But soft, what light through Windows Vista breaks? How has the internet changed the world of heterosexual

courting and dating? – an IPA study.

1

Index

4 Abstract

Introduction

9 Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

10 Method

Recruitment and Participants

12 Table 1 – Participant details

13 Reflexivity

Ethics

14 Design

Qualitative research –

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

Interview schedule

15 Procedure

Materials

Participant interview arrangements

Interview conduct

Transcription and analysis

18 Analysis and discussion

Which websites

Table 2 – website listing

19 Traditional dating – The old fashioned way?

20 Where participants met partners

How it works

22 What men want

23 What women want

25 Culrural variations

25 “Online” meeting and dating

Online social clubs

27 International relationships

30 The “Mating Menu”

31 The internet – your “virtual friend”

32 Truths, lies and marketing

33 The role of fantasy – “People inside your head”

2

34 From fantasy to reality – the first meeting

35 Arranged marriages

35 Internet dating strategies - What works, and what doesn’t

37 Conclusions

39 References

Appendices

Appendix 1 Interview Schedule

3

Abstract

Over the past fifteen years the number of people using the internet to form

relationships has grown ten-fold, and internet dating has successfully

overcome the social stigma once attached to it (Hogan, Li & Dutton, 2011).

Four male and four female participants were interviewed, all of whom had

been involved in intimate heterosexual relationships that started both “online”

(via the internet) and “offline” (through pubs/clubs, work, friends , family, or

religious/cultural connections). The interviews, which explored the differences

in their approaches to these relationships, were then analysed using

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis methodology.

This study identifies new social protocols and strategies relating to internet

dating, and examines the role of social networking sites such as Facebook in

the formation of personal relationships. International and cross-cultural

relationships, the absence of face to face communication, the role of

imagination and fantasy, and the consequences of menu driven selection on

dating websites were explored.

Introduction

Every society has its own customs and traditions surrounding the selection of

intimate partners, and evolves norms and protocols that define the process by

which its citizens form romantic, sexual and marital relationships. These “rules

of engagement” show wide variation between different cultures in their

approaches to relationship formation, ranging from family mediated childhood

betrothals practiced in some Asian communities, (Ingoldsby, 1995) to the

individual freedom of choice and relative promiscuity common in many

contemporary Western communities. (Buss, 2007).

Buss (2007) proposes a variety of mating strategies, based on an

evolutionary perspective, in which people balance various considerations

such as the availability of potential desirable partners, their own perceived

desirability, cultural norms and their own personal circumstances. These

4

strategies include long and short-term relationships, mate poaching tactics,

where an attempt is made to lure someone with high “mate value” away from

a long term relationship, or to indulge in a short-term parallel relationship (an

“affair”), and mate retention strategies, evolved to sabotage mate poaching

attempts. Although pressure to conform to cultural expectations often comes

into play, for example, the criminalisation of adultery in some cultures

(Kanchan & Naguj, 2008; Frank, 2009), these strategies are often pursued

regardless of existing relationship commitments as a consequence of an

evolutionarily driven desire to maximise mating opportunities. These desires

are moderated in females by their greater investment in offspring; women can

usually produce only one child per year, whereas men are theoretically

capable of fathering dozens of children in the same period. Consequently

females tend to exhibit greater selectivity than males, and their sexual

availability is a more highly valued commodity (Buss 2007). Although these

libidinal urges originally evolved for the purpose of procreation, conception

avoidance strategies such as non-vaginal sex, and the availability of highly

effective modern contraception, has largely disconnected them from the

consequences and complications of pregnancy and parenthood. Where

contraception is available, it has enabled the pursuit of sexual pleasure as a

leisure activity, with only the risk of disease to consider (Gangestad &

Simpson, 2000). Thus, whilst the long-term preference for the majority of men

and women is a long-term or marital relationship, engagement in short-term

relationships, for example the “one-night stand”, as a prelude, an adjunct, or

as an alternative to a committed relationship is quite common in Western

communities. Buss (2007) contends that this “multiple mating strategy”

originates from evolutionary advantages conferred by mixing desirable traits

in different partners. For example, a woman may prioritise physical strength

and symmetry in a short-term relationship, but place more emphasis on status

and security in a long-term relationship. Although procreation may not result

from either pairing, or may even be actively avoided, the reproductive fitness

imperative still exerts a powerful influence in mate selection for both genders.

The advent of the internet has provided a medium that facilitates both mate

selection and communication via a plethora of websites. A cross-national

survey of respondents from eighteen countries, conducted by Hogan, Li and

Dutton (2011), shows a continuous rise in the popularity of internet meeting

and dating since 1997. This coincided with the introduction of Web 2.0

5

technologies, that transformed the internet from a static experience based on

html technology to a more interactive service, incorporating live database

interaction into webpage design. This survey also revealed that in 2010 just

over one third of internet connected people had tried internet dating, and

approximately 15% were in a relationship that began online. The concept of

meeting and forming relationships via Computer Mediated Communication

(CMC) has thus made the transition, in thirteen years, from obscurity and

novelty, involving only approximately 2% of the computer connected

community in 1997, to broad social acceptance and popularity.

As computer usage and internet access has grown, from 16 million people

worldwide (1.4% of world population) in December 1995 to 1,971 million

people worldwide (28.8% of world population) in September 2010

(www.internetworldstats.com) so internet dating, marriage and sex-contact

websites have become increasingly numerous and diverse, each aimed at

providing a service to specific communities. Examples include Match.com,

currently the largest dating website in the USA and UK, serving 24 countries

and hosting websites in 15 different languages (www.match.com);

Shaadi.com, which claims to be the world’s largest matrimonial service, aimed

primarily at communities from the Indian sub-continent and the Arab world

(www.shaadi.com), MaritalAffair, “for adult dating and extramarital relations”

(www.maritalaffair.co.uk), ThaiKisses; a matrimonial service for Thai females

and western males (www.thaikisses.com), and delvingdeepinside, for those

seeking bondage, domination, sadomasochistic and fetish orientated sex

(www.delvingdeepinside.com). Each of these websites conforms to a similar

format, comprising a membership database, a variety of filters that can be

used to select preferences and search the databases, a chat room or direct

messaging service, and a membership structure that requires payment in

order to access various features and make contact with other members.

Various permutations of this format exist. For example, the norm is for

members to create their own profile, with the website offering guidance with

regard to content and style. MySingleFriend (www.mysinglefriend.com),

however, requires members to have their profile created by a friend or

relative, who may have nominated them for membership in the first instance,

or, if the member has joined themselves, provides the profile as a form of

reference. Similarly, the majority of websites offer unlimited free “window

shopping”, allowing members to browse other members’ profiles and make

6

their own decisions regarding potential suitability and compatibility. eHarmony

(www.eharmony.com) differs from most other sites in that browsing the site is

prohibited. Member profiles on eHarmony.com are created via a “Relationship

Questionnaire”, consisting of detailed personal data including height, age,

religion, occupation, education and numerous other criteria; expressed

preferences regarding the desired characteristics of a partner, and self-

descriptive measures of personality and personal qualities. These criteria are

used to create an “in depth Personality Profile” that is used to identify

compatible members, whose details are disseminated to other compatible

members regularly via email. This process, however, is still subject to bias in

terms of self-presentation.

In common with dedicated dating, marriage and sex-contact websites, social

networking sites (SNS) have also enjoyed a recent explosion in popularity.

