Com 345 Final Exam
choice-related affordances (online dating)
*1. amount of choice* -how does the abundance of choice available in online dating affect the process and outcome? *2. easy reversibility of choice* -how does the abundance of choice available in online dating affect the process and outcome? *3. algorithmic intervention* -having the website decide for you through algorithm/system -websites have algorithms to match ppl
success of online dating
*5% of americans who are married or in long term partnership- and 11% of those who have been together for ten years or less- met their partner online* Compared to offline couples, online couples were • More satisfied with their partners • Less likely to get divorced compatibility algorithms greater pool of partners individual differences
self-presentational strategies (Ellison 2006)
*Attend to small cues* -grammar -sexual innuendos -system generated cues (last logged in) -length of profile *Idealized but attainable self-presentations* *Circumventing search parameters* *The "foggy mirror" problem* -There is a difference in how ppl see us and we see ourselves -If you use online dating and create profile that is of your OWN perception, and then meet partner offline -You appear incorrect to them because they perceive you differently • EX: you think you're shy and tell ppl that, but they meet you in person and say you're loud and talkative *Show rather than telling*
benefits of social support
*The Stress Buffering Model* social support ---> stress reduction (leads to psychological well-being, and positive health outcomes)
online dating statistics
*attitudes* -positive attitudes about online dating have increased over time -55% say it is a good way to meet ppl -use by young ppl has tripled since 2013 *prevalence* 1/3 of ppl who have used online dating, have not met FTF on date 1/5 of online daters ask for someone to help with their profile
selective self-presentation
*controllable affordances* 1. asychronicity 2. editability 3. reallocation of cognitive resources *motivation to self-present*
social sharing
*definition* the act of discussing (announcing + elaborating) significant emotional events with others ----emotional events can be +/- *prevalence* 90% of emotional events are shared *effects on emotional well-being* -very influential on sharers' emotions
interpersonal media and social sharing (Choi & Toma 2014)
*diary study procedure* *findings* -70% of events shared at least through 1 medium -F2F still most popular texting viewed as more positive -easy access -non intrusive phone viewed as more negative -intrusive -nonverbal cues F2F viewed as intensely negative than less intensely negative -full range of nonverbal cues
patterns of deception in online dating profiles
*hypotheses* 1. Appear desirable • Reduced cues • Editability • Asynchronicity (unlimited time to compose) Deception strategy= lie frequently 2. Appear honest • Anticipated future interaction • Recordability Deception strategy= lie subtly 3. Gendered goals • Females- prefer taller men Deception strategy= lie about weight and age • Males- prefer slender, younger women Deception strategy= lie about height *methodology* -self report ----had participants self-report -cross validation ----actually measured participants on the info they gave (height, weight...) *findings* o Men lied about height ~1 in o Women didn't really lie about their height o Men didn't really lie about weight ~2 lbs o Women lied a lot about weight ~8.5 lbs o Women and men tell truth about age
effects of algorithmic intervention (Tong 2016)
*illusion of control* the tendency to be overconfident in one's ability to attain outcomes that are chance determined *hypothesis* see and screen dating websites provide daters with greater perception of mate selection control compared to algorithm sites -- leading to better dating outcomes *findings* see and screen websites produced: -more perceived control -same decision-making satisfaction -same desire for future relational pursuit
relationshopping (Heino 2010)
*interview with online daters reveal:* -a shopping mentality -a perception that the grass is greener on the other side -reduced commitment and satisfaction when options are plentiful
media ecology
*media selection for relational communication* ---the media we choose, to use to communicate ---how many different media we use
access hypothesis (not supported)
*online dating attracts those who have difficulty meeting potential partners face to face* -says online dating gives access to those who don't have access FTF *why?* -limited time (demanding careers, parents) -belongingness in social networks that includes few singles (divorced or older ppl) -lack of established networks (recently relocated)
differences between offline and online social support
*online* -can be exchanged between strangers - no relationship -no non-verbal cues -uniplex (relationship that involves one activity and that is the exchange of social support) *offline* -done face to face -in relationships -close, personal relationships -multiplex (relationships that involve 2 or more activities)
