Virtual relationships

• FtF

  Face to face
• CMC

  Computer Mediated Communication
• SNSs

  Social Networking Sites
• Reduced cues theory

  Sproull and Keisler (1986)

  CMC relationships are less effective than FtF ones because they lack many cues we normally depend on in FtF interactions
• Cues we rely on in FtF interactions

  • Nonverbal cues e.g. physical appearance
  • Emotional states e.g. facial expressions or tone of voice
• What does having no cues lead to

  De-individuation which reduces peoples sense of individuality which in turn encourages disinhibition in relating to others
• What are virtual relationships more likely to be according to reduced cues theory

  Blunt or aggressive in terms of communication because everyone can hide behind a screen
• The Hyper personal model

  Walther (1996 & 2011)

  CMC relationships are more intimate than FtF ones because self-disclosure is quicker and more intimate
• The three aspects of the Hyper personal model

  Cooper and Sportolari (1997)

  • Boom and Bust, CMC are shorter but intimate because early excitement and great self-disclosure
  • Self-selective presentation, presenting a positive and idealised version of ourselves creates intimacy
  • ‘Stranger on the train‘, we disclose more intimate things to strangers because we are anonymous
• Absence of gating

  McKenna and Bargh (1999)

  A gate in this context is any obstacle to the formation of a relationship

  FtF interaction is said to be gated because it involves features that can interfere with the early development of a relationship