academic essay on modern dating

The Relationship Between Dating Status and Academic and Social Functioning in Middle Adolescence

Empirical Research
Published: 22 January 2021
Volume 50 , pages 1268–1280, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

Yana Ryjova ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2037-8743 1 ,
Annemarie Kelleghan 1 ,
Daryaneh Badaly 2 ,
Mylien Duong 3 &
David Schwartz 1

1380 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Dating relationships are normative in middle adolescence, but the academic and social implications of different types of dating involvement remains unclear. To address this gap, this longitudinal study evaluates the association between dating status (i.e., never date, rarely date, casually date, steady relationship) and academic and social functioning in a sample of adolescents. Across two school years, 455 adolescents (53.8% female; 56.5% Asian American, 43.5% Latinx; T1 M age = 15.04 years) reported on their dating status and peers provided nominations of popularity and aggression. Grades and standardized test scores were obtained from school records. For Asian American youth, abstaining from dating was negatively associated with subsequent popularity. Casual dating and being in a steady relationship were associated with relational and overt peer aggression over time. Gender moderated this association, such that boys in steady relationships, and girls in casual relationships were more relationally aggressive one year later. Implications are discussed in terms of problem behavior theory and adolescent intersexual competition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Associations between Adolescents’ Interpersonal Relationships, School Well-being, and Academic Achievement during Educational Transitions

Noona Kiuru, Ming-Te Wang, … Riikka Hirvonen

Adolescent Susceptibility to Deviant Peer Pressure: Does Gender Matter?

Shelly S. McCoy, Laura M. Dimler, … Misaki N. Natsuaki

Peer Influence and Adolescent Substance Use: A Systematic Review of Dynamic Social Network Research

Angela K. Henneberger, Dawnsha R. Mushonga & Alison M. Preston

A separate analysis was conducted including the outlier. The pattern of results was consistent in both treatments of outliers. Thus, results are reported for the analyses in which the outlier was removed.

Arnocky, S., & Vaillancourt, T. (2012). A multi-informant longitudinal study on the relationship between aggression, peer victimization, and dating status in adolescence. Evolutionary Psychology , 10 (2), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491201000207 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Bellmore, A., Jiang, X., & Juvonen, J. (2010). Utilizing peer nominations in middle school: a longitudinal comparison between complete classroom‐based and random list methods. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 20 (2), 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00640.x .

Article Google Scholar

Burge, S., & Beutel, A. (2018). Gender, high school romantic involvement, and college enrollment. Social Science Quarterly , 99 (3), 1134–1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12493 .

Carver, K., Joyner, K., & Udry, J.R. (2003). National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relationships and sexual behavior: theory, research, and practical implications (p. 291–329). Mahwah, NJ: Cambridge University Press.

Cillessen, A. H., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development , 75 (1), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00660.x .

Collins, W., Welsh, D., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology , 60 (1), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1146/.60.110707.163459 .

Connolly, J., Craig, W., Goldberg, A., & Pepler, D. (2004). Mixed-gender groups, dating, and romantic relationships in early adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 14 (2), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2004.01402003.x .

Dane, A., Marini, Z., Volk, A., & Vaillancourt, T. (2017). Physical and relational bullying and victimization: differential relations with adolescent dating and sexual behavior. Aggressive Behavior , 43 (2), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21667 .

Davis, A. C., Dufort, C., Desrochers, J., Vaillancourt, T., & Arnocky, S. (2018). Gossip as an intrasexual competition strategy: Sex differences in gossip frequency, content, and attitudes. Evolutionary Psychological Science , 4 (2), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-017-0121-9 .

EdData. (2019). Enrollment by ethnicity, free/reduced-price meals, and cohort dropouts. https://www.ed-data.org/ .

Espinosa-Hernández, G., & Vasilenko, S. (2015). Patterns of relationship and sexual behaviors in Mexican adolescents and associations with well-being: a latent class approach. Journal of Adolescence , 44 , 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.08.011 .

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Fisher, M., & Cox, A. (2009). The influence of female attractiveness on competitor derogation. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology , 7 (2), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.7.2009.2.3 .

Foshee, V., Mcnaughton Reyes, H., Vivolo-Kantor, A., Basile, K., Chang, L., Faris, R., & Ennett, S. (2014). Bullying as a longitudinal predictor of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Adolescent Health , 55 (3), 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.03.004 .

Furman, W., & Collins, W.A. (2009). Adolescent romantic relationships and experiences. In K.H. Rubin, W.M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Social, emotional, and personality development in context. Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (p. 341–360). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Furman, W., Ho, M.J., & Low, S.M. (2007). The rocky road of adolescent romantic experience: Dating and adjustment. In R.C.M.E. Engels, M. Kerr, & H. Stattin (Eds.), Hot topics in developmental research. Friends, lovers and groups: Key relationships in adolescence (p. 61–80). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Furman, W., & Rose, A.J. (2015). Friendships, romantic relationships, and peer relationships. In R.M. Lerner & M.E. Lamb (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Socioemotional processes (p. 1–43). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Furman, W., & Shaffer, L. (2003). The role of romantic relationships in adolescent development. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: theory, research, and practical implications (p. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Gallup A.C. (2017). Adolescent peer aggression and female reproductive competition. In M.A. Fisher (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of women and competition (p. 89–106). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gallup, A. C., O’Brien, D. T., & Wilson, D. S. (2011). Intrasexual peer aggression and dating behavior during adolescence: an evolutionary perspective. Aggressive Behavior , 37 (3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20384 .

Giordano, P.C., Manning, W.D., & Longmore, M.A. (2006). Adolescent romantic relationships: an emerging portrait of their nature and developmental significance. In A.C. Crouter, A. Booth (Eds), Romance and sex in adolescence and emerging adulthood: risks and opportunities (p. 127-150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Houser, J., Mayeux, L., & Cross, C. (2015). Peer status and aggression as predictors of dating popularity in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 44 (3), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0174-z .

Jeličić, H., Phelps, E., & Lerner, R. M. (2010). Why missing data matter in the longitudinal study of adolescent development: using the 4-H study to understand the uses of different missing data methods. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 39 (7), 816–835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9542-5 .

Jessor, R. (1991). Risk behavior in adolescence: a psychosocial framework for understanding and action. Journal of Adolescent Health , 12 (8), 597–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/1054-139X(91)90007-K .

Kelleghan, A., Mali, L., Malamut, S., Badaly, D., Duong, M., & Schwartz, D. (2019). Cross-ethnic friendships, intergroup attitudes, intragroup social costs, and depressive symptoms among Asian-American and Latino-American youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 48 (11), 2165–2178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01143-7 .

Kuttler, A., & La Greca, A. (2004). Linkages among adolescent girls’ romantic relationships, best friendships, and peer networks. Journal of Adolescence , 27 (4), 395–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.05.002 .

Larson, D. L., Spreitzer, E. A., & Snyder, E. E. (1976). Social factors in the frequency of romantic involvement among adolescents. Adolescence , 11 (41), 7–12.

Google Scholar

Lau, M., Markham, C., Lin, H., Flores, G., & Chacko, M. (2009). Dating and sexual attitudes in Asian-American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research , 24 (1), 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558408328439 .

Lee, K. S., Brittain, H., & Vaillancourt, T. (2018). Predicting dating behavior from aggression and self‐perceived social status in adolescence. Aggressive Behavior , 44 (4), 372–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21758 .

Li, X., Huang, C., & Shen, A. (2019). Romantic involvement and adolescents’ academic and psychosocial functioning in Chinese societies. Children and Youth Services Review , 96 , 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.11.036 .

Mayeux, L., & Kleiser, M. (2019). A gender prototypicality theory of adolescent peer popularity. Adolescent Research Review , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-019-00123-z

Meier, A., & Allen, G. (2009). Romantic relationships from adolescence to young adulthood: evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The Sociological Quarterly , 50 (2), 308–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2009.01142.x .

Miller, S., Lansford, J., Costanzo, P., Malone, P., Golonka, M., & Killeya-Jones, L. (2009). Early adolescent romantic partner status, peer standing, and problem behaviors. Journal of Early Adolescence , 29 (6), 839–861. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431609332665 .

Orpinas, P., Horne, A., Song, X., Reeves, P., & Hsieh, H. (2013). Dating trajectories from middle to high school: association with academic performance and drug use. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 23 (4), 772–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12029 .

Pham, C., Keenan, T., & Han, B. (2013). Evaluating impacts of early adolescent romance in high school on academic outcomes. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research , 3 (1), 14–33.

Quatman, T., Sampson, K., Robinson, C., & Watson, C. M. (2001). Academic, motivational, and emotional correlates of adolescent dating. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs , 127 (2), 211–234.

PubMed Google Scholar

Raffaelli, M., Carlo, G., Carranza, M. A., & Gonzalez‐Kruger, G. E. (2005). Understanding Latino children and adolescents in the mainstream: placing culture at the center of developmental models. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 118 (109), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.134 .

Robitzsch, A., Grund, S., Henke, T. (2019). miceadds: Some additional multiple imputation functions, especially for mice (Version 3.6-1). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=miceadds

Rueda, H., Nagoshi, J., & Williams, L. (2014). Mexican American and European American adolescents’ dating experiences across the ecosystem: implications for healthy relationships within an ecodevelopmental framework. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment , 24 (3), 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.831013 .

Savickaitė, R., Dijkstra, J. K., Kreager, D., Ivanova, K., & Veenstra, R. (2020). Friendships, perceived popularity, and adolescent romantic relationship debut. The Journal of Early Adolescence , 40 (3), 377–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431619847530 .

Schwartz, D., Gorman, A. H., Nakamoto, J., & McKay, T. (2006). Popularity, social acceptance, and aggression in adolescent peer groups: links with academic performance and school attendance. Developmental Psychology , 42 , 1116–1127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1116 .

Schwartz, D., Kelly, B. M., & Duong, M. T. (2013). Do academically-engaged adolescents experience social sanctions from the peer group? Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 42 (9), 1319–1330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9882-4 .

Seffrin, P., Giordano, P., Manning, W., & Longmore, M. (2009). The influence of dating relationships on friendship networks, identity development, and delinquency. Justice Quarterly , 26 (2), 238–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820802245052 .

Shulman, S., & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2001). Adolescent romance: between experience and relationships. Journal of Adolescence , 24 (3), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2001.0403 .

Vaillancourt, T., & Krems, J.A. (2018). An evolutionary psychological perspective of indirect aggression in girls and women. In S.M. Coyne & J.M. Ostrov (Eds.), The development of relational aggression (p. 111–126). Oxford University Press.

Volk, A. A., Camilleri, J. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2012). Is adolescent bullying an evolutionary adaptation? Aggressive Behavior , 38 (3), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21418 .

Volk, A., Dane, A., Marini, Z., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Adolescent bullying, dating, and mating: testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychology , 13 (4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704915613909

Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Siebenbruner, J., & Collins, W. A. (2001). Diverse aspects of dating: associations with psychosocial functioning from early to middle adolescence. Journal of Adolescence , 24 (3), 313–336.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the students, teachers, and administrative staff in the participating school.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Yana Ryjova, Annemarie Kelleghan & David Schwartz

Child Mind Institute, New York, NY, USA

Daryaneh Badaly

Committee for Children, Seattle, WA, USA

Mylien Duong

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YR conceived of the study, performed statistical analyses, and drafted the manuscript; AK contributed to the study design and helped draft and revise manuscript content; DB, MD, and DS participated in the study design and coordination and made substantial contributions to data acquisition and design conception; DS provided critical contributions to the study design and revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data Sharing and Declaration

This manuscript’s data will not be deposited.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yana Ryjova .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Southern California institutional review board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Parental consent and youth assent were obtained from all participants included in the study.

Additional information

Data Sharing Declaration This manuscript’s data will not be deposited.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ryjova, Y., Kelleghan, A., Badaly, D. et al. The Relationship Between Dating Status and Academic and Social Functioning in Middle Adolescence. J Youth Adolescence 50 , 1268–1280 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01395-2

Download citation

Received : 02 November 2020

Accepted : 03 January 2021

Published : 22 January 2021

Issue Date : June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01395-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Adolescence
Romantic relationships
Peer relations
Academic functioning
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Online Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science

Read the Full Text

Although the authors find that online dating sites offer a distinctly different experience than conventional dating, the superiority of these sites is not as evident. Dating sites provide access to more potential partners than do traditional dating methods, but the act of browsing and comparing large numbers of profiles can lead individuals to commoditize potential partners and can reduce their willingness to commit to any one person. Communicating online can foster intimacy and affection between strangers, but it can also lead to unrealistic expectations and disappointment when potential partners meet in real life. Although many dating sites tout the superiority of partner matching through the use of “scientific algorithms,” the authors find that there is little evidence that these algorithms can predict whether people are good matches or will have chemistry with one another.

