relationships P3 Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

factors affecting attraction consists of?

A

physical attractiveness
filter theory
self disclosure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What does physical attraction consist of?

A

Halo effect
-symmetry
-baby faces
Matching hypothesis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Why does symmetry affect attractiveness? shackleford & Larsen 1997

A

S&L found that people with more symetrical faces are rated as more attractive

  • signal of genetic fitness that can’t be faked - making it an ‘honest’ signal
  • an evolutionary explanation -attributes that signal high quality and naturally selected
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Why are baby faces seen as attractive?

A

Neotenous features trigger protective and caring instincts, related to the formation of attachment in infancy
-evolutionary, as features strengthen attachment -> naturally selected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the Halo effect describing?

A

how physical attractiveness is generalised
-hold preconceived ideas about the attributes of physically attractive people, belief that all over attributes are overwhelmingly positive
Dion 1972

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what did dion 1972 find in relation the halo effect?

A

that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared with unattractive people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what is meant by matching hypothesis?

A

we choose partners who match us in attractiveness (physical and intelligence etc)
-Waltser 1996

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what was the procedure of walster 1966?

A

computer dance-752 first year students at university of minnesota, students rated on physical attractiveness when picking up tickets by objective observers and completed questionnaires about attraction
ppts told data used was to pair partners but was randomly paired

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what was the findings of walster?

A

physically attractive partners were most liked and more likely to be asked on another date - not support

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what did Berschied 1971 find when they replicated waltsers experiment?

A

replicated the study
students selected partners themselves
-chose partners of similar physical attractiveness
-suggests we tend to seek and choose partners whose physical attractiveness matches our own
-partner choice is a compromise, we avoid rejection by the most physically attractive and settle for those in our league

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

A strength for physical attractiveness is RS for halo effect

A

Palmer & Peterson 2012 found that physically attractive people were rated more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.

  • this halo effect persisted even when participants were told the ‘knowledgeable’ people had no expertise
  • > this suggests dangers for democracy if politicians are elected just because they are considered physically attractive by enough voters
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

A strength for PA is RS for evolutionary processes.

A

Cunningham 1995 found large eyes and a small nose in females were rated as attractive by white, Asian and Hispanic males

  • > what is considered physically attractive is consistent across cultures - attractive features are of a sign of genetic fitness and therefore perpetuated (sexual selection)
  • > therefore the importance of physical attractiveness makes sense in evolutionary terms
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

A limit for physical attraction is real-world research does not support matching hypothesis

A

Taylor 2011 studied online dating activity logs, which measured actaul dating choices and not fantasy preferences.
this real-world test of the hypothesis found that people sought dates with partners who were more physically attractive than themselves.
-> this contradicts the central prediction that real couples seek to match attractiveness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

A counterpoint of physical attractiveness, of the limit

A

choosing people for dating is different from real-world romance
Feingold’s 1988, meta-analysis found a significant correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners
-ppl who may express ideals in dating selection and also in lab research
->this shows there is support for the matching hypothesis from real-world studies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is meant by filter theory?

A

a field of available and field of desirables

  • Kerckhoff & Davis 1962 explains attraction in terms of attitudes & personalities
    1. we consider the field of availables - potential partners who are accesible
    2. from this we select the field of desirables via three filters of varying importance at different stages of a relationship
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what is the 1st filter?

A

-social demography
factors that influence chance of meeting
-features which decribes populations, social demographics include geographical locations & social class
-more likely to meet & have meaningful encounters with ppl who are physically close & share other features with yourself
-anyone who is too different is not a potential partner -> filtered out before next stage -> outcome = homogamy, partner is similar to you

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what is the 2nd filter?

A

similarity in attitudes

  • sharing beliefs & values, important for couples who have been together less than 18months, in early stages of relationship, agreeing on basic values promotes good communication & self disclosure
  • law of attraction, bryne 1997, found that similarity in attitudes causes mutual attraction, no similarity exists -> relationship fades after few dates
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

what is the 3rd filter?

