Relationships Flashcards
Define sexual selection
It suggests that characteristics that confer a reproductive advantage (i.e. are attractive to the opposite sex or provide an advantage over competitors for reproductive rights) are passed on to produce offspring with the best genes. This is effectively ‘survival of the sexiest.’ In sexual selection, an individual’s survival is not at stake, but rather their ability to leave more descendants.
Define intra-sexual selection
Where traits allow an individual to compete with members of the same sex for access to mating opportunities. Men compete to be able to mate with the fertile women (they compare to be chosen)
Define inter-sexual selection
Where traits increase ‘attractiveness’ and/or induce members of the opposite sex to mate with them. Women evolve preferences for desirable qualities in potential mates to have the highest quality offspring
Define anisogamy
The difference between male and female sex cells.
Define human reproductive behaviour
Any behaviours (actions) that relate to opportunities to reproduce and therefore increase the survival chances of our genes.
Explain the difference between male and female sex cells
Sperm are extremely small, highly mobile, created continuously in vast numbers from puberty to old age and do not require a great expenditure of energy to produce. On the other hand, ova are relatively large, static, produced at intervals for a limited number of fertile years and require a huge investment of energy.
What is the optimum mating strategy for males?
I.e what types of relationships are they looking for and who with
Men prefer short-term relationships to have many offspring. Men are less choosy about who they reproduce with - females who show signs of youth and fertility so that they can pass down their genes (e.g. waist: hip ratio, clear skin etc)
What is the optimum mating stategy for females?
Women’s strategy will be to prefer long-term relationships to have high quality offspring. Women are therefore choosy in who they choose to reproduce with - genetically fit males who are willing to provide resources (older, wealthy men)
As a result, which type of sexual selection is the preferred strategy of each sex?
Males - Intra-sexual selection:
This is the preferred strategy of males. It refers to the competition between (intra) males to be able to mate with a female. The winner of the competition reproduces and passes on the characteristics that contributed to his victory to his offspring.
Anisogamy dictates that the male’s optimum reproductive strategy is to mate with as many fertile females as possible. This is because of the minimal energy required to produce sperm and the relative lack of post-coital responsibility. This results in an increased probability that they will reproduce and pass on their genes. A consequence of this competition for female mates is for males to show a distinct preference (particularly in long-term relationships) for youth and sensitivity to the indicators of youth (e.g. certain facial features) and fertility (e.g. certain body shapes like an hourglass figure) as these are signs of reproductive value. It is also believed that men show less attraction after sexual intercourse as this is an innate mechanism to prevent them from spending too much time with one partner.
Females - inter-sexual selection:
This is the preferred strategy of females. Both sexes are choosy, because both stand to lose if they invest resources in substandard partners. But anisogamy dictates that the consequences of choosing a substandard partner is much more serious for females than males because females make greater investment in terms of time, commitment and other resources before, during and after the birth of her offspring. Combined with there being no shortage of fertile males, it pays for females to be especially choosy in short-term relationships so that any offspring are of a higher quality (i.e. have the best genes) and so their genes are much more likely to be passed on. The female’s optimum strategy for both short and long-term relationships is to prefer and select a genetically fit partner (e.g. tall, strong and so are able to physically protect her and her children) who is able and willing to provide resources (e.g. shelter for her and her offspring, food etc.). This results in a preference for wealthy, older males. Such adaptive mechanisms can be seen in society today as they have been passed down via sexual selection.
What do men look for in women?
Signs of fertility and youth (wide hips)
What do women look for in men?
Signs of strength and ability to provide for offspring (taller, wealthier)
How do men outcompete each other for ‘access’ to women?
Men who have these qualities are better able to compete (e.g. taller, more aggressive to show they can protect women)
How does all of this get passed down?
Men and women who have these characteristics have a reproductive advantage. These characteristics are then passed down to future generations and so evolve via sexual selection.
Using the key terms in question 1 and your answers to questions 2-7, explain the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour. Make sure to include what each sex looks for in a partner and how they can outcompete other members of the same sex as well as how the characteristics get passed down.