The authors’ overarching assessment of online dating sites is that scientifically, they just don’t measure up. As online dating matures, however, it is likely that more and more people will avail themselves of these services, and if development — and use — of these sites is guided by rigorous psychological science, they may become a more promising way for people to meet their perfect partners.

Hear author Eli J. Finkel discuss the science behind online dating at the 24th APS Annual Convention .

About the Authors

Editorial: Online Dating: The Current Status —and Beyond

By Arthur Aron

I agree wholeheartedly that so-called scientific dating sites are totally off-base. They make worse matches than just using a random site. That’s because their matching criteria are hardly scientific, as far as romance goes. They also have a very small pool of educated, older men, and lots more women. Therefore they often come up with no matches at all, despite the fact that women with many different personality types in that age group have joined. They are an expensive rip-off for many women over 45.

Speaking as someone who was recently “commoditized” by who I thought was a wonderful man I met on a dating site, I find that the types of people who use these services are looking at the wrong metrics when they seek out a prospective love interest. My mother and father had very few hobbies and interests in common, but because they shared the same core values, their love endured a lifetime. When I got dumped because I didn’t share my S.O.’s interests exactly down the line, I realized how dangerous this line of thinking truly is, how it marginalizes people who really want to give and receive love for more important reasons.

I met a few potential love interests online and I never paid for any matching service! I did my own research on people and chatted online within a site to see if we had things in common. If we had a few things in common, we exchanged numbers, texted for a while, eventually spoke on the phone and if things felt right, we’d meet in a public place to talk. If that went well, we would have another date. I am currently with a man I met online and we have been together for two years! We have plans to marry in the future. But there is always the thought that if this doesn’t work out, how long will it take either of us to jump right back online to find the next possible love connection? I myself would probably start looking right away since looking for love online is a lengthy process!

I knew this man 40 years ago as we worked in the same agency for two years but never dated. Last November 2013 I saw his profile on a dating site. My husband had died four years ago and his wife died 11 years ago. We dated for five months. I questioned him about his continued online search as I had access to his username. Five months into the friendship he told me he “Was looking for his dream women in cyberspace”. I think he has been on these dating sites for over 5 years. Needless to say I will not tolerate this and it was over. I am sad, frustrated and angry how this ended as underneath all of his insecurities, unresolved issues with his wife’s death he is a good guy. I had been on these dating sties for 2 and 1/2 years and now I am looking at Matchmaking services as a better choice in finding a “Better good guy”.

I refer to these sites as “Designer Dating” sites. I liken the search process to ‘Window Shopping’. No-one seems very interested in making an actual purchase or commitment. I notice that all the previous comments are from women only. I agree with the article that says essentially, there are too many profiles and photos. Having fallen under this spell myself…”Oh, he’s nice but I’m sure there’s something better on the next page…” Click. Next. And on it goes. The term Chemistry gets thrown around a lot. I don’t know folks. I sure ain’t feelin’ it. Think I’ll go hang out with some friends now.

Stumbling upon this article during research for my Master thesis and I am curious: Would you use an app, that introduces a new way of dating, solely based on your voice and who you are, rather than how you look like? To me, we don’t fall in love with someone because of their looks (or their body mass index for that matter) or because of an algorithm, but because of the way somebody makes you feel and the way s.o. makes you laugh. At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter if someone has blue or brown eyes and my experience is, that most people place fake, manipulated or outdated pictures online to sell someone we don’t really are. And we are definitely more than our looks. I found my partner online and we had no picture of each other for three months – but we talked every night for hours…. fell in love and still are after 10 years… We met on a different level and got aligned long before we met. So, the question is, would you give this way of meeting someone a chance… an app where you can listen in to answers people give to questions other user asked before and where you can get a feeling for somebody before you even see them?

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

New Report Finds “Gaps and Variation” in Behavioral Science at NIH

A new NIH report emphasizes the importance of behavioral science in improving health, observes that support for these sciences at NIH is unevenly distributed, and makes recommendations for how to improve their support at the agency.

APS Advocates for Psychological Science in New Pandemic Preparedness Bill

APS has written to the U.S. Senate to encourage the integration of psychological science into a new draft bill focused on U.S. pandemic preparedness and response.

APS Urges Psychological Science Expertise in New U.S. Pandemic Task Force

APS has responded to urge that psychological science expertise be included in the group’s personnel and activities.

Privacy Overview

International edition
Australia edition
Europe edition

Illustration of a woman pulling a drawer/app open on a giant phone. The app/box has a heart on it and from it an arm reaches out holding red roses

How online dating has changed the way we fall in love

H ow do couples meet and fall in love in the 21st century? It is a question that sociologist Dr Marie Bergström has spent a long time pondering. “Online dating is changing the way we think about love,” she says. “One idea that has been really strong in the past – certainly in Hollywood movies – is that love is something you can bump into, unexpectedly, during a random encounter.” Another strong narrative is the idea that “love is blind, that a princess can fall in love with a peasant and love can cross social boundaries. But that is seriously challenged when you’re online dating, because it’s so obvious to everyone that you have search criteria. You’re not bumping into love – you’re searching for it.”

Falling in love today tracks a different trajectory. “There is a third narrative about love – this idea that there’s someone out there for you, someone made for you, a soulmate,” says Bergström. “And you just need to find that person.” That idea is very compatible with online dating. “It pushes you to be proactive – to go and search for this person. You shouldn’t just sit at home and wait for this person.”

As a result, the way we think about love – the way we depict it in films and books, the way we imagine that love works – is changing. “There is much more focus on the idea of a soulmate. And other ideas of love are fading away,” says Bergström, whose controversial French book on the subject, The New Laws of Love , has recently been published in English for the first time.

Instead of meeting a partner through friends, colleagues or acquaintances, dating is often now a private, compartmentalised activity that is deliberately carried out away from prying eyes in an entirely disconnected, separate social sphere, she says.

“Online dating makes it much more private. It’s a fundamental change and a key element that explains why people go on online dating platforms and what they do there – what kind of relationships come out of it.”

Take Lucie, 22, a student who is interviewed in the book. “There are people I could have matched with but when I saw we had so many mutual acquaintances, I said no. It immediately deters me, because I know that whatever happens between us might not stay between us. And even at the relationship level, I don’t know if it’s healthy to have so many friends in common.”

It’s stories like these about the separation of dating from other parts of life that Bergström increasingly uncovered in exploring themes for her book. A researcher at the French Institute for Demographic Studies in Paris, she spent 13 years between 2007 and 2020 researching European and North American online dating platforms and conducting interviews with their users and founders. Unusually, she also managed to gain access to the anonymised user data collected by the platforms themselves.

She argues that the nature of dating has been fundamentally transformed by online platforms. “In the western world, courtship has always been tied up and very closely associated with ordinary social activities, like leisure, work, school or parties. There has never been a specifically dedicated place for dating.”

In the past, using, for example, a personal ad to find a partner was a marginal practice that was stigmatised, precisely because it turned dating into a specialised, insular activity. But online dating is now so popular that studies suggest it is the third most common way to meet a partner in Germany and the US. “We went from this situation where it was considered to be weird, stigmatised and taboo to being a very normal way to meet people.”

Having popular spaces that are specifically created for privately meeting partners is “a really radical historical break” with courtship traditions. For the first time, it is easy to constantly meet partners who are outside your social circle. Plus, you can compartmentalise dating in “its own space and time”, separating it from the rest of your social and family life.

Dating is also now – in the early stages, at least – a “domestic activity”. Instead of meeting people in public spaces, users of online dating platforms meet partners and start chatting to them from the privacy of their homes. This was especially true during the pandemic, when the use of platforms increased. “Dating, flirting and interacting with partners didn’t stop because of the pandemic. On the contrary, it just took place online. You have direct and individual access to partners. So you can keep your sexual life outside your social life and ensure people in your environment don’t know about it.”

Alix, 21, another student in the book, says: “I’m not going to date a guy from my university because I don’t want to see him every day if it doesn’t work out. I don’t want to see him with another girl either. I just don’t want complications. That’s why I prefer it to be outside all that.” The first and most obvious consequence of this is that it has made access to casual sex much easier. Studies show that relationships formed on online dating platforms tend to become sexual much faster than other relationships. A French survey found that 56% of couples start having sex less than a month after they meet online, and a third first have sex when they have known each other less than a week. By comparison, 8% of couples who meet at work become sexual partners within a week – most wait several months.

“On online dating platforms, you see people meeting a lot of sexual partners,” says Bergström. It is easier to have a short-term relationship, not just because it’s easier to engage with partners – but because it’s easier to disengage, too. “These are people who you do not know from elsewhere, that you do not need to see again.” This can be sexually liberating for some users. “You have a lot of sexual experimentation going on.”

Bergström thinks this is particularly significant because of the double standards still applied to women who “sleep around”, pointing out that “women’s sexual behaviour is still judged differently and more severely than men’s”.

By using online dating platforms, women can engage in sexual behaviour that would be considered “deviant” and simultaneously maintain a “respectable” image in front of their friends, colleagues and relations. “They can separate their social image from their sexual behaviour.” This is equally true for anyone who enjoys socially stigmatised sexual practices. “They have easier access to partners and sex.”

Perhaps counterintuitively, even though people from a wide range of different backgrounds use online dating platforms, Bergström found users usually seek partners from their own social class and ethnicity. “In general, online dating platforms do not break down barriers or frontiers. They tend to reproduce them.”

In the future, she predicts these platforms will play an even bigger and more important role in the way couples meet, which will reinforce the view that you should separate your sex life from the rest of your life. “Now, we’re in a situation where a lot of people meet their casual partners online. I think that could very easily turn into the norm. And it’s considered not very appropriate to interact and approach partners at a friend’s place, at a party. There are platforms for that. You should do that elsewhere. I think we’re going to see a kind of confinement of sex.”

Overall, for Bergström, the privatisation of dating is part of a wider movement towards social insularity, which has been exacerbated by lockdown and the Covid crisis. “I believe this tendency, this evolution, is negative for social mixing and for being confronted and surprised by other people who are different to you, whose views are different to your own.” People are less exposed, socially, to people they haven’t specifically chosen to meet – and that has broader consequences for the way people in society interact and reach out to each other. “We need to think about what it means to be in a society that has moved inside and closed down,” she says.

As Penelope, 47, a divorced working mother who no longer uses online dating platforms, puts it: “It’s helpful when you see someone with their friends, how they are with them, or if their friends tease them about something you’ve noticed, too, so you know it’s not just you. When it’s only you and that person, how do you get a sense of what they’re like in the world?”

Some names have been changed

Self and wellbeing
Relationships
Health & wellbeing

9 The Study of Online Relationships and Dating

Barrie Gunter is Professor of Mass Communication, Department of Media and Communication, University of Leicester, UK.

Published: 12 March 2013
Cite Icon Cite
Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter, which investigates a range of evidence about online dating behaviour, and a synthesis of approaches to research in this area, also evaluates the nature of the market and the experiences of those who have engaged in online dating. Further issues linked with patterns of online self-disclosure and self-presentation, and concerns about deception in online dating, are then assessed. Corporate data have indicated that the online dating business is mostly on an upward trajectory. Data show greater age difference tolerance of online daters and a willingness to adopt a broader selection of partners compared with offline-only daters. Many online dating site users increasingly fail to be fully engaged by sites that offer search opportunities for partner matches using check-box profiling. The issues of deception and trust in relation to personal profiles have been regarded as problematic factors that could cause tension among online daters.

Introduction

The Internet has long been a social medium that is used to facilitate communication with others through a number of different modalities. The early centrality of email has been augmented by new modes of text, audio, and video for interpersonal communication. It has therefore opened up multiple opportunities for people to make new social contacts through generic online tools that can be adapted to idiosyncratic applications, such as social networking sites, and via more closed online services that are designed to provide specialist functions, such as online dating sites. In this context, online dating has emerged as one of the most widely used applications on the Internet. It has also developed into a highly profitable business with growing numbers of people worldwide being prepared to pay for access to services that will find them a romantic or sexual partner, or enhance their relationship prospects.

