Misconstrued Thoughts about What a True Relationship Is
Constant online interaction can also create misconstrued thoughts or ideas of what a relationship really is. A relationship, specifically a friendship, revolves around the idea of providing its members with a sense of social connectivity and belonging. Ahn and Shin points out that “a sense of belonging is one of the fundamental needs of human beings. Under most conditions, humans are motivated to form social bonds and resist the dissolution of existing relations” (2455). Humans desire to be connected and form these social bonds in order to satisfy their need to fit in. Humans are similar to tribes, where Adams and Smith define them as “networks of persons gathering for social interaction” (qtd. in Muniz and O’Guinn 17). Therefore, once the Internet surfaced and social media launched, tribes on the internet or “electronic tribes” were introduced, allowing for ample opportunities to stay connected. These tribes on the internet help individuals stay connected with others both far and near, making social media “...a more attractive medium in which to converse...interact” (Kandell 15) and to essentially build relationships.
However, as social media’s popularity continues to increase “what can happen when much of a person's interpersonal contact occurs online is that the sense of what a relationship is, or can be, becomes distorted (Kandell 15).” Since the launch of social media, the notion of “friend” has been used rather loosely online. Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are redefining the notion of “friendship”, where they provide users the opportunity to “friend” and follow anyone they wish. Sponcil and Gitimu reported that young adults had “…an average of 358 Facebook friends” (qtd. in Pempek et al.), many users trying to add as many “friends” as they can… (6). Considering that users have so many online friends, it is evident that any knowledge and/or information about their “friends” and followers is very limited (Kandell 16). Which, in turn, can be problematic considering that feeling satisfied in any relationship should lead “...to immediacy, closeness, and an increased level of self-disclosure with a relational partner (Porter et al. 10). Thus, a truly satisfying relationships should allow users to be able to directly interact with their relational partner, while also having some sense of intimacy and freedom to be who you are in the relationship. However, Adams and Smith argue that online relationships do not at all reflect these characteristics of a satisfying relationship, describing that internet users are always or most likely to be “...transitory, provisional, tentative, situational, and sometimes narcissistic” (17). Online friendships are essentially temporary and situational, where you are able to interact and communicate with others, but the quality of the friendship/relationship is rather poor because they are not permanent or long lasting. Sommerfelt emphasizes this point and states that these online “...communities are more likely to be disadvantaged, remain poor, and lack in the connections” (285). When users depend on social media to facilitate their communication, users begin to develop these misconstrued thoughts or notions of what a “friend” is. As a result, the quality of the relationship/friendship is poor because there is no genuine or true friendship there.
Though opponents may argue that these online relationships and friendships are of value because they function similar to offline friendships and relationships. In other words, these virtual friendships are able to provide social connectivity, while also providing them support and intimacy just like offline friendships. Cummings et al. describes these virtual relationships and friendship as, "...groups where relationships form,whose members provide each other with companionship, information, and social support" (106). Baym et al. agrees and argues that the online relationships and friendships are impersonal and insignificant only “...if one believes the internet is both separate and significantly different (i.e. more impersonal) from the theoretically privileged world of face-to-face social contact” (302). In other words, individuals starting to believe in the view that the internet is “inherently unreal” (Baym et al. 302), separating online interactions and offline interactions when obviously these two do produce the same outcome, enhancing communication and interaction in the relationship.
While it may be true that online relationships are able to function similar offline relationships, online friendships are very limited in the sense that they are "weak ties" and the quality of the communication is poor. Cummuning et al. acknowledges that sociability and communication is the most important use to the Internet (108), but realizes that "...relationships sustained primarily over the internet are not as close as those sustained by other means..." (108) like those who are sustained primarily offline. It is argued that these virtual also relationships are usually weaker, “loosely knit” (Cummings et al. 106).
However, as social media’s popularity continues to increase “what can happen when much of a person's interpersonal contact occurs online is that the sense of what a relationship is, or can be, becomes distorted (Kandell 15).” Since the launch of social media, the notion of “friend” has been used rather loosely online. Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are redefining the notion of “friendship”, where they provide users the opportunity to “friend” and follow anyone they wish. Sponcil and Gitimu reported that young adults had “…an average of 358 Facebook friends” (qtd. in Pempek et al.), many users trying to add as many “friends” as they can… (6). Considering that users have so many online friends, it is evident that any knowledge and/or information about their “friends” and followers is very limited (Kandell 16). Which, in turn, can be problematic considering that feeling satisfied in any relationship should lead “...to immediacy, closeness, and an increased level of self-disclosure with a relational partner (Porter et al. 10). Thus, a truly satisfying relationships should allow users to be able to directly interact with their relational partner, while also having some sense of intimacy and freedom to be who you are in the relationship. However, Adams and Smith argue that online relationships do not at all reflect these characteristics of a satisfying relationship, describing that internet users are always or most likely to be “...transitory, provisional, tentative, situational, and sometimes narcissistic” (17). Online friendships are essentially temporary and situational, where you are able to interact and communicate with others, but the quality of the friendship/relationship is rather poor because they are not permanent or long lasting. Sommerfelt emphasizes this point and states that these online “...communities are more likely to be disadvantaged, remain poor, and lack in the connections” (285). When users depend on social media to facilitate their communication, users begin to develop these misconstrued thoughts or notions of what a “friend” is. As a result, the quality of the relationship/friendship is poor because there is no genuine or true friendship there.
Though opponents may argue that these online relationships and friendships are of value because they function similar to offline friendships and relationships. In other words, these virtual friendships are able to provide social connectivity, while also providing them support and intimacy just like offline friendships. Cummings et al. describes these virtual relationships and friendship as, "...groups where relationships form,whose members provide each other with companionship, information, and social support" (106). Baym et al. agrees and argues that the online relationships and friendships are impersonal and insignificant only “...if one believes the internet is both separate and significantly different (i.e. more impersonal) from the theoretically privileged world of face-to-face social contact” (302). In other words, individuals starting to believe in the view that the internet is “inherently unreal” (Baym et al. 302), separating online interactions and offline interactions when obviously these two do produce the same outcome, enhancing communication and interaction in the relationship.
While it may be true that online relationships are able to function similar offline relationships, online friendships are very limited in the sense that they are "weak ties" and the quality of the communication is poor. Cummuning et al. acknowledges that sociability and communication is the most important use to the Internet (108), but realizes that "...relationships sustained primarily over the internet are not as close as those sustained by other means..." (108) like those who are sustained primarily offline. It is argued that these virtual also relationships are usually weaker, “loosely knit” (Cummings et al. 106).