The first purpose-built SNS – SixDegrees.com – appeared in 1997, and, as

the genre evolved to incorporate more features, their popularity began to grow

(Boyd and Ellison 2008). In 2011 numerous SNS exist with varying popularity

in different countries and communities, including bebo (www.bebo.com),

MySpace (www.myspace.com), Friendster (www.friendster.com), and

Fropper, which primarily serves Indian communities (www.fropper.com). By

far the largest SNS internationally, excluding China, is Facebook. With in

excess of 550 million members worldwide (Grossman, 2010) it has about five

times as many users as its nearest competitor, (www.ebizmba.com) and in

March 2011 its UK membership surpassed 30 million; 50% of the UK

population (Barnett, 2011).

Facebook, and other social networking websites, display several features in

common with most dating, marriage and sex-contact websites. These include

individual profile descriptions with photographs, the ability to browse or search

members’ profiles, an electronic mail system, live one-to-one messaging, and

a facility for sending images or icons as virtual gifts, for example, Facebook

“Smiles” (http://apps.facebook.com/smilesforyou/), virtual flirting, such as

“winks” (www.match.com) or “virtual flowers” (www.plentyoffish.com). The

criteria that distinguish these two genres are that social networking sites are

used primarily to facilitate communication between people who are already

connected in the real world, and are mostly free to join and use, whereas

dating, marriage and sex-contact websites are optimised to enable people

7

who are not known to each other, but share the same personal needs, to

contact each other and form new relationships. Most dating, marriage and

sex-contact sites offer free registration, and allow users to create a profile,

browse or search other members’ profiles, and exchange virtual “flirt” icons

free of charge. Although dating websites exist that enable communication and

use of other website features free of charge, for example, Plenty of Fish

(www.plentyoffish.com), taking a potential relationship any further usually

involves an “upgrade” fee to enable electronic mail and instant messaging

services, or for the delivery of “virtual flowers” with a message. At the lower

end of the market Match.com charges a membership fee £14 per month for

both men and women, whilst, at the higher end, 30 days “Gold” membership

of Illicit Encounters (http://illicitencounters.co.uk) costs £134, but only for

males. Females enjoy all the benefits of “Gold” membership free of charge,

reflecting the conclusions of Buss (2007) regarding the greater availability of

males and demand for females for short-term sexual relationships.

Setting aside arranged marriages, physical attraction has always played a

central role in the initiation of intimate couple relationships (Buss, 2007). Face

to face meetings in social and work contexts afford the opportunity to assess

potential partners’ attractiveness, and reciprocity of attraction via their

engagement in, and response to, non-verbal and verbal flirting behaviour

(Back et al., 2010). Ellison, Heino and Gibbs (2006) acknowledge the

tendency of individuals to modify their behaviour and self-presentation in an

effort to be perceived in the best possible light. This applies in many

circumstances, but is of particular importance in face to face interactions with

potential romantic, marriage or sexual partners, as the impression created

informs a potential partner’s decision as to whether to proceed with instigating

a relationship (Derlega, Winstead, Wong & Greenspan, 1987). When such

interactions are initiated online, Ellison, Heino and Gibbs (2006) refer to the

process of circumvention; the strategic manipulation of Computer Mediated

Communication, and exploitation of the inherent features of Information and

Communication Technologies (ICTs) by individuals, in order to enhance the

perception of their attractiveness and personal qualities.

Heino, Ellison and Gibbs (2010) draw the analogy of a market-place, in which

dating, marriage and sex-contact websites act as a virtual shop window, and

participants fulfil the roles of both “available goods”, and prospective

8

“purchasers”. Though the temptation may occur of misrepresenting oneself in

the online market-place in order to attract a more desirable mate, this may be

tempered by the prospect of meeting in person, and the possibility of rejection

as a result of any discrepancies resulting from an attempt to deceive (Ellison,

Heino & Gibbs, 2006).

In the absence of the visual and interpersonal cues available in face-to-face

encounters, how, then, do people make their assessments and choices, and

what are the pitfalls and advantages in computer mediated environments?

Arviddson (2006) contends that the online pursuit of romance involves the

creation of a fantasy world, extrapolated from a few personal details, a vague

description and one or two fuzzy images, to encompass an idealised

representation of the real person in imaginary scenarios and fantasy erotic

encounters. The question then arises, how does this differ from the

romanticisation of a potential partner met through friends or family, at work, or

in a pub or club?

The purpose of this study is, therefore, to explore the ways in which people

adapt their behaviour and self-presentation styles to the process of meeting

intimate partners online, instead of face-to-face. Are the types of relationship

they are seeking different? Are their expectations different? How truthful are

they in how they represent themselves, and what are their experiences of how

others represent themselves? What are the differences in protocol? How do

relationships initiated online make the transition to meeting in person, and

what impact does gender have on all of these issues? These questions are

addressed via a qualitative methodology that does not seek to provide

definitive answers, but to provide a “snapshot” comparison of how the internet

has influenced courting and dating among a random sample of adult males

and females in East London and Essex, in the first decade of the 21st Century.

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)

A qualitative approach was chosen for this study, in preference to a qualitative

methodology. Quantitative approaches require hypotheses to be generated

and tested, or data collected via the media of questionnaires or surveys.

Inevitably the results of these methods are limited by the questions posed,

and the options provided to participants in answering the questions, based on

9

prior assumptions made about participants’ behaviour, which may be poorly

formed (McBride & Schostak, 2011).

IPA was chosen as the most appropriate methodology available as it enabled

participants’ thoughts and experiences to be extracted and analysed as data.

The use of semi-structured interviews allowed participants the freedom to

recount their experiences and opinions, and enabled the researcher to

become immersed in those experiences and evolve mature hypotheses to

address the research question (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009).

In this instance, the selection of IPA as the methodology for the study resulted

in an unanticipated area of exploration, namely, the role of social networking,

opening up to the researcher, further justifying the adoption of this approach.

MethodRecruitment and participants

Eight participants were recruited from two sources; a poster in the Psychology

Helpdesk, which was also disseminated to students via the UEL noticeboard,

and a request for participants to an extended network of friends via Facebook.

Approaches were also made to the administrators of several internet dating

websites, however, sufficient participants had been recruited from other

sources before any replies were received. A unique, memorable email

address (internet-dating@live.co.uk) was created to facilitate recruitment and

communication with participants.

Participants were required to fulfil the following criteria;

Be at least 25 years old

and

Have had intimate heterosexual relationships, as an adult, that started

both

“online” ( via internet dating websites or social networking websites)

and

“offline” (in “traditional” circumstances; through work , friends or family,

in pubs/clubs or through religious/cultural connections).

10

When the study was initially conceived, the intention was to compare

traditional “face to face” dating methods with internet dating websites. Early

on in the process of interviewing participants, however, it became apparent

that participants were using social networking sites, and, in particular,

Facebook, as a venue for starting relationships, and as a medium for

communication after making initial contact via dating, marriage and sex-

contact websites. The scope of the study was, therefore, expanded to

accommodate participants’ experiences as a reflection of the reality of

computer mediated meeting and dating, rather than restricting it according to

prior assumptions. Participants were, therefore, required to have had at least

one intimate adult relationship where initial contact was made via an internet

dating website, or a social networking website (e.g. Facebook), and,

additionally, at least one other intimate adult relationship where initial contact

was made through meeting in person, rather than through any computer

mediated contact.

It was decided to introduce a minimum age requirement of 25 years in order

to ensure that participants had sufficient experience of adult relationships. In

order to allow gender comparisons to be drawn, an equal number of male and

female participants were recruited.

Another consideration with regard to the scope of this study was the nature of

the relationships that it would cover. Because of the limited number of

participants interviewed (N=8), and being mindful of introducing further

complexity surrounding gay and lesbian dating, it was decided to restrict the

subject area to heterosexual relationships.