This chapter examines a range of evidence about online dating behavior, as well as a synthesis of approaches to research in this area. It examines the nature of the market and the experiences of those who have engaged in online dating. The market for online dating is both a “mass” and fragmented: that is, there are services that promote themselves to all comers and others that target specific sub-groups in society defined by demographics, socio-cultural factors, or special interests (The Internet Dating Guide 2007 ; Matchmaking Institute 2009 ). Questions about the motives that users display for online dating are examined. Further issues associated with patterns of online self-disclosure and self-presentation and concerns about deception in online dating are also examined. Online dating is also considered within a broader context of the “social” Internet.

Emergence of online dating

The use of advertising to find a romantic partner dates back to the nineteenth century with the phenomenon of mail-order brides and the matchmaker services found among certain communities—particularly those transplanted via migration to locations far distant from their original homelands (Jagger 1998 ; Steinfirst and Moran 1989 ). These services had restricted impact, however, and it was not until much later in the final quarter of the twentieth century that personal advertising for romantic or social partners became widely established (Bolig et al. 1984 ).

The potential for using the Internet as a method for finding a romantic or sexual partner has increased as the prevalence of Internet use has grown dramatically within a fairly short period of time. By June 2010, for instance, Internet penetration had almost reached two billion worldwide, or 29 percent of the world's population, and most people in developed nations and increasingly in developing countries now go online for a variety of purposes (Internet World Stats 2010 ).

In the twenty-first century, the adoption of the Internet has been driven increasingly by its use as a social communications medium. Online communication, most especially the use of email, was always one of the most widespread applications among Internet users (Horrigan 2001 ; Cole et al. 2004 ; Gunter et al. 2004 ). As web technology developed, more dynamic, real-time forms of communications evolved enabling online conversations to occur on a one-to-one or one-to-many basis. Social networking on the Internet quickly became widespread after 2003 with major brands such as Bebo, Facebook, and MySpace evolving dramatically from small-scale use among localized communities to global applications and millions of regular users. These tools became especially popular among young people (Lenhart 2007 ). These sites are also used in the context of romantic relationships, both to find new companions and to report upon the status of existing relationships.

Another factor associated with online dating is the growth, in many countries, of the proportion of the population that is single and therefore may potentially be in the market to find a partner. There is greater population mobility resulting in local community networks becoming diluted. In addition, career and time pressures are increasing for many people and make it more difficult for growing numbers of singles to find romantic partners (Barraket and Henry-Waring 2004 ; Hardey 2002 ). Online dating represents a more convenient search tool where external support is available to provide singles with a shop window of choice of potential partners brought straight to their computer screen. A further factor of relevance in this context is the decline of workplace romances in the face of sexual harassment concerns (see Brym and Lenton 2001 ).

Given the scale of the online dating phenomenon and the significance of the issues with which it is concerned, it is important that we develop a comprehensive understanding of why people engage with it and with what desired outcomes. Any online activity that involves some degree of self-disclosure in a public arena in which unseen and unknown observers are present and whose motives may not always be transparent or truthfully expressed, carries a degree of risk. The significance of this “risk assessment” is underlined by observations that people can develop deep emotional attachments to others they meet online that are every bit as powerful as offline relationships (McKenna et al. 2002 ; Walther and Parks 2002 ). Furthermore, such online connections can lead to short-term or sometimes lasting intimate relationships in real physical life (Joinson 2001 , 2003 ; McKenna 2007 ).

What is the prevalence of Internet dating?

Online dating estimates derive from a number of sources. These include self-report estimates made by respondents in ad hoc surveys, online digital log measures of website hit rates, and corporate data released by major online dating companies about their customer bases.

Corporate evidence

Internet dating companies provide some data about use of their sites and this can vary in quantity and quality, ranging from generalized statistical information about memberships or customer bases to more detailed market or social scientific research on specific aspects of dating behavior. Corporate research is impressive in terms of its scale, but less so in respect of the insights it can provide into the subtleties of online dating behavior that enhance our understanding of it. Even as measures of market size, corporate data need validation from independent sources of market analysis because user data, as reported on corporate websites, are an integral part of corporate promotions, where a key agenda is to attract yet more users.

Corporate data have indicated that the online dating business is mostly on an upward trajectory. The economic recession in 2007–09 did not seem to affect this growth. Many online dating agencies reported significant increases in both membership lists and revenues during this period (Dawley 2008 ; Espinoza 2009 ).

Self-report evidence

Questionnaire-based surveys in which respondents provide self-reports about their online dating activities derive from a number of different sources, including academics, commercial pollsters, and the industry itself. American research has found that although bars and clubs remain important meeting places, growing numbers of people report going online explicitly to find people to date (Fallows 2004 ; Madden and Lenhart 2006 ; Netimperative 2005 ). Similar evidence has emerged from the UK (Gunter et al. 2003 ; Gunter et al. 2004 ). Online dating is now widely seen as socially acceptable and not the behavior of desperate, lonely people (Madden and Lenhart 2006 ; Response Source 2008 ).

Online measurement

Continuous measurement of Internet use has also yielded data on the prevalence of online dating. A number of specialist marketing research agencies routinely monitor and measure Internet traffic. Among the leading data suppliers in this field are ComScore, Hitwise, and Nielsen.

ComScore ( 2006 ) reported that nearly one in five European Internet users (18 percent) visited online personals sites during the month of July 2006, which slightly exceeded the equivalent figure for North America (17 percent). This meant there were 38.2 million online dating site users in Europe and 29.1 million in North America. More recently, research by Nielsen, reported that American online dating sites attracted 27.5 million unique visitors in June 2009 (Comstock 2009 ).

What kinds of people use online dating?

Evidence has emerged from some markets, that the demographic profile of online daters does not match that of the general Internet-using population. Online dating was initially embraced by younger Internet users, but eventually spread to other age groups. It remains more popular among young adults in their 20s and 30s than any other age group (Brym and Lenton 2001 ; Madden and Lenhart 2006 ; Marketing Vox 2007 ; Gunter 2008 ). Evidence from academic and industry research has indicated only small degrees of user variance based on gender (Madden and Lenhart 2006 ; Hitwise 2007 ; Marketing Vox 2007 ).

Table 9.1 summarizes key findings from prominent studies of the demographics of online daters in different parts of the world. Men adopted this form of dating more extensively than did women early on, but over time both genders have come to make widespread use of such services. Online dating has also been popular among young people, mostly aged under 40 years, but again over time, old age-groups have increasingly used these services. Of particular significance is the extent to which people already in relationships, and not just those who are single, use online dating services. The findings reveal the varied motivations that can underpin online dating behavior.

It might be expected that most users of online dating sites would be individuals who are romantically unattached. There is mounting evidence, however, that this is not always true. Canadian research found that nearly one in five online dating site users (18 percent) were either married or in a live-in relationship (Brym and Lenton 2001 ). In the US the proportion of online dating site members who were married or in a relationship was even higher (30 percent) (PRWeb 2005 ). This evidence suggests a different kind of motive for using these sites, driven more by risqué excitement than a genuine desire for romance. It might also be regarded by some users, who feel trapped in unhappy marital relationships, as an escape route. More evidence is needed on these questions.

The idea that online daters are desperate individuals who are socially isolated or inadequate has received equivocal support from empirical research. This perception was prevalent in the earliest days of online dating and may have reflected opinions that prevailed about use of the personals columns in magazines and newspapers (see Klement 1997 ). Online daters have been found to have active offline social lives and see themselves as self-confident. Dating websites represent one avenue of social contact among many (Brym and Lenton 2001 ; Gunter 2008 )

There is interesting evidence concerning the age differences of online daters who go on to form lasting partnerships (Dutton et al. 2008 ). In more than six in ten cases (61 percent) online daters formed long-term relationships with someone with whom the age difference was less than six years. There was more likely to be an age difference of six or more years, however, between couples meeting online (39 percent) than between those meeting offline (24 percent). In a later report by the same researchers, the tolerance for age differences among online daters was found to vary somewhat between countries. While online daters in Spain and the UK were similarly likely to display an age difference of greater than six years, this proportion was markedly lower in Australia (Dutton et al. 2009 ).

These findings may reveal greater age difference tolerance of online daters and a willingness to embrace a wider choice of partners compared with offline-only daters. This in turn increases the likelihood that lasting partnerships will develop between people of varying characteristics. As we see later, there are also differences between genders in what they seek from a partner that can mediate the success of different forms of self-disclosure that occur in online social contact settings.

What motivates online daters?

People visit or use online dating sites for a variety of reasons. There are two aspects to motivation: the nature of the motive and the strength of motivation. Strength of motivation can be indicated through the degree of persistence that online-dating-site users exhibit in sticking with the task. Once they get started, many online daters use Internet services repeatedly (Gunter 2008 ).

Gender differences in expectations and outcomes have been found. Women were more likely to go online seeking friendships, while men sought a relationship. Men were four times as likely as women to say they sought a “no-strings” fling. Men were also more likely to instigate contact on the basis of an attractive photograph whereas women responded to an interesting description (Netimperative 2005 ). These findings are consistent with evolutionary theory explanations of male versus female sexual-partner-seeking behavior. According to this theory, women tend to be more selective than men (Feingold 1992 ). Consistent with this theory, female Internet daters tend to specify more attributes than do males in relation to determining the right partner for themselves (Bartling et al. 2005 ).

Further evidence has emerged that male online daters are most influenced by the apparent age and physical attractiveness of potential female partners, whereas female online daters look more closely at social status indicators such as education and occupation (Lance 1998 ). Other research, discussed later, reinforces the position of this theory that men and women seek different characteristics in potential mates within the context of Internet dating that reflects differences in the way they are “hard-wired.” Their distinctive socio-biological orientations may also underpin their propensity to emphasize or distort specific features about themselves that they believe will enhance their attractiveness to potential mates.

Are online daters satisfied with online dating?

Research has shown that most online daters agreed that it is an effective way of meeting people (Brym and Lenton 2001 ). Most users of these sites express broad satisfaction with the service received, though this was less prevalent in terms of the numbers of contacts provided and dates achieved (Gunter 2008 ).

One common source of concern was retention of anonymity while online. Thus, while online daters seek face-to-face contact opportunities, this must be done in secure locations from which they can walk away. While actual dates would provide an opportunity to engage in more direct contact with a potential new friend or romantic partner, many online daters would like to remain in shopping-around mode, perhaps, but in a more socially rich online situation (Gunter 2008 ). The perceived advantages of online dating include the provision of a large pool of potential dates that increases the chances of finding a suitable match (Madden and Lenhart 2006 ).

If the explanations of gender differences in mating habits of evolutionary theory are to be accepted as relevant here, this expanded choice is likely to be utilized differently by men and women Internet daters. We would expect women to do more window shopping before committing to a purchase, while men might be more likely to try out multiple goods.

It was noted earlier that online daters seem to be willing to accept bigger differences between themselves and their partners than is often found among offline daters (Dutton et al. 2008 ). This observation has been reinforced by other evidence obtained from active or recent online daters that they cast the net wider in terms of the character range of potential companions they are willing consider compared with the usual choice profiles that are prevalent in the offline world. Thus, men are no more likely than women to be influenced by the physical attractiveness of potential online dates and women in the online world are not as strongly motivated to find a male partner with high socio-economic status (Whitty 2008 ).

The degree of satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) experienced by online daters has been directly linked to the formats adopted by online dating sites. Online dating site interfaces that offer standard profile-based information about potential companions can be off-putting. Research has indicated that many online dating sites users increasingly fail to be fully engaged by sites that offer search opportunities for partner matches using check-box profiling. One study found that Internet daters reported spending more time searching through profiles than engaging in the kinds of interactions usually associated with dating. It therefore tested new formats in which participants could send instant messages to each other and post images as conversation points. This approach created greater immediacy in otherwise remote interactions, which modeled more closely exchanges that might take place in initial real-time, face-to-face encounters. Participants preferred others with whom they had initially interacted rather than those whose profiles they had read during face-to-face meetings (Frost et al. 2008 ).

