Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Online Dating - Coggle Diagram
Online Dating
Impact
Impact on Relationships (Finkel et al., 2012; Lawson & Leck, 2006)
- Changes to process of initiating relationships
- Allow individuals to browse through profiles w/out. their knowledge
- Faciliate getting to know wide range of facts about potential partner w/out. meeting them
- Levels out gender-stereotypical patterns on interaction in heterosexual courtship while online where men can be more expressive but return to traditional patterns once face-to-face
- Enable access to many potential partners at time in way unprecidented & out of ordinary historically
Impact on Perception of Others
- Relationshopping (Heino et al., 2010)
- Consequence of excessive offer reinforced by apps
- Used to maximise results
- Causes discomfort
- May lead to superficial relationships
Relationshopping (Heino et al., 2010
- Browse for partners like shopping)
- Commodification of partners
- Profiles like commercial sites
- Only way to manage info & no. users
- Contant pursuit of perfect relationship/partner
Response to Relationshopping
- Aware of concept
- Dehuminising but also treat others in same way
- Picky & have to fit strict idealised criteria
- When not perfect move on to next
Impact on Self
- Possible self
- Creation of profile & feedback may lead to identity change
- Filtering
- View of self & other
Possible Self (Markus & Nurius, 1986)
- Image of self that has not yet been realised
Identity Change in OD (Yurchisin et al., 2005
- Present possible self in online dating
- Image of self that is close to what want to be
- Explore possible self
- Explore identity possibilities that would otherwise not be explored in offline world
- Receive feedback from others
- Feedback actively incorporated into online dater's actual self
Filtering (Davis et al., 2006)
- Practice of looking for & selecting partners online
- Involve self-construction
- E-dater's development of own online profile
- E-dater's perception of others sexual interest & desires
- Potential to become from creating personalities
- When desire someone want them to desire you
- Capture their desire but in turn question yourself
Identity Change
- Manufacture self in relation to desires of desired other (Davis et al., 2006)
- Online dating negotiates identity (Couch & Liamputtong, 2008)
Limitation of Theory
- Research theoretical & some not of best quality
Study: View of Self & Other (Nodin et al., 2013)
- A: Perceived impact on MSMs view of self & others
- Ps: N = 36 gay & bisexual men
- M: Qualitative study using interviews
- R: Perceived changes
Perceived Changes
- Greater acceptance of sexuality
- Exploration of new sexual possibilities
- More assertive communication style
- Excessive (compulsive) online behaviour
- Diminished emo availability toward others
- Increased suspiciousness of others on & off line
Impact on Sex (Davis et al., 2006)
- Online sexual networking
- Sex 'happen' to the internet
- Internet 'happen' to sex
Sex 'Happen' to Internet
- Internet a technological outlet
- Been used for sexual gratification
Internet 'Happen' to Sex
- Assume Internet influence & fuel
- Behaviours it facilitates
- Creation of new behaviours
- More sexual risk & compulsive sexual behaviours
Higher Sexual Risk Factors
- Relationship between online dating & risky sexual activity remain unclear
- More partners
- Access to diff networks of partners
- Disinhibition
- Changing norms
Online Dating
Online Relationships (Ben-Ze'ev, 2004)
- Cyberspace part of real space
- Online relationships real relationships
History (Hardey, 2004; Lawson & Leck, 2006)
- 1600s: Matchmakers job to set up relationships
- 1700s: Dating ads on print media
- 1960s: Use of computers of 'scientific' matching
- 1990s: Internet creates opportunities to pursue love & sex
- 2010s: Dating goes mobile
- Explosion of specialised OD services
- 2020s: Dawn of AI dating
Technology Facilitate Dating
- Facilitate communication between daters
- Streamlines otherwise slow process as process & speed easier
- Provide independence from parents & detachment from social norms
- On wake of 'pure relationships' (Giddens, 1992)
Example: Technologies
- Telephone
- Automobile
- Drive-in-cinema
Pure Relationship (Giddens, 1992)
- Being set up in relationships loses strength
- Free from societal & family pressures
- Greater freedom for choice & love marriages