Prospective participants were sent a combined invitation and consent letter

and the interview schedule, which were drafted in accordance with the BPS

Code of Ethics & Conduct, Participants were also asked to indicate their

availability and preferred location for their interview to minimise

inconvenience. Interviews were then arranged at mutually convenient times

and locations.

11

Table 1 shows the relevant details of the participants:

Table 1

Participant

Number

Gender Age Ethnicity

(self-

defined)

Relationship

status

1 F 27 Black Engaged

2 F 27 Greek Dating

3 F 25 Black Dating

4 F 25 Pakistani Engaged

5 M 27 White/Asian Engaged

6 M 35 White/Asian Engaged

7 M 41 White British Dating

8 M 45 White British Separated/dating

Participants were numbered in the order in which their interviews were

conducted, which was determined by their availability. The gender order of

participants: 1-4 female and 5-8 male was thus coincidental, not by design.

There were eight additional female and six additional male volunteers. One

female volunteer did not meet the age criterion, one female volunteer did not

attend the interview as arranged, and two male volunteers withdrew from

participation prior to interview arrangements being made because of their own

study commitments. The remainder were excluded as surplus to requirements

once sufficient male and female participant numbers were reached.

The mean age of participants was 31.5 years. Divided by gender, the mean

age of female participants was 26 years, whilst the mean age of male

participants was 37 years, and it is noteworthy that, at 27 years, the youngest

male participant was the same age as the two oldest female participants. For

the purpose of comparison, the age distribution between genders was not,

therefore, ideal. Though it may have been desirable to include at least one

older female participant, there were no appropriate volunteers.

12

Reflexivity

As its name suggests, IPA involves the interpretation of discourse, and,

inevitably, the experience, background and philosophical standpoint of the

interpreter influences the process of analysis (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009).

As a 50 year-old male, married for 19 years, I had no first-hand experience of

dating via the internet, and no recent experience of dating via “traditional”

non-internet means. As a full time therapist, however, I had some knowledge

of both traditional and internet dating from clients, and also from recently

separated male friends. Experiences they had disclosed to me, along with

media coverage, both positive and negative, informed my opinions and

assumptions with regard to the contemporary dating scene. Of particular note

were prior suspicions regarding the accuracy of member profiles on dating

websites, and ignorance regarding the prevalence of dating via Facebook and

other social networking sites.

These presumptions initially played a part in the wording of the interview

schedule (see Appendix 1). However, as the interview process continued I

became aware that my interview style had evolved, so that the interviews of

the later participants were longer and more detailed than those at the

beginning, digressed more often from the interview schedule, and also tended

to take account of my learning about the dating scene. It is unfortunate,

therefore, that all of the female participants were interviewed before the

males, as this will undoubtedly have had some impact on the interviews,

though I am sure that such a learning curve is commonplace among first-time

users of IPA. I should also acknowledge that my previous training and

experience as a therapist, and ex-Police officer, helped me to avoid leading or

loaded questions, and enabled me to conduct the interviews in a professional

and sensitive manner, despite the personal nature of the subject area.

Ethics

Throughout the design and execution of this study careful consideration was

given to ethical issues, with particular attention paid to anonymity,

confidentiality, protection of participants and right to withdraw. These issues

were fully addressed in the ethical approval application, and the

invitation/consent letter provided to all potential participants. All participants

13

were briefed thoroughly prior to their interviews, and debriefed at the end of

the interview process.

Design

Qualitative research – Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

The investigation of these questions necessitates a qualitative, rather than a

quantitative approach. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)

provides a methodology that allows the researcher to interact with discourse,

and extract meaning not only from the literal interpretation of sentences, but

also from the nuances of dialogue between interviewer and respondent, the

use of language, its delivery, pauses and silences, enabling the researcher to

develop insight into the thoughts and feelings of participants that lay

concealed within the text, but may be revealed through the analytical process.

Inevitably this brings the researcher’s own preconceptions and perspective

into the equation; a characteristic that is fully acknowledged as an integral

feature of IPA (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009).

IPA is usually used to engage with a small number of participants, using semi-

structured interviews that employ a degree of flexibility, allowing the

interviewer to thoroughly explore the interviewee’s experience of the subject

area in question. The key strength of IPA, however, is its simplicity as a

method of “stripping back” the language of discourse to expose levels of

meaning that are not immediately apparent. It was, therefore, chosen as the

most suitable methodology available to examine contemporary dating

experiences.

Interview Schedule

Prior to interviews taking place considerable thought was given to the

interview structure. Focussing on the research question, an initial list of

possible questions was drawn up. This list was progressively refined and

subdivided into main interview questions which would be asked to each

interviewee, and prompts that were only used as required to ensure that each

question was covered thoroughly. The interview questions and prompts were

worded to be open, requiring descriptive rather than “yes” or “no” answers,

and avoided making assumptions about the participants or their experiences

(Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009).

14

The resulting Interview Schedule consisted of five main questions and eleven

prompts (see Appendix 1).

Procedure

Materials

Interviews were recorded using a hand-held electronic voice recorder,

sourced from the UEL Psychology Helpdesk, that recorded directly onto an

SD card. This enabled recordings to be conveniently uploaded to a PC for

transcription.

Participant interview arrangements

Interviews were carried out in private interview rooms at UEL.

Interview conduct

Participants were provided with copies of the invitation/consent letter and

interview schedule (Appendix 1), via email, at least 24 hours prior to the

interview.

On arrival for the interview, each participant was given the opportunity to read

through the invitation/consent letter and ask any questions they may have.

They were also given the opportunity to withdraw, and informed of their right

to withdraw at any time.

Once satisfied that the client was ready to begin, the voice recorder was

started, and the interview commenced. To allow the interviews to “flow”, the

interview schedule was not necessarily adhered to rigidly with regard to the

sequence of questions, but used as a guide to ensure completeness of each

interview. At the conclusion of their interview each participant was reminded

of their right to withdraw.

Transcription and analysis

The interview transcripts were uploaded from the voice recorder SD card to a

PC to enable replay via a standard PC audio program such as Windows

Media Player or RealPlayer.

15

Each interview was then transcribed by playing each interview back, a few

words at a time, to enable the nuances of speech, including repetitions,

pauses, silences and laughter, to be accurately recorded. The following

conventions were applied in the transcribing process:

Each line of transcript was individually numbered for identification

during analysis.

“I” indicates Interviewer speech

“R” indicates Respondent (Participant).

Square brackets [ ] indicates non-verbal action by person speaking,

e.g. [laughs]

Round brackets ( ) indicates brief speech, sound of acknowledgement

or non-verbal action by person not speaking at that time.

For example:

18 R I’ve heard a lot about that website, especially from friends, one of my aunties

19 got married on there, (Mmhmm?) so I thought it’s the best one, so I might as

20 well give it a try. [laughs]

IPA requires a semantic record of the interview, including all speech by

everyone present; hesitations and pauses, and any significant non-verbal

activity such as laughter or coughing. The conventional method of

transcription involves leaving wide margins either side for ease of coding on a

printed transcript (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009).

After initial experimentation with printing a transcript and making notes in the

margin, a personal preference was found for viewing the transcripts on a

computer screen. This conferred advantages of comfort, convenience in being

able to adjust the size of the text, highlight selected passages, and move

16

LineNumbers

Indicates Respondent (Participant) speaking

Indicates sound of acknowledgement by the person not speaking (In this case the Interviewer speaking at the same time as the Respondent).

