ComputerMediated Communication Intimate Relationships Coye Cheshire Andrew Fiore

Computer-Mediated Communication Intimate Relationships // Coye Cheshire & Andrew Fiore 4 April 2012

Romantic love — a timeless tradition? 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 1

Mediated meeting 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 2

http: //blog. modernmechanix. com/2008/04/08/boy-girl-computer/ 4/4/2012 Computer -Mediated 3

Thousands of boys and girls who’ve never met plan weekends together, for now that punch-card online dating’s here, can flings be far behind? And oh, it’s so right, baby. The Great God Computer has sent the word. Fate. Destiny. Go-go-go. — Look Magazine, February 1966 http: //blog. modernmechanix. com/2008/04/08/boy-girl-computer/ 4/4/2012 Computer -Mediated 4

4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 5

Pew online dating survey (2006) 63 m know someone who has used a dating site 16 m have used a dating site themselves 53 m know someone who has gone on a date 7 m have gone on a date themselves 29% of online adults think online daters desperate (but only 20% of those single and looking) 64% of online dating users think the large pool helps people find a better date 47% of all online adults concur 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 6

Social shaping of technology designers 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 7

Online dating: The basics 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 8

Photo Fixed choice Free text Fixed choice 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 9

Online dating profiles § Combination of categorical descriptors, free text self-description, and photos § Highly optimized self-presentations § Carefully selected detail § Unlimited time to craft § Exaggerations? Lies? § A lot of people lie a little (Hancock et al. 2007) § Do they reflect actual self? Ideal self? 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 10

Searching 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 11

4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 12

4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 13

Matching 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 14

4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 15

Conceptual lenses CMC Mate selection Searching/Matching Social networks Marriage markets 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 16

Individuals Dyads Populations ? 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 17

Mate selection: Two perspectives Assortative mating Evolutionary psychology § Claims we partner with people like us (homophily). § Claims we seek and offer traits associated with reproductive success, so: § Evident with regard to: Physical attractiveness, socioeconomic status, race, adult attachment style, personality traits, among others. § Yet sometimes it’s more complicated than just similarity. Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 4/4/2012 18 § Women seek men with resources, signaled by age, wealth, education, height, etc. § Men seek women with fertility, signaled by youth, facial symmetry, muscle tone, etc.

7 10 9 2 3 57 5 6 5 8 6 2 4 8 3 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 19

76 5 2 3 2 56 88 4/4/2012 10 9 75 34 8 6 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 20

7 seeks 10 for an awkward time “Marriage markets” — differential exchange Some points to ponder: § Why wouldn’t a 7 want a 10? § What stops us from trading up repeatedly? § Opportunity cost of staying with current mate? 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 21

4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 22

The tyranny of choice, or: Gourmet jam is not a date 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 23

4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 24

4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 25 (Gupta & Singh 1982)

The process of online dating 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 26

Pieces of profiles: What predicts attractiveness? 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 27

4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 28

4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 29

4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 30

4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 31

Photo × Text attractiveness Women’s profiles Men’s profiles Photo high Photo med 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore Text high Text med Text low Photo low 32

Strategic vs. authentic vs. aspirational self-presentation Anticipated future interaction? Actual self vs. ideal self? “Balancing accuracy and desirability” 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 33

4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 34

Participants from Ellison et al. § “In their profile they write about their dreams as if they are reality. ” § “I’ve never known so many incredibly athletic women in my life!” § “I checked my profile and I had lied a little bit about the pounds, so I thought I had better start losing some weight so that it would be more honest. ” 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 35

Forming impressions in online dating § “Cognitive misers”: Making the most of limited cues § Social Information Processing (Walther) § Reciprocal re-use of what they notice in others 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 36

Most people are not startlingly beautiful or magically attractive. But someone who seems just moderately nice — to most people — can flower under the imaginative attention of a lover’s eye. Not … because the lover is somehow gilding the other with fictitious charms; but because the kind of attention the lover brings allows less obvious qualities to be seen and appreciated. — Armstrong (2002) 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 37

Deception? (Hancock et al. 2007) 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 38

Deception? (Hancock et al. 2007) 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 39

Deception? (Hancock et al. 2007) 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 40

Honestly…(? ) § And yet: in Gibbs et al. (2006), 94% said they had not intentionally misrepresented themselves. § 87%: Doing so is not acceptable. § Still, they feel others are misrepresenting. § Why? Ellison et al. (2006) — Foggy mirrors, avoiding natural boundaries, portraying ideal selves… 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 41