Sexual selection is an evolutionary explanation of partner preferences. It suggests that attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on to offspring. It argues that human reproductive behaviour is controlled by the innate differences between male sperm and female ova (anisogamy). Sperm can be produced very quickly and in large volumes, allowing a man to potentially impregnate hundreds of women in a short space of time, whereas ova and the process of pregnancy require a larger investment of time and energy to produce the ova and carry one foetus. This means that men will typically seek out shorter-term relationships to produce the most offspring possible, whereas women will prefer longer-term relationships to produce the highest quality offspring. This then leads to women displaying inter-sexual selection, where they are more choosy with who they mate with and will select the man who appears to be the most genetically fit whilst having characteristics that make them attractive to the opposite sex to induce them to want to reproduce with them, and men competing amongst themselves to display the most desirable traits to the women in the hopes of mating with her (intra-sexual selection). Since women look to produce high quality offspring, they have evolved to prefer men who show signs of strength and ability to provide for offspring (so will prefer taller, wealthier men). Men on the other hand have evolved to prefer women who display signs of fertility and youth (wide hips for example), in order to maximise the potential for offspring production with each partner. Men and women who have these characteristics have a reproductive advantage. These characteristics are then passed down to future generations and so evolve via sexual selection.
Describe three studies that have supported the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour. For each one, explain exactly which predictions of the theory they support using as many of the ideas from questions 1-7 as possible.
Clarke and Hatfield (1989:
Clarke and Hatfield (1989) - Male and female psychology students were sent out across a university campus. They approached other students individually with this question: ‘I have been noticing you around campus. I find you very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?’ Not a single female student agreed to the request, whereas 75% of men did, immediately.
Top tip for A*: you could argue that there is a gender bias to attribute short-term mating strategies only to men, as even though men are more likely to want casual sex and a variety of sexual partners, these mechanisms couldn’t have evolved without the presence of willing females. Perhaps there may have been benefits for women to undergo short-term relationships e.g. allowing them to leave unrewarding relationships if their partner discovered their infidelity or to increase the genetic diversity of their offspring. This type of gender bias is known as alpha bias as it overestimates the differences between the sexes.
This reflects sex differences predicted by anisogamy and supports the predictions derived from sexual selection theory about short-term mating strategies. Males evolved innate mechanisms favouring short-term relationships to maximise their chances of reproductive success, whilst women are choosier to increase the likelihood of high quality offspring. Therefore, this supports the validity of the theory as an explanation of reproductive behaviour.
Buss (1989):
Buss (1989) carried out a survey of over 10, 000 adults in 33 countries. He asked questions relating to age and a variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts should be important in partner preference. He found that females placed greater value on resource-related characteristics, such as good financial prospects, ambition and industriousness than males did. Males valued reproductive capacity in terms of good looks and chastity, and preferred younger mates more than females did.
Top tip for A*: However, this lacks external validity as it only looks at partner preferences and not the reality of partner choices (people may need to compromise in reality rather than having the ideal partner) and so may not as strongly support the link between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour as previously thought. Although, Buss then studied 29 cultures and found that men chose younger women and if they divorced they tended to remarry younger women.
This reflects universal sex differences predicted by anisogamy and supports the predictions about partner preferences derived from sexual selection theory. Men prefer signs of fertility to increase the likelihood of reproductive success, whilst women prefer wealth as a sign of protection and provision for her and her offspring. As the findings apply across different cultures, this reflects that the preferences are not primarily dependent on cultural influences and so support that such preferences may be innate as proposed by the theory, supporting its validity.
Waynforth and Dunbar (1995):
Waynforth and Dunbar (1995) studied lonely hearts adverts in American newspapers. These were opportunities for men and women to describe the qualities that they desired in a partner whilst also sharing what they had to offer. The researchers found that women more than men tended to offer physical attractiveness and indicators of youth (e.g. flirty, exciting, curvy, sexy). Men on the other hand, offered resources more than women did (e.g. successful, fit, mature, ambitious) and sought relative youth and physical attractiveness.
This supports sex differences predicted by anisogamy and supports predictions for long-term mating strategies for women (preferring resources to ensure provision for her and her offspring and therefore the offspring surviving), and short and long-term strategies for men (preferring signs of fertility to increase their likelihood of reproducing). This therefore reflects an innate adaptive mechanism for identifying and preferring signs of fertility and resources, supporting the theory.
Why it is unlikely that partner preferences have entirely evolved? Why is this a problem for the theory?
Partner preferences over the last century have undoubtedly been influenced by rapidly changing social norms of sexual behaviour. These develop much faster than evolutionary timescales imply and have instead come about due to cultural factors, such as the availability of contraception. Women’s greater role in the workplace means that they are no longer dependent on men to provide for them. Researchers argue that this social change has consequences for women’s mate preferences, which may no longer be resource-oriented. Research compared partner preferences in China over 25 years and found that some had changed and some had remained the same, corresponding with the huge social changes in that time.
