deck_19119114

Question 1

What is argued by Altman and Taylor (1973)?

Answer 1

Their social penetration theory says that intimacy and closeness develop in relationships through a gradual process of self-disclosure - sharing information about yourself.

Question 2

What did Joinson (2001) find in relation to social penetration theory?

Answer 2

That self-disclosure happens more when people communicate via computer than face-to-face.

Question 3

Joinson (2001), method?

Answer 3

1. Undergraduate students were recruited to participate in a laboratory study,
2. Participants were paired, mostly in single-sex pairs, and asked to discuss an abstract dilemma which stimulated conversation,
3. Transcripts of the participants’ discussions were rated on their levels of self-disclosure. Raters weren’t told which transcripts came from which condition,
4. Only unprompted disclosures were included, i.e. not answers to direct questions, and task-related disclosures, e.g. an opinion relevant to the task, weren’t counted,
5. Experiment 1 - half of the pairs discussed the dilemma face-to-face, and half discussed it from separate rooms using a computer chat program,
6. Experiment 2 - all of the pairs used the chat program, but half of them also had a video connection, so could see each other.

Question 4

Joinson (2001), findings?

Answer 4

1. In experiment 1, participants in the computer condition showed significantly more self-disclosure than the face-to-face participants,
2. In experiment 2, pairs who could see one another over video has significantly lower levels of self-disclosure than pairs without video.

Question 5

Joinson (2001), conclusion?

Answer 5

People disclose more about themselves when communicating via computer than they do face-to-face, and using video reduces the level of self-disclosure in computer communication.

Question 6

Joinson (2001), evaluation?

Answer 6

1. This was a laboratory experiment, so the variables were controlled and the study can be replicated,
2. However, the participants were almost all paired in same-sex pairs, so the results can’t be generalised to communication between people who aren’t the same sex,
3. In the first experiment, although the raters weren’t told which transcripts came from which condition, it is likely they could tell which conversations were held face-to-face and which happened through computer chat,
4. So, their ratings may have been biased.

Question 7

What are the distinctions of self-awareness?

Answer 7

1. Self-awareness means paying attention to yourself, i.e. being aware of your thoughts, feelings, and behaviour,
2. Public self-awareness; being aware of how you appear to others,
3. Private self-awareness; this is ‘looking inwards’, i.e. being aware of what is going on inside your head.

Question 8

Joinson (2001), third experiment?

Answer 8

1. The participants discussed the dilemma through computers in conditions which were designed to induce either high or low public and private self-awareness,
2. Joinson found that the condition designed to create high private self-awareness and low public self-awareness resulted in significantly higher levels of self-disclosure than the other conditions,
3. Chatting via computer usually involves anonymity and focussing on your thoughts and feelings to express them in writing. Joinson suggested that this is likely to create low public and high private self-awareness which may explain why this type of communication results in more self-disclosure.

Question 9

What is gating?

Answer 9

1. A process that limits how much we self-disclosure - obstacles known as ‘gates’ prevent people from sharing information, which means they can’t develop intimacy and build a relationships,
2. Factors that can act as gates, such as appearance, shyness, or social skills, are apparent when you meet somebody face-to-face.

Question 10

How involved is gating in virtual communication?

Answer 10

1. Gate factors aren’t obvious in virtual communication. People often communicate just through typed messages online, so their appearance, body language, and so on are hidden,
2. The absence of gating in virtual relationships means self-disclosure is higher.

Question 11

Hill et al. (1976), findings?

Answer 11

1. Studied dating couples who had met face-to-face,
2. Found that 55% of the couples were still together after 2-years.

Question 12

What did McKenna et al. (2002) find in contrast to Hill et al. (1976)?

Answer 12

That couples that met online were more likely to stay together.

Question 13

McKenna et al. (2002), method?

Answer 13

1. Surveys were sent to randomly selected members of online special interest forums, e.g. forums about cats,
2. The survey asled about how people interacted offline, whether they shared more with others online, and how close the relationships they formed online were,
3. Participants were then sent a follow up survey two years later which asked similar questions to see how the feelings and relationshis that they had competed in the earlier survey had changed.

