virtual relationships in social media Flashcards
what are the 2 theories which explain how self-disclosure operates in virtual relationships?
- reduced cues theory
- hyperpersonal model
what do sproull and kiesler (1986) suggest about virtual relationships?
virtual relationships are less effective than FtF ones because they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in FtF interactions
examples of cues missing in virtual relationships
- non-verbal cues eg. physical appearance
- cues to our emotional state eg. facial expressions, tone of voice
what is the impact of reduced cues in virtual relationships?
- reduces a person’s sense of individual identity (de-individuation)
- leads to disinihibition ie. behaviour that goes against social norms
- many people feel freer to communicate in blunt and even aggressive ways
- people are unlikely to want to express their real thoughts and feelings to someone who is so impersonal
describe the hyperpersonal model (walther 1996, 2011)
- W argues that VRs can be more personal and involve greater self-disclosure than FtF ones
- VRs can develop very quickly as self-disclosure happens earlier, and once established they are more intense and intimate
what are the 2 key feature of hyperpersonal self-disclosure in virtual relationships?
- selective self-presentation
- reinforcement of sender’s selective self-presentation
what is selective self-presentation in the hyperpersonal model?
- sender of a message has greater control of what to disclose and the cues they send than they would do in an FtF situation
- sender manipulates their self-image to present themselves in an idealised way
how can selective self-presentation be achieved?
- intensly truthful self-disclosures (hyperhonest)
- inenstly false self-disclosures (hyperdishonest)
how is the sender’s selective self-presentation reinforced?
- receiver gains a positive imporession of the sender
- gives feedback which reinforces the sender’s selective self-presentation
what is the impact on anonymity on VRs?
- promotes online self-disclosure and makes VRs hyperpersonal
- when you’re aware that other people don’t know your identity, you feel less accountable for your behaviour
- might disclose more about yourself to a stranger than to an intimate partner
anonymity in VRs (bargh et al. 2002)
outcome of this is like the ‘strangers on a train effect’ in FtF relationships, where people share more personal information with strangers than with close friends or family, especially in situations where they are unlikely to encounter them again
hyperpersonal model: boom and bust phenomenon (cooper and sportolari 1997)
relationship can end more quickly as high excitement level of interactions is not matched by the level of trust between the relationship partners
what is a gate? (mckenna and bargh 1999)
any obstacle to forming a relationship
how are FtF interactions gated?
- involves many features that can interfere with the development of a relationship
- may guide it in one direction and away from others
examples of gates in FtF relationships? (5)
- physical unattractiveness
- facial disfigurement
- stammer
- social anxiety
- shyness
what is the effect of absence of gating in virtual relationships?
- VRs can develop to the point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper
- relationship can begin in a way that is less likely to happen FtF
- refocuses attension on self-disclosure and away from superficial and distracting features
benefits of gates being absent in virtual relationships
- individual is freed to be more like their true selves than in FtF interactions
- relationships can begin which wouldn’t FtF
drawbacks of gates being absent in virtual relationships
- can create untrue identities
- deceive people in ways you never could FtF
- change gender, age, personality etc.
evaluation: online nonverabl cues are different rather than absent (walther and tidwell 1995)
- people in online interactions use other cues eg. style and timing of messages
- taking time to reply to a message may be a more intimate act than an immediate response but taking too much time could be interpreted badly
- nuances in VRs which are just as subtle as in FtFRs
- acronyms, emoticons and eomjis can be used as effective substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice
- VRs may be just as personal as FtF ones
evaluation: lack of support for the hyperpersonal model (ruppel et al. 2017)
- meta-analysis of 25 studies that compared SDs in FtF and virtual interactions
- self-report studies showed that the frequency, breadth and depth of SDs were all greater in FtFRs
- furthermore, experimental studies showed no significant differences between FtF and VRs in terms of SD
- contradicts hyperpersonal model’s view that greater intimacy of VRs shoudl lead to more and deeper SDs than FtFRs
evaluation: evidence that FtF and VRs differ in the type of SDs used (whitty and joinson 2009)
- self-presentation is manipulated in VRs
- eg. qs asked in online discussions tend to be very direct, probing and intimate (hyperhonest) whereas FtF conversations often features small talk
- self-presentation online can be hyperdishonest eg. when people invent attractive personal qualities for their online dating profiles
- supports model’s claims about hyperhonest / dishonest SDs and shows there are differences between FtF and VRs
evaluation: shy, lonely and socially anxious people may find VRs especially valuable (mckenna and bargh 2000)
- looked at online communication by shy, lonely and socially anxious people
- these people were able to express their ‘ true selves’ more than in FtF situations
- of the romantic relationships initially formed by shy people online, 71% survived at least 2 years compared to relationships formed by shy people in the offline world (49% in a study by kirkpatrick and davis 1994)
- shy people must benefit online due to the absence of gating that obstructs FtF relationships
evaluation: multimodal consideration (walther 2011)
- hyperpersonal model and absence of gating fail to take into account that all relationships are multimodal
- conducted both online and offline, rather than ‘either / or’
- what we choose to disclose in VRs is influenced by our offline interactions, and vice versa
