I personally search for stuff as ideas come to mind or perhaps a funny ad (e.g., Evian Babies) I want to watch again and again and again.

As viewers enjoy a wide variety of videos, someone has to supply them. Youtube allows users to freely create their own branded online video channels where they can ‘broadcast’ to their online audience. It allows for videos created and uploaded by users to be integrated in other spaces online, for example, through its embedding feature video can be shared and viewed via other websites (e.g., Facebook, company website). As this article focuses on the utility of Youtube and how it can be leveraged to connect with your audience, this post will concentrate on offering helpful advice for this type user.

I could hear some smart alec saying, “I prefer my company’s information centralised and besides my site can handle video anyways, why should I use something else?” My tip-of-the-tongue answer would be “no one cares about your site, why would they visit you way over wherever you are when they can have all their video in one convenient centralised online space”. I could understand though if you’re WELL established online or offering a product/service that calls your audience to your site on an ongoing basis but even then you may still want to capture new visitors/customers. Additionally, I’m very convinced that a large number of our websites regionally are not doing well at capturing our audience to begin with so we start with little or no website visitors. So who then will be seeing your own hosted video?

As a scientist, I won’t take anyone’s word just like that so I won’t ask you to either, let’s put this idea to a test. Post your video that is already hosted on your company’s website to Youtube and compare the number of visitors. I often see social media as a cure for egotism, at least when it comes to us insignificant companies, organisations, professionals and so on. It’s about others (your customers) not your product or whatever else you’re pushing. Think about them, what they do and how they do it, then try to adjust to THEIR situation. When you’re ’setting up shop’, you don’t locate your business close to your home because it’s convenient to YOU but you establish it somewhere close to your customers. You Think About Them, What They Do and How They Do It. If you’re aware that many of your customers pass a particular route everyday you set up shop close by or advertise in that spot, you don’t ask them to go out of their way to get to you. The same thing applies online.

Just in case you think this is all me, let me introduce to you uses and gratification theory (Blumer & Katz, 1974), I’m sure you PR, marketing and communications professionals are familiar with it. Basically, this theory suggests that individuals use certain media over others as some media satisfy various needs or uses better than others. Therefore, as Youtube is heavily used by the majority (if not everyone online), including your customers, isn’t it better to utilise an existing and already well-used channel than to create a new and unfamiliar option for customers who won’t bother to come over and or to continue visiting? Don’t try to reinvent the wheel, go where it’s are happening.

People (e.g., our moms) often consider watching videos and such as being a passive activity where we just sit and stare. However, as believed by Mayer (2001), video can in fact facilitate active learning providing that messages are well designed considering how people process information cognitively, think Sesame Street. Also considering Wiman and Mierhenry’s (1969) extension of Dale’s ‘Cone of Experience’ it is understood that “people will generally remember: 10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what they see [and] 50% of what they hear and see” pp. 7-8. So yes video can be quite effective for telling others about your product and making it salient in their minds. Factors such as age- and skill-appropriateness of content, appeal to multiple forms of intelligence and multiple modes for content delivery have been identified as being very important for the success of your video.

According to the theory of multiple intelligences developed by Gardner (2006), individuals possess at least eight distinct intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinaesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalistic. These intelligences are said to play a big part in how you interpret information and how you learn (Marshall, 2002). As video conveys information via several modes (e.g., visual, auditory and tactile) and allows for a variety of approaches (logical/narrational, aesthetic and linguistic) it both accommodates a broad range of learners (Cruse, 2007) and considers multiple intelligences, it more than proves its usefulness.

As I said, video isn’t to hard to come by especially if you’re a well established company. You can simply take videos that you already have available and post them online, and in the future consider creating other videos that suit your online audience. It’s much more inexpensive and convenient than TV and you can accurately measure it’s effectiveness. Of course there is a little more to it than this but I promise it’s all very cost effective and doable. I’ll definitely be here to help you do this, just stay tuned by subscribing.

By the way, here are several helpful suggestions from Denning (no date) that you should consider when creating video for instructional/educational purposes.

Thou shalt:

• provide variation in the presentation of content,
• think about including some humour,
• organise content into sections (also known as ‘chunking’),
• provide meaningful and simple examples that viewers can identify with and model behaviours,
• pose open-ended questions to get their tickers ticking,
• offer opportunities for extension of concepts taught or shared, probably discussion via another channel,
• also one should assume the position of their informed or partially informed audience and
• ensure critical criteria and aims are met when creating video.

