Virtual Relationships

Virtual relationships in social media: self-disclosure in virtual relationships; effects of absence of gating on the nature of virtual relationships.

AQA Psychology Specification- Relationships

This subtopic is all about how computer meditated communication (CMC) affects the chances of a relationship starting and being maintained in comparison to Face to Face (F2F) communication. You are going to bring in your understanding of self disclosure, for the first part at least. Firstly we will look at two theories, Reduced Cues and then we will look at the Hyper Personal Model. These are all about Self Disclosure, explaining how this can either be increased in CMC or decreased and as a result increase or decrease the chance of a relationship starting and being maintained.

The second part of this topic is about a term called gating. Gating, is barriers/ obstacles that prevent a relationship from starting. We will cover this is more detail later on down the page.

Reduced Cues Theory

According to Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler (1986), CMC relationships are less effective than F2F ones because they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in F2F interactions. Examples of cues are;

  • Facial Expressions
  • Tone of voice
  • Eye contact
  • Gestures and movement
  • Physical Touch

Without these, according to the Reduced Cues Theory, we are unable to read a conversation and another persons feelings towards the conversation. This lack of information leads to de-individuation because it reduces people’s sense of individual identity, which in-turn encourages disinhibition in relating to others. Therefore, what we are really thinking is more likely to be exposed and cause us to come across in a less desirable way.

As a result, CMC are likely to involve blunt and even aggressive communication, because people have interpreted the communication incorrectly or missed the cues you would give. For example, sarcasm or a joke might not come across in a message in the same way it would F2F, where you would smile at the person.

You are unlikely to want to self disclose and initiate a relationship with someone who is so impersonal, blunt and aggressive.

The Hyper Personal Model

Joseph Walther (1996, 2011) argues that online relationships can be more personal and involve greater self disclosure than F2F ones. This is because CMC Relationships can develop very quickly as self disclose happens earlier, and once established they are more intense and intimate.

Selective Self Presentation is one of the reasons for this. Participants in online conversation have more time to ‘edit’ their responses to present themselves in a more positive light. Projecting a positive image will then make an online partner want to disclose more personal information, increasing the intensity of the relationship.

Anonymity is another reason, Bargh (2002) points out that the outcome of this is rather like the strangers on a train effect in F2F relationships. When you’re aware that other people do not know your identity, you feel less accountable for your behaviour. So you may well disclose more about yourself to a strangers than to even your most intimate partner.

Boom and Bust. Whilst virtual relationships are likely to start much quicker as a result of the ease of self disclosure with CMC, they are also likely to end quicker according to Cooper and Sportolari (1997). The high excitement level of the interaction isn’t matched by the trust between the relationship partners and it is difficult to maintain that level for sustained periods of time.

Research Evidence and Evaluations

  • Alternative explanations/ mediating factors: Peters (2005) showed that the Internet by itself is not a main effect cause of anything, Rather, their results showed that the psychological characteristics of people interacted with motives and Internet use patterns in their effect on online friendship formation. Introversion (or extraversion) affected online self-disclosure, frequency of online communication, and the social compensation motive. These three mediators, in turn, influenced online friendship formation. Compared with introverted adolescents, extraverted adolescents self-disclosed and communicated online more often. These are the reasons why extraverted adolescents form online friendships. However, introverted adolescents may also form online friendships. The key factor in how introverted adolescents formed online relationships was their motivation to use online communication for social compensation. The social compensation motive, which was more evident among introverts than extraverts, and also facilitated online friendship formation.
  • Support for Reduced Cues Theory: Bertacco and Deponte (2005) Participants had to simulate communication with a long-lost friend either via a computer-typed letter or an email. Results showed that email participants wrote shorter messages and were less likely to bring up friendship-related memories than letter participants.
  • Support for Hyperpersonal Model: Rosenfeld and Thomas (2012) They investigated whether there was a link between having internet access at home and being involved in a romantic relationship. Out of 4,000 participants studied, 71.8% of those with internet access were married or had a romantic partner, compared to only 35.9% of those without internet access. 
  • Research to oppose Reduced Cues Theory: Tidwell and Walther (1995), argue that in virtual relationships people also use subtle cues, such as the time taken to respond to their post, or emoticons and emojis. According to them, non-verbal cues in online interactions are not absent, they are just different.
  • Hyper Personal Model Supporting research: Whitty and Johnson (2009) looked at online communication and found that discussions are often direct, involving probing and intimate questions.
  • Outdated theories: Most of the research examining virtual relationships was conducted in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As technology is changing rapidly, so is the nature of online relationships; therefore, psychological research in this area risks becoming outdated by the time it is published.
  • Reductionist explanations: People are involved in both online and offline relationships every day; it’s not an either/or situation. As such, our offline relationships tend to influence what and how we choose to disclose online, and vice versa. This means that there are fewer differences between online and face to face relationships than explanations seem to suggest, and research examining online relationships often fails to take into account the effect of these relationships on a person’s offline interactions, and vice versa.
  • Gender Bias/ Beta: McKenna et al. (2002) found that women tended to rate their relationships formed online as more intimate, and valued self-disclosure, especially in regards to emotion, more highly than men. Men, on the other hand, preferred activities-based (such as common interests in motorsports) disclosure, and rated their online relationships as less close than face-to-face ones.
  • Usefulness: Zhao et al. (2008) absence of gating, and more meaningful self-disclosure online also has positive effects on people’s offline relationships. As they can create an online identity that is appreciated by others, it enhances their overall self-image and increases the quality of their face-to-face relationships as well.
  • Ethnocentrism in the way self disclosure is viewed in online interactions: Yum & Hara (2005) The duration of the online relationship was considered as well as the two typical dimensions (i.e., breadth and depth) of self- disclosure. The results suggest some cross-cultural differences and similarities in the associations between self-disclosure and relationship qualities. For Americans, Japanese, and Koreans, self- disclosure was directly associated with online relationship development. However, the relationship between self-disclosure and trust was positive only for Americans. Attitudes to self-disclosure are different in different cultures. For example, Nakanishi (1986) found that the relationship between self-disclosure and perceived openness may not hold outside American culture. In contrast to American culture, Japanese participants appeared to interpret self-disclosing communication differently from Americans and evaluate the degree of openness differently. They valued low level of self-disclosure higher than high levels of SD.

