You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Not all relationships are conducted face-to-face. The growth of internet-mediated communication has produced new forms of relationship that develop, deepen, and sometimes break down entirely online, while the saturation of everyday life with media has generated sustained interest in parasocial relationships — the one-sided attachments people form to celebrities and media figures. This lesson examines how self-disclosure operates differently online (the absence of "gating" and the online disinhibition effect), the two opposing theories of online relationship quality (reduced cues theory versus Walther's hyperpersonal model), and then turns to parasocial relationships: their levels (Maltby et al.), and the two principal explanations of them — the absorption-addiction model and the attachment-theory explanation.
Key Definition: A virtual relationship (or computer-mediated communication, CMC) is a relationship conducted primarily through online channels — social media, messaging apps, dating platforms, email, or forums — rather than face-to-face.
This lesson addresses the following points from the AQA A-Level Psychology (7182) specification, Paper 3, Section B: Relationships:
| Specification point | Coverage in this lesson |
|---|---|
| Virtual relationships in social media: self-disclosure in virtual relationships; effects of absence of gating on the nature of virtual relationships | Online disinhibition effect (Suler); absence of gating (McKenna & Bargh); reduced cues theory; the hyperpersonal model (Walther) |
| Parasocial relationships: levels of parasocial relationships | The Celebrity Attitude Scale; entertainment-social, intense-personal, borderline-pathological (Maltby et al.) |
| Parasocial relationships: the absorption-addiction model and the attachment theory explanation | McCutcheon et al.; the attachment explanation (insecure attachment); Cole & Leets |
These points are assessed through short-answer AO1 items, AO2 application where a scenario is provided, and extended-writing essays up to 16 marks.
A striking feature of virtual relationships is that people frequently disclose more about themselves online than they would face-to-face — and often sooner. This is the online disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004).
Suler identified several contributing factors, the most important for the specification being:
Key Definition: The online disinhibition effect is the tendency to communicate more openly and to disclose more about oneself online than face-to-face, owing to the perceived safety of anonymity and the reduction of social cues. It can be benign (greater intimacy and honesty) or toxic (hostility, flaming, trolling).
In face-to-face relationships, certain features act as gates — obstacles that can prevent a relationship from forming or progressing before partners have a chance to discover their compatibility.
Key Definition: A gate is any peripheral feature (for example, physical unattractiveness, a stigmatised condition, visible shyness, a stammer, or membership of a different age or ethnic group) that can obstruct the formation of a relationship before deeper qualities are revealed.
McKenna and Bargh (2000) argued that in online relationships many gates are absent or reduced: because peripheral cues are not immediately visible, a relationship can develop on the basis of shared interests, values, and personality, with physical and social "gates" only becoming relevant (if at all) later.
Implications of the absence of gating:
Sproull and Kiesler proposed that CMC lacks the non-verbal cues that scaffold face-to-face interaction (facial expression, gesture, tone, eye contact). On their account, the loss of these cues has corrosive consequences:
In short, reduced cues theory predicts that virtual relationships are inferior to face-to-face ones.
Joseph Walther challenged the reduced cues view directly. His hyperpersonal model argues that, far from being impoverished, online relationships can become more intimate — "hyperpersonal" — than equivalent face-to-face relationships, and can do so faster.
| Process | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Selective self-presentation (the sender) | Freed from the constraints of real-time, embodied interaction, senders carefully select and edit what they reveal, presenting an idealised, curated self. |
| Over-attribution / idealisation (the receiver) | The receiver fills the "gaps" left by reduced cues with positive inferences, idealising the sender beyond what the available information warrants. |
| Asynchronous editing | Because messages can be composed offline and at leisure, communication is more thoughtful and polished than spontaneous face-to-face speech. |
| Reciprocal intensification (the feedback loop) | The receiver's idealising responses reinforce the sender's presentation, and vice versa, so intimacy escalates in a self-reinforcing cycle. |
Walther argued these processes can make online disclosure more intimate and self-revealing than face-to-face disclosure — the opposite prediction to reduced cues theory.
