Relationships Flashcards
What are parasocial relationships?
- Where an individual believes they’re in a relationship with someone of a higher status, usually without their knowledge.
- Typically occur between ages 11-17
- the lower the education of an individual the greater the intensity of the parasocial relationship
- helps with identity formation, observation of role model, learning how to act in certain situations
Measuring levels of parasocial relationships - Giles and maltby
1) Entertainment-social subscale - measures items like the discussion of media personalities with friends
2) Intense-personal subscale - measures strengths of feelings and levels of obsessions about media personalities
3) Borderline-pathological subscale - measures levels of uncontrollable feelings and behaviour about media personalities.
Absorption addiction model - 2 levels
McCutcheon
Absorption - individuals feel dissatisfied with their lives so follow and admire celebrities to fill gap. They absorb success of celebrities to feel good about themselves - making up for deficit in their lives.
Addiction - where parasocial relationships become addictive for individual criminal behaviour eg stalking. Individual so distorted from reality that they genuinely believe they’re in a relationship with celebrity.
Parasocial relationships- evaluation
❌ socially sensitive - implies only unsuccessful losers end up in parasocial relationships, could be offensive to those who are aware they’re in these types of relationships
✅ practical application - helps ppl move on from their PS relationships, therapist could help map out ways for individual to achieve more success with n their lives or sense of pride
❌ methodological issues - no cause/ effect firmly established - weak correlation
✅ supporting ev, Schappa et al - found significant positive correlation between the amount of to participants, the degree to which they perceived a tv character as ‘real’ and the level of their parasocial relationship
Reduced cues theory - Lee sproull & Sara Kiesler
CMC relationships less effective than F2F ones because they lack many of cues we normally depend on in F2F interactions eg facial expressions and tone of voice. We’re unable to read another’s feelings towards a conversation. Leads to de-individuation - CMC likely to involve blunt and aggressive communication as not interpreted correctly.
Hyperpersonal model - Joseph Walther
CMC relationships self disclose earlier, more intense and intimate. Selective self presentation - online can present themselves in more positive light, will disclose more personal info, can be intensely truthful (hyperhonest) or intensely false (hyper dishonest)
Anonymity - ppl disclose more to strangers, feel less accountable for their behaviour.
Boom and bust - virtual relationships also likely to end quicker, more excitement at beginning but not enough trust to sustain long term.
Evaluation of self-disclosure in virtual relationships
✅ supporting ev, Whitty & Joinson - Qs asked in online discussions tend to be very direct, probing and intimate (hyperhonest). Whereas F2F feature small talk. Self-presentation online can also be hyper dishonest, for instance when ppl invent attractive personal qualities for their online dating profiles.
✅ supporting ev, Kirk Duthler - got 151 students randomly allocated to 1 of 2 conditions - either write an email or record voice mail for professor. Professors rated them on politeness on standard nine-point scale inter-rather reliability or ratings was 0.853
✅ practical app - communication thru internet helps ppl who are less socially skilled & lacking in confidence in F2F situations. Also those who suffer social phobias & find it difficult to leave the house. Helps ppl develop relationships through online self disclosure
❌ cultural differences, Yim & Hara - Americans reported higher disclosure in virtual relationships led to higher levels of trust, Koreans reported higher disclosure in virtual relationships led to lower levels of trust. Research based on western cultures is not applicable to everyone.
Absence of gating
Gates eg speech defects that can be picked up on in F2F encounters cannot be in CMC encounters. Therefore, virtual relationships remove factors that may act as filters or barriers.
McKenna and Bargh - pro of CMC is absence of gating - relationship can develop to point where self disclosure more frequent and deeper - gates no longer barrier.
Absence of gating - evaluation
❌ beta bias
❌ self report - validity and reliability could help questioned
❌ technology advancing - FaceTime, video messages etc - gating is now not as absent as it was 10 years ago
❌ cultural differences - research into VR mostly based on western technological developed cultures. Internet not readily available in some cultures therefore can’t be applied to everyone. Nakanushi - Japanese women prefer lower levels of self disclosure in close relationships- therefore depends on social norms.
