Virtual relationships in social media Flashcards
define virtual relationship
all kinds of electronic communication methods, by which relationships can be formed/maintained
reduced cues theory for self-disclosure in virtual relationships
sproull and kiesler = virtual relationships less effective than face-to-face relationships, due to lack of many cues
e.g., physical appearance, facial expression, voice tone
= causes deinviduition = leads to disinhibition
deindividuation vs disinhibition
deinviduation = reduction in person’s sense of individual identity
disinhibition = lack of restraint or disregard for social norm
consequences of reduced cues
many ppl feel freer to communicate in blunt, even aggressive ways
= ppl unlikely to want to express real thoughts and feelings to someone so impersonal
the hyperpersonal model for self-disclosure in virtual relationships
walther argues virtual relationships can be more personal and involve more SD than face-to-face
= because can develop very quickly as SD happens earlier
= once established = more intense/intimate
what are the 2 features of why self-disclosure may be quicker/more intense in virtual relationships
- sender of message = more control over what to disclose and cues sent than in FtF
= selective self-presentation - reciever gains positive impression of sender, may give feedback that reinforces sender’s selective presentation
what is selective self-presentation
sender manipulates self-image to present self in idealised way
= to achieve SD can be hyperhonest/hyperdishonest
how does anonymity in virtual relationships make them hyperpersonal
bargh et al
= outcome is like strangers on a train effect FtF
- when aware ppl do not know your identity = feel less accountable for behaviour
= may well disclose more about self to stranger than even most intimate partner
gating in FtF vs virtual relationships
IRL - attraction greatly influenced by appearance, mannerisms and factors, e.g., age, ethnicity
= limits choice of potential partners
VR - absence of gating (barriers)
= creates more opportunities for shy and less attractive people to develop romantic relationships
pros and cons of absence of gating in virtual relationships
cons
- relationship can ‘get off the ground’ in a way less likely to happen FtF
- people can establish virtual identities they could never create face-to-face
pros
- able to develop to point where SD becomes more frequent/deeper, absence of gating refocuses attention away from superficial/distracting features
- individual freed to be more like ‘true selves’
weakness of reduced cues theory
lack of support
- theory rejected by Tidwell and Walther = argue in virtual relationships people also use subtle cues, such as the time taken to respond to their post, or emoticons and emojis
= non-verbal cues in online interactions not absent - just different
further weakness of research into virtual relationships
most research examining VR = conducted in the late 1990s/early 2000s
- technology changing rapidly = so is nature of online relationships
- psychological research in this area risks becoming outdated by time it is published
= lowers temporal validity of research
strength of research into virtual relationships
research support for absence of gating
mckenna and bargh = found shy, lonely, socially anxious ppl able to express ‘true selves’ more in VR than FtF
- with 71% of VR formed by shy ppl lasting atleast 2 years, compared to 49% in FtF
= suggests shy ppl benefit online, presumably due to absence of gating