A

complementarity

  • partners meet each other’s needs, partners complement each other when they have traits the other lacks e.g. one may enjoy making the other laugh & other enjoys being made to laugh
  • important in longer term, complementarity is thought to give the romantic partners feeling of togetherness & making a whole
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

A strength of the filter theory is support from Kerckhoff & Davis’ original study

A

Dating couples completed questionnaires to measure similarity of attitudes/values, complementarity of needs & relationship closeness.
closeness was linked to similarity of values only for partners together less than 18months. complementarity of needs was more important in longer relationships
-> this is evidence that similarity is important in the early stages of a relationship, but complementarity becomes more important later

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

A counterpoint of strength for filter theory

A

original findings not replicated perhaps due to social changes and assumption that partners together more than 18 months must be more committed.
-> this assumption is questionable so filter theory is based on research evidence that lacks validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

A limitation of filter theory is that complementarity doesn’t always predict satisfaction

A

filter theory predicts high levels of satisfaction in a relationship with complementarity e.g. one partner needs to be dominant and the other needs to submissive.
but Markey & Markey 2013, found that long term lesbian romantic partners were most satisfied when both partners were equally dominant.
-> Therefore similarity of needs rather than complementarity may be associated with long-term satisfaction, at least in some couples

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

A limit or filter theory is that perceived similarity matters more

A

Actual similarity is linked to attraction only in very brief lab-based interactions. Perceived similarity found more important in real-world relationships. One interpretation is that romantic partners perceive they have more similarities as they become more attracted to each other.
-> this means that perceived similarity may be an effect of attraction and not a cause - not predicted by filter theory.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

A extra eval for filter theory is social change

A

Filter theory claims physical location & other demographic factors initially filter the field of availables down to people similar to ourselves (homogamy).
However, the role of filters had changed - online dating increases the field of availables beyond location. Such social changes increase relationships between people from different backgrounds.
-> this means filter theory needs to be adapted to explain modern relationships by completely revising the features of the 1st level filter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

eval extra for physical attractiveness is individual differences

A

A lot of evidence indicates the important role of physical attractiveness in relationship formation e,g, sexual selection.
But some people are not affected by attractiveness, Touhey found that people with non sexist attitudes were uninfluenced by physical attraction when judging the likeability of potential partners.
-> this shows that the impact of physical attractiveness is moderated by other factors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

what is the theory of romantic relationships consisted of?

A

Social exchange theory
Equity theory
Rusbult’s model
Ducks phase model

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

what is meant by self disclosure?

A

it’s important early in relationships
-refers to revealing intimate information to another person
e.g. fears, likes and dislikes
share what really matters to us
most ppl are careful about disclosing too much too soon
-important role in developing a relationship beyond initial attraction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

why does the social penetration theory relate to self disclosure?

A
  • self disclosure is limited at the start of relationships, Altman & taylor 1973 suggests it is a gradual process revealing your inner self to someone else, a sign of trust & partner needs to reciprocate
  • penetration -> development, as reveal more, become more penetrated into each others lives, deprenetration - dissatisfied partners disclose less as they disengage
  • breadth of info is narrow to begin with, as if too much info is revealed it can be off putting
  • depth increases -> more layers are gradually revealed, revealing more intimate info like painful memories etc.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

what is meant by reciprocity of self disclosure?