Indicates non-verbal response (laughter) from person speaking (Respondent).

quickly and easily between pages. Eliminating the broad margins also made

the transcripts more readable, and making notes in a separate notebook,

cross referenced with the interview line numbers, provided freedom to write

as much as one wanted, or to re-interpret sections of dialogue without being

constricted by the width of the margins. This method was also more

economical, avoiding the necessity to print each transcript.

The process of transcription itself was the initial stage of data analysis. Close

attention to, and accurate transcription of the language used by the participant

and interviewer, the cadence, hesitations, repetition, and mid-sentence

changes in choice of language or meaning, were transcribed as accurately as

possible. All of this information was potentially significant later in the analysis

process. (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009).

Once transcription of each interview was complete, it was read through with

the interview play-back in order to ensure completeness, and to enable the

participant’s vocal delivery to be taken into account. Initial noting was

commenced at this stage, involving descriptive comments regarding the

content of the transcript at a basic level, linguistic comments relating to the

choice of language by the participant, and conceptual comments with regard

to questions arising from the participant’s words, or implied meanings derived

from particular sentences. For example, a participant reeling off a list of

attributes desirable in a partner might have drawn comparison with selecting

from a menu in the mind of the interviewer, a concept that may have

suggested a certain way of thinking or responding. Each category of comment

was identified visually via the use of capital letters for descriptive comments,

underlining for linguistic comments, and drawing an outline around conceptual

comments. Each transcript was then read through again and notes made of

any further comments, before moving on to the next phase of analysis.

The initial notes and transcripts were then reviewed to reveal any emergent

themes; broader ideas and concepts that related to a particular aspect or

aspects of the research question. This was the “Interpretative” stage of the

process, which aimed to produce statements of a few words that succinctly

summarised a section of transcript. As this process unfolded, consistent

themes, and some contradictory themes, began to emerge. These were

cross-referenced, and began to form clusters of duplicate and related themes

17

that were grouped together under super-ordinate categories. This process is

described by Smith, Flowers and Larkin (2009) as “abstraction”. Where an

emergent theme is identified as a super-ordinate “umbrella” category, bringing

together subordinate themes, this process is described as “subsumption”.

Two methods are suggested by Smith, Flowers and Larkin (2009) for

organising the emerging themes. One involves printing them off, cutting them

out, and arranging them in appropriate clusters on a board. The other

suggestion is to compile a list of all the themes on screen, and cut and paste

the list into appropriate categories. The method used in this study was to scan

through the lists of themes emerging from each transcript, and to transfer

them to super-ordinate headings in a notebook, along with the relevant

Participant and line numbers. Throughout this process the super-ordinate and

subordinate themes were subject to continuous review, reflection, and re-

organisation, until satisfactory groupings and arrangements were achieved.

Analysis and discussion

Which websites?

Participants were asked to identify which websites they had used for internet

dating, or in connection with relationships where initial contact was online.

The results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Website URL Website

Type

Participant

Nos.

Facebook www.facebook.com Networking 1,2,4,5,6

ProfilePic www.profilepic.com Networking/

dating

3

Shaadi www.shaadi.com Marriage 4

Match.com www.match.com Dating 5,6,7,8

Uniform Dating www.uniformdating.com Dating 5,8

Fotolog www.fotolog.com Networking 6

Dating Direct www.datingdirect.com Dating 7

MySingleFrien www.mysinglefriend.co Dating 7

18

d m

Be Naughty www.benaughty.com Dating 7

Marital Affair www.maritalaffair.com Dating 8

Participant 7 (P7, 209) also mentioned that he had also “browsed” Russian

Brides (www.russianbrides.com) and Thai Love Connection, (P7, 101-102)

but not paid a subscription to either site or communicated with any of their

members. Thai Love Connection was not an active website at the time of

writing, and apparently closed in 2007. An archived web page is viewable at

replay.web.archive.org/20070123040128/http:/www.thailoveconnection.com/.

Table 2 revealed two noteworthy pieces of data: Firstly, that although

Facebook is not specifically aimed at facilitating dating, its influence as a way

of connecting with people has become so widespread (Barnett, 2011) that a

significant minority of people have apparently found partners there by

connecting with friends of friends, or via other connections.

Secondly, all of the male participants, who were aged 27–45 years, had used

Match.com, whereas none of the female participants, aged 25–27, had done

so. Although the question of why the female participants had not used

Match.com was not addressed specifically, it seems reasonable to conclude

that this is a result of the age distribution of the Match.com membership rather

than gender. This would coincide with Hogan, Dutton and Li’s study (2011)

which showed that only 19% of 20-29 year-olds who had met their partner in

the last 10 years had met them online, in contrast to 37% of 40-69 year-olds.

Traditional dating – The old fashioned way?

Hogan, Dutton and Li’s study (2011) reveals that most couple relationships in

Western societies begin through work or social connections, or through

meeting in a social context such as a party, a club or a bar, with

approximately 30% having met via the internet. Meeting in “traditional”

contexts is, therefore, still very much the norm, and in order to understand

how the internet has changed people’s behaviour it is therefore necessary to

examine how people connect “offline”.

19

Where participants met partners

The initial question posed to the participants was:

Before trying internet dating, how did you meet partners or

boyfriends/girlfriends?

The responses echoed the findings of Hogan, Dutton and Li (2011), with most

participants having met partners through friends or clubbing. Participant 6

(P6, 4-5) said that he was not particularly good in a social atmosphere with

people he didn’t know, and had met partners almost exclusively through work,

and Participants 4, 5 and 8 had also dated work colleagues.

How it works

Participants tended to agree that this depended on the environment. In a

“stranger” situation, such as a club or a bar where the parties were not known

to each other, the female participants were almost unanimous; the male has

to make the first move. Only Participant 2 stated that if she liked someone,

she would approach him, but then disclosed that she consciously gave off

signals to males who she found attractive, in order to get them to approach

her. Participant 3 explained the protocol;

R I think if I don’t like a person, if a guy gives me eye contact

if I’m out, erm, I tend to just look down, or, I make, I make

sure that I let him know that I’m not interested just by the

eyes, (Mmm) erm, after you shut your eyes at them or you

give them a blank or, em, just let them know that you’re

not interested but if you like somebody, you tend to make

sure that they know, you keep on looking back and you

smile and you give them that, kind of, signal that you..

I So flirting with them?

R Yeah. (P3, 47-54)

So, in practice, although there was an expectation on the male to make an

approach, in reality, the females tended to give advance notice as to whether

an approach would be welcome, and held the “trump card” in terms of

acceptance or rejection.

What were the consequences for a female who chose to be more proactive

when attracted to a male? Participant 8 recounted an experience:

20

If I – if I’m in a club, and, and well, and I’m thinking of a true

scenario, I was in a club, and someone came up to me and made

all the, made all the effort, made all the attempts to, to, to get my

attention and to talk to me and engage in conversation with me,

erm, then, then, erm, then sometimes I would go with them, or go

on a date with them if I liked them, but, but I think I’d think less of

them I suppose, be-because I didn’t choose them, then they

wouldn’t be high on my priority if you like. Does that make any

sense? (P8, 451-457)

In this situation it appears that, by approaching the male directly, she

undermined her “mate value” (Buss, 2007). Participant 8 expanded on this;

R ..you tend to [Coughs.] value them less. I think you value

things that you chase for. Erm,

I You chase them because you value them.. perhaps? Or

there’s a..

