Coye Cheshire & Andrew Fiore 4 April 2012//
Computer-Mediated Communication
Intimate Relationships
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 2
Romantic love — a timeless tradition?
Mediated meeting
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 3
Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
4
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/04/08/boy-girl-computer/
4/4/2012
Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
5
Thousands of boys and girls who’ve never met plan weekends together, for now that punch-card 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/
online
4/4/2012
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 6
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 7
Pew online dating survey (2006)
63m know someone who has used a dating site16m have used a dating site themselves
53m know someone who has gone on a date7m 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 date47% of all online adults concur
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 8
designers
designers
designers
Social shaping of technology
Online dating: The basics
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 9
10
Fixed choice
Fixed choice
Fixed choice
Free text
Photo
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 11
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?
Searching
4/4/2012 12Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 13
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 14
Matching
4/4/2012 15Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
4/4/2012 16Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
Conceptual lenses
CMCMate selection
Searching/MatchingSocial networks Marriage markets
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 17
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 18
?
Individuals
Dyads
Populations
Mate selection: Two perspectivesEvolutionary psychology
Claims we seek and offer traits associated with reproductive success, so:
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.
Assortative mating
Claims we partner with people like us (homophily).
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.
19Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore4/4/2012
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 20
7 10
4
85
2 8 67
3
95
6
8
53 2
6
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 21
7 10
48
52
8 6
7
3
956
8
532
6
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 22
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 23
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 24
The tyranny of choice, or:Gourmet jam is not a date
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 25
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 26(Gupta & Singh 1982)
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 27
The process of online dating
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 28
Pieces of profiles:What predicts attractiveness?
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
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 32
Photo × Text attractiveness
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 33
Photo high
Photo med
Photo low
Women’s profiles Men’s profiles
Tex
t lo
w
Tex
t m
ed
Tex
t hi
gh
Tex
t lo
w
Tex
t m
ed
Tex
t hi
gh
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 34
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 35
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 36
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 37
Forming impressions in online dating
“Cognitive misers”: Making the most of limited cues
Social Information Processing (Walther)
Reciprocal re-use of whatthey notice in others
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 38
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 39
Deception?
(Hancock et al. 2007)
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 40
Deception?
(Hancock et al. 2007)
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 41
Deception?
(Hancock et al. 2007)
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 42
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 43
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 44
The peril (and promise) of ambiguity
(“everything looks perfectfrom far away…”)
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 45
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 46
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 47
I really like good music.
I really like Billy Joel.?
Norton, Frost, and Ariely (2007)
1. People think more knowledge = more liking
2. Actually, more traits = less liking
3. Similarity mediates the relationship in (2)
4. Dissimilarity cascades
5. 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. People think more knowledge = more liking
2. Actually, more traits = less liking
3. Similarity mediates the relationship in (2)
4. Dissimilarity cascades
5. 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. People think more knowledge = more liking
2. Actually, more traits = less liking
3. Similarity mediates the relationship in (2)
4. Dissimilarity cascades
5. Moving from the lab to real dates: Knowledge, liking, similarity before and after
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 50
Norton, Frost, and Ariely (2007)
1. People think more knowledge = more liking
2. Actually, more traits = less liking
3. Similarity mediates the relationship in (2)
4. Dissimilarity cascades
5. Moving from the lab to real dates: Knowledge, liking, similarity before and after
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 51
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 52
Norton, Frost, & Ariely (2007)
Norton, Frost, and Ariely (2007)
1. People think more knowledge = more liking
2. Actually, more traits = less liking
3. Similarity mediates the relationship in (2)
4. Dissimilarity cascades
5. Moving from the lab to real dates: Knowledge, liking, similarity before and after
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 53
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 54
“Dissimilarity cascades”
Norton, Frost, and Ariely (2007)
1. People think more knowledge = more liking
2. Actually, more traits = less liking
3. Similarity mediates the relationship in (2)
4. Dissimilarity cascades
5. Moving from the lab to real dates: Knowledge, liking, similarity before and after
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 55
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore 56
Norton, Frost, & Ariely (2007)
Fiore et al.Hypotheses: Pre-date/post-date
H1: Participants will rate their dates less attractive on average after meeting face-to-face for the first time than before.
H2: Levels of perceived commonality will be lower on average after face-to-face meeting than before.
H3: Average ratings of how close a participant’s date is to his/her ideal for a partner will be lower after face-to-face meeting than before.
4/4/2012 57Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
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 58Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
p < .001
p < .01***
**
***
***
***
***
4/4/2012 59Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
(Fio
re e
t al.)
60
on
line
da
ting
ma
ga
zin
e.c
om
4/4/2012 Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
61
p < .01
p < .001
p < .001
p < .001
(Fio
re e
t al.)
4/4/2012
Who seeks, contacts, and replies to whom?
Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
624/4/2012
Age
Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
634/4/2012
Age: Sought, contacted, replied to
Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
64
n > 1,000,0004/4/2012
Race
Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
654/4/2012
Race: Preference analysis
Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
66
n > 1,000,000
Proportion of users who sought and contacted only people of the same race by age and sex
4/4/2012
Race: Contact analysis
Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
67
n > 1,000,000
Average proportion of contacts to same race by age and sex
4/4/2012
Religion
Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
684/4/2012
Religion: Preference analysis
Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
69
n > 1,000,0004/4/2012
Religion: Contact analysis
Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
70
n > 1,000,0004/4/2012
Who replies?
Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
714/4/2012
Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
724/4/2012
How late is too late to reply?
Median time to first reply:16.1 hrs for a man contacted by a woman19.2 hrs for a woman contacted by a man
Chance of follow-up by initiator declines ~0.7% per day that recipient waits to reply.
Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore
734/4/2012