A

a need for reciprocity for a relationship to develop

  • Reis & Shaver 1988 suggest that in addition to a broadening and deepening of self disclosure, there must be reciprocity
  • successful relationships will involve disclosure from one partner which is recieved sensitively by the other partner -> leading to further self disclosure from other partner
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

A strength for self disclosure is support from research studies

A

Sprecher & Hendrick 2004 found strong correlations between measures of satisfaction and self disclosure in heterosexual couples. Men and women who used self disclosure were more satisfied with and committed to their romantic relationship.
-> this supports the validity of the view that reciprocated self disclosure is a key part of a satisfying relationship

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Counterpoint for support of self disclosure

A

Researchers found strong positive correlations but this does not mean that self disclosure causes relationships to be satisfying, it may be that satisfied partners disclose morre or both caused by time spent together.
-> this suggests that self disclosure may not cause satisfaction directly, which reduces the validity of social penetration theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

strength for self disclosure is real world application to improve communication

A

Hass & Stafford 1998 found that 57% of homosexual men and women reported they used open and honest self disclosure as a relationship maintenance strategy.
Couples who limit communication to small talk can be encouraged to increase self disclosure in order to deepen their own relationships.
-> this highlights the importance of self disclosure and suggests the theory can be used to support people having relationship problems.

32
Q

A limit for self disclosure is it’s not satisfying in all cultures

A

Tang 2013 concluded that people in the US, individualist culture, self disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than people in China, collectivist culture. Even though the level of disclosure was lower in china, relationship satisfaction was no different from that in the US.
-> therefore social penetration theory is a limited explanation of romantic relationships because it is not neccesarily generalisable to other cultures.

33
Q

what does social exchange theory consist of?

A

assumes relationships are guided by the minimax principle

  • nature of costs and rewards
  • Cl is a measure of profit
  • CLalt is an additional measure of profit
  • CLalt depends on our current relationship
  • four stages of a relationship
34
Q

what is meant by the minimax principle?

A

Thibault & Kelley 1959
proposed that relationships could be explained in terms of economics - an exchange of goods or less intangible things.
-satisfaction is judged in terms of profit, the perceived value of costs minus the value of rewards
-partners are motivated to minimise the costs to themselves whilst maximising rewards
-profitable relationships continue, unprofitable relationships fail

35
Q

what is meant by the nature of costs and rewards?

A

costs may include loss of time or stress
rewards may include sex, praise or companionship
-opportunity cost needs to be accounted for, the recognition that investment in a given relationship is at the cost of expending those resources elsewhere

36
Q

what is meant by comparison level?

A

a judgement of the reward level we believe we deserve in a relationship, determined by relationship experiences and social norms
-we will generally persue a relationship where the CL is high but some people may have low CLs

37
Q

what is meant by comparison level for alternatives? CLalt

A

we consider whether we might gain more rewards and endure fewer costs in a different relationship or none

  • we stay in a relationship, despite the alternative available, when we consider it is more rewarding than the alternatives
  • if relationship is satisfying, alternatives aren’t noticed
38
Q

what does comparison level of alternatives depend on?

A

the current relationship
duck 1994 suggests that there are always alternatives around
-if the costs of our current relationship outweigh the rewards than alternatives become more attractive

39
Q

what are the four stages of a relation ship according to SET?

A

sampling stage - exploring rewards anf costs by experiementing in our relationships & observing others
Bargaining stage - start of a relationship where partners negotiate around costs and rewards
Commitment stage - more stable relationship, costs reduce and rewards increase
Institutionalisation stage - partners become settled, as norms of relationships are established

40
Q

A strength of SET is research support of its concepts

A

Kurdeck 1995 interviewed homo and heterosexual couples, committed partners percieved they had most rewards and fewer costs and also viewed alternatives as unattractive.
The study showed that the main SET concepts predicting commitment are independent of each other, so they individually have an effect.
-> the findings confirmed predictions of SET, supporting the validity of the theory in gay and lesbian, as well as heterosexual couples.