Mate preferences are therefore the outcome of a combination of evolutionary and cultural influences. Any theory that fails to consider both is therefore a limited explanation of human reproductive behaviour and so we can’t argue that the theory is completely valid.
Name the three factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships.
i.e the theories
Physical attractiveness theory, filter theory and self-disclosure theory
What do we mean by physical attractiveness according to physical attractiveness theory?
How appealing we find a person’s face
What are the two features that make a face attractive?
Facial symmetry and neotenous features
Why is this the case?
Facial symmetry is seen as an honest signal of genetic fitness as you can’t fake it
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby-face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose. This is because they trigger a protective or caring instinct (a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce).
Physical attractiveness leads to the physical attractiveness stereotype. What is this?
This suggests that attractive people are kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people. This belief makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them.
How does then increase attraction even further?
This in turn makes them more likely to act kindly etc. (a self-fulfilling prophecy), which makes them even more attractive to us.
What is the halo effect?
This becomes a halo effect – one distinguishing feature of a person (their physical attractiveness in this case) disproportionately influences our judgements of their other attributes (their personality).
What is the matching hypothesis? Make sure to include what the compromise is between and who we are attracted to.
Common-sense tells us that we can’t all form relationships with the most attractive people. The matching hypothesis (Walster et al., 1966) suggests that people are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical attractiveness.
To do this, we must make a realistic judgement about our ‘value’ to a potential partner.
Therefore, our choice of partner is a compromise between desiring the most physically attractive partner possible and avoiding being rejected by someone who is unlikely to consider us physically attractive.
Physical attractiveness has been found to influence politics. How? What does this tell us about the theory as a factor affecting attraction? What implications does this have for society?
Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. This halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise. The existence of the halo effect has been found to apply in many other areas of life too.
This supports that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the formation of relationships, romantic or otherwise. By being physically attractive, it seems that this distinguishing feature disproportionately influences voters’ judgements of the politicians’ knowledge and competency (halo effect). This has implications for the political process; it suggests that there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office just because they are considered physically attractive enough by voters.
What is considered physically attractive is consistent across cultures. What was found about this and what does this tell us about physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction?
Research shows that what is considered physically attractive is remarkably consistent across cultures. Cunningham et al. (1995) found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian males. The physical attractiveness stereotype is also culturally pervasive. Research has found that Korean and American students judged physically attractive people to be more trustworthy, concerned for other people, mature and friendly. It seems that the stereotype is just as strong in collectivist cultures as it is in individualist ones.
This supports the external validity of the theory that physical attractiveness is important in relationship formation universally. This also implies that the importance of physical attractiveness in attraction might have an evolutionary basis as it is found consistently across the world. Attractive features (e.g. symmetry) are a sign of genetic fitness and therefore perpetuated similarity in all cultures (sexual selection).
There is evidence that some people care more about physical attractiveness than others. Who? How? What does this tell us about physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction?
Ignore
Some people do not seem to attach much importance to physical attractiveness. In a study by Touhey (1979), male and female participants rated how much they would like a person based on their photograph and some biological information. They also completed a questionnaire designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours. It was found that the participants who scored highly on the questionnaire were more influenced by physical attractiveness of the individual when judging likeability. Low scorers were less sensitive to this influence.
Describe Taylor et al.’s study of the matching hypothesis. How does this undermine the matching hypothesis?
Taylor et al. (2011) studied the activity logs of a popular online dating website, therefore measuring people’s actual date choices rather than preferences. They found that online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them.
This suggests that the matching hypothesis may not be a valid explanation of attraction as its central prediction (that people will be more attracted to and so select partners who ‘match’ them in physical attractiveness) is contradicted by these findings.
Note: you could use this as evidence to support physical attractiveness theory.
Describe evidence to support the matching hypothesis. Explain what this tell us about physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction.
There is some support for the matching hypothesis in its narrowest form, where it is applying to physical attractiveness only. For example, a meta-analysis by Feingold (1988) of 17 studies found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness of actual romantic partners.
This suggests that we are attracted to people who ‘match’ us approximately in physical attractiveness [you need to explain why using the details of the theory e.g. What people are making a compromise between]. This is especially supportive of the matching hypothesis as it studied actual romantic partners rather than who people would like to date, and therefore suggests that physical attractiveness in the form of the matching hypothesis is a valid explanation of attraction in romantic relationships.