Hope this helped and I do want to hear from you, what other tips can you add?

Several researchers investigating social interaction online have offered several perspectives concerning online communications technology and its ability to support such interactions adequately. Here I’ll be briefly mention two of them and explain some of the issues they highlight that you should definitely sit up and take note. Firstly, media richness theory developed by Draft and Lengel (1986) aims to helps us communicate more effectively by assisting us in choosing the most suitable communications medium to send a particular message. For example, if your bf/gf caught you kissing your cousin (who is of the opposite sex) who is unknown to them, this theory would recommend you choosing a ‘rich’ communications’ medium (e.g., FtF) to explain the situation rather than via a text message which is by far not as rich. You see, media richness is said to be a function of a medium’s speed in providing feedback (think instant messaging versus email), the amount of cues (e.g., verbal, non-verbal, tactile) available, and the extent to which the channel allows the message to be tailored for the receiver. The more a communications’ channel meets these criteria, the richer and better it is considered to be. However, I’m sure you can appreciate that not all messages require the richest communications’ channel to be well understood. So for instance, if you want to alert someone of your current location, sending a text message would be absolutely fine. How good do you think social media channels are at communicating complex social information?

Along this line of thought Short, Williams and Christie (1976) put forward social presence theory. Social presence refers to the extent that you feel another person is engaged in communication with you. These researchers believe that as feelings of social presence diminish, social interaction becomes less personal. Now considering that computer-mediated communication largely lacks many social cues (e.g., nonverbal and tactile cues) it is easy to conclude that it is very low in social presence and therefore more impersonal and less intimate than FtF communication. So again, how good do you think social media channels are at communicating complex social information?

From these theoretical perspectives we can see where social media comes up short as a communications platform to support social interaction. Take for instance the online micro-blogging service twitter where users primarily use text to communicate with each other. It’s fine when we use it as it was intended (i.e., saying what you’re up to), however as it affords us many alternative uses, some of us attempt to capitalise on every one of them to do our bidding (e.g., ‘building relationships’) and more or less do so in vein. Many social media services though convenient are not largely intended to be a substitute for FtF communication but rather a communications medium that supports and maintains offline relationships. More importantly though, I’m asking that we bear in mind its limitations when trying to form relationships and otherwise communicate complex social information via these mediums.

Yes, there is definitely empirical evidence (e.g., Parks & Floyd, 1996; Parks & Roberts, 1998; Whitty & Gavin, 2001) which shows that relationships can indeed develop online, however, forming those close online relationships everyone are raving about takes commitment from BOTH parties and time. Of course, if you’re an Internet business and you don’t have FtF interactions with your customers these findings may be a bit discouraging to you as you may need to work harder than those with physical store fronts to reach the same levels of relationship development with your customers. So with your unique situation in mind I will cover how you can do this shortly. In the meanwhile you can give everyone your take on these points and or share any related concerns you may have.

Online dating isn’t that much different to what you’re accustomed to with traditional dating. Your personality, looks and the things you have in common with your potential partner are all still considered to play an important role in finding Mr. and Mrs. Right online. However, online there are some new exciting features that put a welcomed twist on things.

Cupid’s Arrow 2.0

The speed at which couples find each other online in comparison to offline is much faster mainly due to the many options at their disposal to do such. For example online dating websites offer in whole or part the ability to find potential partners through compatibility tests, search engines, scouring detailed personal profiles, instant messaging, emailing and several other means. Alternatively offline, one either meets someone from at work, by chance as you go along your daily routine or perhaps through recommendations by friends or family, where after you still have to ‘test the waters’.

Mouse Over at Anytime

The access you have to potential partners online in comparison to offline is a big plus. You can wave your mouse over 2.8 million profiles using online dating at any time you fancy and in the comfort and privacy of your home. Just imagine not being bothered about preparing to go out for date. Also if you’re one of those who passed that juncture in life or aren’t keen on the clubs and bars scene to pick up or to be picked up, online dating is a definite match for you.