41
Q

counterpoint for strength of SET

A

studies into SET ignore the role of equity, what matters in a relationship is not a balance of rewards and costs but the partners perception that this is fair
-> therefore set is limited exp. because it can’t account for a significant proportion of research findings that confirm the importance of equity

42
Q

A limit of set is the direction of cause and effect

A

SET claims that we become disattisfied after we perceive costs outweigh rewards or alternatives seem more attractive.
But Argyle 1987 argues dissatisfaction comes first, then we start to perceive costs and alternatives - committed partners do not even notice alternatives.
-> therefore considering costs/alternatives is caused by dissatisfaction rather than the reverse - a direction not predicted by SET

43
Q

A LIMIT FOR SET IS THE CONCEPTS ARE VAGUE

A

unlike in research, real world rewards/ costs are subjective and hard to define because they vary e.g. having your partners loyalty is not rewarding for everyone. Also comparison levels are problematic - it is unclear what the values of CL and CLalt need to be before individuals feel dissatisfied.
-> this means SET is difficult to test in a valid way

44
Q

what is the role of equity in relationships?

A
  • most ppl have a need for equity, SET suggests that partners aim to maximise the rewards and minimise the cost of a relationship, contrastingly Walster 1978, proposed that equit is more important- partners level of profit should be the same
  • the underbenefitted partner is likely to be the least satisfied & feel anger or resentment
  • the overbenefitted partner may feel less dissatisfied but is likely to feel discomfort and shame
  • equity is about fairness of ratios,
45
Q

what are the consequences of inequity?

A
  • the greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction - equity theory predicts a strong positive correlation between the two -> applies to both partners,
  • at the start -> relationship is perfectly natural to contribute more than you recieve -> if continues, dissatisfaction will set in
  • underbenefitted partner is motivated to make the relationship more equitable if they belief the relationship is salvageable
  • change could be cognitive, a dissatisfied partner may revise their perceptions of rewards and costs, to make it feel more satisfying
  • what was once perceived as a cost can become accepted as the norm for a relationship
46
Q

A strength of equity theory is research support

A

Utne 1984
conducted a survey with recently married couples who had been together for more than two years before marrying. Those who thought their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over or under benefitting.
-> this study supports the central predictions of equity theory that equity is a major concern of couples and is linked with satisfaction

47
Q

counterpoint to equity strength

A

Berg & McQuinn 1986
found that equity did not distinguish between relationships which ended and those that continued - other variables were more important.
-> this means the validity of the theory is in doubt because the predictions of the theory are not supported by research

48
Q

a limit to equity theory is it may not be valid in all cultures

A

Aumer-Ryan 2007
found that couples in an individualistic culture were most satisfied when their relationship was equitable.
However, partners in a collectivist culture were most satisfied when over benefitting, so no explained by gender differences.
-> This suggests that the theory is limited because it only applies to some cultures

49
Q

a limit to equity is there are individual differences

A

Huseman 1987 suggest that not all partners are concerned about equity. Benevolents are happy to contribute more than they get - underbenefit and entitleds believe they deserve to over benefit and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
-> this shows that a desire for equity varies from one individual to another & is not a universal feature of romantic relationships.

50
Q

why is rusbults investment model seen as an extension of social exchange theory?

A
  • it further developed SET
  • a satisfying relationship is one where the partners are getting more out of the relationship than they expect, given social norms and their previous experiences
51
Q

what 3 factors are said to lead to commitment in rusbults model?

A
  1. Satisfaction - the extent to which partners feel the rewards of the romantic relationship exceed the costs
  2. Comparison with alternatives - a judgement about whether a relationship with a different partner would increase rewards and reduce costs
  3. Investment - the resources associated with a romantic relationship that would be lost if the relationship ended
52
Q

what are the two types of investment?

A

Intrinsic - resources put directly into the relationship e.g. money, time, self disclosure
Extrinsic - investments that did not feature in the relationship which are now closely associated with it e.g. memories, a jointly purchased house

53
Q

what is commitment determined by according to rusbult?

A

determined by satisfaction + alternatives + investment
-high levels of satisfaction + the alternatives are less attractive +the sizes of investment are increasing = partners will be committed to the relationship

54
Q

satisfaction vs commitment in rusbults model

A

Commitment is the main factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships, satisfaction contributes to commitment
-explains why dissatisfied partners stay in a relationship when their level of investment is high. they will be willing to put in the work to repair problems in the relationship so their investment is not wasted

55
Q

What are relationship maintenance mechanisms?