R Or you chase them because you feel - because you’re

attracted to them, when you get hold of them then you

value them for - you value them for that. (P8, 483-487)

What Participant 8 seemed to say here, was that something you had to

chase; to make an effort to attain or acquire, became more attractive by virtue

of its elusiveness. This increased the perceived value of the relationship,

increasing the likelihood of a degree of permanence; or in common parlance,

“Treat them mean, keep them keen”. If the female made herself available

without a “chase”, she was afforded less respect, and there was less

likelihood of a long-term relationship, but he would still be likely to take

advantage of a sexual opportunity.

What men want

21

Participant 8 was not alone in revealing himself as a sexual opportunist. All of

the male participants disclosed that, when single, they either had, were

hoping for, or would have considered accepting an offer of “no strings

attached” sex. However, they were also unanimous in stating that their

ultimate goal was a permanent exclusive relationship.

What were the qualities they were looking for when seeking a partner offline?

Personality, compatibility and age boundaries were all important, but physical

attractiveness came top of the list for most. Certain physical attributes were

mentioned as desirable, such as height (P7, 329), and a slim physique (P8,

497-498), but otherwise they were quite non-specific about what they found

physically attractive. Participants 5 and 7 stated a preference for casually

dressed women and personal hygiene;

I still just don’t find myself attracted to short girls. Erm, so, yeah,

height is, is a big thing for me. Erm, yeah, obviously a general

look of health, cleanliness, er, don’t have to be all dolled up to

the nines wearing stilettos and white dresses and all that sort of

stuff, I actually quite like cas - people who are casually dressed.

Even if, even if someone is quite casually dressed you can still

sort of see if they’re, well, the right sort of size and shape. You

can kind of imagine under the jeans and the sweatshirt that

there’s the body of a goddess waiting to be caressed..

(P7, 335-341)

Participant 7’s preference for “the right sort of size and shape” typified the

general emphasis on physical attributes among the male participants, but his

reference to “the body of a goddess waiting to be caressed” strayed into

different territory, allowing an insight into a sexual fantasy with an imaginary

“perfect” woman. Her casual attire signified compatibility; P7 reveals later that

he owns a tuxedo, but hadn’t worn it for about fifteen years and did not enjoy

“high society stuff” (P7, 344-351);

R I don’t, I don’t really go for the, sort of, the ballroom

environment, and I find women that have tried very hard,

22

you know, to look amazing, I almost see it as a sign of,

erm, er, what’s the word? A sign of, er, not insecurity, but,

kind of.. er.. superficial, being, being, it’s a bit superficial.

I Superficiality?

R Yeah, superficiality. (Yeah? Ok.) Too, erm, yeah. Maybe a

bit of a prima donna, maybe too concerned about trivial

things that don’t really matter. (P7, 347-354)

Thus Participant 7 appears to define his perfect partner; physical “perfection”

(achieved without too much effort), compatibility, not a “prima donna”,

implying an easy-going nature, and not overly concerned with what he

considers “trivia”. Somewhat reminiscent of a “Stepford Wife” (Levin, 1972).

The exception to the focus on physical attributes was Participant 6, who also

revealed a lack of social confidence which prevented him from approaching

females. His fear of rejection was compensated for by his sense of humour,

that had enabled him to form relationships with female work colleagues, who

then approached him:

I don’t think I’ve ever turned one down, [Laughs] ha ha, that that

sounds quite cheap! (Laughs) But, no, I mean, if, if someone asks

me out I’ll go out with them, unless there’s a, a particular reason

why not. (P6, 54-57)

What women want

In contrast to the male participants, physical attractiveness was not a high

priority, and was considered less important than confidence and personality.

Participant 4 said;

R I think a guy should like, have confidence to go up to a girl

and talk to them.

I Mmhmm?

R If the guy wasn’t that good looking and he approached me,

that would be like a plus point for him. (P4, 62-66)

Female participants also valued ambition, humour, dress style, religion,

musical tastes, and ability to dance. Honesty and integrity were rated as

23

important. Participant 1 described a relationship with a boyfriend who initially

portrayed himself as religious and focussed on his future, until it became

apparent that he was neither;

I ..The first one, you say, wasn’t serious?

R Wasn’t serious, he wasn’t challenged about things and, he

wasn’t serious about anything, about working, going to

school, and things that are actually important in life.

(P1, 73-76)

..when I was speaking to him he was quite serious but, after a

while, I got to see that it was all like a pretence, like he was just

putting on a front ‘coz, maybe that’s what I expected, you know.

(P1, 83-85)

Participant 1 interpreted his actions as a deception in an attempt to get closer

to her. This type of deception, typically associated with internet dating

(Ellison, Heino & Gibbs, 2006; Whitty, 2007), demonstrated that in traditional

dating situations, what you expect is not necessarily what you get.

Participant 1’s emphasis on long-term goals typified the outlook of other

female participants, and also correlates with human mating theory, which

predicts the female preference for long-term mating strategies (Buss, 2007).

The exception to this was Participant 3, who was not looking for a committed

relationship through “traditional” dating:

I So you’re not looking for commitment initially, (Mm,mm)

what are you looking for?

R Em, this might sound really weird, but just fun. [laughs]

(Mmhmm?) Em, I just, I like the honeymoon stages of a

relationship. (Yeah?) Em, I just like the buzz, (Right.) of the

first few months, and then if it continues over that then

fine, if it doesn’t then I get kind of bored. (P3, 133-138)

Participant 3, at this point, was quite clear that she was not looking for a

committed relationship. At that time in her life, in her late teens and early

24

twenties, she was happy to enjoy brief, non-committed relationships. With her

comment “this might sound really weird”, she became slightly defensive

with regard to this behaviour, implying awareness that promiscuity might

attract disapproval, but did not appear too concerned about this. Later in the

interview (P3, 314-337) she disclosed that she is currently in a steady

relationship with her boyfriend, whom she met via the internet.

Cultural variations

To conclude this section it is essential to acknowledge that this study was

conducted primarily in a contemporary Western cultural context. Worldwide

there are many cultures where dating on a casual basis, or with a view to

meeting a long term partner or spouse, is not the norm. In many societies

marriages are arranged between families, often involving economic

transactions, where a marriage is part of a trading system. Where “dating” is

permitted, it often takes place primarily within betrothed couples, who may

have had some freedom to choose their partner, or none at all.

(Ingoldsby, 1995). These traditions and cultures are changing and evolving,

especially within multicultural societies where young people are exposed to

external influences. In some cases, this evolution has not diluted the marriage

culture, but has involved the adoption of the internet as a matchmaking tool.

“Online” meeting and dating

According to Hogan, Dutton and Li (2011), although many people who meet in

“offline” contexts often place themselves in situations where they set out to

meet prospective partners, such as bars and parties, the most common place

for relationships to begin is at work, where people go for the purpose of

working, rather than meeting partners.

Online social clubs

Likewise, on the internet, there are many websites where people interact

socially that can lead to partnerships forming inadvertently, without any

premeditation. Facebook (www.facebook.com) and other social networking

sites could be compared to online social clubs, where people meet their

friends and colleagues to chat, show their photos to each other, and, like

wearing their favourite band’s tee shirt, express their tastes in music, literature

and entertainment.

25

There are many ways in which this can lead to relationships forming.

Participant 5 had commented on a friend’s Facebook status. Another friend of

that person, whom he didn’t know, also responded, and this led to a

Facebook dialogue, which resulted in them meeting and going on several

dates (P5, 240-262).