Effects of absence of gating on the nature of virtual relationships

Firstly, what do we mean by gating?

Gating, in this instance, means anything that can be an obstacle to forming a relationship

Within this subtopic, we are looking at how the absence of these gates affects virtual relationships.

Examples of gates could be physical unattractiveness, stammer and social anxiety or shyness. In a typical, f2f interactions these things could result in a barrier to forming a relationship.

According to McKenna & Bargh (1999) this means that a relationship can develop to the point where self disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper (breadth and depth). It allows it to get off the ground in a way that is less likely to happen in a F2F situation.

The focus of the relationship becomes about …..?

…The person, rather than more superficial factors distracting from what’s important. Online, a person might become more interested in what you tell them rather than what you look like.

Evaluating the effects of the absence of gating on the nature of virtual relationships

Bit of a tongue twister right? Any AO3 on this would essentially be asking you, does the absence of gating have a positive or negative impact on the formation of a virtual relationship. Research below should be used to discuss this, using SAUNDERS of course!

Strengths

  • Research to support: McKenna and Bargh (2000) looked at CMc use by lonely and socially anxious people and found that they were able to express their true selves more than F2F. 70% of relationships formed online lasted more than 2 years. This demonstrates that one aspect of gating, social anxiety can be overcome online but most surprisingly transfers into the offline world too. As a consequence, psychologists can more confident when stating that CMC results in more chance of a relationships developing online as the effects of gating have been shown to be less impactful.
  • A strength of the effect of virtual relationships on gating in general has been shown to have usefulness outside of academic study. Zhao et al (2008) the absence of gating and self-disclosure online also have positive effects on people’s offline relationships. By creating an online identify that is being appreciated by others, it enhances overall self-image which helps to reduce the social difficulties previously experienced F2F. As a consequence, knowledge of the effects can be used to help support people who identify with these challenges and can be used to develop interventions aimed at helping build high quality offline relationships, both platonic and romantic.

Weaknesses

  • It is important to remember that the theory and much of the research to support the effects of gating come from the late 1990s / early 20s. As a consequence, psychologists will want to be cautious when applying this theory to modern relationships and online usage.
  • A weakness of current understandings of gates and virtual relationships is it has been found to be Beta Biased. Buss (1989) found that men value good looks and younger-looking partners, whereas women prioritise resource-based traits. This finding suggests women are much more dependent on ‘gates’ than men, as men’s occupations and social status are often apparent from their online profiles. In contrast, women can only be judged in person by their appearance. Therefore, the absence of gates may affect women more than men reducing the applicability of this knowledge outside of academic study.
  • The absence of gates also means that people can create online personas that differ greatly from their true selves. In some cases, this can go as far as catfishing. Consequently, people may hide behand these personas rather than embrace themselves. It could also put people who are vulnerable, due to potential gates at risk of being taken advantage of from an emotional and/or financial perspective. This would be a good challenge to the usefulness of the absence of gating but probably not a