demographics of online daters
GENERAL TRENDS -tend to be more educated -higher income -more urban than rural -tend to be around mid-age (but large increase in young generation) *gender* 13% of men 9% of women *age* 24-34 --> 22% of americans 35-44 --> 17% of americans *education* more online daters who have some college experience or completed college *income* $50,000- 74,999 *urbanity* urban and suburban more likely to use than rural
definition of self-presentation
The act of strategically revealing, concealing and editing the self, sometimes deceptively in order to convey a desired impression to an audience
definition of online dating
The practice of using dating websites and mobile applications for the purpose of finding short or long-term romantic partners
predictors of using online dating
being single being internet users
Choice abundance and the pursuit of "ideal" partners (Whyte & Torgler, 2017)
*research question* does online dating make it easier to identify and pursue 'ideal' partners given that there are so many to choose from? *methods* sample of 41,000 users of Australian dating site RSVP did an analysis with the extent of matching between user's stated preferences vs. the characteristics of the users they actually contacted characteristics were things like eye color, hair color, education, personality type, religious views *findings* more than 30% of contacts made were to partners that DID NOT match dater's preferences -online daters were more likely to contact partners with more 'matching' characteristics if they were: -older -female -had more sociable personality -daters likelihood of contacting partners with more 'matching' characteristics was NOT affected by: -education -current relationship status -previous offspring -political views -religion -body type *concludes that it is unlikely that daters are able to better find an ideal partner online and just like in traditional dating, women and older people are choosier*
desired impressions in online dating
*romantic desirability* 1. evolutionary theories of mate selection we have evolved preferences that allow us (in our environment) to pass on our genes to offspring We want to survive as a species --> do this by having offspring For women: • Difficult to carry to term • Dangerous (many women used to die) • Long commitment (need protection bcs/ can't care for self) So women have an evolved preference for mates with high status—able to protect ---Height, strength, income, high occupation For men: • Want to pass on genes • Want mates who can provide offspring --Favor attractiveness and youthfulness—indication of having healthy genes *authenticity* 1. In romantic unions, people are happier when their partner sees them how they see themselves (self-verification theory) • Happy when you are seen just as you are • Finding someone who likes you for who you are
self-disclosure in online support groups (Barak 2007)
*study examined* Do ppl disclose personal info online Does gender play a role How does the type of online forum affect the type of self-disclosure online Does the phenomenon of reciprocity of self-disclosure exist in online as it does in FtF communication? *methods* -content analysis -480 messages from online discussion forums *results* *Self-disclosure in support forums was much higher* than in discussion forums ------Messages were longer and had more first-voice words *No gender differences* interacting with level of self-disclosure ----Reciprocity of self-disclosure was evident Some differences in level of *reciprocity of self-disclosure* between males and females. *females more reciprocal than males*
proteus effect
*the tendency for people to be affected by their digital representations, typically shifting their behavior in accordance to their digital selves* *Behavioral confirmation* The treatment you get from peers- you respond reciprocally • EX: if your friends treat you nicely, you treat them nicely back • EX: if you have a very attractive avatar, you might expect to be treated better in the game *Self-perception theory* -What proteus effect is worried about -If we have an avatar, our perception of self might change ------Theory says that ppl observe their own behaviors and appearance and make judgments about ourselves the same way we would judge others *Collaborative virtual environments* -only the subject can see the difference in their avatar, everyone else sees all avatars as neutral *Effects of physical attractiveness and height on online behavior* -ppl with attractive avatars walk closer to confederates -ppl with attractive avatars exhibit higher self-disclosure -ppl with taller avatars behave in more confident manner
why is online support helpful
*theory of weak ties* -an extended network offers greater diversity of info and perspectives -weak ties are more objective than close ties -there are no role obligations *optimal match model* -When you have a particular issue with online social support, you are likely to find someone who can speak your language and give you the advice you need for your problem -Likelihood is higher online than FTF o More ppl o more likely to find ppl who have experienced your issue
