relationships- virtual relationships Flashcards
self-disclosure
revealing personal info ab yourself, and it increases as relationship develops
what are the two opposing theories of s-d in virtual relationships?
-reduced cues theory (less s-d)
-hyperpersonal model (more s-d)
nature of virtual relationships
-formed and maintained online by email, instant messaging, social networking sites etc
reduced cues theory
-Sproull and Kiesler (1986)
-VR less effective due to lack of non-verbal cues (e.g. physical appearance, emotional responses, etc). in FtF rely on these cues
-lack of cues ab emotional state (voice/facial expressions) leads to de-individuation
-people then freer from constraints of social norms (disinhibition) leads to blunt and even aggressive communication and a reluctance to s-d
who came up with reduced cues theory?
Sproull and Kiesler (1986)
hyperpersonal model
-Walther (1996, 2011)
-s-d more quick in VR, relationships develop more quickly
1. sender has control (selective self-presentation) and may be hyperhonest and/or hyperdishonest
2. receivers feedback may reinforce sender’s selective self-presentation
-anonymity important in VR, ‘strangers on a train’- people may disclose a lot in anonymous situations (Bargh et al. 2002)
what is a ‘gate’?
-any obstacle to forming a relationship
-McKenna and Bargh (1999) argue that ‘gates’ (facial disfigurements or a stammer) may be obstacles to a FtF relationship
how does the absence of gating positively affect VRs?
-McKenna and Bargh (1999) gates absent in VR so more likely to ‘get off the ground’ than FtF relationships and s-d become deeper
-w/o gates people free to be more like ‘true selves’ in VR
-focus on s-d rather than superficial and distracting features
how does the absence of gating negatively affect VRs?
can create untrue identities to deceive people- they can change gender or age, a shy person can become an extravert
ao3 of VRs: lack of support for reduced cues theory
-online cues not absent but different from FtF, e.g. taking time to respond on social media more intimate than immediate reply
-acronyms (e.g. LOL), emoticons and emojis effective substitutes for FtF nonverbal cues such as facial expressions (Walther and Tidwell 1995)
-suggests not a total absence of cues and its hard for RCT to explain effect of this nuanced communication challenging its validity as an explanation
ao3 of VRs: lack of research support for the hyperpersonal model
-Ruppel et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis compared the frequency, breadth and depth of s-d in FtF and VR
-in self-report studies, s-d greater in FtF relationships on all three measures. in experimental study there were no differences
-challenges models view of greater intimacy in VR should lead to greater s-d than FtF
ao3 of VRs: support for absence of gating in VRs
-McKenna and Bargh (2000) studied online communication by shy and socially anxious people
-in group, 71% of relationships initially formed online survived more than two years compared to 49% formed offline (Kirkpatrick and Davis 1994)
-suggests shy people do benefit online presumably bc of gating that obstructs FtF relationships is absent