How successful is online dating for making social contacts?

The success of online dating is difficult to determine in any absolute sense as it is dependent upon users’ expectations associated with their reasons for doing it. Casual users and seekers of life-long partners have different motives. In between these two extremes, however, there are many other potential measures of success calculated in terms of dates achieved, dates with potentially good matches, and so on.

A number of independent studies in different countries have confirmed that most users make multiple contacts with potential dates, either through self-initiated actions or by responding to the actions of others (Brym and Lenton 2001 ; Trueman 2005 ; Gunter 2008 ). One meeting often led to others although relationships surviving more than one year occurred for fewer than one in five (Trueman 2005 ).

Criteria of success may differ for online dating simply because dating is conducted remotely, whereas in the offline world the establishment of a relationship requires physical proximity between romantic partners (Levine 2000 ; Wildermuth 2001 ). Studies of online dating have found, however, that one central criterion of success was whether it led to offline meetings (Brym and Lenton 2001 ; Parks and Roberts 1998 ). Ultimately then even for online daters for a relationship to flourish, it must be feasible for them actually to meet someone face to face. Hence geographical proximity for online daters remains an issue just as in the offline dating world.

What are the consequences of online dating?

Making initial contacts from which face-to-face encounters are arranged are the first steps in realizing what might be a more involved objective of engaging in a full-blown relationship that might be purely sexual in nature or entail a longer-term commitment. A majority of Canadian online daters (63 percent) said they had had a sexual relationship with at least one person they met online. This outcome was slightly more likely among men (66 percent) than among women (58 percent) and was especially high among gay men (79 percent). Many (60 percent) reportedly enjoyed at least one long-term relationship from meeting with someone they initially contacted via one of these sites. Far fewer (27 percent), said they met someone they came to consider as their “partner.” Only a tiny proportion (3 percent) married someone they met online. This outcome generally followed a protracted courtship online in the form of exchanges of emails and photographs (Brym and Lenton 2001 ).

In the US, more than four in ten (43 percent) online daters said they had gone on dates with people they met through Internet dating sites, with far fewer (17 percent) entering long-term relationships or marrying people they met this way. Across US Internet users, 3 percent who were married or in a long-term relationship said they met their partners online (Madden and Lenhart 2006 ).

In the UK, more than four in ten users of online dating services claimed to have experienced at least one sexual relationship as a result, while only around three in ten enjoyed a lasting relationship and just under one in ten found a marriage partner (Gunter 2008 ). A major study of online daters in the UK and Australia revealed that 6 percent of responding Internet users in the UK and 9 percent in Australia said they had met their current partner online (Dutton et al. 2008 ).

How important is self-disclosure style?

Online dating, as with any other form of dating, requires participants to disclose details about themselves as part of the process of building a rapport and then a relationship with another person. In the online dating world, face-to-face contact is delayed and may never occur. Instead, other channels of communication are used. These include email, online real-time chat, exchanges of photographs and even audio or video links. Contacts initially begin with the preservation of anonymity through text-only communication. Other channels that reveal more about participants can subsequently be introduced when participants wish to take the initial contacts further (Couch and Liamputtong 2008 ).

The ways that people represent themselves can vary between different online settings. Thus, self-disclosures and virtual “courtship” behaviors have been observed to differ between online dating sites and other virtual communities such as chat rooms and discussion boards. The real-world geographical distance between participants in these sites can also vary. In online virtual communities not established explicitly for dating purposes, users may be more tolerant of large geographical distances because memberships of these communities may typically be international. In respect of online dating sites, where the primary intention may be to find a new romantic partner, there will be an expectation that eventually an online friendship will evolve into an offline relationship. In this case, geographical proximity will become an important factor underpinning how easy and convenient it will be for both partners to arrange a face–to-face meeting. Consequently, online friends are more likely to meet in person when they live relatively close to each other and will be more likely to meet sooner to test the offline dating potential of someone contacted online (Baker 2005 ). In general, those who meet via dating sites are more likely to meet at all compared with those who meet on other online virtual communities (McKenna 2007 ).

Research with online daters has revealed that they use a number of different communications channels. In Australia, for example, a small qualitative study with fifteen online daters found that they used email, online chat, and webcams to interact with potential romantic partners. They also used an array of filtering mechanisms to help them decide whether to take any of these remote contacts through to face-to-face meetings. These filters again took advantage of text, audio, and video channels to inform impressions of others with whom remote interactions were taking place (Couch and Liamputtong 2008 ).

Self-presentation has emerged as a critically important variable that can influence success in Internet dating. There should be no surprises about this because developing intimate, romantic relationships, whatever the context, generally involves an unveiling of the self to another. In the offline world, during face-to-face meetings, a person's anonymity is forfeited and first impressions based on judgments about appearance and initial disclosure of personality can be critical. In the online world, the individual is afforded some protection through invisibility when initial disclosures occur in text message form. This can lead to individuals adopting a more strategic approach to self-disclosure that entails being carefully selective in the information they present about what they are and what they are like (Bargh et al. 2002 ; McKenna et al. 2002 ). At the same time, in an online setting, individuals may disclose specific details about themselves sooner than they might ordinarily do in offline settings and develop a closeness with another even sight unseen (Walther et al. 2001 ). Despite these differences between the offline and online worlds, relationships in both spheres have been observed to display a gradual development from exploration of surface level characteristics to disclosures of deeper-seated values and attributes, a psychological process articulated by social penetration theory (Altman and Taylor 1973 ; Whitty and Carr 2006 ).

Whitty ( 2008 ) has explained how past theories of the “self” have routinely distinguished between different levels of personal representation, usually embracing a concept of the “real self,” some other “idealized self,” and possibly an “externalized self” that may reveal parts of the real self, but not all of it. It is therefore only to be expected that these offline processes and habits should migrate into the online world. Whitty ( 2008 ) also noted that in the context of relationship formation in the offline world, the self is revealed a bit at a time. Such exchanges between those who are dating represent an intricate part of relationship formation. Disclosure of intimate details occurs gradually as trust is built up between daters, and as more of each other's true selves are revealed judgments can be reviewed about whether there is a good match. This ritualized pattern of self-disclosure may be followed in the online world though the pace at which it proceeds can be more rapid, in some respects, than in the offline world.

There is evidence, for example, that online daters use their online dating experiences as opportunities to try out new identities. The intention here may be as much about self-exploration as giving misleading impression of who they really are. Thus, online daters may post idealized selves characterized by attributes they do not actually possess, but would like to. Feedback is then received on these alternative self-images from other users, enabling posters to judge which attributes are most highly valued by others. One possible outcome of this exploratory behavior is identity re-creation on the part of the individual (Yurchisin et al. 2005 ).

Another aspect of online behavior that has emerged as important to progression of a relationship beyond initial stages of online contact is the use of emotional words in early text exchanges. Emails with strong emotional terms in which the correspondent indicates their excitement at the opportunity to find someone new can lead to more favorable first impressions and a greater likelihood that the recipient of such messages will choose to pursue the relationship further (Rosen et al. 2008 ).

Internet daters may try out different representations of themselves. This process can include deciding on different ways of verbally describing what they are like as well as carefully selecting photographs of themselves that they post on dating websites or send to potential offline dates. Online daters may seek to put forward the best of themselves (Heino et al. 2005 ). This is understandable in that they wish to present themselves as possessing attributes potential partners will find attractive. This motivation can result in distorted, exaggerated, or misleading self-portrayals emerging (Toma et al. 2008 ). Such behavior can also create a tension among some online daters who feel under pressure to be more open and honest about themselves because they ultimately want their dating experience to be successful (Ellison et al. 2006 ).

The repercussions from telling lies about oneself online are that eventually someone might find out. Furthermore, in the online dating context, if the real persona as revealed in an offline meeting is totally different from the image projected online, potential partners may be put off. Totally exposing one's true self can place an online dater at a disadvantage, however, so some degree of mild deception in the form of selective disclosure could prove the most effective strategy (Whitty 2008 ). While such mild deceit may be ethically acceptable and justifiable in terms of safeguarding both personal privacy and security and self-regard in settings of personal disclosure to unseen strangers, more serious forms of malicious deceptive behaviour has also been recorded online, sometimes in dating contexts, that can result in real harm to victims in the offline world (Whitty and Joinson 2009 ).

The concept of “warrants” has been invoked in this context which is related to the closeness of contact between a person's real world and online identity (see Walther et al. 2009 ). Warrants comprise disclosures that permit another to authenticate or verify any personal claims an individual might make about their character. The reduction in degree to which offline and online lives and identities are divorced from each other can control the level of deception likely to occur in online self-disclosures (Warkentin et al. 2010 ).

Even though online daters may be aware of the risks they run in respect of the success of subsequent face-to-face meetings with potential romantic partners initially courted online, they may still fall into the temptation of telling minor untruths or “white lies” about themselves. Validation tests of online self-descriptions in the form of direct observations and measurements of online daters have indicated that both men and women lie about some of their personal attributes. Deceptions included details disclosed about height, weight, and age, with claims made of being taller, less heavy and younger than was the truth. In most cases, however, the deception was mild rather than severe (Toma et al. 2008 ).

Conflicting evidence has emerged that men and women distort different attributes. Men seek women who are physically attractive and youthful, leading women to exaggerate these attributes in themselves in their self-disclosures. Women seek men who can offer them comfort, status, and security and therefore look for these attributes in the self-disclosures of male online daters. In terms of evolutionary theory, to which reference has already been made, men seek women with reproductive fitness and therefore focus on physical and biological characteristics of potential mates. Women, in contrast, seek not simply a mate with whom they can procreate but also one who will provide longer-term security both for herself and her offspring (Buss 1988 ; Buss and Schmitt 1993 ).

The “screen names” that online daters use can shape the impressions others form of them in terms of their personality or physical attractiveness (Whitty and Buchanan 2009 ). Online daters have openly admitted posting profiles that misrepresent them. Once again, though, it seems that this is not done through malicious intent but simply to find out which self-images work best in that environment (Whitty 2008 ).

The open text descriptions that Internet daters provide of themselves can also vary in their truthfulness. As a form of self-protection, online daters who lie on their personal profiles tend to use fewer self-references and fewer emotionally negative words, both to enhance the self-impression they hope to create while at the same time psychologically distancing themselves from any distortions their self-descriptions might contain. Despite these findings, most online daters in this research were found on independent validation to tell the truth about themselves (Toma and Hancock 2010 ).

Are there other online avenues to finding a partner?

The Internet offers users a variety of different options for meeting people for social and romantic purposes. There is mounting evidence to show that that there are other online opportunities for finding romantic partners in addition to specialist dating sites. Internet users adopt these alternatives sometimes instead of or in addition to dating websites (Mintel 2009 ).

The dramatic rise of social networking sites has enabled millions of people worldwide to expand their lists of social contacts (Lenhart 2009 ). Social networks have always represented a critical aspect of the fabric of our lives. They underline family and community ties that define self-identity and can provide us with social, emotional, and economic support (Wellman and Gulia 1999 ; Wellman and Potter 1999 ). Offline social networks have migrated into cyberspace and online social networks represent both a reinforcement and an extension of offline networks (Donath and boyd 2004 ). While people present their identity through their physical selves in the offline world, in online settings they must create a screen profile dependent on self-report. In such contexts, there is often less richness of personal information available in online profiles for others to form an impression of an online actor as compared with a face-to-face meeting in the physical world (Postmes et al. 1998 ; Walther and Tidwell 2002 ). Nevertheless, such computer-mediated communication environments can promote the development of new relationships and the maintenance of existing relationships that can be socially as powerful as offline interactions (Walther 1997 ; Wang et al. 2009 ).

Within computer-mediated settings, however, the rules governing interpersonal engagement and impression formation can differ from those found in face-to-face encounters. Social identity effects that arise from situations in which anonymity of communicants places group-level cues centre stage enhances impressions of group cohesiveness and common identity where broad group membership attributes are shared. SIDE (social identity of deindividuation effects) theory has posited that computer-mediated relationships can be strengthened through this process even in the absence of many of the cues that underpin interpersonal attraction in the physical world (Postmes et al. 1999 ). The common sense of group identity can be so strong, that subsequent exposure to more personalized information about participants in a computer-mediated communication task can reduce interpersonal attraction responses (Lee 2004 ; Postmes et al. 1998 ; Walther 1997 ).