Question 14

McKenna et al. (2002), results?

Answer 14

1. People who shared aspcts of themselves online which they didn’t share with others offline reported developing internet relationships more quickly than ‘real-life’ relationships,
2. Over half of the participants had met an internet friend face-to-face, on average meeting each internet friend 8 times,
3. After two years, of the respondents who had started a romantic relationships online, 71% were still in relationship.

Question 15

McKenna et al. (2002), conclusion?

Answer 15

1. People can form close, lasting relationships online, and these relationships typically form more quickly, and are more stable and long-lasting than offline relationships,
2. McKenna proposed that online relationships have a stable base, because they begin based on mutual interests and self-disclosure rather than outward appearances,
3. The absence of gating allows strong relationships to form quickly.

Question 16

McKenna et al. (2002), evaluation?

Answer 16

1. The study used a self-report survey which may have involved a biased sample or produced social desirability bias,
2. However, this study looked at real-life interaction, so it has high ecological validity.

Question 17

McKenna et al. (2002), laboratory experiment?

Answer 17

1. Pairs of the opposite sex met once either online or in person, and then a second time in person. The researchers showed that after both meetings, people liked each other significantly more if they had first met online,
2. For participants who only met face-to-face, their quality of conversation and the level of intimacy they reached didn’t affect how much they liked each other. This suggests that liking was based on factors other than what was said, e.g. appearance,
3. However, liking and conversation quality were strongly correlated for participants who had first met online,
4. This supports the conclusion from the surveys that the absence of gating online contributes to the stability of online relationships.

Question 18

Keisler and Sproull (1986), reduced cues theory?

Answer 18

Keisler and Sproull (1986), through their Reduced Cues theory, suggests that CDC (computer-mediated communications) relationships may have poorer levels of intimacy and delayed self-disclosure because some of the vital cues present in face-to-face relationships, such as facial expressions and voice intonation, are not present in CDC relationships, leading to the de-individuation of each partner. Therefore, to act as a compromise for the lack of cues, one or both individuals are likely to be excessively blunt or impersonal, which also reduces the likelihood of future self-disclosure and early intimacy within the relationship.

Question 19

Cooper and Sportolari (1997), hyperpersonal model of online relationships?

Answer 19

On the other hand, the hyperpersonal model suggests that online relationships develop and end at a much higher rate than face-to-face relationships, as suggested by Cooper and Sportolari (1997) through their idea of a ‘boom and bust phenomenon’. Initial self-disclosure is high because partners can be selective about what information they choose to display or disclose i.e. selective self-penetration. However, a lack of personal cues means that trust and intimacy is not built at the same rate as self-disclosure, so these exchanges are not reciprocal.

Question 20

Bargh et al. (2002), anonymity in hyperpersonal model?

Answer 20

The anonymity associated with online dating, as suggested by Bargh et al (2002), means that each individual takes less responsibility for their behaviour and so the break-up and build-up of the relationship is less personal.

Question 21

Whitty and Johnson (2009)?

Answer 21

Online communications, due to the apparent lack of nonverbal cues, often feature ‘direct’ questions, as opposed to the small-talk which features in face-to-face relationships. Therefore, this suggests that we are actually more likely to self-disclose in virtual relationships because we can be selective as to what information we reveal about ourselves, and so use self-disclosure to further improve the way that a potential partner views us. Hence, the central principle of selective self-presentation and the importance on anonymity are demonstrated in such studies.

Question 22

Walther et al. (2011) against social penetration in virtual relationship development?

Answer 22

The theories of self-disclosure and absence of gating in virtual relationships may lack ecological validity because they may not be able to explain all the course of modern-age relationships, which is often a mixture of virtual and face-to-face elements, as suggested by Walther (2011). Individuals often feel the pressure to portray themselves in the same way as they have online as in real-life, and so this interaction may offset the effects of fewer gates and self-disclosure in virtual relationships.