The results are in and it’s a resounding YES. Research has shown online dating is helping many people just like you find love and have their ‘happily ever after’, even more it’s shaking up the dynamics of our relationships. Dr. Jeff Gavin of the University of Bath found that men were significantly more likely to be devoted to the relationship than women and explained that it is perhaps due to the ease at which they relate emotionally online with their partner than offline. However, before we abandon our pixie dust and mistletoes in the kitchen cupboard we might want to consider all the facts that are on the table. For this we look to Dr. Andrea Baker who proposes four important things that will make your online relationship successful.

Making It Work

• Where you meet, for example a shared interest online dating website is considered to be ideal or a service which promotes matching based on similar interests.
• The length of time couples take to get acquainted with each other before meeting face-to-face or engaging in sexual activity is important. It might be a bit hard for you to swallow but her research suggest that the longer couples take, the longer the relationship will last.
• Baker suggests getting together could be a little easier said than done and that each partner and sometimes both may have to overcome obstacles such as distance, financial issues that may arise in relocating, and negotiating and or severing commitments to current relationships in order to be together. Therefore, one’s determination to be together must be pretty strong.
• She believes that becoming aware of each other’s communication styles even in conflict online enhances satisfaction and cooperation online and offline among couples.

By nature we seek to reduce uncertainty when trying new things and as promised this post will help you do just that by presenting the good, the bad and the down right ugly of what online dating entails; a more balanced and realistic view of dating online.

Blonde and Blue Eyed

Unfortunately not all online daters are as truthful as one would like. Research reports that some online daters lie about looks, weight, height, size, personality, age and even relationship status. Not surprisingly, men seem to lie more about their height while women tend to lie more about their weight (at least by five pounds or more).

It’s A ‘Numbers Game’

Another undesirable feature of online dating is called the ’numbers game’ which is perpetrated mostly by men. It entails sending out more expressions of interest than one is expected to receive, for example sending what some online dating services call a ‘kiss’ or a ‘wink’ to many persons on the site. You may probably regard it as spam. However there are usually controls provided by the service where you can block and or report any one you suspect of doing this.

Scamming With Romance

On a much bleaker side of deception online is one of the most dangerous and potentially emotionally damaging exercises of deception in online dating, the romance scam. Originating from several countries, most likely from Africa, these scams lure desperate for love individuals via very attractive profiles and smart strategies into being swindled out of their money. Moreover, it promotes illegal activity by persuading these individuals to sometimes cash forged or stolen cheques in addition to performing other legal infractions. They usually target middle-aged professionals and those who look for long relationships by playing on their need for love over several months.

You’re 100% Covered

However, despite all of this, 90% of this solution is you knowing about these downfalls and kinks in the system and the other 10% is up to you with regards to being vigilant. So you’re wayyyyy ahead of the game.

There are many online dating websites out there. Some are focused on matching within specialist groups, for example online dating sites that tailor to a specific faith or interest group. While others are more generalized and may request personality tests and surveys examining one’s interests and preferred characteristics to be found in one’s potential partner as matching criteria.

Ultimately your choice depends on what type of person you want to meet and what factors are most important to you. For instance, if your faith is big factor in finding a potential partner then you may be better off using a website tailored for matching persons within the faith. Or if you simply want someone who you share a view similarities with then you may want to go general. It’s just a matter of matching a service to your needs.

Below is a list of websites that will give you better advice on choosing the best online dating service for your quest for love:

• A detailed look at things you should consider in choosing an online dating service – www.mozdex.com/online-dating-services
• A comprehensive list of online dating websites reviews – www.datesitereviews.com
• Online dating websites reviews – www.datingsitesreviews.com
• Online dating website advice and dating websites reviews – www.best4sure.co.uk

Also, here is a list of popular online dating services used by Caribbean people:

• www.caribbeancupid.com
• www.afrocaribdating.com
• www.westindiandating.com
• www.caribsingles.com
• www.caribbeanmatch.com

A simple answer is most likely the best. Your site is primarily for you/your cause and your audience. In the early days, I typically asked clients what was their reason for having a website. Many of them said they just needed a place for ‘people’ to visit online and my usual jerk-of-knee response was “I’m sure your store isn’t just there on some street with some signage”. With experience though, I eventually noticed that a much better question was, “what does your business do?” This elicited something of great value, the ultimate purpose of their website where everything else can be given some context and accurately defined, especially one’s audience. As the Internet has a worldwide audience, individuals find it really difficult to understand exactly who their audience consist of. They are faced with the dilemma of concentrating on their current customers versus potential customers and as everyone can be considered a potential customer they arrive back where they started. However, can everyone who doesn’t use your product/service REALLY be considered a prospect? Of course NOT! So be a little more considerate of what you offer and who would buy into it when realistically defining your actual target market. This process isn’t just good for the website alone but for business in general. We often don’t have these things sorted and as a consequence we run into problems and waste valuable resources chasing the wrong people, that is simply bad business.