A

committed partners use maintenance behaviours to keep the relationship going:

  1. Accommodating - promoting the relationship
  2. Willingness to sacrifice - put partners interests first
  3. forgiveness
  4. positive illusions
  5. Ridiculing alternatives
56
Q

A strength of rusbults model is research support from a meta analysis

A

Le & Agnew 2003 review found that satisfaction, CLalt and investment size all predicted commitment - commitment linked with greater stability & longevity.
The outcomes were true for both men and women, across all cultures and for homosexual & heterosexual relationships.
-> this suggests that the model’s claim that these factors are universally important in relationships is valid

57
Q

counterpoint for strength of rusbults model

A

Research studies show strong correlations between factors, but it does not follow that these factors cause commitment e.g. perhaps commitment comes before investment
-> therefore it is not clear that the model has identified the causes of commitment rather than the factors that are associated with it

58
Q

A strength for rusbults model is it can explain why people stay in abusive relationships

A

Rusbult & Martz 1995 studied abused women staying at a shelter. Those reporting the greatest investments and fewest alternatives were the most likely to return to abusive partners.
The women in this study were dissatisfied with their relationships but returned to their partners because they were committed to them
-> therefore the model shows that satisfaction on its own can’t explain why people stay in relationships - commitment & investment are also factors

59
Q

A limit of rusbults model is that it oversimplifies investment

A

Goodfriend & Agnew 2008 argue that there is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into a relationship.
Early in a relationship partners make very few actual investments but they do invest in future plans - these motivate partners to commit
-> this means that the original model is a limited explanation as it fails to consider the true complexity of investment

60
Q

what is ducks phase model?

A

2007

  • a phase model of relationship breakdown, duck argued that the ending of a relationship is not a one-off event but a process that takes time and goes through four distinct phases
  • each phase has a threshold, which the perception of the relationship changes , the dissatisfied partner may reassess & decide the relationship isn’t so bad or may cross threshold and go to next phase
61
Q

what are the ducks four phase model?

A

Intra-psychic
Dyadic
Social
Grave dressing

62
Q

what happens during the intra psychic phase?

A

threshold ‘ i cant stand this anymore’

  • indicating a determination that something has to change
  • a partner becomes dissatisfied w relationship in its current form, then worry about the reasons for this -> focus on partners shortcomings
  • will keep to themselves but may share this with trusted friend & weigh up pros and cons
63
Q

what happens during the dyadic phase of ducks model?

A

‘i would be justified in leaving’

  • once a partner concludes that they are justified in leaving the relationship, they have to discuss with their partner
  • dissatisfactions about equity, commitment are aired
  • self disclosures might be more frequent as partners reveal true feelings
64
Q

what happens during the social phase of ducks model?

A

the dissatisfied partner concludes ‘i mean it’

  • once a partner wants to end the relationship they will seek support particularly from joint friends
  • these friends may choose a side but others may try & prevent the break-up by acting as a go-between
  • once the news is public, this is usually where the point of no return is.
65
Q

what happens during the grave dressing phase?

A

‘its now inevitable’ ‘its time for a new life’
once the end of becomes inevitable then a suitable story of the relationship and its end is prepared for wider consumption
-this is likely to include an attempt to ensure that the storyteller will be judged most favourably
-this creation of a personal story in addition to the public one is necessary so the partner can move on
-begin to publicise a relationship

66
Q

A strength of duck is its application to real world relationship breakdown

A

The model suggests that some repair strategies might be more effective at one stage of relationship breakdown rather than another.
For example, in the intra psychic partners could worry more positively about each other. Improving communication skills is beneficial in the dyadic phase
-> this suggests that the model can provide supportive insights to help people through difficult times in their lives