personality characteristics of online daters
*there is no difference between online users and non-users in terms of big 5 traits and self-esteem* -but those who were highly social and low in anxiety-dating are more active online I I I I rich-get-richer perspective
media multiplex theory
*tie strength and number of media used* -tie strength is directly proportional with number of media used within relationship -employing more media strengthens relational ties *direction of causality*
videogames
*types* 1. action (first person shooter, survival) 2. adventure (overcoming obstacles, journeying) 3. role playing (MMORPGs) EX: dungeon & dragons 4. simulation (city building) EX: SIMS 5. sports (auto-racing) 6. board game/card games 7. logic games (puzzles) *motivation for playing* 1. relationship -desire to interact with other users and form meaningful relationships 2. manipulation -the desire to objectify other users and manipulate them for personal gains and satisfaction (enjoy deceiving, scamming) 3. immersion -desire to be someone else and be immersed in fantasy world (enjoy the story telling aspect) 4. escapism -desire to temporarily avoid, forget about, escape life problems 5. achievement -desire to become powerful in the context of the virtual environment through the achievement of goals ACHIEVEMENT & MANIPULATION men > women RELATIONSHIP, IMMERSION, ESCAPISM women > men
history of using the media for matchmaking
-used to have newspapers with personal ads ----was limited and expensive, so never really successful -has evolved over time with different concepts ---dating videos in the 70s
styles of online dating sites
1. self-selection EX: match.com -make a profile and search engine finds ppl who meet criteria you put in & you choose 2. system-selection EX: eHarmony -use algorithms to determine who is a good match 3. hybrid EX: OKCupid -have algorithms but you can also seek other users 4. apps EX: Tinder, Bumble -younger generation -profile is streamlined
deception definition
the intentional control of information to create a false belief in the receiver of the message
true or false when the subjects were given an attractive or tall avatar, they acted accordingly with the stereotypes DESPITE how they were being treated
true -this is the proteus effect
disadvantages of online social support
establishing credibility of info ---what info is good vs. bad reduce long-term participation ---ppl are less likely to continue to use over time lack of social presence flaming/trolling/disinhibited behavior ---purposefully posted messages that are meant to provoke and upset ppl
choice architecture of online dating (D'Angelo, Toma 2016)
h1: lots of choice --> less satisfaction (choice overload) h2: reversibility --> less satisfaction (decision reversibility effect) h3: lots of choice + reversibility --> least satisfaction *effects of choice overload* significant effect of choice set *effects of decision reversibility* no effect of reversibility *effects of time* --> effects will emerge over time -complex choice -experiential choice -social justification *research method* -badgerdate with 152 undergrads for dating -2x2 experiment (reversible and non-reversible decision) *Findings* -choice architecture of dating site matters -choice constraints increase satisfaction
avatar construction (Bessiere 2007)
h1: ppl will construct idealized avatars h2: players with low psychological well-being will idealize more *results* -ppl who are depressive idealized a LOT more -we go online to make ourselves feel better ---and more prone to do this when not doing well in life idealized self-presentation psychological well-being and tendency for idealization
types of online social support
information • Providing useful info • Sharing experience • Coping strategy tangible assistance • Bridging online-offline support emotional support • Psych well-being Network support- bonding with others Religious support esteem support
(proteus effect) online, your avatar is your entire self-representation. so online, we would expect individual to behave...
like they believe OTHERS expect them to behave like the STEREOTYPES they associate with their own avatar
psychological effects of using avatars
refers to the proteus effect information --we see ourselves in line with how we view our online representation EX: if you have an attractive avatar, you are more likely to act accordingly with the kind of behavior your attractive avatar does online *so the psychological effects --> we embody the psychological aspects of our avatars*
advantages of online social support
social distance ---can be anywhere and get support anonymity ---don't have to identify yourself to anyone interaction management ---you can decide how much you want to participate in it and when access ---can just go online and immediately find access and have it 24/7
definition of social support
the comfort, assistance, and reassurance that people experience as a function of social relationship