As I mentioned, sites can perform many functions, the most important of these being its ability to connect you to your customers. Thinking about this process from an offline a business perspective we should quickly notice that traditional business functions persist online. Therefore, we should still aim to build good customer relationships and a good reputation, create awareness of our particular cause (e.g., products, services), persuade others to buy into it, ensure that efficient support structures are in place (e.g., for communications, e-commerce) and to facilitate business development. Understandably, translating business functions online is somewhat different when compared to its equivalent offline, one reason being that human behaviour in cyberspace is undisputedly different in several ways to how we behave offline. Nonetheless, the same basic business principles apply to both spaces.

Considering what your online audience/customers need from you is also very important for your website. As mentioned in the initial post of this series, this thought process is seriously lacking in sites across the region. Besides the obvious product/service information you offer, you need to find out from your customers/audience what they need and will appreciate you providing. With the arrival and heavy adoption of social media you are much better positioned to do just this, integrating these communication tools within your site can be quite advantageous. Beyond focusing on what information your audience will need and appreciate, closely paying attention to how this information is presented and also your audience’s state of mind (, YES, their state of mind) is important. For instance, trust is a huge issue for online consumers and even people like you who just seek advice. Your online audience must perceive you as being credible and trustworthy, someone who offers a product, service and or advice (i.e., a viable solution) that they can confidently use or act on.

In the next few instalments of this series I’ll address these things in further detail and offer ways in which you can accomplish them. For now it would be great if you let this information marinate, sometimes we read and merely skim the top for meaning while not focusing and really searching for deeper understanding. I recommend you giving the article another read while applying it to your particular situation. Though a little simple, we often miss these little things and need some reminding from time to time. After taking your second read, I would really appreciate if you can share your take on it below and get a productive discussion going. If you’re a bit shy, you can of course leave an anonymous comment, it’s just as good, thanks in advance.

Regional Websites Are Failing

Over the years I’ve come to not expect much from websites in the region and I believe others have as well. How many of you think of a local company’s website as being the best source of helpful information about that company? Does it provide helpful information that you can act on? When I was studying in the UK and visiting elsewhere, the only way I got information about a product and or service being offered by a company was by using the Internet. Sometimes this information came from the company’s website or from a general search where I found bloggers or people on forums talking about the product/service. I almost always checked online before choosing and trekking over to a physical store. In contrast, here in Caribbean I get frustrated when I don’t have the information I need about a particular product/service provided by a local business because they don’t have a website or in most cases even an online presence. Those that do provide websites leave me in bewilderment as they often appear as online business plans prepared in the most eloquent language and feature web designs that lack any trace of logic and concern for ease of use by the humans like you, them and I. I can only imagine what visitors to our islands experience when they try to go about looking for local information using the Internet as they usually do at home.

Why Is This Happening?

In my mind, the fault lies primarily with web developers who are poorly trained to think about the purpose and usage (the human element) of websites, and uninformed business execs who unknowingly invest in poor talent that ultimately produces an ineffective product. This unproductive aspect concerns me to the core. What is your website suppose to be doing, what is its purpose? Do you as a manager, CEO, director, marketer, PR professional or business exec KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that your website is working for you (i.e., accomplishing actual business goals)? What tests have you or more importantly your webmaster conducted to investigate its effectiveness? When is the last time you made ANY changes to your website? If you fail to answer any of these questions, you should stick to the yellow pages or better yet keep on reading!

The Game Plan

Over the next month I’ll be using psychological theory and research looking at practical ways you can improve on the effectiveness of your website and build a better online presence for your company/organisation or yourself. Why subscribe to psychological theory? Besides the fact that several disciplines including marketing, communications and PR look to psychology to inform their strategies in business, the answer is simple. Dating back to the time of Aristotle, Psychology is supported by years of empirical knowledge that adequately address the complexity of human behaviour even considering the differences in our behaviour online and offline. It provides valuable knowledge to help ensure your success online.

