virtual relationships in social media Flashcards

(36 cards)

1
Q

Self disclosure in virtual relationships

A

Sternberg involved revealing intimate and revealing sensitive information

Thoughts feelings goals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Why self disclosure may be easier in virtual relationships

A

Ability makes self disclosure easier unsocial has confidence to speak too who would be embarrassed to speak face to face too

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Be - Ze’ev

A

Disclosing personal info online makes someone less vulnerable than self disclosure in a face to face situation

Can easily be withdraw from a situation if uncomfortable as not immediate contact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What does online give that in person doesn’t

A

Freedom to disclose their true desires with others who share the same interests with instant response saving time when seeking a partner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Parks and Floyd

A

People report disclosing significantly more their online relationships to real life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

McKenna et al aim

A

Whether people were better able to disclose their real self to others on internet rather than face to face

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

McKenna et al procedure

A

Procedure :
Large sample 600 nearly randomly selected from internet newsgroup contributors both fem and male

Around 32 years old

Questionnaire were emailed asking to discuss their level of self disclosure

2 years later p were interviewed about relationships

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Results McKenna et al

A

High levels of social anxiety more likely to disclose their real self over the internet - relationships form - quicker and stronger than face to face

Allows these social anxiety alternative to forming relationships

Also form intimate real life relationships with people they meet on the internet

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

McKenna conclusion

A

Increase levels of self disclosure over internet relationships developed far easier and quicker than face to face and become just as real

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Gene then et al

A

Support interact dark room more likely to self disclosure and like the person more than bright room

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Collin and miller

A

People tend to like those who self disclose and more likely to reciprocate the behaviour leading to stronger relationships

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Reduce cue theories

A

Communication like body language is missing results miss interpreting text or reading too much into typed communication

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Virtual relationships filter theory happens ….

A

Increased speed more efficiently online more honest due to anonymity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What does virtual relationships miss that’s is essential

A

Face to face has body language tone of vice physical contact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Nice and Erbring

A

regular internet users spent less time in real life relationships

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Negative aspects of social media - Clayton et al

A

More online time spent more argument over online social media - angering for real relationship in their lives - don’t have to tell the truth

17
Q

Facebook issues

A

High levels of Facebook users coupled was likely to lead to Facebook related arguements and jealously - emotional or physical cheating - increasing relationship break down

18
Q

One draw back of virtual relationships is

A

Anonymity of online communication makes it possible for some to self disclosure in ways that misrepresent or distort true personality leading to mistrust

19
Q

Absence of gating

A

Filtering wants and not such as religion

20
Q

McKenna et al absence of gating aim

A

Absence of gating in virtual relationship affect how much strangers liked each other

21
Q

Gating has decreased boundaries

A

Disability not knowing before meeting and connecting before

22
Q

Procedure

A

31 females and mates American undergraduates

Two 20 minute meetings get to know each other

Randomly assigned one of three conditions

P asked to rate how much they liked their partner 14 point scale and how intimate they felt

23
Q

What are the three conditions

A

P in control condition face to face meet

Interacted in first meeting over internet and second meeting face to face

Trading places condition -P interacted with one person in a face to face meeting and believed it was a different person over the internet second meeting (same person )

24
Q

Results McKenna et al

A

Tended to score their liking for partner higher after online meeting than meeting face to face

P in trading places condition reported knew the person they had met on the internet better and more intimately than the person face to face - same person

P met face to face based liking on physical characteristics

25
Conclusion McKenna et al
Superficial gating is only factor influencing how much people like each other in face to face interactions
26
Support effect of absence of gating
Mesch - socially introverted Israeli teenagers were far more likely to develop positive virtual relationships online than face to face relationships Social barriers preventing was not the case like in traditional face to face employment age status
27
Virtual relationships have greater freedom of expression and intimacy because ….. which ….
High levels Self disclosure anonymity and absence of gating increase likelihood virtual relationships will develop offline strong healthy real life
28
Attachment styles
Insecure attachment mostly to develop parasocial relationship Than secure
29
Prefer parasocial relationships over real life because
Celebs don’t demand and less likely to experience criticism disappointment
30
Cole and leets method and results
115 students parasocial scale two attachment style questionnaires Found anxious ambilvalents are most likely to form parasocial relations Avoidant were least likely to develop wasn’t bothered secure middle
31
Cohen
Anxious ambivalent viewers greater negative consequences for loss of favourite tv character than others attachment
32
Maternal deprivation
44 thieves affectionless psychopaths criminals - stalking
33
Dutton et al
Fearful childhood attachments were more likely to show jealousy and surveillance behaviour
34
+ face validity
Face validity as makes sense that people displace earlier negative experiences into fantasy parasocial relationships lesslikely to be hurt again
35
- many correlational
Hard to show cause and effect
36
Evolutionary theory argues
Parasocial relationships are explained by the idea that unlike real work both sexes are free to select partners who perfectly match their desires and celebs regularly in the media become familiar and therefore people develop stresction to potential partners