What is filter theory?
An explanation of relationship formation. It states that a series of different factors progressively reduces that range of available romantic partners to a much smaller pool of possibilities. The filters include social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity
Define field of availables
The entire set of potential romantic partners, all the people we could realistically form a relationship with
Define feild of desirables
The people we want to date after the filtering process
Name the three filters of filter theory
Social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity
For each filter, define it and explain why it increases attraction.
Social demography:
Definition - this refers to a wide range of factors such as geographical location, social class, level of education, ethnic group, religion etc
Why it increases attraction - we tend to be more attracted to those who we come into contact with (accessibility) and those who are socially and culturally similar to us (homogamy). Others who are too ‘different’ to us are discounted as potential partners
Similarities in attitudes:
Definition - This refers to people sharing basic values (things that really matter to them), such as views on marriage, raising children etc
Why it increases attraction - this encourages greater and deeper communication, which promotes self-disclosure, making us more attracted to such people
Complementarity:
Definition - This refers to the ability of partners to meet each other’s emotional needs e.g. One likes to make other laugh and the other likes to be made to laugh
Why it increases attraction - this is attractive because it gives romantic partners the feeling that together they form a whole, which adds depth to a relationship, making it more likely to flourish
What is the problem with the first filter due to online dating? What does this tell us about filter theory as a factor affecting attraction?
The rise of online dating in recent years has changed the process of beginning a romantic relationship. It has reduced the importance of some social demographic variables. The internet and apps like Tinder have made meeting potential partners easier than ever, to the extent that we might well pursue a date with someone outside the usual demographic limits (e.g. from a different culture or social class) than would have applied 30 years ago.
This suggests that the theory may lack temporal validity as it can’t explain the formation of all relationships over time. It may be a valid explanation of the formation of offline romantic relationships, but this may not generalise to relationships that begin online.
Describe at least one study to support filter theory. Explain exactly which parts of the theory the study supports.
Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) conducted research that supports filter theory. They carried out a longitudinal study of 94 dating couples from the USA. Each partner completed two questionnaires assessing the degree to which they shared values and attitudes and the degree of need for complementarity. Seven months after the initial testing, the couples completed a further questionnaire assessing how close they felt to their partner compared to at the beginning of the study. The researchers believed this would indicate ‘progress towards permanence’ in the relationship. In the initial analysis, only similarity in attitudes was related to partner closeness. However, when they divided couples into short-term (they had been dating less than 18 months) and long-term (they had been dating longer than 18 months) relationships, a difference emerged. For short-term couples, similarity of attitudes and values was the most significant predictor of how close they felt to their partner. For long-term couples, only complementarity of needs was predictive of how close each individual felt to their partner.
This supports that people are initially attracted to each other because they are similar [you need to explain why here], and that complementarity becomes more important as the relationship progresses [you need to explain why here], as predicted by the theory. This, this suggests that the theory is a valid explanation of attraction.
There is evidence to undermine a couple of different parts of the theory. Describe at least one study that demonstrates this and explain exactly which parts of the theory it undermines.
Filter theory suggests that people are initially attracted to each other because they are similar (demographically and in attitudes and in other ways). But there is evidence which suggests that this direction of causality is wrong. Longitudinal research has found that cohabiting partners become more similar in their emotional responses over time. Other research has found that romantic partners over time bring their attitudes into line with each other’s, again suggesting that similarity is an effect of initial attraction rather than the cause.
This suggests that the theory may not be internally valid as the findings of the research are not predicted by filter theory. It appears that the cause and effect may be the opposite way round with similarity an effect of initial attraction rather than the cause.
Why is it thought that many studies have failed to replicate the original findings that formed the basis of filter theory? What does this tell us about filter theory as a factor affecting attraction?
Many studies have failed to replicate the original findings that formed the basis of filter theory. This may be due to social changes over time and the difficulties in defining the depth of a relationship by its length. For example, 18 months has been chosen as the cut off to distinguish between short-term and long-term relationships, with the assumption that those who had been together longer were more committed and had a deeper relationship.
This is a questionable assumption, which means that from the research (which is invalid) it is difficult to strongly support the validity of the theory. Therefore, the theory should be applied to attraction in relationships with caution, and therefore highlights the difficulty in applying it to explain attraction in other heterosexual couples, let alone homosexual couples or relationships in collectivist cultures
What is self-disclosure?