Below is the tentative series line up:

• Things Your Website Should Be Doing
• Things You Should Consider When Hiring/Firing Your Webmaster
• Tips to a Better Website Design
• Building Trust with Customers Using Your Website
• Ways Your Website Can Persuade Visitors
• A Caribbean Guide to Website Promotion
• Does Your Website Work?
• Using Web Analytics To Understand Website Vistors & To Inform Strategy
• How to Make Website Development A Never Ending Process
• Series Round Up

One of the facts I always share is the ability observers of your online profile have to accurately assess your personality. Back in 2007 during my undergrad studies I conducted research that assessed the ability of observers to form accurate personality impressions of strangers based on their hi5 (a SNS) profiles. Findings from the study revealed that persons are indeed able to do so accurately, for the most part. Also, with regards to Facebook the same applies, empirical evidence (e.g., Gosling, Gaddis & Vazire, 2007) supports this.

Thou you may already find this interesting, I wish to impart some perspective. Personal websites, online profiles and so on are all places that we’ve either created or tweaked to suit us, we’ve personalised these spaces. A while ago research (Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli & Morris, 2002) found that personality impressions based on personal rooms and offices are pretty much accurate as well. Therefore, it’s nothing new. Both your virtual and physical spaces contain valuable clues about who you are. So next time you hear a story about someone being stabbed, murdered or robbed because of what they’ve published on their Facebook profile please stop to think about it carefully before demonising Facebook and telling others the entire Internet is evil. It’s just a medium, just like your mobile, radio and tele.

Several countries around the world are reporting rapidly increasing rates of Internet use by children, often exceeding 50% of the younger population. Judging by high Internet penetration rates within the Caribbean, I am led to assume we are not much different, however, definite figures are lacking due to the dearth of research in the area. Studies conducted elsewhere reveal that children tend to access the Internet mostly from at home, followed by school then from friends’ homes and libraries. I suspect though that Caribbean schools and libraries are not yet used as major Internet gateways but are getting to this level steadily. Children are known to use the Internet for exploring (for example conducting several general searches a day), learning new things (by conducting research), communicating (via email, chat, blogs), entertainment and even e-commerce (buying products and subscribing to services). They however use it mostly for chat followed by peer-to-peer file sharing, mobile communication and playing interactive games.

While above shows that the Internet is fundamentally a great tool for children, if not used carefully it may result in children being exposed to the inappropriate side of cyberspace. Dangers may include grooming by pedophiles, exposure to inappropriate content (pornography), illegal activity (copyright infringement), mis-information, online bullying (via chat, email, text messaging), gambling and exploitation of personal information. Research from the Cyberspace Research Unit (CRU; 2002) found that 53% of 8 to 11 year olds surveyed had conversations of a sexual nature in chat rooms. Additionally, Livingstone (2001) found that some parents paid no attention to what children do online. Therefore, it is quite evident that children are indeed in danger online and that parents have a crucial role to play. Below are a few tips you can use to actively ensure the safety of your child(ren) online.

• You should learn more about the Internet either through formal training, self-study or simply using the technology. PTAs can help by organising workshops conducted by professionals in the area of e-safety.
• Train teachers to teach Internet safety in the classroom as students’ use of the Internet for school has become a norm. Teaching e-safety may simply involve a 5-minute session about e-safety measures that should be taken when using the Internet for completing assignments.
• Lobby for educational institutions to enact ‘acceptable use policies’ that would promote safe use of the Internet on the premises and for these policies to be reviewed regularly.
• Filters can be applied to Internet access points to limit information by only allowing safe content through. However, there are some difficulties with this method as it is not reliable for detecting unsafe photos from safe ones and other types of harmful content. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as a solution in itself and should be used along with other measures shared here.
• Teach children how to be critical users of the medium and put in place reasonable boundaries for Internet use. You should always be aware of what your child(ren) is/are doing on the Internet and establish guidelines for safe use.

The Internet can be a great educational resource and a valuable tool for interacting with others but in addition to those things it can also be a dangerous place for children. Instead of pulling the plug on the invaluable resource you should protect your child(ren) by being aware of these issues and by educating them about the potential dangers.