Participant 2 related how her current relationship began inadvertently via

Facebook:

Er.. there is a track, (Mmhmm) a music track, it’s music again, er,

that I heard a few years ago, and I was interested in knowing the

guy that made that track.. (Mmhmm) er.. and er… a couple of

years later I found him in the internet like some other, some other

DJs, my intention wasn’t to, to have a relationship with him,

(Mmhmm) erm, and I found him on the internet and one day I ask

him if he’s going to play music in London, and he responded and

we started talking, then we started talking on Skype, (Mmhmm)

and I went to find him, because he lives in Paris.. (P2, 145-152)

The interviewer considered it a bold step that Participant 2 took; travelling

alone, to Paris, to meet and stay with someone whom she had only chatted to

via Facebook and Skype. One of the advantages of meeting people via social

networking sites is that they are often a “friend of a friend”, so it is possible to

cross-check with someone you know and find out more about them. For

Participant 2, this was not the case. As a DJ, the person she was meeting

could be described as a public figure; someone she looked up to, and as an

admirer of his music it seems that she was flattered by his interest in her.

The interviewer was curious to find out how P2 had experienced the transition

from communicating via a computer to meeting in person, in another country.

Erm, in the beginning I was feeling a bit, erm, er, uncomfortable

because it was a very strange, ah, we were talking through

26

internet and now I was just suddenly there in Paris, and I couldn’t

believe it, I couldn’t believe what I, what I was doing.

(P2, 253-256)

P2 was asked to describe her feelings at the time:

Not defensive but uncomfortable (Yeah.) and a bit silent, and

thinking, trying to realise what happened. (P2, 267-268)

When she said “a bit silent and thinking, trying to realise what has

happened” it seemed that only at this point did she realise how potentially

vulnerable she was in this situation. She couldn’t believe what she was doing,

placing complete trust in a person she had never met, with no support or

escape plan. Fortunately, within about two hours she felt comfortable with

him, and with the situation; the Paris trip went well and the relationship

flourished.

International relationships

Another aspect of internet communication illustrated by this account was the

fact that it took place between two different countries. With the exception of a

few countries where internet communication with the outside world is

restricted, such as China and Saudi Arabia (Zittrain & Edelman, 2003),

Facebook, and the internet as a whole, is a truly global phenomenon. In this

case the communication was between Britain and France, but it could just

have easily have taken place between any two unrestricted countries.

Participant 6 had experienced two relationships that took place between

England and the USA. Here he describes the first one:

Yeah, I mean, I think Nebraska’s a bit too far away (Laughs) but,

you know, er, I, I still had a sort of relationship with that woman,

despite the fact that she was in, sort of, five thousand miles

away, erm, via MSN, erm, video chat and emails, but it wasn’t

something that I would – I wouldn’t say it was an intimate

relationship, just because it was just never likely to be. (No.) I just

got very close to her. And, it’s one of the, one of the problems

with internet dating is, I mean she was actually married. You do

27

come across people that aren’t necessarily looking for the same

thing that you’re looking for, but they’re just, they’re, they’re

looking for company of some kind or another.

(P6, 143-151)

Participant 6 paints a picture of two lonely people, sitting at their computers,

finding each other through some random common connection, and forming an

emotional bond with each other, despite being on different continents. He

clearly implies that it might have gone further, had she not been married, and

despite his contention that “Nebraska’s a bit too far away”, his other

relationship with an American female proceeded much further:

R .. quite a few years ago, er, I met a girl through a photo,

erm, blogging site that I was part of.

I Can you remember what that was called?

R Fotolog, dot net, I think it was. And, erm, yeah, she just

started clicking “like” on some of the photos I posted up.

Erm, I found her profile of photos, started looking through

hers, we started chatting, commenting on each other’s

pictures, that progressed to MSN, which progressed to

calling, and we used to speak for hours on the phone, and

eventually she came over here from America, stayed for a

couple of weeks and then I went over there, stayed for a

couple of weeks with her family. And, yeah, it got to

engaged, we, we got engaged, but I just didn’t think I was

ready for it, the idea of emigrating.

(P6, 230-240)

I, I, I started getting scared by the levels of commitment. Going

with my previous history it was sort of, roll with it, and then

suddenly it was being taken out of my hands, and therefore I

panicked. (P6, 248-250)

Again, this represents a social networking experience that evolved into a

serious intimate relationship, and demonstrates how people who, without the

internet, would be extremely unlikely to ever encounter each other, can form

powerful emotional bonds without meeting in person. Participant 6 appeared

28

to have been “swept along” in the emotional excitement of a new relationship,

without considering the full implications of relocating to the USA.

The global nature of the internet has also created new opportunities for

dedicated dating and matrimonial services, usually designed to connect

female clients from an assortment of international backgrounds with more

affluent Western males, for example, the Jerak marriage agency, which

advertises “Mail order brides - single Romanian ladies” (www.jerak-

online.com). Participant 7 revealed that he had contemplated using the

website Thai Love Connection:

I registered my email address and, and start - opened a user

account, erm, but I didn’t actually pay any money.. on that one.

Er, but, a – if I’d liked what I’d seen more I may well have done,

but I didn’t, I thought, you know, this is all a bit of a joke really,

and I realised, you know, importing a girl from Thailand is

probably not what – [laughing] the stage I’m at at the moment, er,

cultural barriers, language barriers, er, yeah. (P7, 113-119)

Er, I think there’s one called Russian Brides as well, which, which

I, I sort of found myself browsing, but didn’t register on it.

(P7, 209-210)

It could be argued that these agencies provide a service of mutual benefit to

mature adults with freedom of choice and mobility, enabling them to find love

and companionship, and to improve their quality of life. Participant 7’s

reference to “importing a girl from Thailand”, however, suggests a view of

these women as a commodity, similar to an exotic pet, and an expectation of

subservience towards their husband, having rescued them from the relative

poverty of their family and home surroundings.

Participant 7 pointed out that cultural and language barriers were a large

hurdle to overcome in the formation of an inter-cultural intimate relationship.

He related how these issues had undermined previous relationships:

..one of my, sort of, rules is I try not to, er, ever meet somebody

you haven’t spoken to first, you end up, you end up going out

29

with somebody that can barely speak English, or, you know, one

of my rules is that, er, you’ve got to be a native English speaker,

otherwise I, I, er, it becomes hard work. I’ve been out with foreign

girls, I’ve been in a long-term relationship with a foreign girl, and,

you know, I loved her very much, but, but foreign girls I’ve been

out with, you just end up explaining stuff to them, you don’t build

the rapport, the sense of humour, the play on words.

(P7, 644-652)

The “Mating Menu”

One of the features of dating websites is the ability to search their member

databases according to personal preferences. This proved useful for

Participant 6, who, with an allergy to cat hair, was able to filter out cat owners

(P6, 181-183).

In practice, the ability to specify preferences was used to identify members

matching a range of characteristics. Participant 7 described the process:

..So you can search for someone who’s, who’s, er, firstly within

your age range, secondly in your, your, er, distance range, thirdly

you’ve got, er, an academic background that, that you, you think

is appropriate, then you can search on height, which is a good

one for me because I don’t like short girls, um, and so you can

refine it, refine it, refine it until, until you might only be down to,

yeah, ten - ten, twenty, maybe thirty or fifty girls.. (P7, 441-447)

This contrasted with “offline” dating, where a much more subtle process of

interpersonal attraction takes place:

..there’s lots of things that attracts you to someone, it’s not just

about a face. (Mmhmm?) It’s the whole thing, it’s the whole

person, and then non-verbal, verbal, what they sound like, what

they smell like, what - the whole loads of things that’ll, that will

appeal to you. When you meet them face to face you’ll get all of

that rushing into your head, and you might like them, you might

not like them. Internet dating, you don’t – none of that is, is

apparent until you meet them for the first time. (P8, 649-655)

30

What does the ability to filter on dating websites achieve? It purports to

provide a method of selecting the people one should find most attractive, but

in reality it may eliminate a large number of people that one might find

attractive face to face, and reduces the forming of intimate relationships to a

menu driven selection process, like ordering a meal, or choosing a domestic

appliance. It tends to depersonalise individuals, and, as Heino, Ellison and

Gibbs (2010) contend, turns them into commodities in an online marketplace.

