relationships👩❤️💋👨 (virtual relationships in social media) Flashcards
what is the reduced cues theory?
sprout and kindler say CMC relationships are less effective than f2f interactions as they lack cues we usually depend on.
what are virtual relationships more likely to be?
likely to involve blunt and even aggressive communication.
what does CMC lack?
what does this then lead to?
lacks cues to our emotional state, such as face expressions, and tone of voice.
leads to de-individuation bc it reduced ppls sense of individual identity, which in turn encourages disinhibition in relating to others.
what does bluntness in CMC relationships cause?
this upshot of this process is a reluctance to self-disclose. you are unlikely to want to initiate a relationship w someone who is so impersonal, or reveal ur innermost feelings to them.
what is the hyper personal model?
Walther argues that online relationships can be more personal and involve greater self-disclosure than f2f ones.
why can CMC relationships be more personal?
because CMC relationships can be established v quickly due to self-disclosure happening earlier, once established they r more intense and intimate.
why can CMC relationships end quick?
bc high excitement lvl of interaction isn’t matched by lvl of trust between partners. Cooper and sportolari called this boom and bust phenomenon of online relationships.
what does the person have more time to do online?
what is this known as?
what is it then easier to manipulate?
the sender of a message has more time to manipulate online image than they would in f2f situations.
Walther calls this selective self presentation.
bc ppl have more control over what to disclose, and what cues they send, its easier to manipulate self disclosure to promote intimacy in CMC relationships, by presenting a positive n ideal self.
what is said to be a huge advantage of cmc?
what does this mean?
McKenna and bargh argue that a huge advantage of CMC is the absence of gating.
this means that a relationship can develop to the point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper. the absence of gating allows online relationships to get off the ground in a way that wouldn’t ftf.
what are u more likely to do online?
why are u likely to do this?
disclose more ab urself.
bc ppl don’t know ur true identity, therefore u feel less accountable for ur behaviour.
what is the absence of gating in virtual relationships?
ftf interaction is said to be gated, in that it involves many features that can interfere with early development of relationship.
what r examples of gates in a relationship?
examples of gates include unattractiveness, stammer, social anxiety act.
how does the absence of gating work?
what can ppl do online they can’t do ftf?
refocusing attention on self-disclosure and away from what might be considered superficial and distracting features, meaning ur more interested in what someone likes online rather than their appearance. for example, the voice dosnt see ppls face only their voice, which they r judged on.
ppl r free to create identities they could never manage ftf. a man can become a woman, an introvert becomes extrovert oct. anyone can represent themselves how they want.
AO3✅
a strength of this?
research support for hyper personal model- predicts ppl are motivated to self disclose online in ways which are sometimes hyperhonest and sometimes hyperdishonest. whitty and joinson sumarise a wealth of evidence that this is the case, eg, questions asked online tend to be very direct, probing and intimate, which is different to ftf convos. responses are likewise direct and to the point. these finds support a central assertion of the model, which is that the way we self disclose in CMC relationships is designed to present ourselves in a exaggerated positive light which aids relationship formation.
AO3❌
2 weaknesses?
lack of research support for the reduced cues theory- nonverbal cues aren’t absent just missing. Walther and Tidwell point out that ppl in online interactions use other cues, such s style and timing of their msgs. ie, taking long to reply to a social status update is interpreted as a more intimate act than an immediate response. but not too much time, otherwise they might think u don’t like them. clearly there are nuances as there is in ftf relationships. acrostics such as LOL, emojis are used as substitutes for the facial expressions and tone of voice in ftf realtionships. this shows that CMC interactions can be just as personal as those conducted ftf and that its possible to express emotional states in virtual relationships.
Types of CMC- its depth and extent depend on the type of CMC being used. in case of social networking sites, ppl interacting with each other generally have relationships in the offline world. ppl self disclose more in Facebook status’ than they r willing to in completing an online webform, when they are reluctant to disclose info they consider to be private. online dating is an unusual example of CMC with complete strangers. self-disclosure is reduced bc both communicators anticipate future meetings FtF in the online world, a consideration that generally don’t exist in chatrooms. any theory that approaches CMC as a single concept neglects its riches and variety, and therefore is unlikely to be a completely valid explanation
