Virtual Relationships Flashcards
(8 cards)
What does ‘absence of gating’ refer to in virtual relationships?
Online communication removes typical face-to-face barriers (gates) such as physical appearance, age, ethnicity, or speech impediments. This allows people to form connections based on shared interests and self-disclosure rather than superficial factors.
What does the reduced cues theory suggest about online communication?
Virtual interactions lack non-verbal cues (e.g., facial expressions, tone), which can lead to misunderstandings or selective perception. People may interpret messages based on assumptions or wishful thinking, making emotional expression harder.
How does anonymity influence behaviour in virtual relationships?
Anonymity leads to deindividuation—reduced sense of responsibility—resulting in greater self-disclosure and intimacy. However, it can also lead to disinhibited behaviours such as trolling or sexting.
What does the hyperpersonal model (Walther, 1996) propose?
Online relationships can become more intense and intimate than offline ones because people carefully manage their self-presentation. Users may be hyper-honest or hyper-dishonest, leading to accelerated intimacy.
What evidence supports the absence of gating in virtual relationships?
Baker and Oswald (2010) surveyed 207 students on shyness, Facebook use, and friendship quality and found that higher Facebook use predicted better friendship quality only for those scoring high on shyness; it had no effect for less shy students. This suggests that virtual environments remove face‑to‑face barriers (gates), allowing shy individuals to form and perceive high‑quality relationships online. Therefore, the absence of gating online has validity in explaining how social media can facilitate connections for those who struggle in person.
Why is the reduced cues theory limited in explaining online intimacy?
Reduced cues theory claims that the lack of non‑verbal signals online hinders emotion and closeness, but people actually use alternative cues—emojis, punctuation, message timing, even response delay—to convey tone and intimacy. For example, a delayed reply can signal thoughtfulness rather than indifference. Because the theory ignores these functional substitutes, it fails to account for how computer‑mediated communication can be just as personal as face‑to‑face interaction, undermining its completeness.
What limitation does Ruppel et al.’s meta-analysis pose for the hyperpersonal model?
Ruppel et al. (2017) meta‑analysed 25 studies comparing self‑disclosure online versus offline and found that self‑report surveys showed deeper disclosures face‑to‑face, while experimental studies found no difference in breadth or depth. This contradicts the hyperpersonal model’s prediction that virtual relationships produce greater and deeper self‑disclosure, calling into question its predictive validity.
How do Whitty and Johnson (2009) challenge Ruppel’s findings and support the hyperpersonal model?
Whitty and Johnson (2009) reviewed evidence showing that online self‑presentation is often hyper‑honest (direct, probing questions) or hyper‑dishonest (inflated personal profiles), in stark contrast to the “small talk” typical offline. These systematic differences in disclosure style support the hyperpersonal model’s claim that virtual relationships allow tailored, intensified self‑presentation, bolstering its ecological validity despite mixed meta‑analytic findings.
