A03 - Virtual Relationships in Social Media

• Evaluating Virtual Relationships in Social Media

  
  

  -Multimodal

  Abscence of Gating in VR

  Types of CMC

  Supporting research for Hyperpersonal Model

  Research against Hyperpersonal Model

  Reduced Cues Theory
• Reduced Cues theory - PART 1


  P = Lack of research support for reduced cues theory. The theory is wrong to suggest that non verbal cues are entirely missing from CMC. They are just different, not absent. Online cues are not absent but different from FtF.

  E = Walther & Tidwell (1995) point out people in online interactions use other cues like style & timing of their messages e,g, taking time to reply to a social network status update on social media is often interpreted as a more intimate act than an immediate reply, But not too much time otherwise that might be thought as a snub. 
• Reduced Cues theory - PART 2

  E = Walther & Tidwell cont. : Acronyms/acrostics (e.g. LOL) emoticons & emojis are effective subtle substitutes for FtF nonverbal cues such as facial expressions & tone of voice in FtF interactions.

  L = Success of online communication is hard for reduced cues theory to explain, coz it shows CMC interaction can be just as personal as those conducted by FtF & its possible to express emotional states in a virtual relationship. This hard for reduced cues theory to explain because it suggests virtual relationships can be as personal as FtF. (i.e. no differences).
• Hyperpersonal Model - PART 1


  P = Research support for the hyperpersonal model. 

  E = The Hyperpersonal model predicts people are motivated to self-disclose in CMC in ways which are sometimes ‘hyper honest’ & ‘hyper dishonest’.

  E = Whitty & Joinson (2009) summarised evidence where this is the case - found conversations in virtual relationships are direct & hyperhonest. Self-presentation online also be hyper dishonest e.g. inventing qualities for dating profiles. 

  L = Supports models claim about hyperhonest & hyper dishonest self-disclosures & shows there differences between FtF & VR.
• Hyperpersonal Model - PART 2

  COUNTERPOINT:

  P = Another limitation is a lack of research support for the hyperpersonal model.

  E = Ruppel et al’s (2017) meta-analysis compared the frequency, breadth and depth of self-disclosures in FtF and virtual relationships.

  E = In self-report studies, self-disclosure was greater in FtF relationships on all 3 measures than in virtual relationships. In experimental studies there were no significant differences. 

  L = This challenges the model’s view that greater intimacy in virtual relationships should lead to greater self-disclosure than FtF.
• Types of CMC - PART 1

  P = Self-disclosure online is not a blanket phenomenon; its extent & depth depends on the type of CMC being used. In the case of social networking sites, people interacting with each other generally have relationships in the offline world.

  E = People self-disclose more in their Facebook status updates than they are willing to in completing an online e-commerce webform, where they are quite reluctant to disclose info they consider to be private (Paine et al 2006).
• Types of CMC - PART 2

  E = An interesting case is online dating, an unusual example of CMC with complete strangers. Self-disclosure is reduced because both communicators anticipate future meetings FtF in the offline world, a moderation that generally does not exist in chatrooms & on gaming sites 

  L = Any theory that approaches CMC as a single concept neglects it richness and variety and is thus unlikely to be a completely valid explanation.
• Absence of gating in virtual relationships - PART 1

  +

  P = McKenna & Bargh (2000) studied online communication by shy & socially anxious people. 

  E = Found that such people able to express ‘true selves’ more than in FtF situations. 

  E = In this group 71% of romantic relationships initially formed online survived more than 2 years vs 49% formed offline (Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994). This higher proportion than relationships formed in offline world. 
• Absence of gating in virtual relationships - PART 2


  L = Suggests shy people do benefit online presumably coz the gating that obstructs FtF relationships is absent online. The hyperpersonal model & absence of gating suggest forming relationships online may be easier especially for shy people.
• Multimodal - PART 1


  P = Walther (2011) argues that any theory seeking to explain CMC, including the role of self disclosure, needs to accommodate the fact that our relationships are generally conducted both online AND offline through many different media.

  E = It is not usually a straightforward matter of ‘either/or’. This is in fact probably the central characteristic of many modern relationships. 
• Multimodal - PART 2


  E = What we choose to disclose in our online relationships will inevitably be influenced by our offline interactions and vice versa.

  L =  But Walther (2011) argues all relationships are multimodal, conducted both online and offline so both modes influence each other. This suggests we can not ignore theories of virtual relationships but it is wrong to focus on one mode rather than both.

  The hyperpersonal model & absence of gating suggest that forming relationships online may be easier especially for some people.
• Evaluation of Virtual Relationships?

  -Multimodal

  Abscence of Gating in VR

  Types of CMC

  Supporting research for Hyperpersonal Model

  Research against Hyperpersonal Model

  Reduced Cues Theory