Virtual Relationships

Question 1

What are 2 drawbacks of virtual relationships?

Answer 1

Catfishing.

Based purely on face value.

Online identities are user-created, so may not be valid.

Question 2

What are 2 positives of virtual relationships?

Answer 2

Allows for greater and wider meeting opportunities.

Technology is always advancing, so relationships may feel more real.

Confidence increased, as the person is not face-face.

Facilitating the increase in inter-racial relationships.

Spread the acceptance of homosexual relationships.

Question 3

Who proposed the Reduced Cues Theory? When?

Answer 3

Sproull and Kiesler in 1986.

Question 4

What does CMC stand for?

Answer 4

Computer Mediated Communication.

Question 5

What did Sproull and Kiesler state about CMC relationships?

Answer 5

CMC relationships are less effective than F2F ones because they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in F2F interactions.​

Question 6

What cues are Sproull and Kiesler referring to in the Reduced Cues Theory?​

Answer 6

Non-verbal cues like physical appearance, facial expressions, tone of voice and emotional state.​

Question 7

Sproull and Kiesler thought that a reduction in non-verbal cues lead to what? Why?

Answer 7

De-individuation.

This is because it reduces people’s sense of individual identity, which encourages disinhibition.

Virtual relationships are therefore more likely to involve blunt and even aggressive communication.

Question 8

Sproull and Kiesler believe that the deindividuation created by a lack of cues create aggression and bluntness in relationships.

What did they say this then created?

Answer 8

A reluctance to self-disclose.

You’re unlikely to want to initiate a relationship with someone who is so impersonal, or reveal your inner most feeling to them.

Question 9

Who proposed the Hyperpersonal Model? When?

Answer 9

Walther, 1996.

Question 10

What did Walter argue about online relationships?

Answer 10

They can be more personal and involve greater self-disclosure than F2F ones.

Question 11

Walther believed that CMC relationships can involve greater self-disclosure than F2F ones.

Why?

Answer 11

CMC relationships can develop very quickly as self-disclosure happens earlier, and once established are more intense and intimate.

Question 12

Who dubbed the ‘boom and bust phenomenon’? What is it?

(Hyperpersonal Model)

Answer 12

Cooper and Sportolari (1997)

CMC relationships can also end quickly if the high excitement of the interaction isn’t matched by the level of trust between the relationship partners.

Question 13

According to the Hyperpersonal Model, what is a key feature of self-disclosure in virtual relationships?

Answer 13

Selective self-preservation.

Question 14

Outline Walther’s idea of ‘selective self-preservation’.

Answer 14

The idea that the sender in an online relationship has the time and ability to manipulate their online image, something that wouldn’t be possible F2F.

Question 15

People online have more control over what to disclose and the cues they send. What does this make it easier to do?

Answer 15

This means it’s much easier to manipulate self-disclosure to promote intimacy in CMC, by self-presenting in a positive and idealised way.

Question 16

Walther’s idea of selective self-preservation links to what other 2 concepts?

Answer 16

Maslow’s ideas of the self.
You can create your own personal image.
Presenting the self in its best light.

Links to social desirability bias.

Question 17

What role does anonymity this plays in online relationships?

(Hyperpersonal Model)

Answer 17

When others don’t know your identity, you feel less accountable for your behaviour.

You may well disclose more about yourself to them than you would to an intimate partner.

This links to Bargh et al’s (2002) ‘stranger on the train effect in F2F’

Question 18

Outline Bargh et al’s (2002) ‘stranger on the train effect in F2F’.

Answer 18

The idea that strangers on a train strike up conversation due to the ease of leaving (getting off the train) and never seeing the other conversing stranger again.

People self-disclose greater due to this effect, as others do not know you (you feel less accountable for what you say).

Question 19

What is a gate?

(Absence of gating)

Answer 19

A gate in this context is any obstacle to the formation of a relationship.

F2F interaction is said to be gated, in that it involves many features that can interfere with the early development of a relationship.

Examples of gates:
- Distance.
- Disability. (e.g. speech impediment).
- Age.
- Shyness.
- Lack of confidence.
- Occupation.
- Self-esteem (e.g. physical unattractiveness).
- Social anxiety.

Question 20

Outline the involvement of absence of gating in relationships.

Answer 20

F2F interactions are said to be gated, in that it involves many features that can interfere with the early development of a relationship.

Question 21

Give 3 examples of gates.

(Absence of gating)

Answer 21

Distance.

Disability. (e.g. speech impediment).

Age.

Shyness.

Lack of confidence.

Occupation.

Self-esteem (e.g. physical unattractiveness).

Social anxiety.

Question 22

McKenna and Bargh (1999) argue that a huge advantage of CMC is the absence of gating.

Why is this an advantage?

Answer 22

It means that a relationship can develop to the point where self-disclosure become more frequent and deeper.

It allows the relationship to get off the ground.

Absence of gating works by re-focusing attention on self-disclosure rather what may be considered superficial and distracting.

Question 23

Outline Walther and Tidwell’s research from 1995.

Answer 23

Pointed out that people in online interactions use other cues, such as style and timing of their messages.

For instances taking time to reply to a social media messages can be interpreted as a more intimate act than an immediate response; but not too much time as this could be perceived as a snub.

Acrostics (such as LOL), emoticons and emojis are used as effective substitutes for facial expressions.

Question 24

Evaluate Walther and Tidwell’s research from 1995.

Answer 24

Presents alternatives in response to a lack of cues, showing that virtual relationships can still be positive.

Challenges reduced cue theory, as it shows that you can have cues online.

Doesn’t have temporal validity - emojis have become better in recent technological advances (communication).

Question 25

Outline McKenna and Bargh’s research from 2000.

Answer 25

Looked at socially anxious people.

They found that such people were able to express their ‘true selves’ when talking CMC, more than in F2F.

Of the romantic relationships that initially formed online, 70% survived more than two years.

Question 26

Evaluate McKenna and Bargh’s research from 2000.

Answer 26

Links to absence of gating; without F2F pressure people are granted more freedom.

It supports the idea of absence of gating in being able to form successful relationships, as more than 70% survived 2 years.

Supports the hyperpersonal theory, as people are sharing more (increased self-disclosure).

Question 27

Outline McKenna et al’s research from 2002.

Answer 27

Supports ‘absence of gating’.

This is because they found that participants who interacted with someone in person, and then in an online chatroom were more liked when they met via the internet than face to face, as communications were more intimate.

This suggests that superficial gating features of face-to-face interactions, e.g. degree of self-esteem, dominate and overwhelm other factors that lead to less intimate disclosure and weaker attraction.

Question 28

Outline Bargh et al’s research from 2002.

Answer 28

Supports the idea that a lack of gating can help to develop virtual relationships quickly.

This is because they found that intimacy developed more quickly with CMC relationships than F2F relationships because of a lack of gating features that typically prevent intimate disclosures in face-to-face relationships.

This suggests that the presence of gates in F2F interactions can be severely limiting in a relationship.

However, Cooper et al (1997) stated that CMC relationships can also end quickly because of the increased self-disclosure (intimacy), potentially not matched by levels of trust between the partners.

This suggests that CMC relationships may not be as development as first seemed.

Question 29

Outline Rosemann and Safir’s research from 2006.

Answer 29

Supports the idea that the absence of gates in CMC relationships can allow individuals to behave naturally.

This is because they used questionnaires to find that CMC interactions allowed individuals to experiment with and reveal non-conventional identities to others that would not be possible via face-to-face interactions, due to restrictive gating features.

This demonstrates how virtual relationships allow people to develop intimate relationships based more upon their true selves than face-to-face relations could.