|
 Guest
Editorial:
Yes Virginia... there Really is Online "Dating"
by James
Houran, Ph.D.
(February 2006) It’s exciting to be a new member
of the team at Online Dating Magazine; everyone has
made me feel so welcome. I also appreciate our publisher,
Joe Tracy, allowing me to take the soapbox this month.
Mine is not so much a gripe, but rather a clarification
about the term "online dating."
I recently read a poignant article(6) in the San
Francisco Chronicle about the conversion of a once
true believer.
For 11 years, the so-called father of web logging (blogging)
and online diarists, Justin Hall, was dedicated to
documenting his life online. He was one of the most
committed advocates for the bonding powers of interactive,
web-based writings and online interactions. Hall even
explored online dating, like millions of other modern
day romantics out there. But now, Hall has expressed
serious doubt over the Internet’s ability to
foster intimacy. As a result, the father of blogging
has sadly ended his online presence. My take on this media report is that Hall concluded
that genuine connection among people in cyberspace
is pretty much a facade. What’s this have to
do with clarifying the term "online dating?" Well,
online dating and relationship services both fall under
the rubric of the "online matchmaking industry."
As such, the industry’s primary mission is to
provide a comfortable forum for people to meet and
get to know
each other. What I’m talking about is promoting
genuine connections. However, I’ve heard many
people claim that online dating is a misnomer – that
people don’t really "date" online
but rather simply meet there. They go on to say that
online dating sites are basically nothing more than
"online introduction services." Frankly, I couldn’t
disagree more. Contrary to Justin Hall’s unfortunate
experience, and what others may say, I’m convinced
that online interactions can be just as powerful, meaningful
and lasting as their real-world counterparts.
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines
a date as "an appointment to meet at a specified
time; especially: a social engagement between two persons
that often has a romantic character." No where
does that definition restrict social appointments or
engagements with respect to place or context. So, the
real question is whether two romantically-minded people
can actually have a meaningful and productive social
interaction online.
The answer to that question seems
to be a resounding "yes." Furthermore,
some authorities even hint that Internet is the location
of choice for today’s social gatherings. For
example, Stowe Boyd, the charismatic and deeply intelligent
President of the Corante think tank, argued that cyberspace
is the new "third place"(3).
Third places are settings that are psychologically
and physically
apart from home and work(9).
They are the core settings for informal public life – places
where people relax and network like coffee shops, bars,
hair salons,
beer gardens, pool halls, and civic clubs.
Involvement
in informal public life has important psychological,
social, and political consequences, and such involvement
is made possible by the existence of third places.
Yet, sociologists(9, 10) suggest
that capitalist society has been eroding traditional
third places.
Nearly
500,000 interviews over the last quarter century reveal
that
we sign fewer petitions, belong to fewer organizations
requiring our physical presence, know our neighbors
less, meet with friends less frequently and even
socialize with our families less often(10).
Consequently, those
in the know like Stowe Boyd are not surprised that
many people seeking human interaction flock to online
communities, such as chat rooms, discussion forums,
and online dating and social networking websites(3).
Obviously, cyberspace is not a healthy "third
space" for everyone, but there are research studies
demonstrating that deep and lasting relationships can
develop over the Internet. Of course, it’s only
fair at this point also to note a few caveats. First,
some people may have quite inaccurate perceptions of
other people’s personalities when in communicating
over the Web(11).
In other words, some of us aren’t
that good at drawing accurate pictures of others over
the Web. Second, Internet socialization may promote
certain individuals to develop "fantasy identities."
I’m
sure you know what I mean here already – older
men posing as younger men or even women and married
people posing as eligible singles.
But notwithstanding caveats like these, sociologist
Michael Hardey(4, 5) found
that the disembodied anonymity that characterizes the
Internet can act as a foundation
for the building of trust and the establishment of
real world relationships. Other experts have come to
similar conclusions. In a clever series of experiments,
McKenna and colleagues(8) showed
that individuals meeting for the first time online
are more likely to reveal
their "true selves" (who they really think
they are) rather than their "actual selves" (how
they think they should be seen). In addition, people
tend to like each other more when they first meet over
the Internet, as opposed to face-to-face. Finally,
by researching actual Web users, McKenna’s research
team found that deep relationships do form over the
Internet. When those online relationships are integrated
into one's real world social life, they remain
stable over time—indeed, often proving more long-lived
than relationships formed through face-to-face introductions.
Taking this further, researcher Andrea Baker examined
the question of what factors differentiate successful
and unsuccessful couples who first met online(2).
She concluded that four general variables signaled
a couple’s
capacity for long-term "compatibility:"
» Where they meet: the overlap of specific
interests as represented by the type of site they
enter for a first encounter online signals long-term
compatibility.
» What
they will do to be together: obstacles of distance,
jobs and finances, and other relationships
are negotiated
so that past attachments are diminished and at least
one partner will relocate.
» When they interact: taking
a lengthy period of time to get to know each other
online before meeting face-to-face
and postponing sexual involvement promotes longevity
of relationships.
» How they communicate: learning to
handle each others’ styles
of communication even when conflicts occur online
enhances online and then offline satisfaction and
cooperation.
My interpretation
of Baker's findings is that prolonged and non-superficial
contact can help counter
the inherent drawbacks of "hyperpersonal communication."
This dry and academic piece of jargon reflects the
unique
characteristics of online interactions and communications.
To be sure, many social science experts believe that
online interactions are fundamentally different from
other forms of interpersonal or mass communications.