At the individual level, Walther ( 1995 ) offered an alternative theoretical interpretation of how online interpersonal relationships can emerge and develop. His social information processing theory posited that even online individuals will draw upon many of the cues they might use offline in assessing others, but the pace at which a relationship develops online is slower. Early tests of this theory, however, found that it may have underestimated the extent to which computer-mediated communication can facilitate relationship formation.

In an extension, called hyperpersonal theory, it was argued that the capacity afforded by computer-mediated communication to modify self-disclosures and to modify the self-identity that is projected can create a setting in which extremely powerful interpersonal relationships develop (Walther 1996 , 1997 ). In computer-mediated settings, individuals may take great care over self-presentation by carefully drafting and re-drafting personal profiles to control the tone, complexity, and emotionality of the language used (Walther 2007 ). Although synchronous online communications can be littered with anonymous and deceptive self-descriptions, in asynchronous online environments, users can take greater care over the impressions they create of themselves, responding to the reactions of others and modifying their profiles strategically to maximize their attractiveness while not straying too far from the truth. In such contexts, powerful interpersonal relationships can emerge (Tidwell and Walther 2002 ).

US research with teenage social networkers indicated that while most used their profiles to maintain contact with established friends, around half used them to make new friends, and in some cases social networks were used to flirt with others (Lenhart and Madden 2007 ). UK research found that nearly one in four Internet users had made new social contacts online and about half of these individuals had gone online with the intention of meeting new friends (DiGennaro and Dutton 2007 ; Dutton and Helsper 2007 ).

Research in Australia, Spain, and the UK among Internet users who met their spouses online reported that although online dating sites were named more often than any other online site among UK respondents, this was not true in Australia or Spain (Dutton et al. 2008 , 2009 ). In the UK, online chat rooms and instant messaging provided contact points as well as dating sites. In Spain and Australia, chat rooms were the most popular sites of first social contact (Dutton et al., 2009 ).

We saw earlier, in the context of using Internet dating sites, that the issues of deception and trust in relation to personal profiles were regarded as problematic factors that could cause tension among online daters. Trust in personalized information is relevant in other online social interaction settings, including those that involve highly popular social network sites such as Facebook (Walther et al. 2009 ). In this context, the concept of warrants can be significant in that they can serve to constrain the inclination to stray too far from the truth when constructing online self-descriptions. In particular, any personal claims are more likely to command the trust of others when they are authenticated by independent sources. Thus, in the context of Facebook, for example, remarks generated by others tended to be trusted more than those generated by self in relation to judgments made about personal profiles (Walther et al. 2009 ).

Further evidence has emerged however that the propensity to tell lies—even if only mildly deceptive in nature—varied between online social interaction platforms. Deceptions were less likely to occur in emails and social network sites than in live chat rooms, Internet forums, or instant messaging. Warrants, or self disclosures that revealed information about self that others could check out, were least likely to be deployed in those areas where lies were most prevalent—chat rooms, forums, and instant messages. If warrants suppress deception, as has been hypothesized, then social network sites would appear to offer potentially the most trustworthy personal profiles (Warkentin et al. 2010 ).

Whether social networking sites designed primarily to enhance general social contacts and (non-romantic) friendships represent significant competition for specialist dating sites remains to be seen. It is likely that they will at least represent one more tool in the dating toolbox for those who seek convenient and economical routes to making new romantic contacts. Certainly, on the basis of recent evidence, they may are more likely than other online disclosure to provide the most authentic personal profiles.

What does the future hold?

From the end of the twenty-first century, online dating emerged as one of the most widely used applications of the Internet. In the space of less than a decade, this market has evolved rapidly. It has grown in terms of overall market size. The phenomenon of online dating is global in reach. The number of suppliers of these services has also increased over time at an accelerating pace. The immaturity of the market in many countries is an important contributory factor in the rapid growth in numbers of different suppliers. As the market matures and consolidates with a few dominant suppliers capturing the greatest market share, market entry for smaller suppliers could become more difficult because of the costs involved in establishing a viable market presence (Mintel 2009 ).

Although online social networking services that are not branded specifically in relation to dating have surfaced as competition to specialist online dating agencies, most of the biggest online dating agencies have a distinct selling proposition based on the detailed profiling they carry out with their clients to ensure that contacts represent good romantic matches. Given that most online daters do not simply want to gain contacts, but contacts with a specific type of relationship potential, the more sophisticated matching services should always find a market.

Empirical research has indicated that deception in personal profiling online is regarded as a problem (Toma et al. 2008 ). There are factors that can be introduced to suppress the propensity to lie online (Lucid 2009 ). Moreover, deception seems less likely to occur in asynchronous online communication settings, such as Internet dating sites, than in synchronous online communication environments (Warkentin et al. 2010 ). Signals of authentication of personal profiles are likely to enhance the reputation of online dating sites among users, even in the face of growing competition within the market and from social network sites.

Within the specialist online dating supply chain, however, market changes are occurring that will pose business challenges to market leaders. Even the specialist market is becoming increasingly crowded. There are two significant phenomena that have affected market dynamics. The first of these is the emergence of free dating sites that do not charge users any fees directly. Instead, their business models depend upon the generation of revenue via advertising on their sites. The second change is market fragmentation.

Parts of the pay market for online dating have responded to “free” sites by launching free sites of their own. Some major companies have merged to capture bigger market shares in specific national markets. It is also important to note that online daters do not always remain loyal to one site or restrict their search to one supplier at a time. Even free sites, such as PlentyofFish, have acknowledged that up to 15 percent of its users also sign up to pay sites (Mintel 2009 ). As in other service markets, quality of service is a critical factor that drives customers’ choices. Online daters still use paid-for sites because many free sites offer limited customer service.

Another positive factor for pay sites is that few “free” sites make enough money from advertising to sustain their businesses (Mintel 2009 ). There remains scope for further analysis of business models likely to prove successful in the future. Given the significance of factors such as deception and trust, that may be linked in turn to privacy and security issues on the part of online daters, fee-based dating services could remain competitive if they offer greater value in terms of profile authenticity checking, which is likely to demand additional resources on the part of service suppliers.

The online dating market is fragmenting. There are growing numbers of online dating services within national markets that are targeting niche sub-markets defined by sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, age group, lifestyle preferences, and a range of special interests or needs. Perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of market fragmentation has been manifest in the growth of dating sites that cater for members with unusual distinguishing attributes or interests (Scott and Martin 2009 ).

A further dynamic that is influencing the shape of the online dating market is the entry into the market of other well-known brands, in particular media companies. Media organizations that publish outlets that have traditionally carried personal ads or that run dating competitions have sought to extend their reach in the dating arena via online dating. Media companies have achieved this objective via partnerships with established online dating companies, through take-overs of such companies or by setting up new online dating services themselves. In the UK, a number of major newspapers have established or bought into online dating sites. Many of these have enjoyed business growth, although they have yet to penetrate the top ten (Mintel 2009 ). Hence, although such mergers that combine powerful brands could be seen as having strong and widespread appeal, their success will depend upon which partner dominates the business decision-making and upon whether for consumers the partnership seems like a good fit.

Final remarks

There is a steadily expanding body of research about online dating that derives from industry market monitoring, commercial ad hoc studies of users’ experiences by online dating agencies and opinion pollsters, and research by academics. Online dating has become socially accepted and in many countries and demographic strata has long passed the stage of early adoption and become a mass participation activity.

There remain important questions on which more research is needed. How will online dating continue to evolve? Will the online dating market become more fragmented, with agencies targeting smaller and more tightly defined groups or communities? Will the major dating companies need to diversify more in the future to embrace communities that are defined by more than standard demographics?

To be successful, online dating services may need to become more literate in terms of their understanding of the rules of social interaction that apply in computer-mediated environments (see Walther 1996 ; Walther et al. 2001 ). As online dating expands, will it experience problems that have been linked to the wider social networking phenomenon of site misuse, invasion of privacy, personal security threats, and identity theft? Most users have been found to exhibit sensitivity to dishonesty in online dating, but few perceived it as a real risk (Brym and Lenton 2001 ; Madden and Lenhart 2006 ).

Market analysts have provided macro-level data that are helpful in tracking global and national market movements in this sector. Their methods, as they stand, are inappropriate for understanding the key drivers of online dating behavior. More theory-based research is required that determines the degree to which offline norms and rules relating to interpersonal communication, impression, and relationship formation can be migrated into the online world is essential.

More studies that combine linguistic analysis of the texts of personal profiles with analysis of discourses used by online daters to describe their intentions and expectations could provide valuable insights. In addition, interventionist designs that manipulate specific features of online personal profiles to evaluate the responses elicited by specific features in the presence of controls over other features could reveal micro-level attributes. The latter could then be utilized in macro-level analyses of online dating site texts using data mining software permitting systematic and subtle levels of evaluation of massive quantities of online content (e.g. Thelwall 2008 ; Feizy et al. 2009 ). In view of cross-national differences in online dating habits (e.g. Dutton et al. 2009 ), such triangulated analyses should also be conducted cross-culturally.

Finally, in light of growing concerns about deviant practices on the Internet, some of which are manifest in the context of ostensibly genuine online relationship formation (Whitty and Carr 2006 ), there is a need for greater understanding of the types of people who utilize the Internet in search of friends and partners, beyond the standard market demographics. This need is underlined by emergent evidence that individuals who lack confidence in terms of self-presentation may be more likely than others to prefer social interaction online. This syndrome has been described under the broad heading of Problematic Internet Use (PIU) (Caplan 2002 , 2003 , 2005 ).

Socially responsible online dating services might seek to profile their clients psychologically so that value-added advisory services can be provided to guide potentially more vulnerable Internet users, for example, those who might be taken in by the phenomenon of so-called “romance scams” whereby criminals infiltrate online dating sites with fake profiles in order to construct bogus romantic relationships with susceptible victims, often culminating in attempts to extort money from them. Researchers have begun to study the linguistic styles of these fake profiles to develop algorithms for their detection to provide support to law enforcement agencies that are often called in to such cases (see Whitty and Buchanan 2011 ).

Altman, L. and Taylor, D. A. ( 1973 ). Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships , New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winstone.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Baker, A. J. ( 2005 ). Double Click: Romance and Commitment among Online Couples , Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Bargh, J. A. , McKenna, K. Y. A. , and 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(1): 33–48.

Barraket, J. and Henry-Waring, M. (2004). ‘ “Everybody's Doing it” ’: Examining the Impacts of Online Dating.” Available at < http://www.tasa.org.au/conferencepapers04/docs/COMMUNCATION/BARRAKET >. Accessed November 5, 2009.

Bartling, C. A. , LeDoux, J. A. , and Thrasher, D. J. ( 2005 ). “Internet Dating Ads: Sex, Ethnicity, Age-Related Differences and Support for Evolutionary Theory,” American Journal of Psychological Research , 1(1): 21–31.

Bolig, R. , Stein, P. J. , and McKenry, P. C. ( 1984 ). “The Self-Advertisement Approach to Dating: Male-Female Differences,” Family Relations: Journal of Applied Family & Child Studies , 33(1): 587–92.

Brym, R. J. and Lenton, R. L. ( 2001 ). Love Online: A Report on Digital Dating in Canada , A Report of Surveys Funded by MSN.CA, Toronto.

Buss, D. M. ( 1988 ). “ The Evolution of Human Intrasexual Competition: Tactics of Mate Attraction, ” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 54(4): 616–28.

—— and Schmitt, D. P. ( 1993 ). “ Social Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating, ” Psychological Review , 100(2), 204–32.

Caplan, S. E. ( 2002 ). “Problematic Internet Use and Psychosocial Well-Being: Development of a Theory-Based Cognitive-Behavioural Measurement Instrument,” Computers in Human Behaviour , 18(5): 553–75.

—— ( 2003 ). “Preference for Online Social Interaction: A Theory of Problematic Internet Use and Psychosocial Well-Being,” Communication Research , 30(6): 625–48.

—— ( 2005 ). “ A Social Skill Account of Problematic Internet Use, ” Journal of Communication , 55(4): 721–36.

Cole, J. I. , Suman, M. , Schramm, P. , Lunn, R. , and Aquino, J. S. ( 2004 ). Ten Years, Ten Trends: The Digital Future Report—Surveying the Digital Future, Year 4 , USC Annenberg School, Centre for the Digital Future, Los Angeles.

