Virtual relationships Flashcards
Self disclosure: difference in FtF and virtual
Self-disclosure refers to revealing personal info about yourself and it increases as a relationship develops
Crucial in FtF relationships
Virtual relationship are formed and maintained online
Self disclosure: Reduced cues theory
Less self-disclosure
(Sproull and Kiesler 1986) suggests that virtual relationships are less effective due to the lack of nonverbal cues (e.g. physical appearance, emotional responses). In FtF relationships we rely on these cues
Lack of cues about emotional state (voice and facial expressions) leads to de-individuation
People then fell freer from the constraints of social norms (disinhibition) and this leads to blunt and even aggressive communication and a reluctance to self-disclose
Self disclosure: Hyperpersonal model
More self-disclosure
(Walther 1996, 2011) suggests that, since self-disclosure happens more quickly in virtual relationships, relationships also develop more quickly
- Sender has control (selective self-presentation) and may be hyperhonest and/or hyperdishonest
- Receiver’s feedback may reinforce sender’s selective self-presentation
Anonymity is an important factor in virtual relationships. ‘Strangers on a train’ - people may disclose a lot in anonymous situations (Bargh et al. 2002)
Absence of gating: What is a ‘gate’?
McKenna and Bargh (1999) argue that ‘gates’ (e.g. facial disfigurements or a stammer) may be obstacles to a FtF relationship
Absence of gating: Benefits and drawbacks
Gates are absent in virtual relationships - so such relationships are more likely to ‘get off the ground’ that FtF relationships and self-disclosures become deeper
Without gates, people are free to be more like their ‘true selves’ in virtual relationships
However, they can also create untrue identities to deceive people - they can change gender or age (catfishing)
AO3 - lack of support for reduced cues theory
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 for FtF nonverbal cues such as facial expressions (Walther and Tidwell)
Suggests virtual relationships can be as personal as FtF (i.e. no differences)
AO3 - lack of research support for the hyperpersonal model
Ruppel et al.’s (2017) meta-ananlysis 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 3 measures. In experimental studies there were no significant differences
This challenges the model’s view that greater intimacy in virtual relationships should lead to greater disclosure than FtF
AO3 + Counter argument to Ruppel
Whitty and Joinson (2009) found that conversations in Virtual relationships are direct and hyperhonest. Self-presentation online can also be hyperdishonest, e.g. inventing qualities for dating profiles
Support’s the model’s claims about hyperhonest and hyperdishonest self-disclosures and shows there are differences between FtF and virtual relationships
AO3 + support for absence of gating
McKenna and Bargh (2000) studied online communication by shy and socially anxious people
71% of the romantic relationships initially formed online survived more than 2 years, compared to 49% formed offline (Kirkpatrik and Davis 1994)
Suggests that shy people do benefit online presumably because the gating that obstructs FtF relationships is absent online
AO3 + support for absence of gating
Peter et al. (2005) found that shy individuals were motivated to communicate more online to compensate for their lack of social skills, which increased their motivation to make friends online, leading to more self-disclosure and intimacy
Suggests that quieter and shy individuals are more attracted to self-disclose in a virtual relationship and can benefit from this type of relationship
AO3 - Culture bound
Yum and Hara (2005) found that American partners associated greater disclosure in virtual relationships with more trust, but Korean partners felt that greater disclosure led to trust. Japanese partners said that disclosure was not a factor
Suggests that the effect of disclosure is mediated by cultural factors and cannot be applied in the same way explain the use of disclosure across cultures
AO3 + Individual differences
Baker and Oswald (2010) suggest that the absence of gating in virtual relationships may be particularly useful for shy people
They asked 207 male and female participants to complete a questionnaire, scoring their answers in terms of shyness, internet use and perception of quality of their friendships
They found that those people who scored highly on shyness and internet use, perceived the quality of their friendships as high; this correlation was absent for people with low shyness and internet use. The finding imply that as online communication helps people to overcome their shyness, so the quality of their FtF communication also improves
AO3 Online versus multimodel
Hyperpersonal model and absence of gating suggest that forming relationships online may be easier, especially for some people
But Walther (2011) argues all relationships are multimodal, conducted both online and offline so both modes influence each other
Suggests we cannot ignore theories of virtual relationships but is wrong to focus on one mode rather than both