Self-disclosure is revealing personal information about yourself to another person, which can be superficial (low breadth and depth) or more intimate (higher breadth and depth). For example, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, interests, attitudes. It increases attraction.
What is social penetration theory?
Altman and Taylor’s (1973) social penetration theory is the gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else by giving away your deepest thoughts and feelings (self-disclosing).
What do we mean when we say self-disclosures must be reciprocal?
This is a reciprocal exchange in that when one person discloses something, the partner needs to respond in a way that is rewarding (e.g. with empathy and understanding) and with their own intimate thoughts. This balance and deeper understanding of each other (deeper penetration of each other’s lives) increases feelings of intimacy and attraction.
What do we mean by the breadth of self-disclosures?
Self-disclosure has two elements – breadth and depth. Both begin narrow, but as the relationship develops, self-disclosure becomes deeper, encompassing a wider range of topics.
What do we mean by the depth of self-disclosures?
Eventually we are prepared to reveal intimate, high-risk information (e.g. painful memories, strongly-held beliefs, secrets). This leads to the greater understanding and trust, increasing feelings of intimacy and attraction.
Use your answers to questions 33-37 to explain how self-disclosure leads to attraction.
Diagram on L2
Self-disclosure theory can be used to explain why online relationships don’t succeed and as part of relationship counselling. Choose one of these and explain how. What does this then tell us about self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction?
The theory can be used to explain why relationships developed online may not succeed. Individuals communicating over the internet are often anonymous. The greater psychological comfort that comes with such anonymity may lead them to reveal more information about themselves. This is referred to as the ‘boom and bust’ phenomenon. When people reveal more about themselves earlier than they would in a face-to-face interaction, relationships get very intense very quickly (boom). However, because the underlying trust and true knowledge of the other person are not there to support the relationship, it becomes difficult to sustain (bust). Researchers have highlighted instances where people who are certain that they have found their ‘soulmate’ online have left an established relationship to meet people who do not turn out to be what they first seemed.
This supports the external validity of the theory as it provides practical strategies for people who wish to have successful relationships that begin online - self-disclosures need to be reciprocal and increase slowly in breadth and depth to establish trust and intimacy and therefore attraction. It also explains why such relationships often do not succeed.
Describe Sprecher and Hendrick’s (2004) study of self-disclosure theory. Explain exactly which parts of the theory this study supports.
Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure (both theirs and their partner’s). Therefore, men and women who used self-disclosure and believed their partners did likewise were more satisfied with and committed to their romantic relationship. In a later study, Sprecher et al. (2013) found that relationships are closer and more satisfying when partners take turns to self-disclose. Other research involved participants writing daily diary entries. They found that self-disclosure and the perception of self-disclosure in a partner were linked to higher levels of intimacy in long-term married couples. The reverse was also true; less intimate couples self-disclosed less often
This suggests that the theory is valid in that self-disclosures that are reciprocal do seem to lead to more satisfying relationships, potentially because it increases trust and intimacy, implying that it increases attraction.
The research on self-disclosures is often correlational. What does this mean in this context and why is this a problem? What does this tell us about self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction?
Much self-disclosure research is correlational. Although it is usually assumed that greater self-disclosure creates more satisfaction, a correlation does not tell us if this is a valid conclusion to draw. It is possible that being happier in a relationship makes people disclose more. Or perhaps a third variable causes both self-disclosure and satisfaction/attraction e.g. The amount of time partners spend together.
Therefore, from the research, we can’t strongly support the internal validity of the theory that self-disclosure causes attraction as self-disclosures may not directly cause attraction/satisfaction.
There is evidence that the theory lacks external validity. How?
The prediction that increasing depth and breadth of self-disclosures will lead to more satisfying and intimate relationships is not true for all cultures. It depends on the type of self-disclosure. A review by Tang et al. (2013) found that men and women in the USA (individualist) self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than Chinese men and women (collectivist). Both of these levels are linked to relationship satisfaction in these cultures.
Therefore the theory is limited as it is based on findings from Western (individualist) cultures which are not necessarily generalisable to other cultures.
What is a virtual relationship?
A virtual relationship is an online relationship. It includes a wide variety of electronic communication methods by which relationships can be formed and maintained e.g. email, instant messaging, chat rooms, texts and social networking sites.
Which two theories fall under the umbrella term of ‘self-disclosure’ affecting virtual relationships?
