How would you search for a romantic partner nowadays? Online would probably be most people's answer to that question. It’s more important than ever for psychologists to study virtual relationships in social media, how and why we form relationships online, and their pros and cons.
Explore our app and discover over 50 million learning materials for free.
Lerne mit deinen Freunden und bleibe auf dem richtigen Kurs mit deinen persönlichen Lernstatistiken
Jetzt kostenlos anmeldenHow would you search for a romantic partner nowadays? Online would probably be most people's answer to that question. It’s more important than ever for psychologists to study virtual relationships in social media, how and why we form relationships online, and their pros and cons.
A virtual relationship in social media is formed via an online platform. It could be a friendship, romantic relationship, or parasocial relationship. But how and why do we create these relationships? What are the most important factors affecting our virtual relationships?
Fig. 1: Virtual relationships occur online.
Self-disclosure is when we share information about ourselves with another person. Psychologists such as Altman and Taylor (1973) state that this is the key to forming relationships (social penetration theory), and a gradual process of self-disclosure aids the formation of closeness.
Others like Cooper and Sportolari (1997) state that oversharing can lead to the ‘boom and bust’ phenomenon.
The boom and bust phenomenon is when people overshare without the proper grounding of trust, which makes self-disclosure an essential part of a relationship, leading to the breakdown of the relationship.
They stated:
Online relating can lead to destructive results when people act on or compulsively overindulge in a speeded-up, eroticized pseudo-intimacy.¹
Virtual relationships are much more vulnerable to this phenomenon as self-disclosure tends to occur much faster because of the anonymity of online relationships. Psychologists such as Walther (1996, 2011) call this the ‘hyperpersonal model’ of virtual relationships.
Those engaging in computer-mediated communication highlighted how the hyperpersonal model is advantageous, in that it gives the sense of more control over messaging and better outcomes from this perceived sense of increased control that face-to-face conversations cannot compete with.
Asynchronous communication produces more desirable messages, according to those who engage in virtual relationships.
Gates refer to barriers that prevent us from being attracted to someone if we meet them in person, such as how they speak, smell or look. Virtual relationships have an absence of such gates, and thus, some psychologists suggest that we can form more meaningful relationships online.
When appearance remains unknown and a person can interact with others without fearing rejection based on looks, they may be less shy, and the absence of gates allows for deeper developments of relationships that would have normally been dismissed in face-to-face situations.
The absence of gates can also be positive for shy or socially anxious people:
They can meet people without the anxiety of real-life interaction. Even if people meet later in the relationship, if an attraction has already been formed, gates rarely dampen this attraction due to the intimacy developed from self-disclosure.
Deindividuation theory in the context of online relationships refers to the lack of physical cues we get in face-to-face interactions, such as facial expressions and body language, affecting interactions.
Social rules dictate our interactions; we control our impulses and tend to speak more politely due to the potential for repercussions.
We also navigate conversations in response to cues provided by those we are conversing with; if we say something that is not well perceived, we typically backtrack and attempt to resolve the conversation.
According to Sproull and Kessler (1986), virtual interactions are much less effective than face-to-face ones, which leads to deindividuation, wherein people feel less responsible for their behaviour and become more hostile, as they lack the social inhibitions face-to-face communication provides. Interestingly enough, this prevents self-disclosure.
Definitions of romantic relationships can be applied to both virtual and real-life relationships. Romantic relationships typically involve intentional affectionate and intimate behaviour, which can be displayed in different ways both online and in person.
What counts as affectionate and intimate can vary for different people.
Someone may think that someone else checking up on their health and well-being is affectionate and that intimacy comes from getting to know another person really well.
Others may rely on physical interactions to define their intimate relations.
There will be individual differences in preferences for relationships. Factors that distinguish virtual and face-to-face relationships, such as distance and a physical connection might be a pro for one person and a con for another.
Would you prefer to connect with someone online or in person? Can you think of your own pros and cons for either?
Let's examine the strengths and weaknesses of virtual relationships, before evaluating the theories behind virtual relationships.
First, the disadvantages of virtual relationships:
Now, let's highlight the advantages of virtual relationships.