ComScore (2006). “Europeans Nearly Fifty Percent More ‘Engaged’ in Online Dating Compared to North Americans,” ComScore Press Releases, September 25. Available at < http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2006/09/European_Online_Dating_Habits >. Accessed September 3, 2009.

Comstock, C. (2009). “The Top Online Meat Markets,” August 25th. Available at < http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/25/popular-online-dating >. Accessed August 27, 2009.

Couch, D. and Liamputtong, P. ( 2008 ). “ Online Dating and Mating: The Use of the Internet to Meet Sexual Partners, ” Qualitative Health Research , 18(2): 268–79.

Dawley, H. (2008). “In These Tight Times, Lovelorn Go Online,” Media Life Magazine , December 1. Available at < http://www.medialifemagazine.com/in-these-tight-times-lovelorn-go-online/ >. Accessed October 17, 2009.

DiGennaro, C. and Dutton, W. H. ( 2007 ). “ Reconfiguring Friendships: Social Relationships and the Internet, ” Information, Communication and Society , 10(5): 591–618.

Donath, J. and boyd, d. ( 2004 ). “ Public Displays of Connection, ” BT Technology Journal, 22(4): 71–82.

Dutton, W. H. and Helsper, E. ( 2007 ). The Internet in Britain , Oxford, UK: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.

——, Helsper, E. , Li, N. , and Whitty, M. ( 2008 ). “ Me, My Spouse and the Internet: Meeting, Dating and Marriage in the Digital Age, ” Oxford Internet Institute, January. Available at < http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=47 >. Accessed August 20, 2010.

Dutton, W. H. , Helsper, E. , Whitty, M. T. , Nai, L ., Buckwalter, J. G. , and Lee, E. ( 2009 ). “The Role of the Internet in Reconfiguring Marriages: A Cross-National Study,” Interpersona , 3 (Suppl. 2): 3–18.

Ellison, N. , Heino, R. , and Gibbs, R. ( 2006 ). “Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 11(2). Available at < http://www.jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison >. Accessed August 20, 2010.

Espinoza, J. (2009). “Online Dating Sites Flirt with Record Growth,” Forbes , June 1. Available at < http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/06/online-dating-industry-face-markets-cx_je_0105autofacescan01.html >. Accessed October 17, 2009.

Fallows, D. (2004). “The Internet and Daily Life,” Pew Internet and American Life Project, August 11. Available at < http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2004/The-Internet-and-Daily-Life.aspx >. Accessed November 4, 2004.

Feingold, A. ( 1992 ). “ Gender Differences in Mate Selection Preferences: A Test of the Parental Investment Model, ” Psychological Bulletin , 112(1): 125–39.

Feizy, R. , Wakeman, I. , and Chalmers, D. ( 2009 ). “ Distinguishing Fact and Fiction: Data Mining Online Identities, ” Informatics Department, University of Brighton. Available at < http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/research/groups/FoSS/news/STM_Roya%20Feizy.pdf >. Accessed January 20, 2010.

Frost, J. H. , Chance, Z. , Norton, M. I. , and Ariely, D. ( 2008 ). “ People are Experience Goods: Improving Online Dating with Virtual Dates, ” Journal of Interactive Marketing , 22(1): 51–61.

Gunter, B. ( 2008 ). Internet Dating: A British Survey, Aslib Proceedings , 60(2): 88–97.

——, Russell, C. , Withey, R. , and Nicholas, D. ( 2003 ). “ The British Life and Internet Project: Inaugural Survey Findings, ” Aslib Proceedings , 55(4): 203–16.

—— Russell, C., Withey, R., and Nicholas, D. ( 2004 ). “ Broadband in Britain: How Does it Compare with Narrowband?, ” Aslib Proceedings , 56(2): 89–98.

Hardey, M. ( 2002 ). “ Life beyond the Screen: Embodiment and Identity through the Internet, ” The Sociological Review , 50(4): 570–85.

Heino, R. D. , Ellison, N. B. , and Gibbs, J. L. (2005). “Are we a ‘match’? Choosing partners in the online dating market.” Paper presented at the International Communication Association Convention, in New York, NY, May.

Hitwise (2007). “Male and Female Disconnect in Preferred Online Dating Websites,” Hitwise Press Releases, February 14. Available at < http://www.hitwise.com/ca/press-center/press-releases/archived-press-releases/valentinesday2007/ >. Accessed November 5, 2009.

Horrigan, J. B., Rainie, L., and Fox, S. (2001). Online communities: Networks that nurture long-distance relationships and local ties. Pew Internet & American Life Project, October 31. Available at < http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2001/Online-Communities.aspx >. Accessed June 20, 2012.

Internet World Stats (2010). “Internet Usage Statistics: The Internet Big Picture.” Available at < http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm >. Accessed August 1, 2010.

Jagger, E. ( 1998 ). “Marketing the Self, Buying an Other: Dating in a Post-Modern Consumer Society,” Sociology , 32(4): 795–814.

Joinson, A. ( 2001 ). “Self-Disclosure in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Role of Self-Awareness and Visual Anonymity,” European Journal of Social Psychology , 31(2): 177–92.

—— ( 2003 ). Understanding the Psychology of Internet Behaviour: Virtual Worlds, Real Lives , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Klement, J. A. ( 1997 ). “Love at First Byte: Internet Romance is Cheaper, Less Stressful than a Blind Date,” The Salt Lake Tribune , September 8: B1.

Lance, L. ( 1998 ). “ Gender Differences in Heterosexual Dating: A Content Analysis of Personal Ads, ” Journal of Men's Studies , 6(3): 297–305.

Lee, E.-J. ( 2004 ). “Effects of Visual Representation on Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Tests of the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects,” Human Communication Research , 30(2): 234–59.

Lenhart, A. (2009). “Adults and Social Network Websites,” Pew Internet Project Data Memo. Available at < http://www.pewInternet.org >. Accessed September 3, 2009.

—— and Madden, M. (2007). “Social Networking Websites and Teens: An Overview,” Pew Internet Project Data Memo, January 7. Available at < http://www.pewInternet.org >. Accessed September 3, 2009.

Levine, D. ( 2000 ). “ Virtual Attraction: What Rocks Your Boat?, ” Cyberpsychology and Behaviour , 3(4): 565–73.

Lucid, L. ( 2009 ). “ (Mis)Representrating the Self in Online Dating, ” Mind Mattera: The Wesleyan Journal of Psychology , 4: 37–49.

McKenna, K. Y. A. ( 2007 ). “A Progressive Affair: Online Dating to Real World Mating,” in M. Whitty , A. Baker , and J. Inman (eds) Online Matchmaking , Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 112–124.

—— Green, A. S. , and Gleason, M. E. J. ( 2002 ). “Relationship Formation on the Internet: What's the Big Attraction?,” Journal of Social Issues , 58(1): 9–31.

Madden, M. and Lenhart, A. ( 2006 ). “ Online Dating. ” Pew Internet and American Life Project, March 5. Available at < http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/Online-Dating.aspx >. Accessed August 20, 2010.

Marketing Vox (2007, September). “US Adults Increasingly Erode Stigma of Seeking Cyber Love.” Available at < http://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/nearly-25mm-us-adults-took-part-in-online-dating-in-past-30-days-1788/ >. Accessed September 3, 2009.

Matchmaking Institute (2009). 2009 Matchmakers Survey , October 17th. Available at < http://www.matchmakinginstitute.com/2009_matchmakers_survey >. Accessed October 17, 2009.

Mintel (2009). “Love in a Cold Climate,” Mintel Press Release, May. Available at < http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/press-releases/353/love-in-a-cold-climate >. Accessed August 20, 2009.

Netimperative (2005). “Internet Now Third Most Popular Way to Get a Date,” Netimperative, August 3, 2005. < http://www.netimperative.com/news/2005/08/03/Internet_dating_popular/ >. Accessed August 9, 2005.

Parks, M. and Roberts, L. ( 1998 ). ‘ “Making Moosic” ’: The Development of Personal Relationships On-line and a Comparison to their Off-line Counterparts,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 75 (4): 517–537.

Postmes, T. , Spears, R. , and Lea, M. ( 1998 ). “ Breaches or Building Social Boundaries, ” Communication Research , 25(6): 689–715.

——, Spears, R., and Lea, M. ( 1999 ). “Social Identity, Group Norms, and “Deindividuation”: Lessons from Computer-Mediated Communication for Social Influence in the Group,” in N. Ellemers , R. Spears , and M. Lea (eds). Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content , Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 164–83.

PRWeb (2005). “Study Shows 30% of Internet Dating Site Users are Married.” September 28. Available at < http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/09/prweb290988.htm >. Accessed March 10, 2010.

Response source (2008). “Internet Dating Statistics: 7.8 Million UK Singles Logged on to Find Love in 2007,” January 18. Available at < http://www.responsesource.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=36263 >. Accessed October 17, 2009.

Rosen, L. D. , Cheever, N. A. , Cummings, C. , and Fell, J. ( 2008 ). “The Impact of Emotionality and Self-Disclosure on Online Dating Versus Traditional Dating,” Computers in Human Berhavior , 24(5): 2124–57.

Scott, C. and Martin, K. ( 2009 ). “ There's a Date for Everyone, ” Metro , November 2: pp. 20–1.

Steinfirst, S. and Moran, B. B. ( 1989 ). “ The New Mating Game: Matchmaking via the Personal Columns in the 1980s, ” Journal of Popular Culture , 22(4): 129–39.

The Internet Dating Guide (2007). < http://www.theInternetdatingguide.com >. Accessed September 3, 2009.

Thelwall, M. ( 2008 ). “ Social Networks, Gender and Friending: An Analysis of MySpace Member Profiles, ” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 59(9): 1523–7.

Tidwell, L. C. and Walther, J. B. ( 2002 ). “Computer-Generated Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting to Know One Another a Bit at a Time,” Human Communication Research , 28(3): 317–48.

Toma, C. L. and Hancock, J. T. ( 2010 ). “ Reading Between the Lines: Linguistic Cues to Deception in Online Dating Profiles, ” Computer Supported Cooperative Work , February 6–10: 5–8.

——, Hancock, J. T., and Ellison, N. B. ( 2008 ). Separating Fact from Fiction: An Examination of Deceptive Self-Presentation in Online Dating Profiles,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 34(8): 1023–36.

Trueman, T. (2005). “Internet Dating Much More Successful Than Thought,” Eurekalert!, February 13. Available at < http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/uob-idm021305.php >. Accessed August 27, 2009.

Walther, J. B. ( 1995 ). “Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations Over Time,” Organization Science , 6(2): 186–203.

—— ( 1996 ). “Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal,” Human Communication Research , 23(1): 3–43.

—— ( 1997 ). “Group and Interpersonal Effects in International Computer-Mediated Collaboration,” Human Communication Research , 23(3): 342–69.

—— ( 2007 ). “Selective Self-Presentation in Computer-Mediated Communication: Hyperpersonal Dimensions of Technology, Language and Cognition,” Computers in Human Behaviour , 23(5): 2539–57.

—— and Parks, M. R. ( 2002 ). “Cues Filtered Out, Cues Filtered in: Computer-Mediated Communication and Relationships,” in M. L. Kemp and J. A. Daly (eds). Handbook of Interpersonal Communication , 3rd edn., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 529–63.

—— and Tidwell, L. ( 2002 ). “Computer-Mediated Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting To Know One Another A Bit At A Time,” Human Communication Research , 28(3): 317–48.

Walther, J. B. , Slovacek, C. , and Tidwell, L. ( 2001 ). “Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? Photographic Images in Long-Term and Short-Term Computer-Mediated Communication,” Communication Research , 28(1): 105–34.

—— Van Der Heide, B. , Hamel, L. M. , and Schulman, H. C. ( 2009 ). “Self-Generated Versus Other-Generated Statements and Impressions in Computer-Mediated Communication: A Test of Warranting Theory Using Facebook,” Communication Research , 36(2): 229–53.

Wang, Z. , Walther, J. B. , and Hancock, J. T. ( 2009 ). “Social Identification and Interpersonal Communication in Computer-Mediated Communication: What You Do Versus Who You Are In Virtual Groups,” Human Communication Research , 35(1): 59–85.

