In economic terms, any activity engaged in or any relationship pursued has the cost of opportunities foregone. If people spend considerable time seeking partners online, they have less time to engage in offline or real-space interactions, interactions that could also lead to the formation of romantic relationships. The time that is invested in searching for a partner at Internet matching services can also reduce the time available for interaction with family and friends, who not only can introduce people to potential romantic partners but can also can provide alternative sources of intimacy and social support (Schmeeckle & Sprecher, 2004; Sprecher, Felmlee, Orbuch, &
Willetts, 2002).
Are the benefits gained from the time invested in seeking a partner through matching services enough to offset the costs of opportunities foregone from real-space interactions? For the lucky ones who form a lasting and happy relationship with someone whom they meet through a matching service, the benefit no doubt outweighs the time investment. However, many people spend an inordinate amount of time seeking a partner through
Internet matching sites without obtaining the relationship they desire. In a report for consumers of dating sites, Thompson, Zimbardo, and Hutchinson (2005) cautioned consumers about overpromises from the Internet dat-ing sites (see also, Houran & Lange, 2004; Houran, Lange, Rentfrow, &
Bruckner, 2004). Thompson et al. used statistics offered at major dating websites to calculate the odds of finding a marriage partner. While the absolute number of successful matches advertised in the press releases may seem impressive (for example, the eHarmony Press Release in June 2006 indicated that “over 90 singles marry every day on average at eHarmony”), Thompson et al. (2005) compared the number of marriages with the number of users eHarmony claimed to have and with their estimated number of paid subscribers. Using these comparisons, Thompson et al. concluded that only a very small percentage of eHarmony subscribers (1.5%) and an even smaller number of users (1 in 499) were successful in finding a partner. Some of their conclusions and projections were:
When eHarmony recommends someone as a compatible match, there is a 1 in 500 chance that you’ll marry this person.
(p. 2)
If you went on a date with a new person every night for 346 days, you’d only have a 50/50 chance of marrying one of them along the way.
(p. 2)
our research found that only 1 in 5 who subscribed to a site, met someone they dated for at least 2 months.
(p. 8)
Of course, it is impossible to have accurate data on the number of matches formed at the Internet matching services (many more matches could have occurred, but the couples may not have notified the sites) and, in addition, many other types of happy and long-term relationships form out of Internet matches, even though the relationships do not result in marriage. In addition, even if members do not find a long-term partner, they may have a good time in the pursuit. Or do they? The answer, based on a limited amount of research, suggests maybe not.
Frost, Chance, Norton, and Ariely (2008, Study 1) posted a survey on an online dating website, and asked the 132 online dating respondents several questions about the time they spent on various phases of online dating (searching profiles, communicating over email, and face-to-face meetings) and also assessed how much they enjoyed online dating. As a comparison, the researchers also asked the participants how much they enjoyed offline dating and watching movies. Participants reported an average of 5.2 hours per week searching through profiles, an average of 6.7 hours writing and responding
to emails, and an average of 1.8 hours in offline interactions.2On a scale that ranged from 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much), the mean score was at the midpoint, 5.5, for the question asking about enjoyment of online dating.
Participants enjoyed offline dating more than online dating (mean = 7.00), but enjoyed movies most of all (mean = 7.8). The researchers wrote: “Sadly . . . most participants were so dissatisfied with both [online and offline dating]
they would have preferred to stay home or watch a movie” (p. 56). The researchers argued that the dissatisfaction occurs because of the considerable time and effort that is invested in searching that does not result often enough in the rewards of a match.
Not only do people who spend a lot of time (sometimes unsuccessfully) searching for a partner on Internet matching services have opportunity costs in regard to face-to-face relationships, they may also experience opportunities foregone in terms of alternative (better) online matches. That is, there can be a large investment of time in CMC with a potential match prior to the first face-to-face meeting, only to have such relationships end after the first meeting due to lack of physical attraction. This can be the downside of the
“inverted development sequence” (e.g., Merkle & Richardson, 2000) that has been used to describe the process of online attraction. In comparison to the attraction process in face-to-face relationships, where attraction is likely to be first influenced by proximity and physical attractiveness, and then by the discovery of similarity and self-disclosure, Internet-initiated relationships sometimes first involve a high level of mutual and intense self-disclosure and a minimal role for physical attractiveness and proximity (see Cooper &
Sportolari, 1997; McKenna, 2007, 2008). The advantage of the inverted development sequence of attraction is that two people can get to know each other at a deeper level of compatibility before physical appearance becomes salient. To the degree that chemistry and physical attraction in face-to-face interactions are “deal-breakers” for one or both partners, the relationship can abruptly end after the first meeting, despite an investment of weeks in online communication. Although the exchange of photographs and even the use of video-chatting can assist in the pre-meeting assessment of “chemistry,” it cannot take the place of actual face-to-face assessments.