Zhao et al. ❲2008❳ found that self-presentation on non-anonymous websites like Facebook was implicit rather than explicit. People show their identities implicitly through posts and pictures rather than explicitly stating their personality traits. This research indicates that social media sites are sources of self-presentation, helping relationship formation.
Some psychologists suggest that reduced cues theory is flawed in its assumption that there are no cues in virtual relationships. They suggest different cues are present, such as time taken to reply and emojis. Research from Whitty and Johnson (2009) supports the idea of different cues.
Tidwell and Walther (1995) examined how different uses of time affect non-verbal cues in computer-mediated communication (CMC), as many describe CMC as suffering from a lack of non-verbal cues. They found that both the time of day a message was sent and the length of time to receive a reply after a message was sent had significant interactions, suggesting cues do in fact exist and affect virtual relationships.
Fig. 3 - Affection cues are different in virtual relationships.
McKenna and Bargh (2000) stated, in reference to virtual relationships:
one's greater anonymity, the greatly reduced importance of physical appearance and physical distance as “gating features” to relationship development, and one's greater control over the time and pace of interactions.²
They found that romantic relationships that initially formed online were 70% more likely to last over two years longer than ‘offline’ relationships. The correlation between internet use and successful relationships is also supported by Rosenfeld and Thomas (2012).
Rosenfeld and Thomas (2012) found that over the last 15 years, the internet has displaced more traditional avenues of meeting potential partners (such as through school, work, friends or family). Those with internet access at home are more likely to have partners.
However, it is flawed to assume relationships are either online or offline. Today, many real-life relationships also begin and develop online; this is a weakness of investigating so-called ‘virtual relationships’. The study of online relationships is culturally and economically biased.
It does not consider that people in less developed countries and those with low income may not form online relationships. There is also evidence to suggest that the depth of self-disclosure differs in men and women, suggesting that virtual relationships and self-disclosure are not the same regardless of gender.
Self-disclosure, the absence of gating, and reduced cues theory (deindividuation) can explain the increase in virtual relationships.
We can explain parasocial relationships using the absorption-addiction model or attachment theory.
There are pros and cons for both virtual and real-life relationships. Virtual relationships are becoming more accessible, and more adults with internet access at home have relationships than those who don't. The internet is beginning to displace traditional avenues of meeting a partner.
However, issues with scams and catfishing still exist, and lack of research into less developed countries and low-income families affects the reliability of research investigating virtual relationships.
Virtual relationships are very common today and refer to relationships formed and maintained online.
Psychologists theorise that the absence of gating, as well as greater self-disclosure, allows virtual relationships to form.
Virtual relationships are formed online, whereas face-to-face relationships occur in real life between people physically close.
People may form virtual relationships for a variety of reasons. Research speculates individuals who are shy or socially anxious turn to virtual relationships as the reliance on physical appearance is reduced, citing an absence of gating, deindividuation, and self-disclosure as factors affecting the development of virtual relationships.
Virtual relationships, just like face-to-face relationships, vary in the experiences they provide. Relationships are a subjective experience, and research indicates virtual relationships have the potential to be healthy—McKenna and Bargh (2002) found online relationships were 70% more likely to last over two years than offline relationships—and unhealthy. The risk of catfishing and scams is present in virtual relationships, and Cooper and Sportolari (1997) referred to oversharing that occurs in virtual relationships as a boom and bust phenomenon.
Name some of the benefits of forming a relationship online.
The absence of gating and greater self-disclosure are some of the benefits of forming an online relationship.
What is the most intense type of parasocial relationship?
Borderline pathological.
Who came up with the reduced cues theory?
Sproull and Kessler (1986).
What cues could replace physical cues in social media?
Emojis and time taken to reply can replace physical cues.
Give an example of a parasocial relationship.
An unrequited crush on an Instagram influencer is an example of a parasocial relationship.
What is self-disclosure?
Self-disclosure refers to sharing information about yourself.
Already have an account? Log in
Open in AppThe first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place
Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.
Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!
Sign up with Email Sign up with AppleBy signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of StudySmarter.
Already have an account? Log in
Already have an account? Log in
The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place
Already have an account? Log in