Warkentin, D. , Woodwirth, M. , Hancock, J. T. , and Cormier, N. ( 2010 ). “Warrants and Deception in Computer Mediated Communication,” Computer Supported Cooperative Work , February 6–10, 9–12.

Wellman, B. and Gulia, M. ( 1999 ). “The Network Basis of Social Support: A Network is More than the Sum of Its Parts,” in B. Wellman (ed.) Networks in the Global Village , Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 83–118.

—— and Potter, S. ( 1999 ). “The Elements of Personal Community,” in B. Wellman (ed.) Networks in the Global Village , Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 1–35.

Whitty, M. ( 2008 ). “Revealing the ‘Real Me,’ Searching for the ‘Actual’ You: Presentations of Self on an Internet Dating Site,” Computers in Human Behavior , 24(1): 1707–23.

—— and Buchanan, T. ( 2009 ). “ Looking for Love in so many Different Places: Characteristics of Online Daters and Speed Daters, ” Interpersonal: An International Journal on Personal Relationships , 3(2): 63–86. Available at < http://abpri.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/interpersona-3-suppl-2_4.pdf >. Accessed June 20, 2012.

—— and Buchanan, T. (2011). “Online Dating Romance Scam Project. Project,” Department of Media and Communication, University of Leicester. Available at < http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/media/documents >. Accessed August 20, 2010.

—— and Carr, A. N. ( 2006 ). Cyberspace Romance: The Psychology of Online Relationships , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

—— and Joinson, A. N. ( 2009 ). Truth, Lies and Trust on the Internet . New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Wildermuth, S. ( 2001 ). “Love on the Line: Participants’ Descriptions of Computer-Mediated Close Relationships,” Communication Quarterly , 49(2): 89–95.

Yurchisin, J. , Watchravesrigkan, K. , and McCabe, D. B. ( 2005 ). “An Exploration of Identity Re-Creation in the Context of Internet Dating,” Advances in Consumer Research , 32(1): 193–4.

About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
v.11(1); 2010 Jan

The science of online dating

Giovanni frazzetto.

1 BIOS Centre, London School of Economics, London, UK

Can the application of science to unravel the biological basis of love complement the traditional, romantic ideal of finding a soul mate?

As the saying goes, “love defies all calculation”. Yet, this apparently obvious assertion is challenged by the intrusion of science into matters of love, including the application of scientific analysis to modern forms of courtship. An increasing number of dating services boast about their use of biological research and genetic testing to better match prospective partners. Yet, while research continues to disentangle the complex factors that make humans fall in love, the application of this research remains dubious.

…while research continues to disentangle the complex factors that make humans fall in love, the application of this research remains dubious

With the rise of the internet and profound changes in contemporary lifestyles, online dating has gained enormous popularity among aspiring lovers of all ages. Long working hours, increasing mobility and the dissolution of traditional modes of socialization mean that people use chat rooms and professional dating services to find partners. Despite the current economic downturn, the online dating industry continues to flourish. With subscription prices between €20 and €30 per month, romance-seekers are turning away from the traditional—and often expensive—strategies of meeting people casually in bars and restaurants, and are instead opting for less spontaneous, but practical, cheap online services that allow them to find a soul mate from the comfort of their desk.

EasyDate.biz, one of the most popular websites that match people according to their hobbies, preferences and interests, has increased annual profits 30-fold since 2006 and has made around £6 million in revenues this year ( Espinoza, 2009 ). Large metropolitan cities boast the highest number of active online dating accounts, with New York totalling a greater number of subscriptions on Match.com than any other city in the USA—accounting for 8% of the company's active members ( Sherman, 2009 ).

Most dating services match subscribers based on metrics that include education and professional background, personal interests, hobbies, values, relationship skills and life goals. These websites use a range of personality tests and psychological assessments to build lists of traits that individuals seek in an ideal partner. Yet, in this modern era of personalized genomes and DNA-based crime fighting, the new generation of online dating services has added one more parameter: biology. “Love is no coincidence”, they proclaim, promising to provide longer-lasting matches based on the science of attraction and romantic love.

Indeed, biological anthropologists and neuroscientists are already dissecting the chemical ingredients of love, from the basic sex drive to romantic love, including the feeling of security that we achieve when we are attached to a specific mate for the long term ( Bartels & Zeki, 2000 ; 2004 ; Fisher et al , 2002 ; Zeki, 2007 ). Such studies aim to unravel both the genetic factors and the neural circuits that underlie love. So far, scientists have revealed that the relevant regions of the brain are mainly those involved in motivational and reward systems and are orchestrated by hormones and neurotransmitters ( Aaron et al , 2005 ). Love has accordingly been described as a chemical phenomenon and compared with a state of addiction ( Meloy & Fisher, 2005 ).

…the real question remains as to whether the use of genetics is proving more effective than traditional matching methods

“We fall in love with someone who has a different chemical profile for dopamine, serotonin, estrogen and testosterone that complements our own,” explained Helen Fisher, professor of anthropology at Rutgers University (New York, NY, USA) and chief scientific advisor to Chemistry.com. She created a test for the website—used by about eight million people to date—in which questions are designed to establish a range of basic information about brain and body chemistry associated with specific aspects of temperament and personality. For instance, measuring the ratio between the length of the index finger and the ring finger of the right hand, which is a marker for testosterone levels in the prenatal brain, is assumed to provide information about assertive, verbal, musical or analytical capabilities ( Wilson, 1983 ). Other questions determine a propensity to be curious or a tendency to seek novel experiences, supposedly based on dopamine levels in the brain.

Science-based dating services such as ScientificMatch.com or GenePartner.com promise lasting relationships on the basis of genetic information and match people based on differences between their imm-une systems. This approach draws on a study performed by Claus Wedekind and colleagues at the University of Bern in Switzerland, who asked female volunteers to smell T-shirts that had been worn by men for three consecutive days and to rank them by attractiveness ( Wedekind et al , 1995 ). It turned out that the majority of the women were attracted to men whose immune systems differed most from their own—fulfilling the maxim that ‘opposites attract'. What accounted for the immune system differences at the genetic level were sequences in the genes encod-ing the human leukocyte antigen (HLA).

HLA genes control the activation of the immune response and are crucial for acquiring immunity; the greater the variety in the HLA genes, the greater the variety and success of the immune response. From an evolutionary point of view, it makes sense that individuals with opposite varieties would attract each other as this would lead to offspring with a broader range of HLA genes.

The customers of online dating services seem to buy the ‘hard science' sell. “We are receiving requests from a lot of customers who wish to know whether they can test their genetic compatibility with other subscribers in the same area where they live,” commented Tamara Brown, chief scientific officer at GenePartner.com, a company affiliated with the Swiss Institute for Behavioural Genetics (Adliswil, Switzerland). “Right now, the number of established couples willing to know whether their compatibility is confirmed genetically equals the number of singles who ask us to match them with other subscribers in our database.” Brown emphasised that the company uses biological compatibility to complement social, psychological and intellectual information, which, she said, will continue to play an important role in the formation of lasting relationships.

Some of the claimed advantages of having genetically compatible partners are a more satisfying sex life, a higher fertility rate and healthier children. Members of the gay community have complained about their exclusion from these benefits. However, research is already underway to find specific pheromone-induced brain responses in both homosexual men and women ( Berglund et al , 2006 ; Savic et al , 2005 ).

Although sequencing DNA to find a soul mate might sound like a ludicrous application of genetics, investigating the genetic compatibility of couples is already routine practice for groups or populations that have a high risk of specific severe genetic diseases. For instance, genetic tests are available in many Mediterranean countries that have a high prevalence of β-thalassaemia, a heritable disease of the blood that affects the body's ability to produce haemoglobin. To avoid having a child afflicted with this disease, β-thalassaemia carrier detection is mandatory for couples in Iran and several other Arab countries and is required by the religious authorities in Cyprus ( Zlotogora, 2009 ). The couples have to be informed of the test results before their marriage, but the choice is theirs of whether or not to marry. Genetic screening is also common among Ashkenazi Jews, who have a higher risk of suffering from one of several monogenetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Tay–Sachs or Bloom syndrome. These screening programmes have reduced considerably the number of babies affected by these diseases ( Kronn et al , 1998 ).

There is a kind of irony in online dating in that courtship and romantic love are profoundly physical experiences that manifest with symptoms including sweaty palms, reddened cheeks or tied tongues; but internet dating, owing to its virtual nature, is utterly disembodying. For Eva Illouz, professor of sociology and anthropology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel, this rearticulates the relationship between corporeality and emotions: in the absence of the body, emotions are supposed to flow freely between authentic aspects of the core self ( Illouz, 2007 ). Knowledge of another person therefore precedes the bodily attraction.

Websites such as ScientificMatch.com or GenePartner.com would thus include a ‘physical' factor by making genetic information the starting point for finding a match. Illouz pointed out that although online platforms are supposed to give subscribers the chance to highlight their own uniqueness, their self-representation frequently follows established canons of ‘conformity, standardization and reification'. By contrast, genetic information on biological compatibility is not standardized and genuinely represents an individual's uniqueness.

The use of biological information seems to reassure customers that they will find a better match. Nevertheless, the real question remains as to whether the use of genetics is proving more effective than traditional matching methods. Indeed, there is a good deal of skepticism concerning the reliability of DNA-based dating services. For example, there is some debate about the extent to which HLA diversity is actually reflected in a person's scent, and therefore whether such differences can genuinely be picked up by the body's olfactory bulbs.

Deciphering the genetics and neurochemistry of love might, therefore, cast a disenchanting shadow over some cultural practices

“I think that matching people by personality types or interests may be very useful. However, I do not believe that any service that claims to use genetic information, or any estimation of neurochemistry (based on personality or genotype) has any basis in reality,” argued Larry J. Young, a principal investigator in the Laboratory of Social Neurobiology at Emory University (Atlanta, GA, USA). Young, who investigates the genetics and molecular mechanisms behind social attachment, pointed out that although we might be beginning to understand how some genes contribute to social relationships, or how certain neuropeptides or transmitters are involved in the formation of relationships in rodents, “the situation is far, far too complex to begin to think we can pick ‘the perfect match' based on this information. These companies are taking advantage of a public who have been educated by the media.”

Courtship, seduction and romantic love are complex phenomena that involve many genes and a multitude of social and cultural factors. Deciphering the genetics and neurochemistry of love might, therefore, cast a disenchanting shadow over some cultural practices. In this regard, a Shakespearean sonnet, or other works of classical romance might still prove more instructive and interesting for anyone desirous to understand the rules and excitement of courtship and love than would taking a genetic test.

Haunted by the inherent uncertainties of life, people are drawn to any service or person that promises to predict the future…

“You can know any single ingredient in a piece of chocolate cake and still find it delicious. You can know every single part of an engine in a Bentley or a Ferrari, and still feel the rush and joy of driving it. The same applies to love,” Fisher said. “The more you know about the brain circuitry of romantic love, the more you can operate with innate natural wisdom to make better decisions.” She also suggested that finding the chemical or genetic basis for why love sometimes fails might well be more effective than spending years trying to decipher intangible psychoanalytical reasons. “The primordial ways by which men and women flirt and fall in love will just continue. A little bit of knowledge about the relevant brain mechanisms just refines this ancient process. So, I don't think that you can equate knowledge with lack of magic,” Fisher said.

More serious concerns have been raised about the possible misapplication of the growing knowledge of emotional chemistry to manipulate the brain and enhance or diminish emotions for others—in essence, the creation of love potions. The idea is not too far-fetched: experiments have shown that a squirt of the hormone oxytocin enhances trust in other people ( Kosfeld et al , 2005 ), and internet drugs sellers are already marketing products such as ‘Enhanced Liquid Trust', which claims to “boost the dating and relationship area of your life” ( www.verolabs.com ).

“I don't think that these kinds of science-based approaches are going to become any more popular than the many other approaches out there designed to find a match. People will always be selling the ‘new' way to find true love,” Young commented. “Regarding the manipulation of feelings with drugs, I am not sure how this will turn out in the public in the long term. We already try that by buying our prospective partners flowers, candy, romantic settings, hugging and kissing, all of which stimulate the chemistry of love, such as dopamine or oxytocin.”