There are many free online resources that can be utilised in this effort and by doing a search via google.com using the keyword ‘e-safety’ you can find some. Alternatively, I will be following up this post with regular instalments on e-safety for children in the Caribbean. If you have any tips or want to share something on the topic, I would be happy to address it, just let me know. Email renaldo@renaldobernard.com.

What if there is another viable explanation for social media and its success? What if our current explanations would not apply much longer as technology advances? What if as with countless theories, this one does not stand the test of time? What if? I think we must begin to critically analyse trends and think outside the box for alternative explanations along the way, not just for so but for ‘the advancement of human kind’ :)

I’m not calling for you to doubt the utility of social media for business and also for the wider society because clearly it has been and continue to be extremely useful. However, I’m challenging you to not follow the flock but to critically analyse and thus justify your online media strategies. This may be a bit time consuming and daunting for persons unfamiliar with research but I’m sure you would appreciate only having a skilled doctor surgeon using a scalpel on you. So why would you allow someone or even you yourself to implement online strategies grounded in a huge blob of nothingness or statistics based on flawed metrics that do not make any sense or that you do not even understand?

I’m sure you are aware of my psychological background and hopefully you are seeing where I’m going with this. We all obviously are not psychologists and even more so cyberpsychologists, however, a surprisingly large number of us have probably passed through rigorous training in our respective disciplines. It is time we put that training and knowledge accumulated ‘way back then’ into practice and begin to seriously apply sound proven knowledge in effort to solve the above problem I have highlighted. If you decide not to, I urge you not to be a parrot and spout someone else’s knowledge without at least giving justifications for ‘your’ advice, it is making the pond mucky. We in the Caribbean have the unique opportunity to do this right the first time, so let us put in the effort to get it right and I will even help for free from right here on my virtual podium :)

In particular, psychologists have been scientifically building a case for such since Adam was a lad and have proven the benefits of relationships over and over again. I guess somewhere along the passage of time persons got inundated with this long and sometimes arduous process of building and maintaining strong relationships but still wanted the benefits. Consequently, as the Internet amplifies the role of relationships and traditional means of bypassing this are quickly failing, the wayward, unfriendly and selfish masses are being led back to the promise land by relationship specialists.

Really unbelievable how some people are still stuck in the past and for example, obsessed with control despite being aware of proven ways that they can increase their effectiveness online, improve on their brand image and more importantly their beloved bottom line. It’s a new day people, time to rise from your slumber!!!

Addictive behaviour has been described as a recurring habit pattern (usually characterised by immediate feedback and sometimes accompanied with delayed harmful effects) that increases the risk of disease and/or personal and social problems. Also, any attempts to alter this behaviour are typically marked by high relapse rates (Marlatt, Baer, Donovan & Kivlahan, 1988).

Applying the above definition to Internet addiction, which is considered as a technological addiction, reveals that it is a “non-chemical (behavioural) addiction that involve human-machine interaction” (Griffiths, 2000). It can be passive (watching the television) or active (playing computer games) and typically have inducing and reinforcing characteristics that may be a means for the promotion of addictive behaviour (Griffiths, 1995). Technological addictions are considered as a subset of behavioural addiction and therefore feature six core components as outlined by Griffiths (1995, 1996):

• Salience – speaks to the object as being the single most important thing in that individual’s life where it dominates their thinking and behaviour even when it isn’t being experienced.
• Mood modification – refers to the euphoric feeling one achieves as a result of the particular activity.
• Tolerance – addicts also experience increased tolerance where they need more and more each time to have the same effects.
• Withdrawal – individuals often experience unpleasant feeling states/ physical effects (withdrawal symptoms) that occur due to the discontinuation or reduction of the stimuli.
• Conflict – refers to where the addict experience problems sometimes from within themselves and with others around them.
• Relapse – as soon as the person goes back to the addictive activity they quickly fall back into the cycle.

In addition to Griffiths’ components of addiction, other Internet addiction researchers such as Young (1999) offers a different view of Internet addiction with her five subtypes that encompass a wide range of behaviours and impulse control problems.