67
Q

counterpoint for duck strength

A

Moghaddem 1993 argue the model is based on breakdown in individualist cultures where relationships are mostly voluntary and often end.
Relationships in collectivist cultures are often obligatory and less easy to end - the whole concept of romantic relationship differs between cultures.
-> therefore the models application to reverse breakdown can only be applied in some cultures

68
Q

A limitation of duck is the model is incomplete

A

Rollie & Duck 2006 added a resurection phase in which ex partners apply to future relationships what they have learned from the recent past.
Also partners may return to earlier phases at any point and processes are more important than linear movement through phases.
-> this means the original model does not take into account of the complexity of breakdown and its dynamic nature

69
Q

limit of duck is that early phases are less well explained

A

Research ppt’s recall relationship breakdown retrospectively, so report may not be accurate. The intra psychic phase happens longer ago and partners may spend a long time in it, so recall of what happened could be especially distorted.
-> therefore the model doesn’t explain the early part of the breakdown processes as well as later phases

70
Q

how does self disclosure change when in virtual relationships?

A

self disclosure refers to revealing personal information and it increases as a relationship develops

  • self disclosure is crucial in FtoT relationships but what about virtual relationships?
  • these relationships are formed and maintained online e.g. email, social networking
71
Q

how does reduced cues theory affect virtual relationships?

A

reduced cues theory Sproull & Kiesler 1986 suggests that virtual relationships are less effective due to the lack of non verbal cues e.g. physical appearance
in FtoF we rely on these cues
-lack of cues about emotional state leads to deinviduation
-people then feel freer from the constraints of social norms & this leads to blunt and even aggressive communication and a reluctance to self-disclose

72
Q

what does hyperpersonal model suggests about self disclosure and virtual relationships?

A

Walther 1996, 2011 - Hyperpersonal model
suggests that since self disclosure happens more quickly in virtual relationships, relationships develop more quickly.
1. Sender has control & may be hyperhonest or hyperdishonest
2. Receivers feedback may reinforce senders selective self presentation
-Anonymity is an important factor
-‘Strangers on a train’ - people disclose a lot in anonymous situations

73
Q

what are the effects of absence of gating in virtual relationships?

A

argue a ‘gate’ is obstacles to a FtoF relationship- McKenna and Bargh

  • gates are absent so such relationships develop quicker than FtoF relationships and self disclosure becomes deeper
  • w/o gates people are free to be more like their true selves in virtual relationships
  • however -> create untrue identities to deceive people -> change gender, age or personality
74
Q

A limit for virtual relationships is lack of support for reduced cues theory

A

Online cues are not absent but different from FtF, e.g. taking time to respond on social media is more intimate than an immediate reply.
Acronyms, emoticons and emojis are effective substitutes to FtF nonverbal cues such as facial expressions.
-> this is hard for reduced cues theory to explain because it suggests virtual relationships can be as personal as FtF

75
Q

A limit for virtual relationships is a lack of research support for the hyperpersonal model

A

Ruppel 2017 meta analysis compared the frequency, breadth and depth of self disclosures in FtF and virtual relationships. In self report studies, self disclosure was greater in FTF relationships on all three measures. In experimental studies there were no significant differences.
-> this challenges the models view that greater intimacy in virtual relationships should lead to greater self disclosure than FTF

76
Q

A counterpoint for virtual relationships lack of support for hyperpersonal model

A

Whitty & Joinson 2009 found that conversations in virtual relationships are direct and hyperhonest. Self presentation online can also be hyper dishonest e.g. inventing dating profiles
-> this supports the models claims about hyperhonest and hyperdishonest self-disclosures and shows there are differences between FtF and virtual relationships.

77
Q

A strength of virtual relationships is support for absence of gating in virtual relationships

A

McKenna & Bargh 2000
studied online communications by shy and socially anxious people.
In this group, 71% of the romantic relationships initially formed online survived more than two years, compared to 49% formed offline.
-> this suggests that shy people do benefit online presumably because the gating that obstructs FtF relationships is absent online