virtual relationships in social media Flashcards
Self disclosure in virtual relationships
Sternberg involved revealing intimate and revealing sensitive information
Thoughts feelings goals
Why self disclosure may be easier in virtual relationships
Ability makes self disclosure easier unsocial has confidence to speak too who would be embarrassed to speak face to face too
Be - Ze’ev
Disclosing personal info online makes someone less vulnerable than self disclosure in a face to face situation
Can easily be withdraw from a situation if uncomfortable as not immediate contact
What does online give that in person doesn’t
Freedom to disclose their true desires with others who share the same interests with instant response saving time when seeking a partner
Parks and Floyd
People report disclosing significantly more their online relationships to real life
McKenna et al aim
Whether people were better able to disclose their real self to others on internet rather than face to face
McKenna et al procedure
Procedure :
Large sample 600 nearly randomly selected from internet newsgroup contributors both fem and male
Around 32 years old
Questionnaire were emailed asking to discuss their level of self disclosure
2 years later p were interviewed about relationships
Results McKenna et al
High levels of social anxiety more likely to disclose their real self over the internet - relationships form - quicker and stronger than face to face
Allows these social anxiety alternative to forming relationships
Also form intimate real life relationships with people they meet on the internet
McKenna conclusion
Increase levels of self disclosure over internet relationships developed far easier and quicker than face to face and become just as real
Gene then et al
Support interact dark room more likely to self disclosure and like the person more than bright room
Collin and miller
People tend to like those who self disclose and more likely to reciprocate the behaviour leading to stronger relationships
Reduce cue theories
Communication like body language is missing results miss interpreting text or reading too much into typed communication
Virtual relationships filter theory happens ….
Increased speed more efficiently online more honest due to anonymity
What does virtual relationships miss that’s is essential
Face to face has body language tone of vice physical contact
Nice and Erbring
regular internet users spent less time in real life relationships
Negative aspects of social media - Clayton et al
More online time spent more argument over online social media - angering for real relationship in their lives - don’t have to tell the truth
Facebook issues
High levels of Facebook users coupled was likely to lead to Facebook related arguements and jealously - emotional or physical cheating - increasing relationship break down
One draw back of virtual relationships is
Anonymity of online communication makes it possible for some to self disclosure in ways that misrepresent or distort true personality leading to mistrust
Absence of gating
Filtering wants and not such as religion
McKenna et al absence of gating aim
Absence of gating in virtual relationship affect how much strangers liked each other
Gating has decreased boundaries
Disability not knowing before meeting and connecting before
Procedure
31 females and mates American undergraduates
Two 20 minute meetings get to know each other
Randomly assigned one of three conditions
P asked to rate how much they liked their partner 14 point scale and how intimate they felt
What are the three conditions
P in control condition face to face meet
Interacted in first meeting over internet and second meeting face to face
Trading places condition -P interacted with one person in a face to face meeting and believed it was a different person over the internet second meeting (same person )
Results McKenna et al
Tended to score their liking for partner higher after online meeting than meeting face to face
P in trading places condition reported knew the person they had met on the internet better and more intimately than the person face to face - same person
P met face to face based liking on physical characteristics
Conclusion McKenna et al
Superficial gating is only factor influencing how much people like each other in face to face interactions
Support effect of absence of gating
Mesch - socially introverted Israeli teenagers were far more likely to develop positive virtual relationships online than face to face relationships
Social barriers preventing was not the case like in traditional face to face employment age status
Virtual relationships have greater freedom of expression and intimacy because ….. which ….
High levels Self disclosure anonymity and absence of gating
increase likelihood virtual relationships will develop offline strong healthy real life
Attachment styles
Insecure attachment mostly to develop parasocial relationship
Than secure
Prefer parasocial relationships over real life because
Celebs don’t demand and less likely to experience criticism disappointment
Cole and leets method and results
115 students parasocial scale two attachment style questionnaires
Found anxious ambilvalents are most likely to form parasocial relations
Avoidant were least likely to develop wasn’t bothered
secure middle
Cohen
Anxious ambivalent viewers greater negative consequences for loss of favourite tv character than others attachment
Maternal deprivation
44 thieves affectionless psychopaths criminals - stalking
Dutton et al
Fearful childhood attachments were more likely to show jealousy and surveillance behaviour
+ face validity
Face validity as makes sense that people displace earlier negative experiences into fantasy parasocial relationships lesslikely to be hurt again
- many correlational
Hard to show cause and effect
Evolutionary theory argues
Parasocial relationships are explained by the idea that unlike real work both sexes are free to select partners who perfectly match their desires and celebs regularly in the media become familiar and therefore people develop stresction to potential partners