• Cyber-sexual addiction – speaks to the compulsive use of pornography websites for online sex and porn.
• Cyber-relationship addiction – refers to excessive participation in online relationships.
• Net compulsions – for example, obsessive online gambling, shopping etc.
• Information overload – looks at compulsive Internet surfing or running online queries and lastly, computer addiction refers to the obsessive computer game playing.

Considering Young’s views above, Griffiths (2000) has stated that “many of these excessive users are not ‘Internet addicts’ but just use the Internet excessively as a medium to fuel other addictions”. Moreover, he went on to state that “there is a need to distinguish between addictions to the Internet and addictions on the Internet”. For instance, a sex addict who chooses to engage in cybersex chooses the Internet as the place where (s)he will satisfy this addiction and can’t be considered as being addicted to the Internet.

All things considered, based on a simple biopsychological premise I believe that there are ways in which the Internet may be highly seductive and addictive for young adults and adolescents especially. For instance, research done by Small (2008) shows that Internet savvy participants in his study exhibited more brain processing activity online than when reading a book or performing other tasks. Moreover, their less skilled counterparts showed normal brain activity for both conditions. This provides evidence for at least the mood modification (feelings of euphoria) component mentioned earlier and presents a potential addictive feature of the Internet. Based on this simple argument and other literature I’ve read, I do acknowledge the existence of Internet addiction and agree with the view that at present it may only affect a relatively small group of people (Griffiths, 2000) but I also believe that the number of sufferers is perhaps on the increase (Leun, 2004).

On Facebook we are more likely to be known by our ‘friends’ and therefore it isn’t surprising that we aren’t as open as in other online spaces were we are relatively anonymous. However, from personal experience we obviously do still give personal and private information about ourselves but recent research shows we are a tad bit more strategic with our disclosures.

Multiple-audience problems (Fleming, 1994) exist when we try to simultaneously communicate different and or conflicting opinions or aspects of our personalities to different audiences (e.g., peers, parents and nosey people like an up-tight cousin) that are present. These problems present themselves in several forms where we the communicators convey social information (, such as identity information and messages). For example (not from personal experience), I wanting to tell my friends from the club last night that I enjoyed myself but at the same time don’t want my parents or fellow church members (who are also Facebook friends) to know I went to the club..

Last year I conducted some research investigating this specific problem for Facebook users and my study’s results confirmed Fleming (1994) and Fleming, Darley, Hilton, and Kojetin (1990) findings from their studies on the multiple audience problem. Our studies outlined several ways in which individuals avoided and solved their problems with multiple audiences both online and offline. We discussed how people segregate their audiences, perform role-distancing behaviours and also send hidden and vague messages so to gain control of their personal information and resolve these problems with multiple audiences.

Audience segregation refers to the separation of one’s audiences so they would not be privy to inappropriate and unintended information. For example, on Facebook we limit who can see our status updates, certain photo albums and the sort. An example of this offline can be for instance adults who when talking about sex send children out of the room. Practically speaking audience segregation is not always possible and sometimes individuals engage in what we call role-distancing behaviour instead. These distancing behaviours are usually used to signal to others that your actions are constrained and or to be cautiously interpreted, as you would not want others coming to conclusions about you based on that particular behaviour. Lastly, we sometimes send mixed and vague messages in the presence of multiple audiences where only the intended audience fully understands the message. For example, in Fleming et al.’s (1990, study 2) study, participants were instructed to write essays that would give their friends clues to the location of a map while not communicating the map’s location to strangers who also read these essays. Participants by giving false information their friends knew not to be true were able to conceal underlying messages from the strangers and were successful in the task. Also, study results have shown that we use vague and generalized statements so not to contradict the impressions others formed about us previously. For example when we update our status updates to merely say, “I had an awesome time” rather than “the club was awesome last night, WUUUUUUU” (lol, something like that).

So in conclusion, on Facebook we do spill the beans but because of the different groups of persons who make up our audience we do so by asserting control through limiting access to our information, tactically managing that information and sending mixed and vague messages.

According to Jourard and Lasakow (1958) self-disclosure is “the process of making the self known to others”. For example, talking about how you’re feeling with others and giving your personal views on matters. Self-disclosure often builds trust and strengthens relationships through mutual understanding (Rubin, 1975), help legitimises group membership and strengthens group identity (Whitty & Joinson, 2009). Also, it is known to help with personal growth. Pennebaker, Baker, Keicolt-Glaser and Glaser (1988) found that research participants who wrote over a period of four days about their trauma/upsetting experience showed immune systems benefits when compared with those participants who didn’t.