Is it deception? Or is it… § § § Misperception of self (foggy mirror) Different readings of ambiguous labels Self-enhancement (no intent to deceive) Ideal self rather than actual self Circumvention of technological constraints 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 42

The peril (and promise) of ambiguity (“everything looks perfect from far away…”) 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 43

Virtue in vagueness: Norah Jones The persona in her songs — let’s not call it Ms. Jones herself, because her life couldn't be this dull — might have lived practically anywhere in the developed world, at any time during the last century. Somehow Ms. Jones’s work has managed to make a virtue of vagueness. — The New York Times, Feb. 8, 2004, via Norton, Frost, & Ariely (2007) 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 44

4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 45

? I really like good music. 4/4/2012 I really like Billy Joel. Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 46

Norton, Frost, and Ariely (2007) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. People think more knowledge = more liking Actually, more traits = less liking Similarity mediates the relationship in (2) Dissimilarity cascades Moving from the lab to real dates: Knowledge, liking, similarity before and after 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 47

Norton, Frost, and Ariely (2007) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. People think more knowledge = more liking Actually, more traits = less liking Similarity mediates the relationship in (2) Dissimilarity cascades Moving from the lab to real dates: Knowledge, liking, similarity before and after 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 48

Norton, Frost, and Ariely (2007) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. People think more knowledge = more liking Actually, more traits = less liking Similarity mediates the relationship in (2) Dissimilarity cascades Moving from the lab to real dates: Knowledge, liking, similarity before and after 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 49

Norton, Frost, and Ariely (2007) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. People think more knowledge = more liking Actually, more traits = less liking Similarity mediates the relationship in (2) Dissimilarity cascades Moving from the lab to real dates: Knowledge, liking, similarity before and after 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 50

Norton, Frost, & Ariely (2007) 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 51

Norton, Frost, and Ariely (2007) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. People think more knowledge = more liking Actually, more traits = less liking Similarity mediates the relationship in (2) Dissimilarity cascades Moving from the lab to real dates: Knowledge, liking, similarity before and after 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 52

“Dissimilarity cascades” 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 53

Norton, Frost, and Ariely (2007) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. People think more knowledge = more liking Actually, more traits = less liking Similarity mediates the relationship in (2) Dissimilarity cascades Moving from the lab to real dates: Knowledge, liking, similarity before and after 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 54

Norton, Frost, & Ariely (2007) 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 55

Fiore et al. Hypotheses: Pre-date/post-date H 1: Participants will rate their dates less attractive on average after meeting face-to-face for the first time than before. H 2: Levels of perceived commonality will be lower on average after face-to-face meeting than before. H 3: Average ratings of how close a participant’s date is to his/her ideal for a partner will be lower after faceto-face meeting than before. 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 56

Key questions and scales § § § How well have you gotten to know [name]? How much do you have in common with [name]? How close is [name] to your ideal for a partner? Overall, how attractive do you find [name]? How much is [name] someone you could see yourself: being friends with, dating casually, dating seriously, possibly something more? § Likert-type scale: 0 (not at all) – 6 (very much) 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 57

*** *** (Fiore et al. ) *** p <. 001 ** p <. 01 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 58

onlinedatingmagazine. com 4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 59

p <. 01 p <. 001 (Fiore et al. ) p <. 001 4/4/2012 Computer -Mediated 60

Who seeks, contacts, and replies to whom? 4/4/2012 Computer -Mediated 61

Age 4/4/2012 Computer -Mediated 62

Age: Sought, contacted, replied to n > 1, 000 4/4/2012 Computer -Mediated 63

Race 4/4/2012 Computer -Mediated 64

Race: Preference analysis Proportion of users who sought and contacted only people of the same race by age and sex n > 1, 000 4/4/2012 Computer -Mediated 65

Race: Contact analysis Average proportion of contacts to same race by age and sex n > 1, 000 4/4/2012 Computer -Mediated 66

Religion 4/4/2012 Computer -Mediated 67

Religion: Preference analysis n > 1, 000 4/4/2012 Computer -Mediated 68

Religion: Contact analysis n > 1, 000 4/4/2012 Computer -Mediated 69

Who replies? 4/4/2012 Computer -Mediated 70

4/4/2012 Computer -Mediated 71

How late is too late to reply? § Median time to first reply: 16. 1 hrs for a man contacted by a woman 19. 2 hrs for a woman contacted by a man § Chance of follow-up by initiator declines ~0. 7% per day that recipient waits to reply. 4/4/2012 Computer -Mediated 72