A relationship may end after a first face-to-face meeting not only because of lack of chemistry, but also because of unrealistic expectations prior to the initial face-to-face meeting. One cost of having extensive information about the other prior to a face-to-face meeting, through profile information and discussion in CMC, is that expectations for similarity and compatibility can be artificially inflated, which can result in disappointment when the other does not live up to expectations. The advertisements at some matching sites (e.g., “you can find the love of your life,” “your soulmate”) may also contribute to dashed expectations (Thompson et al., 2005). Norton, Frost, and Ariely (2007) suggest that online dating, particularly in the venue that relies on
members reading extensive profile information prior to interaction, may lead to high pre-meeting expectations for similarity that inevitably result in dissatisfaction when the two meet and discover that they are not as similar as they thought. The researchers refer to this as the cascading nature of dissimilarity. There is also the tendency to idealize the potential partner in the pre-meeting period (Levine, 2000). Levine (2000), an observer of online dating services, recommends that people meet within one month because
“people who let attraction build online for long periods of time often have falsely raised expectations, leading to proportional disappointments”
(p. 570).
In sum, a cost of any activity or relationship in which considerable time is invested is the opportunities foregone. Those who are in the process of actively searching for matches and hopeful of finding a soulmate on the Internet are probably not focused on this potential cost. However, their network members and they themselves later, if they eventually give up the quest, may wonder whether all of the time invested was worth it.
CONCLUSIONS
According to data collected by the Harris Interactive research firm in January of 2006 (Harris Interactive Press Release, Feb. 9, 2006), based on a nationwide survey of 2,985 adults, 3% of committed relationships originated in online dating services and another 3% began in online chatrooms. Most of the sample, however, reported meeting their current partner in more traditional contexts, such as through work, school, and friends. Although relationships that originate through Internet matching sites may never become a large proportion of all relationships, this way of meeting partners is becoming more mainstream.
This chapter began with a brief overview of the advantages of Internet matching. Because the objective was to examine the dark side, the major focus was on a discussion of the risks and costs that have been associated with Internet matching. It is important to note, however, that risks and costs could easily be written about any particular context for meeting partners, ranging from work settings to singles bars; and even about the decision not to seek a partner (see Chapter 15, this volume). That is, Internet matching services are not unique in having both advantages and disadvantages as a context in which to meet partners. In fact, from a cost–benefit analysis, Internet sites may fare better than many other contexts for meeting others.
Furthermore, people often are using more than one method to find a partner. Most singles who are serious about finding a match are likely to be simultaneously searching in multiple contexts, including in real-space settings (through friends, work, social gatherings, the local pub) and through
the Internet (social network sites, matching services). In fact, people today have more methods available to them for finding a partner than ever before.
In their searching efforts across diverse contexts, most people are likely to be rational and self-protective. They are not likely to relentlessly pursue Internet matching services, and pay the monthly fee (up to $60) unless the rewards of doing so far outweigh the costs, including in opportunities foregone. Of course, entrapment can occur, in which an initial investment of time and money leads to persistence and continuing hope of success.
If we consider the data that show that people have greater well-being, happiness, and health when they have close personal relationships and receive social support (e.g., Parks, 2007; cf. Chapter 15, this volume), any relationship-oriented commercial service—whether it is a web-based marriage enrichment program, a local bar’s Saturday night speed-dating event, or an Internet matchmaking service—has the potential to offer more benefits than costs. Even casual CMC interaction between people who embellish their characteristics and treat each other too much like commodities may still be valued, fun, interesting, and keep loneliness and boredom at bay.
NOTES
1 However, their sample was relatively young; deception about age would likely be greater for an older sample, as noted by the authors.