A myriad of research studies and some theories have looked at self-disclosure and technology, here I consider it with regards to the Internet. One of the first insights into self-disclosure was the stranger-on-the-train phenomenon. This theory holds that individuals find it easier to be truthful with strangers than with their friends and family, perhaps due to the anonymity involved. Accordingly, researchers saw that these findings had obvious implications for self-disclosure on the Internet as this medium is partially characterised by anonymity. Joinson and Paine (2007) and Joinson (2001) found that people tend to disclose more information about themselves online compared in face-to-face (FtF) situations. Also, investigations looking at research administered online in comparison to paper-based methods found that there was a reduction in participants’ socially desirable responding (Joinson, 1999), higher levels of disclosure (Weisband & Kiesler, 1996) and also an increased willingness to answer sensitive questions (Whitty & Joinson, 2009). So considering my initial question, I won’t take offence to my friend’s decision to ’spill the beans’ to a ’stranger’ instead of me.

As mentioned earlier, the anonymity associated with the Internet seems to be the catalyst for the ease of self-disclosure in the medium. However, why do we talk about ourselves so easily if we value anonymity? One answer to this question comes from Uncertainty Reduction theory (URT, Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Though a little more complex, this theory simply proposes that we are motivated to reduce uncertainty when interacting with others so to increase predictability and therefore, we blab. So there you have it.

Do you agree it’s easier for you to ‘spill the beans online’ or do you think this is a load of crap? Feel free to share your thoughts here with me, I won’t bite :)

The internet represents a fundamental shift in how we interact with each other, something reminiscent to how the telegraph re-calibrated humanity’s sense of distance and time. Also, take for example online services like Facebook and Myspace which have enabled us for the first time to form and maintain close relationships with a larger number of people than ever before. With regards to our region, high internet penetration rates indicate that a large number of Caribbean people are using the internet in spite of having internet access issues associated with exorbitant costs and the lack of infrastructure and coverage in some areas. However, as these people increasingly come to rely on the internet for everyday tasks, what implications does this have for Caribbean society?

As internet penetration rates across the Caribbean increase, the negative implications (e.g., fraud, identity theft, invasion of privacy) of the internet become more prominent and problematic. What are regional governments and media houses doing to address these issues? Are they aware of such issues?

In other parts of the world internet use by children is fairly significant and continues to increase, no doubt here in the Caribbean this is currently the case or soon will be. What are we doing about online safety for children in the home, at school and elsewhere? Do you know what your child does online?

Some of us, I included see the internet as being advantageous for commerce, entertainment and information gathering. Nevertheless, how many of us see it as an opportunity to exercise our civic duties? Have you ever thought of organising a simple volunteer initiative (e.g., cleaning up a beach) via Facebook with your friends? Or perhaps emailing your constituency representative about a problem you and others in your area are experiencing? Or even writing a blog pertaining to local issues?

There is consensus that the internet aids globalization but some believe that it also promotes a new type of imperialism. How culturally conscious are you online? How is your nation’s agenda advanced online?

Some of us in the region are comfortable that large segments of our population are ‘computer literate’ but yet our definition of literacy is inadequate. We focus on the performative aspects of literacy in this domain (e.g., ability to use the technology) and not on the awareness of the societal issues presented by such technologies. How cyberliterate are you really?

The news media has become captivated by the internet, at times pre-occupied with the bad and ugly and yet sometimes fascinated with its offspring, of late that being social media. In effort to capture the attention of its viewers, the media seems to be in the business of sensationalising the internet. However, whatever the media highlights this becomes salient in our minds and pretty much gives us an inaccurate picture of the internet and therefore, its implications for us.

As you would read on my about page, I’m particularly interested in the emerging trends technology ushers in and especially how these changes affect us in our daily lives psychologically and otherwise. In sharing my Caribbean perspective on the issues I intend to offer an even-handed view of the Internet and adequately prepare you for what is to come. I believe that as we are adopting these technologies relatively fast considering our limitations, we are still in the early stages and therefore have the opportunity to learn from the others ahead of us and more or less do it right from the beginning. I invite your views.