Virtual relationships in social media.

Question 1

CMC and FtF:

Answer 1

CMC: Computer mediated communication.
FtF: face-to-face.

Question 2

Virtual relationships in social media:

Answer 2

• One major difference between CMC and FtF is that self-disclosure tends to happen much faster.
• Anonymity - people hold off disclosing personal info in real life for fear of ridicule/rejection.
• Much less risk of personal/intimate info reaching mutual friends in CMCs.

Question 3

Strengths of virtual relationships - positive correlation.

Answer 3

P: A strength of virtual environments is the positive impact it has had on developing romantic relationships.
E: For example, Rosenfeld & Thomas (2012) found that out of 4,000 participants studied, 72% of those with internet access were married or had a
romantic partner, compared with only 34% of those without internet access.
C: The findings suggest that the virtual environment helps people to establish and maintain romantic relationships.

Question 4

(two opposing theories) Walther (1996, 2011): Hyper-personal model.

Answer 4

• Self disclosure is higher in CMC.
• Suggests as self-disclosure happens earlier in relationship in CMCs, therefore relationships become more intense and feel more intimate and meaningful faster.
• However, can also end more quicky as it’s difficult to sustain same level of intense self-disclosure for long time.
• CMCs may feel more intimate because its easier to manipulate self disclosure online than FtF.

Question 5

Rubin (1975) - Strangers on a train.

Answer 5

• Social psychologists suggest the nature of virtual relationships is very close to ‘stranger on the train’ phenomenon, described by Rubin.
• He suggests we are more likely to share personal info with a stranger because we are more likely to never see them again and there is no consequence of over-sharing.

Question 6

Walther (2011) - relationships are multi-modal.

Answer 6

• Argues that any theory seeking to explain CMC, including role of self-disclosure, needs to accommodate the fact that our relationships are generally conducted both online and offline through different media.
• Not usually straightforward matter of ‘either/or’ which is central characteristic of modern relationships.
• What we chose to disclosure in our online relationships will inevitably be influenced by our offline interactions and vice versa.

Question 7

(two opposing theories) Sproull and Kiesler (1986): Reduced cues theory.

Answer 7

• Self disclosure is lower in CMC.
• CMCs less open and honest than FtF because in real life we are relying a lot on subtle cues e.g. facial expressions.
• Reduction in communication cues leads to de-individuation because it diminishes people’s feelings of individual identity and brings behaviours that people usually restrain themselves from displaying e.g. aggression.
• Consequence of this is reluctance to self-disclosure.

Question 8

‘Gating’ in virtual relationships: What is a ‘gate’?

Answer 8

A feature/obstacle that would interfere with the development of a relationship (FtF).
- Face-to-face interaction is said to be gated because it involves many features that can interfere with early development of relationship.

Question 9

What are examples of ‘gates’?

Answer 9

• Physical unattractiveness
• A stammer
• Poor mannerisms
• Social anxiety
• Age
• Physical disability
• Shyness etc.

Question 10

Absence of ‘gating’ in virtual relationships:

Answer 10

• In real life (FtF), our attraction to other people is greatly influenced by their appearance, mannerisms and factors such as age and ethnicity, limiting choices of potential partners.
• In CMCs, these barriers (gates) don’t exist which creates opportunities for shy, less attractive people to develop romantic relationships. It works by refocusing attention on self-disclosure and away from superficial features.
• McKenna and Bargh (1999) argue huge advantage of CMC is the absence of gating because relationships can develop to point where self-disclosure become more frequent and allows relationship to ‘get off the ground’.

Question 11

Absence of ‘gating’ in virtual relationships. But what about when CMC turns into a FtF relationship?

Answer 11

When relationships move from virtual to face-to-face, they rarely decrease an already-developed attraction as result of feeling of intimacy brought about by more self-disclosure.

Question 12

Consequence of Absence of gating:

Answer 12

A concern is that the absence of gating also means that people are free to create online identities that they could never manage FtF.

Question 13

Strength of virtual relationships: support for absence of gating.

Answer 13

P: A strength is that there is research support for the absence of gating.
E: McKenna & Bargh (2000) looked at CMC used by lonely and socially anxious people and found that people were able to express their ‘true
selves’ more in FtF situations. Of the romantic relationships that initially formed online, 70% survived more than two years – a higher proportion than for relationships formed in the offline world.
C: This suggests that the absence of gating can create opportunities that otherwise would not have been possible for certain individuals.

Question 14

Limitation of virtual relationships: temporal validity.

Answer 14

P: A limitation is that most of the research examining virtual relationships was
conducted in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.
E: As technology is changing rapidly, so is the nature of online relationships;
therefore, psychological research in these areas risk becoming outdated by
the time it is published.
C: This lowers temporal validity of research into relationships, meaning that
the findings may not necessarily apply to the current situation.