Virtual Relationships by Victoria Adeife Adeleke

Virtual Relationships by Victoria Adeife Adeleke

1. Social media

   • Evolved virtual relationship by allowing pictures and real-time communications which held back earlier methods of video dating and ‘lonely hearts’ or ‘pen pals.' However, there are dangers of misinterpretation with people deceiving

2. Face to face relationships

   • Physical proximity Physical attraction Frequent interaction

3. Self-disclosure in Virtual relationships

   • more self disclousre in virtual ships as there is a sense of anonymity.

4. Reduced cues theory

   • face to face is more effective for Social Disclosure as non-verbal cues such as eye contact and tone to encourage further disclosure. The lack of virtual results in disinhibition making people less afraid to be blunt or aggressive. Creates a hostile atmosphere online forums and discourages people from making self-disclosures

5. Hyperpersonal model (Walther 1996, 2011)

   • high excitement of the virtual interaction is often not matched by the trust between the relationship partners. Cooper & Sportolari (1997) called this the ‘boom and bust phenomenon’ of online relationships.

6. The absence of gating in virtual relationships McKenna and Bargh 1999

   • A gate in this context is any obstacle to the formation of a relationship. FtF interaction is said to be gated because it involves many features that can interfere with the early development of a relationship. Eg - physical unattractiveness, a stammer, social anxiety.
     • Argued... A huge advantage of CMC is the absence of gating. The absence of gating allows an online relationship to get off the ground in a way that its less likely to happen FtF situation. This means that the relationship can develop to a point where SD becomes more deeper and frequent.
       • However... Also means that people are able to create online identities that they could not manage FtF. Introvert to an extrovert. The ultimate expression of this ungated existence is Second Life - where anyone can create any kind of avatar to represent themselves in a virtual reality.

7. EVAL.- Supporting evidence

   • Absence of gating
     • McKenna 2002 group 1- face to face 2 20 mins session with different people group 2 - 2 online chats with different people group 3- 1 face to face 1 virtual, same person (kept a secret) virtual was preferred by all participants and rated as more intimate - implies a role of gating Significantly prefered

8. EVAL. ctriticism

   • Relationships are multimodal - Walther 2001 - Any theory seeking to explain virtual including SD needs to accommodate the fact that our relationships are generally conducted online and offline through many different types of media Very rarely straight forward matter of either/or This is in the fact probably the central character of many modern relationships What we choose to disclose in our online relationships will inevitably be influenced by our offline interactions and vice versa

9. Other explanations

   • Other explanations could involve a comparative evaluation of the importance of gating, self-disclosure (Reduced cues vs Hyper-Personal)

10. Debates

    • EVAL . Cultural differences - Yum and Hara (2005)
      • EVALUATION
      • In the US PPs report that > SD leads to > trust. However, in Korea > lead to < Trust.

11. EVAL application.

    • Argued that virtual ships can have useful application to teaching social skills and practising forming relationships and self-disclosures without the anxiety and gating restrictions of reality.