The Internet – your “virtual friend”

A spin-off of this depersonalisation process was the effect on fear of rejection.

All of the participants expressed their nervousness when approaching

someone in person, or talking to someone who had approached them. A

strategy sometimes used to get round this embarrassment was to employ a

friend as a go-between, as described by Participant 2:

..I met him again in the same place, (right), and, er, I want to grab

the chance, maybe something like that, and my friend told him

that we are going to continue our night somewhere else, and, er,

if he’s clever he should come, (yeah) so he came.. (P2, 130-133)

Participants unanimously agreed that communicating via a computer virtually

eliminated this anxiety, enabling them to initiate communication without any

concerns about rejection, or even whether they would receive a reply. The

key factor was identified by Participant 3 as remoteness:

.. I make the initial approach, I don’t really mind if it’s over the

internet really, because they, they can’t really see me, they can’t

see my shyness, so I think when you’re blocked over the screen,

you can say anything, do anything, and you’re not gonna feel

anyway because that person is not directly in front of you..

(P3, 158-162)

Thus the internet had the effect of acting as a “virtual friend”. Instead of

despatching a friend across the dance floor to say “My friend fancies you”, the

internet provided a safe distance from which to fire off a message to a person

whose profile looked appealing, before moving on to the next profile.

31

Truths, lies and marketing

There was a general awareness among the participants of the issues of

online self-presentation. On social networking sites, such as Facebook,

profiles were generally authentic. Profile pictures tended to be flattering, but

were assumed to be accurate. Participant 1 encountered one that wasn’t:

I actually met up with him and all that but, he wasn’t, he made,

like put some nice pictures online, made himself look so nice and

fit, but he wasn’t. (P1, 101-103)

Erm, I, I just like, told him I was going to the bathroom and I left.

(P1, 114)

On dating websites a different picture emerged; Profiles fell into two distinct

categories; genuine daters, where a minor degree of misrepresentation was

accepted, and expected:

..it’s marketing isn’t it, you’re trying to put your best foot forward

the whole, the whole time.. (P8, 675-677)

To a degree I think everyone covers up their, their, what they see

as failings, or their own personal failings, but then that’s, that’s

just how it goes. Everybody does that, so I suppose everybody’s

in the same playing field. We have all little bits that we don’t

mention, like the snoring or, or whatever.. (Yeah.) but, I think

people that have internet dated before.. will have realised what

they can say and what they can’t say, because if they do meet

this person then they’re gonna have to back that up.

(P6, 359-365)

Participants reported that, in their experience, genuine daters’ profiles showed

a tendency to emphasize positively perceived qualities, but were broadly

truthful. Adjustment of characteristics such as age, size or weight, and height

to appear younger, slimmer and generally more attractive was, however

reported as commonplace, the imperative being to attract the most attractive

32

date available, with the hope that any discrepancies at the point of meeting in

person would be ignored.

The other category was scammers and jokers; people who said and did

whatever they liked, either for their own entertainment or for an ulterior

motive. Participant 8 suggested that there are numerous fictitious profiles

created for practical joke purposes (P8, 298-301), and Participant 3 said she

lied to people over the internet and phone about her height, age, ethnicity and

occupation, just for fun:

..when you’re on the phone to somebody and you’re speaking to

somebody over the internet or on the phone, you can really make

up anything… (P3, 358-360)

Participant 7 mentioned an obvious attempt to deceive on BeNaughty

(www.benaughty.com)

I think there’s a lot of scammers on those sites, where, by, you

know, er, you’ll contact this girl and she’ll say “I’d love to come

and spank you, but, er, I can’t afford the train fare, can you send

me fifty quid?” [laughs] An old con! (P7, 239-242)

The role of fantasy – “People inside your head”

When meeting people in the real world there is usually no ambiguity over their

appearance. They may modify their behaviour in order to convey a desired

impression, but the interaction is real and immediate (Buss, 1988).

When browsing profiles and initiating contact via the internet the only

information usually available is a profile and a few photographs, carefully

selected with that first impression borne in mind. Arvidsson (2006) argues

that, at this point, the imagination takes over, filling in the details and

constructing a “fantasy other”. Participant 1 commented:

..traditional dating, at least you know who you’re dating right

from the start. You don’t start having.. imaginary, like, people in

your head, “Oh this is what he’s like, this is not what he’s like.”

33

(P1, 240-243)

Establishing contact adds fuel to the fantasy, creating imaginary scenarios

involving meeting the “fantasy other“ in person. In practice, does reality live up

to the fantasy?

From fantasy to reality – the first meeting

Participants described considerable anticipation and tension surrounding the

first meeting with a person with whom an online, and usually a text or

telephone dialogue, had been established. The anticipation and excitement of

fulfilling the fantasy was tempered with concerns about the accuracy of their

perception of the other person, and the other person’s perception of

themselves, necessitating a “leap of faith” into the reality of meeting face to

face. Participant 7 had experienced several dates where reality did not live up

to the fantasy:

..I’ve had some disastrous dates, I think the shortest was this girl

that turned up and I didn’t fancy her at all. She couldn’t speak

English properly, she wasn’t particularly clean, [Laughs] it’s just

– er, I think that was about twenty minutes. A twenty minute date.

I did feel a bit sorry about that. (P7, 545-549)

All of the participants had successful stories to tell of first dates, though none

of Participant 7’s had led to long-term relationships.

Safety was a concern for female participants, often adopting strategies such

as bringing a friend or meeting in a public place. Participant 4 described her

first meeting with her fiancé:

..we were supposed to link at the station. I went there and I saw

him, but I was hiding in the corner, to see if he’s alone. [laughs]

(P4, 176-177)

..I wasn’t nervous, I was just scared, what if he’s like, one of them

kidnappers? (P4, 196-197)

Arranged marriages

34

Arranged marriages are common in Asian, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern

communities. Customs and traditions vary, and often involve some degree of

choice for the parties involved (Ingoldsby, 1995). In parallel with the success

of Western dating websites, marriage websites have gained popularity in

many of these communities, providing convenient online catalogues of

potential spouses.

Participant 4 was unique in this study, being the only person involved in using

the internet in an arranged marriage context. She described being pressured

by her parents to find a husband:

Yeah, I was just pressured, I just went through people’s profiles, I

told Mum “Okay, this guy looks okay, like, he can afford to get a

house and live with me, and he’s a decent guy, blah blah blah.

(P4 154-156)

..really I was just messing about, when I wasn’t ready to get

settled. What attracted me about this guy was that he was funny

and he was laid back, he didn’t really care if he got attention from

anyone or not. And (Mmhmm?) that was really attractive, and

he’s a really funny guy, even though he’s not that good looking.

(P4, 145-150)

This raises the question; in a Western family culture, would this couple be

proceeding directly to marriage at this stage? Maybe. Or, in a culture where

long relationships before marriage are common, maybe not. If the latter is the

case, this suggests a degree of compliance with her parents’ wishes, and her

cultural upbringing.

Internet dating strategies - What works, and what doesn’t

The prevalence of successful long term relationships that started online

clearly demonstrates that internet dating is often successful (Hogan, Dutton &

Li, 2011). The success of the participants in this study was, however, mixed.

