Virtual relationships in social media

Sproull and Kiesler - virtual was less effective than FtF (face-to-face) because of the lack of cues

Including nonverbal cues such as physical appearance and emotional state

Reduces a person's sense of individual identity in virtual which leads to disinhibtion - likely to talk without filter, more aggressive/blunt and others are unlikley to want to express real thoughts and feelings

Walther argues virtual relationship can be more personal and involve greater self-disclosure than FtF ones - due to virtual relationships developing quicker as self-disclosure happens earlier and once established they are more intense and intimate

2 key features of hyper personal self-disclosure:

- sender of message has greater control over what to disclose and the cues they send - selective self-presentation - sender can manipulate their self-image to present themselves in a more idealised way

- reciever gains a positive impression of sender - may reinforces the sender's selective self-presentation

Also hyper personal is anonymity - strangers on a train effect in FtF relationships - when aware that others don't know you, feel less accountable for behaviour

Mckenna and Bargh - gate is any obstacle to forming a relationship - FtF is gated and involves features that can interfere with the early development of relationships

Benefits and drawbacks:

Virtual relationships most of these gates are absent - means can develop where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper

Absence of gating works by refocusing attention on self-disclosure and away from superficial and distracting features - more interested in what you're being told than physical looks

Benefit of gates being absent - individual is free to be themselves although there is opportunity to create false identities and decieve people

Walther and Tidwell - different cues in virtual: style and timing of messages

Nuances in virtual relationships that are just as subtle as in FtF relationships

Acronyms and emojis can be used as effective substitutes for facial expression and tone of voice

Hard for reduced cues theory to explain because it means virtual relationships can be just as personal as FtF ones

Ruppel et al - meta-analysis of 25 studies that compared self-disclosures in FtF and virtual interactions - self-report studies showed that frequency, breadth and depth of self-disclosures were greater in FtF relationships

Other hand, experimental studies showed no significant differences between FtF and virtual relationships in terms of self-disclosure

Contradicts hyper personal model view that the greater intimacy of virtual relationships should lead to more and deeper self-disclosures than in FtF relationships 

Evidence to suggest that FtF and virtual differ in the type of self-disclosures used

Questions online are very direct, probing and intimate

Self-presentation online can also be hyper dishonest - invent an attractive personality

Supports model's claims about hyper honest and hyper dishonest self-disclosures and shows the differences between FtF and virtual

Shy, lonely and socially anxious people were able to express themselves online more than in FtF situations

Relationships that were formed online by shy people: 71% survived at least 2 yrs - compares well with relationships that were formed FtF by shy people

Suggests that shy people benefit online because of a lack of gating that is present in FtF