Virtual Relationships In Social Media Flashcards
Why is self-disclosure different in online relationships?
Increasing use of social media has led to research on differences between the relationships formed and maintained online and those formed and maintained face-to-face (FtF). Self-disclosure is crucial in face-to-face relationships so psychologists have turned their attention to its role and nature in virtual relationships - also known as computer-mediated-communication (CMC).
Why might reduced cues in CMC lead to less self-disclosure?
Reduced cues theory (Sproull and Kiesler) suggests that CMC relationships are less effective due to the lack of nonverbal cues (e.g. Physical appearance, emotional responses) - in FtF relationships we rely on these cues. Lack of cues about emotional state (voice and facial expressions) leads to de-individuation. People then feel freer from the constraints of social norms (disinhibition) and this leads to blunt and even aggressive communication and a reluctance to self-disclosure.
Why might CMC relationships involve more self-disclosure?
Hyperpersonal model (Walther) suggests that early self-disclosure means that CMC relationships develop quickly. Such relationships can become more intense and intimate. However, CMC relationships can also end more quickly because of high excitement level but low levels of trust.
How does self-disclosure differ in CMC?
The sender of a message can be selective about what and how they present themselves when self-disclosing. This, along with the feeling of anonymity, means that people may feel less accountable for their behaviour and disclose more than they would to their nearest non-online partners.
Why does CMC allow relationships to start where they may not in FtF?
McKenna and Bargh argue that facial disfigurements or a stammer may be obstacles to a FtF relationship. However, starting a relationship online means that ‘gates’ are not there. A relationship can develop and once self-disclosure becomes deeper the gates become less of an issue.
How does absence of gating have benefits?
Without the obstacles of FtF communication people are free to create different online identities and overcome various barriers. For example, a shy person can become more extravert online and their personality is no longer an obstacle. However, there is also scope for people to create an untrue persona (e.g. A man can become a woman).
Limitation: lack of research support for reduced cues theory.
Walther and Tidwell assert that cues in CMCs are simply different from those in FtF ones. They found that there are plenty of cues in CMCs, just not the nonverbal ones that we recognise in FtF communication. Emoticons and acrostics are considered effective substitutes in CMCs for the lack of usual nonverbal cues, so the proposal that there are reduced cues in CMCs appears unfounded. This suggests that there may be no differences in self-disclosure between CMC and FtF relationships, which does not support reduced cues theory.
Strength: supporting evidence for the hyperpersonal model.
Whitty and Joinson found supporting evidence for both hyperhonest and hyperdishonest online disclosures. Questions asked in online discussions tend to be direct, probing and intimate and responses direct and to the point, quite different to FtF conversations. This is consistent with the prediction of the model that these are distinctive types of disclosure in CMC.
Limitation: they do not distinguish different types of CMC.
From online e-commerce forms though to Facebook and online dating, the level of self-disclosure varies considerably. People disclose more in areas that they consider private (e.g. Facebook statuses that will only be seen by ‘friends’) and disclose less on web forms that involve the collection of data. This means that the validity of theories that consider all CMC in the same way will be limited.
Limitation: explanations do not recognise CMCs as multimodal.
Theories need to include the fact that relationships are usually conducted both online and offline. The interaction between people online will influence the interaction in the FtF relationship, including the level and speed of self-disclosure. As such these two kinds of communication have to be considered together and not separately. This suggests that current theories may underestimate the complexity of virtual relationships.
Strength: support for absence of gating.
McKenna and Bargh found that lonely and socially anxious people were able to express their ‘true selves’ more in CMC than in FtF situations. Of the romantic relationships that initially formed online, 70% survived more than two years, higher than for relationships formed in the offline world. This suggests that CMC can be helpful to support people who are socially anxious to build confidence in forming relationships.
