Virtual relationships in social media:

Y2 Relationships

Absence of gating (definition):

Face-to-face (FtF) relationships often fail to form from obstacles (gates) like social anxiety, which some may find off-putting.

These ‘gates’ are absent in virtual world allowing relationships to begin when they may not offline.

What are the 2 major yet contrasting theories of self-disclosure in virtual relationships?

1. Reduced cues theory

2. The hyperpersonal model

Who proposed the reduced cues theory?

Sproull and Kiesler (1986)

Key ideas about reduced cues theory:

• argues virtual relationships are less effective than FtF, as they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in FtF interactions ; includes non-verbal cues (e.g. physical apperance)

• this reduces a person’s sense of individual identity in virtual relationships (de-individuation) - leads to disinhibition → leads to ppl feeling freer to communicate more bluntly

• people unlikely to want to express real thoughts/feelings to someone so impersonal.

Who proposed the hyperpersonal model?

Walther (1996, 2011)

The hyperpersonal model - Walter (1966, 2011):

argues virtual rels more personal w increased self disc than FtF → virtual rels can develop v quickly as self disc happens earlier, and ocne established its more intense + intimate

What are the 2 key features of hyperpersonal self-diclosure in virutal rels:

1. Message sender has greater control over what to disclose + cues they send than they would in a FtF situation - selective self-presentation. The sender manipulates their self-image to present themselves more idealised. To achieve this, self disclosures can be both intensely truthful (hyperhonest) and/or intensely false (hyperdishonest)

2. receiver has positive impression of sender, may give feedback (e.g. commenting on a post) which reinforces sender’s selective self-presentation.

What factor promotes online self disc and makes virtual rels hyperpersonal?

anonymity

Bargh et al (2002): the outcome of this is strangers on a train effect in FtF relationships - when you are aware that other ppl do not know identity, feel less accountable for behaviour → will disclose more about yourself to stranger over partner.

What are CMC relationships?

Computer Mediated Communication relationships

Summary of reduced cues theory:

• CMC less effective at forging relationships than FtF

• blunt/impersonal

• lack of cues (e.g. voice tone)

Summary of hyperpersonal model:

• online relationships more personal + intense

• boom and bust

• scope for manipulation/selective self-presentation

Cooper and Sportolari (1997):

• building on from hyperpersonal model

• virtual rels can end more quickly due to higher excitement levels of itneractions is not matches by level of trust between partners

• the boom and bust phenomenon

What is a ‘gate’?

• McKenna and Bargh (1999): any obstacle to forming a relationships

• FtF interactions are gated, as has features that can interfere w early development of relationship

• Examples: physical unattractiveness, stammer, social anxiety

Benefits and Drawbacks of absence of gating in virtual relationship:

• absence of gates mean virtual rels can develop so self disc is more frequent + deeper

• rels virtually get “off the ground” quicker

• refocuses attention on self disc, away from superficial features

• inds freed to be more like ‘true selves’ (more so than in FtF interactions)

• scope for ppl to create untrue identities, deceive ppl in ways they could not FtF (preosn can change gender/age, become introverted/extroverted)

Walter and Tidwell (1995): Refutes reduced cues theory

point out ppl in online interactions have other cues → style and timing of messages)

e.g. taking time to reply to a status may be more intimate than immediately responding, but not too long - there are nuances in virtual rels just as subtle in FtF rels

acronyms like LOL, emojis - can be effective substitutes

refutes reduced cues theory as shows virtual rels can be just as personal as FtF, different cues rather than absent cues → theory may be invalid for CMC due to different cues ; limited explanation, reduced RWA

AO3 - Lack of support for hyperpersonal model:

• limited by meta-analysis findings - Ruppel et al (2017)

• contradicts the hyperpersonal model’s view that the greater intimacy of virtual rels should lead to increased, deeper self disc than FtF rels

• but evidence that FtF and virtual rels differ in types of self discs - Whitty and Joinson (2009) → supports model’s claims about hyperhonest and hyperdishonest self discs and shows there are differences between FtF and virtual rels.

Ruppel et al (2017):

• carried out a meta - analysis of 25 studies comparing self discs in FtF and virtual interactions

• found self-reports showed greater frequency, breadth and depth of self discs in FtF relationship

• on other hand, experimental studies showed no sig. difference between FtF and virtual rels in terms of self-discs

contradicts hyperpersonal model’s view that greater intimacy of virtual rels should lead to more + deeper self discs that in FtF rels.

Whitty and Joinson (2009):

• summaried evidence showing how self-presentation manipulated in virtual rels

• qs in online discussions tended to be direct, probing (hyperhonest) → shows CMC rels deeper, more intimate

• different from FtF convos, often featuring ‘small talk’

• online self-presentation can be hyperdishonest (e.g. when ppl invent attractive personal quals for online dating profiles)

  supports hyperpersonal models claims abt hyperhonest + hyperdishonest self-discs ; shows there are diffs between FtF and virtual rels

McKenna and Bargh (2000): Support for absence of gating:

• looked at online communication by shy, lonely and socially anxious people → found these people were able to express their ‘true selves’ more than in FtF situations

• of the romantic relationships initially formed by shy peopple, 71% survived at least 2 years → does this suggest shy people need to a CMC relationship to be loved? this does show RWA of absence of gating, can be used to actively help ppl

• compares well w relationships for shy ppl formed in offline world - 49% (Kirkpatrick and Davis, 1994)

suggests shy ppl do benefit online presumably bc virtual rels have no gates.

AO3: Online vs Multimodal

• Walter (2011) argues these theories (hyperpersonal model and absence of gating) fail to take into accounts all relationships are multimodal - we conduct them both online and offline rather than ‘either/or’

• what we choose to disclose in virtual rels influenced by offline interactions, and vice versa.

• theories have limited application. too simplistic for complex nature of relationships

• theories are too nomothetic, need to be idiographic(ind differences play a part in this)