- During 20th C
- Predominantly in Western countries
Example: Specialised OD Services
- LGBT+
- Religious
- Ethnic
- Interest-based
AI Dating
- Starting to use to establish 'relationship'
- Apps that allow users to have illusion of relationship w. AI
Online Dating
- Purposeful form of meeting new people (Barraket & Henry-Waring, 2008)
- Through specifically designed internet sites
- Method of courting used by individuals who meet on Internet (Lawson & Leck, 2006)
- Continue correspondence in hopes of forming supportive romantic relationship
- Seamless movement between reading descriptions, writing responses, & exchanging messages (Hardey, 2002)
- Staellite dating (Quiroz, 2013)
Separating in Use
- App dating
- Matchmaking vs sexual networking
Dating vs Hooking Up
- Diff apps for dating & sexual networking
- But in reality is substantial overlap and both come under 'e-dating' (Davis et al., 2006)
- Dating apps the best cheating apps for Android
Why Use Online Dating (Couch & Liamputtong, 2008; Hardey, 2002; Lawson & Leck, 2006; Strassberg & Holty, 2003)
- Access large numbers potential partners that otherwise unable to contact
- Easy way to meet people
- Facilitates shy people/those uncomfortable.w approaching
- Freedom of choice
- Beyond pressure of circle/family
- Minimise - impact of rejection
- Online easier/less intense than face-to-face & often less investment than if met
- Diversity of partner-profile & relationship arrangement possibilities
- Low/no cost
- Allow users to be anonymous if wish
- Anonymity an illusion but for general use/eperimenting dont have to be personal
Opportunities (Finkel et al., 2012
- Offers opportunities to relationship-seeker
- Unprecedented in human history
- Allows easy/simple/free access to almost endless amounts partners
- Issue how impacts society
- How communicate
- How perceive/treat people
App Online Dating
- Rise of smartphone geosocial networking applications (Rice et al., 2012)
- Major attraction the mapping function (Miles, 2017)
- Locates user's physical coordinates in order to sort potential matches by proximity w. aim of expediting localised encounters
- Satellite dating (Quiroz, 2013)
Satellite Dating (Quiroz, 2013)
- In context of online dating apps
- Being centre of all opportunities for connections around
Self-Presentation
Opportunities for Self-Presentation
- Possibilities allowed by app
- Pictorial signs of identity (Davies et al., 2006)
- Knowing 'codes'
Example: Codes
- FWB: Friends w. benefits
- DTR: Define the relationship
- LMIRL: Let's meet in real life
- HnH: High & horny
- 420: Consuming cannabis
Example: Possibilities
- No. images
- Links to social media
- Filtering system
Impact
- How much of self can present
- Images have more popular response rates
Study: Pictoral Signs (Davies et al., 2006)
- Selection of image to put online
- Best version of self
- Situations present self in
- Convey bit about you to those viewing
Hyperpersonal Model & Online Dating (Walther, 1996)
- Based on Theory of Self-Presentation (Goffman, 1959)
- Reduced communication cues & asynchronicity lead to increased optimism of online communication vs face-to-face
- More removed communication the more info you provide
- Consequence is online sometimes surpass face-to-face in levels of emotion & affection
- Feel have more emotional investment as heightened communication & sharing
- Expressed & experienced
- In turn justifies more intimate interactions & oversharing
Study: Supporting Evidence (Ellison et al., 2012)
- R: E-daters present info not accurate when creating profile but changeable in future
- Misrepresent self if in principal have control over that factor
- Contrasts w. info regarding aspects harder to change
- I: Belief that can change by time meet
Example: Non-Accurate Info
- Weight
- Facial hair
- Professional situation
-
Theory Self-Presentation (Goffman, 1959)
- Always act in diff roles depending on environment
Manicured Online vs Authentic Real Self (Ellison et al., 2012)
- Some discrepancies between online & offline presence expected
- But other discrepancies not
- Given impossibility of translating embodied self into relatively brief & static self-description
Online Dating Deception
- Intentonal misprepresentation of various aspects of self (Mosley et al., 2020)
- In pursuing exclusively online relationship (no intention of meeting)
- Desire to reveal deeper level of truth about self (Whitty & Gavin, 2001)