Specifically, individuals in chat-rooms and newsgroups
have much less information about other participants
(verbal and nonverbal cues) with which they might make
attributions or form impressions of others. For example,
in a chat room, the only information one has available
about a conversational partner is information the partner
chooses to make available, such as a screen name that
may or may not be a useful cue and personal information
that s/he chooses to disclose that may either be truthful
or intentionally deceiving. This all doesn’t
mean that people can’t date online; it's
just means it can be a tad more complicated than dating
someone offline.
Online daters are inherently hyperpersonal communicators.
What this means is that they’re forced to rely
on broad assumptions in order to make inferences about
the other, as well as inflate these perceptions of
the other based on the restricted cues that are available(12).
Therefore, online dating and social networking companies
sincerely interested in promoting authentic
and long-term relationships should emphasize prolonged
communication among its customers. This is especially
true given that individuals tend to develop trust with
others fairly quickly online(15).
Research has only recently begun to address the subject
of online relationship development. It should also
be noted that the nature of online relationships clearly
varies. However, it’s also clear that flirting
and dating and other forms of social networking constitute
an important aspect of the Internet phenomenon(1,
13, 14).
To my way of thinking, the "tools" of
online dating such as detailed personal profiles, personality
and compatibility
testing, digital photographs, webcams,
real-time chat capabilities and email and Instant Messaging
help overcome the so-called restricted cues in online
impression formation. What this does is reduce many
of the limitations of hyperpersonal communication.
In fact, the tools of online dating and social networking
nicely promote – and may even prolong – authentic
communication among individuals. To me, this is the
crux of the definition of dating and is the necessary
first step to a long-term relationship.
There's no question that the tools of online
dating can promote prolonged and meaningful communication
among netizens. And there is also no question in my
mind that many online interactions meet the definition
of a "date," since we’ve seen that
online interactions can be valid social engagements
between two persons that have a romantic character.
In fact, the myriad of online dating tools may well
help online daters maintain rather realistic expectations
of relationships when online relationships are taken
offline. For instance, in a study I published with
statistician and social psychologist Rense Lange, we
found that attitudes of online daters’ toward
online dating don’t significantly distort the
anticipated quality and quantity of their computer
dates(7). Moreover,
on average the participants in our study reported an
anticipated 50% probability that
individuals rated as "perfectly compatible" by
online testing methods would prove satisfactory when
met in person. Holding a 50% probability in one’s
mind is akin to the classic philosophical question:
"Is the glass half empty or half full?" When
you consider that, it appears that online daters are
at
once optimistic and realistic about online prospects
and relationships that begin on the Internet.
The bottom
line: the Internet can foster deep and lasting platonic
or romantic relationships. Online matchmaking
facilitates this process by providing ample technological
tools and features that encourage and sustain meaningful
communication among online daters. Not everyone will
find a soul mate, but hopefully most online interactions
won’t end in significant disappointment like
that of Justin Hall.
Yes, Virginia… done responsibly
and correctly there really is online "dating."
Related
Links:
» The
Truth About Compatibility Testing
References
1.
Ahuvia, A. C., & Adelman,
M. B. (1992). Formal intermediaries
in the marriage market: a
typology and review. Journal
of Marriage
and Family, 54, 452-463.
2.
Baker, A. (2002). What makes an online relationship successful? Clues from
couples who met in cyberspace.
Cyberpsychology and Behavior,
5, 363-375.
3. Boyd, S. (2004).
Social tools and the ‘third
space’ in Europe.
Paper presented at the iDate 2004 International Dating Conference, Nice, France,
July 15-16.
4. Hardey, M. (2002). Life
beyond the screen: embodiment
and identity through the Internet.
Sociological
Review, 50, 570-585.
5. Hardey,
M. (2004). Mediated relationships.
Information,
Communication and Society,
7, 207-222.
6. Harmanci, R.
(2005). Time to get a life – pioneer
blogger Justin Hall bows at
31. San Francisco Chronicle,
Sunday, February 20, Section
A-1. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/20/MNGBKBEJO01.DTL.
Accessed 2/20/05.
7. Houran, J., & Lange,
R. (2004). Expectations of
finding a ‘soul
mate’ with online dating. North American Journal of Psychology, 6,
297-308.
8. McKenna, K.Y.A., Green,
A.S., & Gleason, M.E.J.
(2002). Relationship formation
on the Internet: What’s
the big attraction? Journal
of Social Issues, 58, 9-32.
9.
Oldenburg, R. (1991/1999).
The great good place. New York:
Marlowe & Co.
10. Putnam,
R. D. (2000). Bowling alone:
the collapse and revival
of American community. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
11.
Rouse, S. V., & Haas,
H. A. (2003). Exploring the
accuracies and inaccuracies
of personality perception following Internet-mediated communication. Journal
of Research in Personality, 37, 446-467.
12. Walther, J. B. (1996).
Computer-mediated communication:
Impersonal,
interpersonal, and hyperpersonal
interaction. Communication
Research, 23,
3-43.
13. Whitty, M. T. (2003).
Cyber-flirting: Playing at
love on the Internet. Theory
and Psychology, 13, 339-357.
14.
Whitty, M. T. (2004). Cyber-flirting:
An examination of men’s
and women’s
flirting behaviour both offline and on the Internet. Behaviour Change,
21, 115-126.
15. Whitty, M. & Gavin,
J. (2001). Age/sex/location:
Uncovering the social cues
in the development of online
relationships. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
4, 623 – 630.
> Perfectmatch.com - The best approach to find the one.
<
All
Online Dating Magazine content, including the content on this page,
is ©
copyright by Online Dating Magazine and may
not be
republished or reused in any form. You do have
full permission to link to this article.
Do you agree or disagree with this
article? Have
more to add? Submit a Letter
to the Editor today or post a comment below.
|
