Virtual relationships in social media Flashcards
The 2 theories about how self-disclosure operate in virtual relationships?
Reduced cues theory and the hyperpersonal model.
Reduced Cues Theory.
According to Sproull and Kiesler (1986), virtual relationships are less effective than face-to-face relationships because they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in face-to-face interactions.
Includes non-verbal cues.
This reduces a person’s sense of individual identity in virtual relationships (de-individuation), which in turn leads to disinhibition. Many ppl then feel freer to communicate in blunt and even aggressively.
Ppl are unlikely to want to express their real thoughts and feelings to someone who is impersonal.
The Hyperpersonal Model.
Walther (1996, 2011) argues that virtual relationships can be more personal and involve greater self-disclosure than face-to-face interactions; this is because virtual relationships can develop very quickly as self-disclosure happens earlier, and once established they are more intense and intimate.
2 key features of the Hyperpersonal Model.
The sender of a msg has greater control over what to disclose and the cues they send than they would in a FtF situation; this is selective self-presentation. The sender manipulates their self-image to present themselves in an idealised way. To achieve this, self-disclosures can be both hyperhonest and/or hyperdishonest.
The receiver gains a +ve impression of the sender, they may give feedback that reinforces the sender’s selective self-presentation.
Hyperpersonal Model - another factor that promotes online self-disclosure and makes virtual relationships is…
Anonymity.
Bargh et al (2002) point out that the outcome is strangers.
When you are aware that other ppl do not know your identity, you feel less accountable for your behaviour .
Absence of gating.
Face-to-face relationships often fail to form because of obstacles such as facial disfigurements that some ppl might find off-putting. These barriers or ‘gates’ are absent in the virtual world allowing relationships to begin when they might not offline.
A gate.
According to McKenna and Bargh (1999), a gate is any obstacle to forming a relationship.
Ftf interaction is gates, in that it involves many features that can interfere with the early development of a relationship.
Absence of gates means that…
Virtual relationships can develop to the point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper.
Therefore the relationship can ‘get off the ground’ in a way that is less likely to happen face-to-face.
Absence of gating works by…
Refocusing attention on self-disclosure and away from superficial and distracting features.
Benefit of gates.
The individual is freed to be more like their ‘true selves’.
Disadvantage of gates.
There is a scope for people to create untrue identities and deceive people in ways that they could never manage face-to-face interactions.
Strength: The absence of gating is supported, especially by shy, lonely and socially anxious people, who value virtual relationships.
McKenna and Bargh (2000) looked at online communication by shy, lonely and socially anxious people; they found that these people were able to express their ‘true selves’ more than in face-to-face situations. Of the romantic relationships that initially formed by shy people online, 71% survived at least 2 years. This compares well with relationships for shy ppl formed in the offline world.
This suggests that shy ppl do benefit online presumably because the gating that obstructs face-to-face relationships is absent online.
Limitation: The reduced cues theory that online nonverbal cues are different rather than absent.
Walther and Tidwell (1995) point out that ppl in online interactions use other cues, such as style and timing of messages. For instance, taking time to reply to a social media status update may be a more intimate act than an immediate response. But taking too much time could be interpreted as a snub. So there are nuances in virtual relationships that are just as subtle as in face-to-face relationships. Acronyms, emoticons and emojis can all be used as effective substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice.
This is hard for reduced cues theory to explain because it means virtual relationships can be just as personal as face-to-face ones.
Limitation: The hyperpersonal model challenged by the findings of meta-analysis.
(Include counterpoint).
Ruppel et al (2017) carried out a meta-analysis of 25 studies that compared self-disclosures in face-to-face and virtual interactions. They found that self-report studies showed that the frequency, breadth and depth of self-disclosures were all greater in FtF relationships. On the other hand experimental studies showed no significant differences between FtF and virtual relationships in terms of self-disclosure.
This contradicts the hypersonal model’s view that the greater intimacy of virtual relationships should lead to more and deeper self-disclosures.
However there is some evidence that FtF and virtual relationships do differ in the type of self-disclosures used. Whitty and Joinson (2009) summarise evidence showing how self-presentation is manipulated in virtual relationships.
For example, questions asked in online discussions tend to be very direct, probing and intimate (hyperhonest). This is quite different from FtF conversations, which often feature ‘small talk’.
Self-presentation online can also be hyperdishonest, for instance when ppl invent attractive personal qualities for their online dating profiles.
This supports the model’s claims about hyperhonest and hyperdishonest self-disclosures and shows there are differences between FtF and virtual relationships.