- Present self in way want to be (ideal) vs intend to fool other
- Most deception involves slight exaggerations & other minor deceptions (Sharabi & Caughlin, 2019)
- Rather than dramatic lies
Deception Associates (Guadagno et al., 2012; Toma et al., 2008)
- Male gender
- More removed means of communication
- No intention to meet face-to-face
- Intention to deceive vs than self-deceit
- Fake pictures used in profile vs relationship info
Study: Connection to Attachment Style (Mosley et al., 2020)
- R: Catfish perpetrators & targets found to be related to attachment style but avoidance not sig when accounting for attachment anxiety
- High in attachment anxiety
- High in avoidance
- I: Anxiety more sig consideration in predicting catfish status
Study: Common Indicators of Deception (Sharabi & Caughlin, 2019)
- Less first-person singular pronouns
- Less exclusive words
- More words
- More - emotion words
First-Person Singular Pronouns
- Dissociation from story
- Create cog buffer between self & deception
Exclusive Words
- Increased demand on cog resources
Words
- Facilitate construction of elaborate stories
More - Emotion Words
- Feelings of guilt/fear of getting caught
Study: Effect on Future Relationships (Sharabi & Caughlin, 2019)
- A: Investigate real interactions between e-daters who met in person
- P: N=94
- M: Assessment before & after meeting partner; Exchanged email analysis
R: Perceived deception predict poor relational outcomes after first date
- I: E-daters strategic in deceptions but if thought other lied to them online the in-person date not go well
- Self-enhance in ways that don't undermine chances at offline success
Poor Relational Outcomes
- Declines in social & physical attraction
- Low expectations for future meets w. person
- Beliefs other person not expect future encounters
Virtues & Downsides of Online Dating (2019)
- A: Survey on how common Ps believe it is for people to do certain actions on dating sites/apps
- R:
- People lie about self to make appear more desireable = 71%
- People set up fake accounts to scam others = 50%
- People receive sexually explicit messages/images didn't ask for = 48%
- People harassed/bullied = 25%
- Privacy violations = 18%
Discrimination
Sexual Racism (Callander et al., 2015)
- Specific form of racial prejudice
- Enacted in context of sex & dating
In Online Dating
- Could be more common & apparent compared to face-to-face
- E-daters openly declare ethnic preferences
- Filtering of profiles based on preferences
- Anonymity facilitates expression of racism
Study: Heterosexual Partner Preference (Hwang, 2013)
- A: Analysis of partner preferences
- Ps: N = 2,832 ethnic & gender diverse heterosexual profiles
- M: Analysis of ODA
- R: Partner preferences based on race & sex
Partner Preferences
- Strong willingness of most Ps to date in own group (>90%)
- Black Ps willing to date all other groups at approx similar rates
- Women less willing to date inter-racially
- Men most willing to date White women & least willing to date Black women
Explanation
- Asian women in media often sexualised
- Higher erotica capital as viewed sexually
Study: Non-Heterosexual Partner Preference (Caluya, 2006; Tsunokai et al., 2014)
- Ps: White & Asian non-heterosexuals
- R: Both types non-heterosexual prefer White partners & reject people of colour
Conclusions About Asians
- One of least preferred ethnic groups among non-heterosexuals
- Experience double discrimination
Implications
- Rejection can foster Asian men's feeling of shame
Conclusions About Whites
- Above other ethnic groups in 'ethnic hierarchy'
- Rarely experience sexual racism
- Facilitated access to mainstream LGBT+ community for support
Study: Perspectives of Ethnic Minority Non-Heterosexuals (Callander et al., 2013)
- A: Make sense of sexual racism
- R: Reactions to manage sexual racism
Make Sense of Sexual Racism
- As preference
- As prejudice
- Moderated by intent
- Don't understand effect & if do it's a problem
Reactions to Sexual Racism
- Disconnection
- Ignore behaviours/comments
- Adaption
- Wait to be contacted rather than contact them
- Confrontation
- Call out behaviours/comments
Psychological Wellbeing
- Strong + relationship between perceived discrimination & - wellbeing
- Weak - relationship between perceived discrimination & + wellbeing (Schmitt et al., 2014)
- Minority stress higher for people w. multiple minority status (Meyer, 2003)