virtual relationships Flashcards
reduced cues theory
sproull and kiesler (1986)- CMC less effective than FtF bc lack of cues (e.g. physical appearance, emotional state, facial expressions, tone of voice)
- leads to deindividuation as reduces sense of individual identity which encourages disinhibition in relating to others.
- ultimately leads to blunt convos and unwillingness to self-disclose
hyperpersonal model
personal
walther (1996,2011)- CMC more personal and involve greater early self-disclosure than FtF
cooper and sportolari (1997)- ‘boom and bust’ phenomenon. as self disclosure occurs more quickly, CMC more intense and intimate, but can also end quicker because excitement level not matched by level of trust.
hyperpersonal model
selective self-presentation
key feature of CMC. sender has greater control over what to disclose and what cues they send. can manipulate their online image in a positive and idealised way. to achieve this, SDs can be hyperhonest or hyperdishonest.
often reinforced through positive feedback from reciever.
hyperpersonal model
anonymity
bargh (2002)- anonymity promotes self-disclosure and makes relationships hyper personal
- feel less accountable for behaviour if people don’t know identity, so more likely to disclose more
what is a gate?
any obstacle to the formation of a relationship
e.g. physical attractiveness, social anxiety
absence of gating
benefits
mckenna and barg (1999)- huge advantage of CMC
- more attention focused on SD than superficial and distracting features
- relationship can therefore develop to stage where SD becomes deeper and more frequent
- people also feel more free to be their ‘true selves’
absence of gating
negative consequences
means that people are free to create untrue online identities to decieve people.
e.g. changing gender or age
limitation- reduced cues
walther and tidwell (1995)- cues not absent just diff.
online use other cues like style and timing of messages. e.g. taking time to reply to message may be more intimate than imediate response, but taking too long can be negative.
acronyms, emoticons and emojis effective substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice.
CMC just as personal as FtF.
limitation- hyperpersonal model
ruppel (2017)- meta-analysis 25 studies comparing SDs in FtF and virtual interactions
self-report studies showed that frequency, breadth and depth of SDs all greater in FtF relationships
experimental studies showed no significant diffs
contradicts model’s view that greater intimacy of virtual leads to greater and deeper SDs than FtF
counter- hyperpersonal
some evidence that FtF and virtual differ in type of SDs used
whitty and joinson (2009)- questions asked in online discussions tend to be very direct, probing and intimate (hyperhonest). diff from FtF with ‘small talk’.
self-presentation online can also be hyperdishonest, e.g. people inventing attractive personal qualities for online dating profiles.
supports model’s claims about hyperhonest and hyperdishonest SDs and shows there are diffs between FtF and virtual relationships
strength- absence of gating
mckenna and bargh (2000)- looked at shy ppl’s online communications. socially anxious people more comfortable expressing ‘true selves’ virtually. 71% of shy romantic relationships initially formed online survived at least 2 years.
kirkpatrick and davis (1994)- 49% shy offline.
suggests that absence of gating virtually can help relationship development as shy people benefit online
issue- online vs multimodal
hyperpersonal and absence of gating- more SD in virtual bc of features unique to online relationships, e.g. selective self-presentation
walther (2011)- all relationships multimodal. we conduct them both online and offline rather than either/or. what we disclose virtually is influenced by offline interactions, and vice versa. e.g. if we know someone offline or expect to meet them we may be less inclined to SD indimate info.
theories limited explanation. focus on one mode (virtual) rather than both- but influence each other.
