Virtual relationships in social media

• How does S-D operate in CMC (computer mediated communication) relationships? 
• There are two contrasting theories:

Reduced cues theory

• According to Lee Sproull and Sara Kiesler, CMC are less effective because they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in FtF (face-to-face) interactions
• These cues include physical appearence and CMC lacks cues too our emotional state, such as our facial expressions and tone of voice. This leads to de-individualisation because it reduces people's sense of individual identity, which then encourages disinhibition in relating to others
• VR therefore are more likely to involve blunt and even aggressive communication
• You are unlikely to form a intimate relationship with someone who is impersonal, or reveal your innermost feelings to them

The hyperpersonal model

• Joseph Walther argues that online relationships can be more personal and involve greater S-D that FtF ones, because CMC relationships can develop very quickly as S-D happens earlier, and once established they are more intense and intimate
• They can end more quickly because the high excitement level of interaction isn't matched by the level of trust between the relationship partners. Alvin Cooper and Leda Sportolari called this the boom and bust phenomenon of online relationships
• According to the hyperpersonal model, a key feature of S-D in VR is that the sender of a message has more time to manipulate their online image than they would in a FtF situation
• Walther calls this selective self-presentation
• People online have more control over what to disclose and the cues they send, this means it is much easier to manipulate S-D to promote intimacy in CMC relationships, by presenting in a positive and idealised way
• The use of anonymity promotes S-D. John Bargh et al points out that when you are aware that other people do not know your identity, you feel less accountable for your behaviour, so you disclose more about yourself 

• A gate is any obstacle to the formation of a relationship
• FtF interaction is said to be gated, because it involves features that can interfere with the early development of a relationship
• Examples of gates include physical unattractiveness, a stammer and social anxiety such as shyness, blushing etc
• Katelyn McKenna and John Bargh argue that an advantage of CMC is the absense of gating. This means that a relationship can develop to the point where S-D becomes more frequent and deeper.
• Absence of gating works by refocusing attention on S-D and away from what may be distracting features. In other words, online its more about what I am interested in what you tell me than in what you look and sound like.
• Absence of gating means that people are free to create online identities that they could never manage in FtF situations.
• The ultimate expression of this ungated existence is Second Life, where everyone can create any kind of avatar to represent themselves in a virtual reality

• Lacks research for reduced cues theory
• The theory is wrong to suggest that nonverbal cues are entirely missing from CMC. They are different rather than absent.
• Joseph Walther and Lida Tidwell point out that online interactions use other cues, such as style and timing of their messages. For instance, taking time to reply to a social network status is often interpreted as a more intimate act than an immediate response. If the person takes too much time to reply, he/she may be seen as a snub. 
• Acrostics (such as LOL), emoticons and emojis, are used as effective substitues for facial expressions and tone of voice in FtF interactions. 
• This means the reduced cue theory lacks validity because CMC interactions can be just as personal as those conducted FtF and that it's possible to express emotional states in VR.

• There is research which supports the hyperpersonal model
• The HPM predict that people are motivated to S-D in CMC in ways which are sometimes hyperhonest and sometimes hyperdishonest
• Monica Whitty and Adam Joinson found out that questions asked online discussions tend to be direct, probing and intimate. This is different from FtF conversations, which are often hedged around with 'small talk'. Hence, the responses are likewise direct and to the point. 
• These findings support the HPM which is that we S-D in CMC relationships that is designed to present ourselves in an exaggeratedly postive light which aids relationship formation

• Any theory that approaches CMC as a single concept neglects its richness and variety, and therefore unlikely to be a valid explanation
• This means S-D depends on the type of CMC being used
• In the case of social networking sites (SNSs), people interacting with each other generally have relationships in the offline world
• People S-D more in their FB status than they are willing to in completing an online e-commerce webform, when they are reluctant to disclose information they consider to be private
• Online dating is another example of CMC with strangers talking on that site. S-D is reduced because both communicators anticipate future meetings FtF in the offline world, a consideration that generally doesn't exist in chatrooms and on gaming sites.

• Walther argues that any theory seekings to explain CMC, including the role of S-D, needs to accommodate that fact that our relationships are generally conducted both online and offline through many different media.
• What we choose to disclose in our online relationships will inevitably be influenced by our offline interactions

• There is research which supprts the absence of gating, McKenna and Bargh looked CMC use by lonely and socially anxious people.
• They found that such people were able to express their true selves more than in FtF situations.
• Romantic relationships that initially formed online, 70% survived more than two years. This is a higher proportion than for relationships formed in the offline world.