Explaining Online Relationships (AQA A Level Psychology): Revision Note

Self-disclosure in online relationships

• Online relationships (ORs) are those which do not exist on a face-to-face (FtF) basis

• Social media platforms allow ORs to exist alongside or as a substitute for a FtF relationship, e.g., you can be friends with someone on Facebook and/or friends with them in ‘real life’ 

• Self-disclosure takes on a whole new dimension when it comes to ORs, as the usual restrictions and social norms which govern self-disclosure are removed in online environments

• Reduced cues theory (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986) argues that online relationships are less effective than FtF relationships because they lack the cues we normally depend on, particularly emotional cues such as facial expressions and tone of voice

  • A lack of behavioural signals such as body language, facial expressions, gestures and paralanguage, which usually help to guide and monitor FtF conversations 

  • A sense of deindividuation in which a person can hide behind a screen name or avatar so that their identity is to some extent lost 

    • Deindividuation can lead to someone behaving in ways which show a lack of inhibition, i.e., they feel free to express themselves in ways which they would not use in a FtF encounter

  • A lack of inhibition can lead to online communication which is blunt and even aggressive (something that internet trolls excel at)

  • According to the theory, this impersonal nature of online communication results in a reluctance to self-disclose

    • People are unlikely to want to reveal their innermost feelings to someone who is so impersonal

The hyperpersonal model

• The hyperpersonal model (Walther, 1996, 2011) suggests that online relationships can be more personal than FtF ones

  • There may be greater and earlier self-disclosure (a kind of speeded-up version of the Social Penetration 'onion' model)

• Another aspect of the model is anonymity: Bargh et al. (2002) point out that when you are aware that other people do not know your identity, you feel less accountable for your behaviour

  • This means you may disclose more to a stranger than to your most intimate partner (the 'strangers on a train' effect)

• Online relationships can develop very quickly, as self-disclosure happens earlier and becomes intense and intimate, but they can also end more quickly, because the high excitement level of the interaction is not matched by the level of trust between the partners

  • Cooper & Sportolari (1997) called this the 'boom and bust' phenomenon of online relationships

• The hyperpersonal model also identifies how an OR gives people an opportunity to present their ‘best self’ to the other person, as they have the time (and the tools) to portray themselves and their life in a highly edited version of reality (known as selective self-presentation)

  • The sender of a message has more time and more control over what to disclose and which cues to send than in a FtF situation, making it much easier to manipulate self-presentation in a positive and idealised way

The use of deception in online relationships

• Deception refers to intentionally providing false or misleading information to others

• In ORs, this often involves lying or exaggerating personal details to create a better impression or manipulate others

• Common types of deception might include:

  • physical attributes: lying about age, height, or weight

  • photographs: using old or heavily edited images

  • personality traits: exaggerating positive qualities or hiding flaws

  • relationship goals: pretending to want a serious relationship

• Some deception goes beyond attempting to make a good impression and instead involves scamming or catfishing

• Common tactics include:

  • claiming to have an emergency that requires money

  • pretending to be in the military or working abroad

  • using emotional manipulation to gain trust quickly, otherwise known as 'love bombing'

Effects of absence of gating in online relationships

• A gate consists of any obstacle/barrier to a relationship developing or even getting off the ground in the first place (McKenna & Bargh, 1999)

• The usual gates that exist in FtF interactions (e.g., shyness, appearance, accent, anxiety) can be completely absent in ORs

  • People may choose to initially hide their appearance behind avatars or cartoon images, plus the usual stressors involved in striking up a conversation FtF are removed in the online world

• The absence of gating works by refocusing attention on self-disclosure and away from superficial, distracting features

  • Online, the interest is in what a person says rather than how they look or sound

• The absence of gating provides opportunities for people who previously may have isolated themselves from relationships due to fear, anxiety, or self-consciousness to connect to others

• Absence of gating encourages self-disclosure with its veil of anonymity, plus it allows people to express themselves, possibly in ways that FtF encounters have not afforded them, e.g., creatively, honestly, adventurously

• It is possible that an OR can become a real, ‘in the flesh’ relationship, as it is likely that a lot has already been shared between the couple

• Any superficial gates which might previously have blocked the relationship are gone, and each person sees the other as an individual in their own right rather than as a set of characteristics, e.g., ‘blonde’, ‘Japanese’, ‘van driver’

Research which investigates online relationships

• Bargh et al. (2002) conducted three experiments using students as participants

  • They found that those who feel that they can express their “true selves” online are more likely to form close and intimate ORs

• Whitty & Joinson (2009) summarised evidence that online self-disclosure can be both 'hyperhonest' and 'hyperdishonest'

  • Questions asked in online discussions tend to be very direct, probing and intimate, unlike FtF conversations, which are often hedged around with small talk

• Toma et al. (2008) studied how people's online dating profiles were deceptive and found that men tended to lie about being taller, whereas women lied more about their weight

  • They concluded that online daters use strategic deception – small lies to make themselves look better while avoiding lies that might backfire in future FtF meetings

Evaluation of online relationships

Strengths

• There is some validity in the hyperpersonal model in terms of the lack of self-monitoring which takes place in the online world (see Whitty & Joinson’s 2009 findings)

• ORs may provide a lifeline for people who would previously have been marginalised; e.g., Baker & Oswald (2010) found that the absence of gating enables people with crippling shyness to open up and engage in fulfilling relationships with others

Limitations

• Reduced cues theory is not entirely valid: Walther & Tidwell (1995) point out that online interactions involve their own cues

  • E.g., emojis and acrostics (such as LOL) substitute for facial expressions and tone of voice, while the timing of a response carries meaning (replying too quickly as over-keen)

    • These nuances are just as subtle as those in FtF relationships, suggesting online communication can be just as personal as FtF interaction

• The theories surrounding ORs take a universal view, as they assume that people are connected online and have access to the internet

  • This is not true for everyone across the world, which means the theories may not generalise beyond cultures and communities with widespread internet access

• Walther (2011) argues that any theory of online relationships must accommodate the fact that relationships are generally conducted both online and offline, through many different media

  • What we disclose online is influenced by our offline interactions (and vice versa), so treating online and offline relationships as separate phenomena is unrealistic and challenges all three explanations

Issues & Debates

• These explanations of online relationships use a nomothetic approach, as they aim to explain how most people behave in online relationships

  • However, online disclosure is often idiographic, with individuals showing vastly different levels of openness, honesty, or risk-taking online

  • This limits the theories' ability to reflect the diversity of online behaviour and experiences