Virtual:

• LIMITATION:

  • challenged by the findings of meta-analysis
  • Ruppel et al carried out a meta-analysis of 25 studies that compared self-disclosures in FtF and virtual interactions
  • Found that self-report studies showed that the frequency, breadth and depth of self-disclosures were all greater in FtF relationships
  • On the other hand experimental studies showed no significant differences between FtF and virtual relationships in terms of self-disclosure

  Contradicts the hyperpersonal model's view that the greater intimacy of virtual relationships should lead to deeper self-disclosures than in FtF
• COUNTERPOINT

  • There is evidence that FtF and virtual do differ in the type of self-disclosures used
  • Whitty et al summarise evidence showing how self-presentation is manipulated in virtual relationships
  • IE questions asked in online discussions tend to be very direct probing
  • Different from FtF conversations which often feature small talk

  Self-presentation online can be hyperdishonest ie when people manipulate attractive personal features for their online dating profiles

  Supports the model's claims about hyperhonest and hyperdishonest self-disclosures differences between FtF and virtual
• STRENGTH:

  • Socially anxious people find virtual relationships valuable
  • Bargh et al looked at online communication by socially anxious people
  • Found that these people were able to express their 'true selves' more than in FtF situations
  • Of the romantic relationships that initially formed by shy people online 71% survived at least two years
  • This compares well with relationships for shy people formed in the offline world

  This suggests that shy people do benefit online presumably because the gating that obstructs FtF relationships is absent online.