A related idea is the warranting problem: because selective self-presentation lets people exaggerate or fabricate, receivers come to value "warrants" — pieces of information that cannot easily be manipulated by the person being described (for example, information provided by mutual friends or visible to a wider network). Online daters, on this view, place more trust in cues that are harder to fake than in self-descriptions the sender fully controls. Warranting therefore acts as a corrective to the very idealisation the hyperpersonal model describes, and it explains why some platforms attempt to verify identities or link profiles to existing social networks.
graph TD
A[Reduced non-verbal cues in CMC] --> B[Sender: selective self-presentation<br/>idealised, edited self]
A --> C[Receiver: over-attribution<br/>fills gaps with positive inferences]
B --> D[Reciprocal intensification]
C --> D
D --> E[Hyperpersonal intimacy<br/>deeper + faster than face-to-face]
Key Definition: A parasocial relationship (PSR) is a one-sided relationship in which a person (the fan) directs emotional energy, interest, and time towards a media figure (typically a celebrity) who is unaware of the fan's existence. The relationship makes no demands and carries no risk of rejection.
Horton and Wohl (1956) first described parasocial interaction, observing that broadcast media create an "illusion of intimacy" — the viewer comes to feel they know the personality, even though the relationship is entirely one-directional. PSRs are attractive partly because they are safe: they offer the rewards of a relationship (companionship, admiration, a sense of connection) without the vulnerability of mutual exposure.
Maltby and colleagues used the Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS) to measure the intensity of parasocial involvement, and a factor analysis revealed three increasingly intense levels:
| Level | Name | Description | Illustrative endorsement |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Entertainment-social | The least intense level: the celebrity is followed for entertainment and serves as a topic of sociable conversation with friends. | "My friends and I like to discuss what my favourite celebrity has done." |
| 2 | Intense-personal | A moderate level: compulsive feelings about the celebrity and a sense of a special, intimate connection. | "I consider my favourite celebrity to be my soulmate." |
| 3 | Borderline-pathological | The most intense level: uncontrollable fantasies and a willingness to act on them, sometimes in extreme or illegal ways. | "I would willingly do something illegal if my favourite celebrity asked me to." |
Most PSRs remain at the entertainment-social level and are entirely normal. Maltby et al. associated the more intense levels with poorer psychological functioning — for example, links between the intense-personal level and poorer body image among adolescent girls who idolised a celebrity with a particular physique — which is why the higher levels are treated as a concern.
McCutcheon and colleagues proposed the absorption-addiction model to explain why some people develop intense PSRs and how these escalate. The model frames celebrity worship as a response to deficiencies in the self:
The model therefore treats PSRs as compensatory: they fill a psychological void, and they escalate when that void is not otherwise met. It connects to the wider observation that PSRs are more common among those with poorer psychological adjustment.
The second explanation draws on attachment theory (Bowlby; Ainsworth). It proposes that the tendency to form PSRs — and their intensity — reflects the attachment patterns established in early childhood, carried forward through the internal working model.
Cole and Leets (1999) found that individuals with an insecure-resistant attachment style were the most likely to form parasocial relationships with television personalities, while avoidant individuals were the least likely — broadly consistent with the prediction that PSRs serve unmet attachment needs (though the strongest effects were for the resistant style rather than the avoidant).
Key Definition: Celebrity worship describes the more intense end of parasocial involvement, where admiration becomes obsessive and may interfere with everyday functioning and psychological well-being.
Reduced cues theory has been criticised as outdated, which significantly limits its applicability to modern virtual relationships. The theory was developed when CMC was almost exclusively text-based, but contemporary online communication is rich in cues: video calls reinstate facial expression and tone, while emojis, GIFs, voice notes, and "acrostics" (e.g., capitalisation for emphasis) function as deliberate substitutes for non-verbal signals. Because these cues are present, the central premise of the theory — that CMC is cue-less — no longer holds for much online interaction. The implication is that reduced cues theory may at best describe a narrow, historical form of CMC, and cannot be treated as a general account of virtual relationships today.
The hyperpersonal model, by contrast, is supported by evidence on self-presentation and explains real-world phenomena, which is a strength. Whitty and Joinson (2009) documented that people present themselves selectively online — for instance, framing answers in online discussion to appear more attractive — consistent with the model's "selective self-presentation" mechanism, and the success of online dating, where carefully curated profiles foster rapid intimacy, fits the model well. This gives the hyperpersonal model both empirical and applied support that reduced cues theory lacks. However, the model's emphasis on idealised self-presentation has a corollary weakness: the idealisation it describes can produce disappointment when partners meet face-to-face and reality fails to match the curated image, which may explain the fragility of some relationships that begin online.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.