Participant 3 experienced an online and phone relationship with a man who

became a little over zealous:

35

..he kept on going on about marriage and kids and all that kind of

stuff, and it was way too fast for me, and it, I don’t like it when a

guy, em, bombards me.. (P3, 238-240)

Participant 3 hadn’t met the man in question at this point, and never did.

Despite initiating several relationships, Participant 5’s long and irregular

working hours prevented him from meeting on a regular basis, an issue that

he had not catered for. (P5, 186-195).

Participant 6 was an advocate of internet dating, having had several long term

relationships that began online. His approach was to spend time chatting

online before meeting; eight or nine hours maybe, before meeting in person.

Participant 6’s rationale was that, as quite a shy person, spending time

chatting on the internet allowed him to build rapport, minimising the initial

awkwardness of meeting someone:

..it actually gives you a chance to say what you mean to say,

rather than you get flustered and.. spout rubbish.

(P6, 197-198)

Participants 7 and 8, both more confident individuals, advocated moving off

the internet and meeting in person as early as possible. Participant 8 had

enjoyed considerable success in finding both short-term and long-term

relationships online: His strategy can be summarised as follows:

Be positive, upbeat

Identify what you want

Identify what the person you’re looking to meet wants, and write your

profile to match

However… Be honest

Don’t pretend to be something you’re not – you’ll quickly get found out

Use humour – making people laugh gets lots of responses

“Flesh out” your profile with details - Don’t just say “I’m a happy go

lucky person” – give an example

36

Meet people as quickly as you can – it saves time. If you’re going to hit

it off, or if you’re not going to hit it off, you’ll know within minutes.

(P8, 128-192)

Participant 8 also offered some advice for women looking for a long-term

relationship – don’t rush into sex. Commonly, he was getting into sexual

relationships on a first or second date, then moving on without really getting to

know them. A woman he had met, however, wanted to wait for a month

before moving to a sexual relationship, and, in hindsight, he thought that it

was a good idea to take things slowly, giving the relationship a better chance

of survival (P8, 362-370).

ConclusionsThe first decade of the 21st Century has seen a revolution in the ways that we

communicate, with instant global connectivity available to an ever growing

proportion of the world’s population, and smartphone and tablet technology

providing the freedom to carry the internet in your pocket. As these

technologies have evolved, so the ways in which they are used have had

increasing impact in peoples’ personal lives.

The popularity of social networking, internet dating, and marriage websites

shows no sign of decreasing, and will, no doubt, continue to evolve, and offer

increasingly diverse ways of connecting with existing friends and

acquaintances, and forming new relationships.

This study showed that the medium of a computer screen and keyboard,

provides new opportunities to bring people with corresponding wants and

needs together, both locally and globally, and helps people to overcome

shyness and social confidence issues. On the other hand, it creates an array

of hurdles to overcome through the absence of the immediacy of face to face

interaction. The implications are broad, but the main question remains;

Is the person I am communicating with who I think they are?

37

This study suggests that in the vast majority of circumstances they are, as

long as you’ve compensated for them to be a little older, shorter, fatter, and

poorer than their profile says. Caution is recommended when meeting people

in person that are only known online; meet in a public place, take a friend, and

don’t necessarily expect to be bowled over with instant mutual attraction.

Taking more time to get to know people may lead to the relationship lasting

longer.

There are many opportunities for further research; in particular, more detailed

examinations of the role of social networking, international internet

relationships, and how the shortcomings of internet dating can be addressed.

References

38

Arviddson, A. (2006). ‘Quality singles’: internet dating and the work of fantasy.

New Media & Society, 8(4), 671-690.

Back, M.D., Penke, L., Schmukle, S.C., Sachse, K., Borkenau, P., &

Asendorpf, J.B. (2010). Why mate choices are not as reciprocal as we

assume: The role of personality, flirting, and physical attractiveness.

Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Germany. Retrieved from

http://www.psychologie.hu-berlin.de/prof/per/pdf/2222/Back_etal_speeddating

reciprocity_EJP_inpress.pdf.

Barnett, E., (2011, March 2). Facebook 'used by half the UK population'. The

Telegraph, Retrieved from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8356755/Facebook-used-by-

half-the-UK-population.html

Boyd, D. M., and Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition,

history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,

13(1), 210-230.

Buss, D.M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of

mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 616-628.

Buss, D.M. (2007). The evolution of human mating. Acta Psychologica Sinica

39 (3), 502-512.

Derlega, V., Winstead, B., Wong, P., & Greenspan, M. (1987). Self-disclosure

and relationship development: An attributional analysis. In M. E. Roloff & G.

R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication

Research (pp. 172-187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

eBizMBA - Top 15 Most Popular Social Networking Websites March 2011.

Retrieved from http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/social-networking-websites.

Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006) Managing impressions online: Self-

presentation processes in the online dating environment.

Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11, 415-441.

39

Frank, D. J. (2009). Cross- National Variations in the Criminal Regulation of 

Sex, 1965-2005 Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Hilton San Francisco, San

Francisco, CA Online. Retrieved from

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p309577_index.html

Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating:

Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and brain sciences, 23,

573–644.

Grossman, L., (2010, December 15). Time Person of the year 2010. Time.

Retrieved from

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_203718

3_2037185,00.html

Heino, R.D., Ellison, N.B., & Gibbs, J.L. (2010). Relationshopping:

Investigating the market metaphor in online dating. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 27(4), 427-447.

Hogan, B., Li, N., & Dutton, W. H. (2011). Me, my spouse, and the internet. A

global shift in the social relationships of networked individuals: Meeting and

dating online comes of age. Oxford Internet Institute, Retrieved from

http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/couples/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Me-

MySpouse_GlobalReport_HoganLiDutton.pdf

Ingoldsby, B. B. (1995) Mate selection and marriage around the world.

In B. B. Ingoldsby and S. Smith (Eds.), Families in Multicultural Perspective.

New York: Guildford Press.

Kanchan, T., & Nagesh, K. R. (2008). Adultery and the Indian law.

International Journal of Medical Toxicology & Legal Medicine, 10(2), 118-132

Levin, I. (1972). The Stepford Wives. Random House, New York.

40

McBride, R. & Schostak, J. (2011). Qualitative versus quantitative research.

Enquiry Learning Unit. Retrieved from

http://www.enquirylearning.net/ELU/Issues/Research/Res1Ch2.html

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative

Phenomenological Analysis, theory, method and research. SAGE, London.

Whitty, M.T., (2007). Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you:

Presentations of self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human

Behaviour, 24, 1707-1723

Zittrain, J. and Edelman, B. (2003). Empirical analysis of internet filtering in

China. IEEE Internet Computing, 7(2), 70-77

41

Internet dating IPA study; Interview schedule

1 Before trying internet dating, how did you meet partners or boyfriends / girlfriends?

2 Since trying internet dating, which websites have you chosen to use, and why?

3 With traditional meeting / dating, did you usually make the initial approach, or did potential

girlfriends / boyfriends approach you, and what influenced your choices? (Who to

approach / whether to accept an approach?)

Prompts: What criteria did you apply

What were you looking or hoping for?

What were your realistic expectations?

Tell me about some of your experiences?

4 On the internet, did you usually make the initial approach, or did potential girlfriends /

boyfriends approach you, and what influenced your choices? (Who to approach / whether

to accept an approach?)

Prompts: What criteria did you apply

What were you looking or hoping for?

What were your realistic expectations?

Tell me about some of your experiences?

How do you move from connecting online to a date or a relationship?

5 Are there any other differences you have found between traditional dating and internet

dating?

Prompts: Which do you prefer and why?

What are their strengths and weaknesses?

42

Appendix 1