Virtual Relationships Flashcards
Outline the reduced cue theory
According to Sproull & Kiesler (1986), virtual relationships less effective than FtF as they lack many cues we normally depend on in FtF interactions
Include nonverbal cues like physical appearance & especially cues to our emotional state
Reduces person’s sense of individual identity in virtual relationships (de-individuation) - leading to disinhibition
People feel freer to communicate in blunt & aggressive ways - unlikely to want to express real thoughts & feelings to someone who’s impersonal
Outline hyper personal model
Walther (1996,2011) - virtual relationships can be more personal & greater self-disclosure than FtF
Bc virtual relationships can develop fast as self-disclosure happens earlier & once established they’re more intense & intimate. 2 key features:
1. Message sender has greater control over what to disclose & cues they send than they would in FtF situation - selective self-presentation. Sender manipulates self-image to present themselves in idealised way. To achieve this, self-disclosure both hyperhonest & hyperdishonest.
2. Receiver gains + impression of sender, they may give feedback (respond to FB post) that reinforces sender’s selective self-presentation (“Wow you sound like happy person”)
Outline what is meant by a ‘gate’
Any obstacle to forming relationship
FtF interaction = gated - involves many features that can interfere with early development of relationship (or guide it in 1 direction & away from others)
E.g. - physical unattractiveness, stammer, social anxiety, etc.
Outline the benefits & drawbacks of the effects of absence of gating in virtual relationships
B - Most of gates absent - virtual relationship can develop to point where self-disclosure as more freq & deeper. Thus relationship can ‘get off ground’ in way that’s less likely to happen FtF
D - Works by refocusing attention on S-D & away from superficial & distracting features - In virtual relationship more interested in what you tell me than what you sound/look like
B - Individual feels like ‘true selves’ - Scope for people to create untrue identities & deceive people in ways they could never manage FtF. Person can change gender/age - introvert becomes extravert, plain person world’s sex symbol. Ultimate expression of ungated existence is Second Life, where anyone can create any kind of avatar to represent themselves in virtual reality
Evaluate virtual relationships in social media
Limitation - LACK OF SUPPORT FOR REDUCED CUES (different rather than absent)
E.g. - Walther & Tidwell (1995) point out people in online interactions use other cues, like style & timing of messages, e.g. taking time to reply to social media status update may be more intimate act than immediate, but too much time could be interpreted as snub. Nuances in virtual relationships just as subtle as FtF. Acronyms & emojis = sub for facial expressions & tone of voice
Ex. - Hard for reduced cues theory to explain as means virtual relationships just as personal as FtF
Limitation - LACK OF SUPPORT FOR HYPERPERSONAL MODEL
E.g. - Ruppel et al. (2017) meta-analysis of 25 studies comparing S-D in FtF & virtual interactions - found self-report studies showed freq, breadth & depth of S-D greater in FtF relationships. Other experimental studies showed no significant differences between FtF & VR in S-D
Ex. - Contradicts hyperpersonal model’s view greater intimacy of VR lead to more & deeper S-D than FtF
Strength - SUPPORT FOR ABSENCE OF GATING
E.g. - McKenna & Barth (2000) looked at online communication by shy, lonely & socially anxious people - found these people able to express ‘true selves’ more than FtF situations. Of romantic relationships initially formed by shy people online, 71% survived at least 2 years. Compares well with relationships for shy people formed in offline world (49%)
Ex. - Suggests shy people do benefit online presumably as gating obstructs FtF relationships is absent online