2 Thompson et al. (2005), however, estimated that the average subscriber spent an average of three hours per week on matching sites. Therefore, the participants in the Frost et al. study may have been exceptionally heavy users.
REFERENCES
Ahuvia, A. C., & Adelman, M. B. (1992). Formal intermediaries in the marriage market: A typology and review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 452–463.
Ahuvia, A., Adelman, M., & Izberk-Bilgin (2009). Commercial channels for mate seeking. In H. Reis & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 45–48). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Albright, J. M. (2007). How do I love thee and thee and thee: Self-presentation, deception, and multiple relationships online. In M. T. Whitty, A. J. Baker, &
J. A. Inman (Eds.), Online matching (pp. 81–93). Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y, A., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me?
Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 33–48.
Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 813–846.
Belsky, J. (1990). Parental and nonparental childcare and children’s socio-emotional development: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 885–903.
Boon, S., & McCloud, B. (2001). Deception in romantic relationships: Subjective estimates at success at deceiving and attitudes toward deception. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 463–476.
Carter, S., & Snow, C. (2004, May). Helping singles enter better marriages using predictive models of marital success. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society.
Constable, N. (2003). Romance on a global stage: Penpals, virtual ethnography, and “mail-order” marriage. University of California Press.
Coombs, R. H., & Kenkel, W. F. (1966). Sex differences in dating aspirations and satisfaction with computer-arranged partners. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 28, 62–66.
Cooper, A., Delmonico, D. L., & Burg, R. (2000). Cybersex users, abusers, and compulsives: New findings and implications. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 7, 5–29.
Cooper, A., & Sportolari, L. (1997). Romance in cyberspace: Understanding online attraction. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22, 7–14.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2004). The dark side of relationship pursuit: From attraction to obsession and stalking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2008). “Thanks, but no thanks . . .”: The occurrence and management of unwanted relationship pursuit. In S. Sprecher, A.
Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 409–424). New York: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.
Daniel, D. (2002, October 7). Online services don’t always ad up. Boston Globe, p. 7.
Donn, J. E., & Sherman, R. C. (2002). Attitudes and practices regarding the formation of romantic relationships on the Internet. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5, 107–123.
eHarmony Press Release (June 30, 2006). “Over 90 singles marry every day on average at eHarmony.” Retrieved July 1, 2007, from www.eharmony.com/serlet/
press/release?id=45
Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, Article 2, Retrieved June 14, 2009, from http://jcmc.
indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html
Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Wolak, J. (2000). Online victimization: A report on the nation’s youth. Alexandria, VA: Crimes Against Children Research Center.
Frost, J. H., Chance, Z., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2008). People are experience goods: Improving online dating with virtual dates. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22(1), 51–62.
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals:
The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 33, 152–177.
Glancy, G. D., Newman, A. W., Potash, M. N., & Tennison, J. (2007). Cyberstalking.
In D. A. Pinals (Ed.), Stalking: Psychiatric perspectives and practical approaches (pp. 27–60). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gottlieb, L. (March, 2006). How do I love thee? The Atlantic Monthly, 58–70. Retrieved June 14, 2009 from www.theatlantic.com/doc/200603/online-love
Harris Interactive Press Release (February 9, 2006). More think it is important to give than to receive on Valentine’s Day according to new survey. Retrieved June 14, 2009, from www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1018 Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (2009). Matching hypothesis. In H. T. Reis & S. Sprecher
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (Vol. 2, pp. 1065–1067). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hitsch, G. J., Hortacsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2006). What makes you click? Mate preferences and matching outcomes in online dating. Retrieved June 14, 2009, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=895442.
Houran, J., & Lange, R. (2004). Expectations of finding a “soul mate” with online dating. North American Journal of Psychology, 6, 297–308.
Houran, J., Lange, R., Rentfrow, J. P., & Bruckner, K. H. (2004). Do online matchmaking tests work? An assessment of preliminary evidence for a publicized
“predictive model of marital success.” North American Journal of Psychology, 6, 507–526.
Jerin, R. A., & Dolinsky, B. (2007). Cyber-victimisation and online dating. In M. T. Whitty, A. J. Baker, & J. A. Inman (Eds.), Online matchmaking (pp. 147–156).
Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Katz, J., & Aspden, P. (1997). A nation of strangers: Patterns of friendship and involvement in Internet users. Communication of the ACM, 40, 81–86.
Kleinfeld, N. (2003, June 11). An officer and a gentleman? 50 women would disagree.
New York Times, p. A1.
Knapp, M. L. (2006). Lying and deception in close relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti
& D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 517–532).
Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, H. M., & Leck, K. (2006). Dynamics of Internet dating. Social Science Computer Review, 24, 189–208.
Leonhardt, D. (2006, March 28). The famous founder of operation match. The New York Times.com. Retrieved June 14, 2009 from www.nytimes.com/2006/03/
28/business/29leonside.html?_r=1
Levine, D. (2000). Virtual attraction: What rocks your boat? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3, 565–573.
Madden, M., & Lenhart, A. (2006). Online dating. Washington, DC: Report for the Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved January 21, 2009, from www.pewinternet.org
McKenna, K. Y. A. (2007). A progressive affair: Online dating to real world mating.
In M. T. Whitty, A. J. Baker, & J. A. Inman (Eds.), Online matchmaking (pp. 112–124). Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
McKenna, K. Y. A. (2008). Myspace or your place: Relationship initiation and development in the wired and wireless world. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 235–247). New York: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.
Merkle, E. R., & Richardson, R. A. (2000). Digital dating and virtual relating:
Conceptualizing computer mediated romantic relationships. Family Relations, 49, 187–192.
Mulrine, A. (2003, Sept. 21). Love.com: For better or for worse, the Internet is radically changing the dating scene in America. U.S. News and World Report.com.
Retrieved June 14, 2009, from www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/
030929/29dating_5.htm
Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 97–105.
O’Hair, H. D., & Cody, M. J. (1994). Deception. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 181–213). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Orenstein, S. (August 1, 2003). The love algorithm Match.com thinks it has found a formula for ruling the online dating business: A scientific way to find Mr. or Ms.
Right. Business 2.0 Magazine. Retrieved June 14, 2009, from http://money.cnn.
com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2003/08/01/346313/index.htm.
Parks, M. R. (2007). Personal relationships, personal networks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ritzer, G. (1993). The McDonalidization of society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rowatt, W. C., Cunningham, M. R., & Druen, P. B. (1998). Deception to get a date.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1228–1242.
Schmeeckle, M., & Sprecher, S. (2004). Extended family and social networks. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 349–375). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shotland, R. L. (1989). A model of the causes of date rape in developing and close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 247–270). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). Cyber-stalking as (mis)matchmaking. In M.
Whitty, A. Baker, & J. A. Inman (Eds.), Online matchmaking (pp. 127–146).
Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Hoobler, G. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society, 14, 67–88
Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Orbuch, T. L., & Willetts, M. C. (2002). Social networks and change in personal relationships. In A. Vangelisti, H. Reis, & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Stability and change in relationships (pp. 257–284). Cambridge University Press.
Sprecher, S., Schwartz, P., Harvey, J., & Hatfield, E. (2008). Thebusinessoflove.com:
Relationship initiation at Internet matchmaking services. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 249–265).
New York: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.
Sprecher, S., Wenzel, A., & Harvey, J. (2008). Preface. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, &
J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. ix–x). New York: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.
Stewart, S., Stinnett, H., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (2000). Sex differences in desired characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 843–853.
Swann, W. B., Jr., De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 857–869.
Thompson, M., Zimbardo, P., & Hutchinson, G. (April 29, 2005). Consumers are having second thoughts about online dating. From unpublished report from weAttract.com, Inc.
Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation on online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1023–1036.
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508–516.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, inter-personal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Whitty, M. T. (2007). The art of selling one’s “self” on an online dating site: The BAR approach. In M. T. Whitty, A. J. Baker, & J. A. Inman (Eds.), Online matching (pp. 57–69). Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Whitty, M. T., & Carr, A. N. (2006). Cyberspace romance: The psychology of online relationships. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Whitty, M. T., & Gavin, J. (2001). Age/sex/location: Uncovering the social cues in the development of online relationships. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 4, 623–630.
Woll, S., & Cozby, P. (1987). Videodating and other alternatives to traditional methods of relationship initiation. In W. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 69–109). Greenwich, CT: JAI.