Reduced cues theory
Hyperpersonal model
Which theory is classed separately?
Absence of gating
According to reduced cues theory, what are cues?
They are things we depend on in FtF interactions such as facial expressions, tone of voice, appearance
What cues are missing in virtual relationships?
Facial expressions, tone of voice, appearance
How does impact the person and their self-disclosures?
This leads to a reduced sense of individual identity and so people act in ways that they usually wouldn’t (deindividuation).
One of these ways is disinhibition i.e. we are less likely to censor what we say. This leads to blunt and even aggressive communication.
This leads to a reluctance to self-disclose (as we are sharing a narrow breadth and depth of information, and we feel like it would be less likely to be reciprocated - responded to with empathy and understanding and therefore their disclosures) and so people are less likely to want to initiate a relationship with someone as there is a lack of intimacy as we don’t feel like we have developed a deeper understanding of each other and so haven’t established trust.
According to the hyperpersonal model, what promotes self-disclosures online?
The anonymity online promotes self-disclosure. As people don’t know your identity, you feel less accountable for your behaviour and so share information you may not normally (greater breadth and depth).
Therefore do self-disclosures happen earlier or later than in face to face relationships? Are they deeper or more shallow?
Self-disclosures happen earlier in relationships online and once the relationships are established they are more intense and intimate - there are more self-disclosures in virtual relationships compared to face-to-face relationships.
How does this promote intimacy?
The more self-disclosures the deeper they are and the more intimate
What is selective self-presentation? How does this affect self-disclosures online?
Additionally, the sender has more time to manipulate their online image (selective self-presentation) so that they can control what they disclose and the cues they send. This means that they can more easily manipulate self-disclosure to promote intimacy by presenting themselves in a positive and idealised way, either by being intensely truthful or intensely false. The receiver then gets a positive impression of the sender and so may give feedback (essentially reciprocity - they will respond with empathy and understanding and potentially their own disclosures), which reinforces the sender’s selective self-presentation and encourages more disclosures and therefore a deeper understanding of each other, more trust and greater intimacy.
Explain two weaknesses of the reduced cues theory. Explain exactly which parts of the theory they undermine. What does this tell us about how self-disclosure affects virtual relationships?
The reduced cues theory is wrong to suggest that nonverbal cues are entirely missing from online communication. They are just different. Online interactions use other cues, such as style and the timing of the message. For instance, taking time to reply to a status update is often interpreted as more intimate than an immediate response. But too much time is considered a snub. These nuances are as subtle as they are in face-to-face relationships. Additionally, acrostics (e.g. LOL), emoticons and emojis are used as effective substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice.
This is hard for reduced cues theory to explain as virtual relationships can be just as personal as face-to-face relationships as it is possible to express emotional states. Therefore, deindividuation should not occur and people should act in a disinhibited manner. As such the theory may not be a valid explanation of virtual relationships in social media.
The extent and depth of self-disclosure online depends on the type of online communication. On social networking sites, people interacting generally have relationships in the offline world. People self-disclose more on Facebook for instance than they would on an e-survey, where they are reluctant to disclose information they consider to be private. Online dating often results in reduced self-disclosure because communicators anticipate future meetings face-to-face in the offline world. This consideration generally doesn’t exist in chatrooms and on gaming sites.
The theories assume that all interactions online are the same rather than varied in these ways. As such, it is unlikely that either theory is a completely valid explanation of virtual relationships in social media.
Describe evidence to support the hyperpersonal model. Explain exactly which parts of the theory it supports and what this tells us about how self-disclosure affects virtual relationships.
The hyperpersonal model predicts that people are motivated to manipulate their self-presentation in virtual relationships. Whitty and Joinson’s (2009) research supports that this is the case. For example, questions asked online tend to be very direct, probing and intimate (hyperhonest). This is quite different from small talk in face-to-face conversations. Responses online are also direct and to the point. This helps to present us in an exaggeratedly positive light. Selective self-presentation can also be hyperdishonest, such as when people invent attractive personal qualities for their online dating profiles.
This suggests that there is a difference in the type of self-disclosures used in virtual relationships compared to face-to-face ones, providing some support for the validity of theory, particularly in terms of selective self-presentation (we present ourselves in a positive, idealised way online). However, it is not necessarily that this promotes more or deeper self-disclosure compared to face-to-face relationships and so isn’t particularly strong support for the central prediction of the theory.