More generally, the use of genetic knowledge and technology to predict intimate aspects of our lives confirms the persistence of naive biological determinism among the public. Indeed, it is the belief in the informative value of such tests that evokes the simplistic talk of a ‘gene for' a given human trait. In the case of finding the perfect mate, modern changes to contemporary lifestyles and social connectedness, as well as the difficulty of actually finding the right partner, mean that this simplistic view of the role of genes is driving would-be lovers to services that claim to offer science-based fixes.

But love is ambiguous, unpredictable and hardly respectful of laws

In addition to the potentially disenchanting effect of using science to prescribe romance, emotional compatibility and loving relationships, the increasing tendency to apply genetics to multiple areas of social interaction and behaviour raises more general issues about the growing encroachment of genetics and neuroscience into personal lives. The use of technologies that read whole genomes and profile brain activities in order to provide people with an assessment of their chances of finding love with a certain person might be a part of what sociologist Sir Anthony Giddens at the London School of Economics in the UK has called the ‘colonisation' of the future ( Giddens, 1991 ). Haunted by the inherent uncertainties of life, people are drawn to any service or person that promises to predict the future—from tarot cards to palm readers, and even to genetic tests. Perhaps it was therefore only a matter of time before biology became entangled in attempting to predict the budding of love and the outcome of relationships. But love is ambiguous, unpredictable and hardly respectful of laws. As the Roman poet Horace said to one of his lovers: “Don't ask (it's forbidden to know) what final fate the gods have given to me and you, Leuconoe, and don't play with Babylonian horoscopes.”

Aaron A, Fisher H, Mashek DJ, Strong G, Li H, Brown LL (2005) Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love . J Neurophysiol 94 : 327–337 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bartels A, Zeki S (2000) The neural basis of romantic love . Neuroreport 11 : 3829–3834 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bartels A, Zeki S (2004) The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love . Neuroimage 21 : 1155–1166 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Berglund H, Lindstrom P, Savic I (2006) Brain response to putative pheromones in lesbian women . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103 : 8269–8274 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Espinoza J (2009) Online dating sites flirt with record growth . Forbes [online] 6 Jan [ Google Scholar ]
Fisher H, Aaron A, Mashek D, Li H, Brown LL (2002) Defining the brain systems of lust, romantic attraction, and attachment . Arch Sex Behav 31 : 413–419 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age . Cambridge, UK: Polity [ Google Scholar ]
Illouz E (2007) Cold Intimacies. The Making of Emotional Capitalism . Cambridge, UK: Polity [ Google Scholar ]
Kosfeld M, Heinrichs M, Zak PJ, Fischbacher U, Fehr E (2005) Oxytocin increases trust in humans . Nature 435 : 673–676 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kronn D, Jansen V, Ostrer H (1998) Carrier screening for cystic fibrosis, Gaucher disease, and Tay–Sachs disease in the Ashkenazi Jewish population: the first 1,000 cases at New York University Medical Center, New York, NY . Arch Intern Med 158 : 777–781 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Meloy JR, Fisher H (2005) Some thoughts on the neurobiology of stalking . J Forensic Sci 50 : 1472–1480 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Savic I, Berglund H, Lindstrom P (2005) Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 : 7356–7361 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sherman L (2009) Best cities for singles 2009 . Forbes [online] 27 Jul [ Google Scholar ]
Wedekind C, Seebeck T, Bettens F, Paepke AJ (1995) MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans . Proc Biol Sci 260 : 245–249 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wilson G (1983) Finger-length as an index of assertiveness in women . Pers Individ Dif 4 : 111–112 [ Google Scholar ]
Zeki S (2007) The neurobiology of love . FEBS Lett 581 : 2575–2579 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zlotogora J (2009) Population programs for the detection of couples at risk for severe monogenic genetic disease . Hum Genet 126 : 247–253 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Articles on Dating

Displaying 1 - 20 of 112 articles.

Dating apps: Lack of regulation, oversight and competition affects quality, and millions stand to lose

Neil McArthur , University of Manitoba

Dating apps: how the order you view potential matches can affect which way you swipe

Robin Kramer , University of Lincoln

He’s the romantic lead but has never had sex: what The Bachelors has to say about virginity

Jodi McAlister , Deakin University

Are We Dating The Same Guy? Online groups toe the line between protecting women and defaming men

Treena Orchard , Western University and Erika Chamberlain , Western University

Why are some Chinese women still looking to the West for love?

Monica Liu , University of St. Thomas

How TikTok’s dating story time trend offers a glimpse into the sometimes weird world of modern romance

Lisa Portolan , Western Sydney University

The price of love: Why millennials and Gen Zs are running up major dating debt

Omar H. Fares , Toronto Metropolitan University and Seung Hwan (Mark) Lee , Toronto Metropolitan University

Is traditional heterosexual romance sexist?

Beatrice Alba , Deakin University

From being mildly late to sucking on people’s tears – what is a ‘beige flag’ on TikTok?

Think you might be dating a ‘vulnerable narcissist’? Look out for these red flags

Megan Willis , Australian Catholic University

The unbearable allure of cringe

Carly Drake , North Central College and Anuja Anil Pradhan , University of Southern Denmark

Black singles with college education embrace life without marriage

Kris Marsh , University of Maryland

Sex, love and companionship … with AI? Why human-machine relationships could go mainstream

Marco Dehnert , Arizona State University and Joris Van Ouytsel , Arizona State University

Moving in with your partner? Talking about these 3 things first can smooth the way, according to a couples therapist

Kristina S. Brown , Adler University

Stuck in a ‘talking stage’ or ‘situationship’? How young people can get more out of modern love

Raquel Peel , RMIT University

Chinese immigrants look to digital Chinatowns to find love online

Manlin Cai , University of British Columbia and Yue Qian , University of British Columbia

My favourite fictional character: Queenie, a young Black woman living and dating in London, is ‘complex, funny, broken, fun’

Melanie Saward , Queensland University of Technology

Christmas films: there might be some truth to stories about hometown romances, according to research

Viren Swami , Anglia Ruskin University

Powerful women heading up dating apps are framed as young and sexy

Treena Orchard , Western University and Riki Thompson , University of Washington

The Right Stuff: the new conservative dating app which has unsurprisingly, failed to attract women

Top contributors

Professor of Psychology, Monmouth University

PhD student, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

Professor of Social Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University

Associate Professor, School of Health Studies, Western University

British Academy postdoctoral fellow, University of Warwick

Associate Professor of Digital Rhetoric and Writing Studies, University of Washington

Professor in Social Psychology / Relationship Science, Deakin University

Senior Lecturer in Psychology of Relationships, University of South Wales

Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, Queensland University of Technology

Senior Lecturer in Writing, Literature and Culture, Deakin University

Professor of Media and Communication and Associate Investigator, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making + Society, Swinburne University of Technology

Associate Professor of Sociology, University of British Columbia

Associate Professor, Federation University Australia

Adjunct Senior Lecturer, University of Southern Queensland and Senior Lecturer, RMIT University

Senior Research Associate in Life Sciences, UCL

X (Twitter)
Unfollow topic Follow topic

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

3. public attitudes about today’s dating landscape.

More than half of women say dating has gotten harder in the last 10 years

It’s safe to say that cultural norms around sex and dating have loosened over the years . Still, some practices are considered taboo by many Americans. For example, while most adults say premarital sex is acceptable, only about one-third say the same about open relationships – that is, a committed relationship where both people agree that it is acceptable to date or have sex with other people.

And while options for how to break up with someone have expanded as people are connected through many different platforms, most still say breaking up in person is the way to go.

Almost half of the public says dating has gotten harder in the last 10 years

Nearly half of U.S. adults (47%) say dating is harder today for most people compared with 10 years ago, while a third say it is about the same and 19% say it’s easier today.

Women are much more likely than men to say dating has gotten harder (55% vs. 39%). Black women (62%) are more likely than Hispanic women (50%) to say dating has gotten harder, while 55% of White women say the same. Only 9% of Black women say dating has gotten easier in the last decade, compared with 14% of White women and 27% of Hispanic women.

Overall, 54% of Black, 48% of White and 42% of Hispanic adults say dating has gotten harder. Hispanics (31%) are about twice as likely as White (16%) or Black (14%) adults to say dating is now easier.

In every age group except for those 65 and older, more say dating is harder today than say it’s easier or the same as it was 10 years ago. Adults 65 and older are about as likely to say it’s gotten harder (43%) as they are to say it’s about the same as it was (40%). Adults younger than 50 are more likely than those who are older to say dating has gotten easier in the last 10 years: 27% of those ages 18 to 29 and 21% of those ages 30 to 49 say it has gotten easier, compared with 15% each of those 50 to 64 and 65 and older.

People who are in a committed relationship but not married or living with their partner (57%) or are currently on the dating market (54%) are more likely than their counterparts who are married or living with a partner (46%) or single but not looking for a relationship or dates (40%) to say dating is harder. Among singles who are on the dating market, those who are looking for a committed relationship only are more likely to say dating is harder now (62%) than those who are open to casual dates or only looking for casual dates (50%).

Increased physical and emotional risk is commonly cited as a reason dating has gotten harder; many say technology has made dating easier

Women are twice as likely as men to say dating is harder than 10 years ago because it’s riskier now

Women are twice as likely as men (26% vs. 13%) to say increased risk is a reason dating is harder now. They are also more likely than men to say that it’s harder now because dating has become more casual (11% vs. 6%). For their part, men are somewhat more likely to say technology is a reason (15% vs. 10%).

Older adults are more likely to see increased risk as a reason dating is harder now: 23% of those 65 and older and 30% of those 50 to 64 point to increased risk, compared with 16% of 30- to 49-year-olds and 13% of adults younger than 30.

There is no significant difference between those with online dating experience and those who have never used online dating when it comes to whether technology is a reason dating is harder now.

“A lot of people catfish people and pretend to be something they are not.” Woman, 38 years old, married

“…STDs [sexually transmitted diseases] are totally out of control here…” Man, 70, single

“Because there are a lot of crazy people out there and the internet allows that crazy to be masked longer than it used to be.” Woman, 33, married

“Apps encourage snap judgments so initial contact is often not even made.” Man, 53, single

“[Cellphones] and Facebook compete with quality time.” Man, 60, single

“Cultural norms have changed, harder to find people who want relationships and not just ‘hooking up.’” Woman, 20, living with partner

“If you are a Christian, too much is expected of you to do against your belief.” Woman, 88, single

“People are more independent now.” Woman, 75, married

“Romanticism is pretty much dead. We live in a culture where having feelings for someone is undesirable. To be vulnerable with someone is taboo.” Woman, 25, in a committed relationship

“Relationship, gender and sexuality roles have been upended and no one knows what they’re doing.” Man, 35, married

When it comes to why dating has gotten easier in the last 10 years, technology tops the list. Among the 19% of respondents who say dating is now easier, about four-in-ten (41%) say technology is a reason. This is followed by 29% who say it is easier to meet people now and 10% who say that changing societal expectations, morals and gender roles have made it easier to date.

Men and women who say dating has gotten easier give similar reasons for this. There are also no significant differences by age.

Technology is far more likely to be mentioned by those who say dating has gotten easier than by those who say it’s gotten harder. About two-thirds (66%) of those who say dating is now easier either point to technology in general or otherwise mention technology in their answer, compared with 31% of those who say dating is now harder.

“Because [of] online dating you can meet people without leaving your house.” Woman, 48 years old, in a committed relationship

“Because [there] are tons of dating websites and apps that are geared towards different [kinds] of people.” Man, 51, married

“10 years ago you actually had to go out and meet people; now you can find someone from the comfort of your own home.” Woman, 30, single

“Males and females tend to do more socializing in groups today than in the more distant past. This makes it easier to meet.” Man, 76, married

“Dating apps are now the norm. It seems like the answer to the ‘how did you two meet’ question is more often than not met with the name of a dating app.” Woman, 25, living with a partner

“For queer people it is easier to be open and find potential partners.” Woman, 26, living with a partner

“Parents are not as strict these days.” Woman, 69, single

“The ‘rules’ that used to apply are more relaxed now. It’s easier and more acceptable for women to initiate contact.” Woman, 58, single

“Lowered moral standards.” Man, 72, married

A plurality says online dating has had a neither positive nor negative effect on dating and relationships

When it comes to the impact online dating sites and apps have had on the broader landscape of dating and relationships these days, half of adults say it has been neither positive nor negative. The remainder of the public is divided: 22% say online dating has had a mostly positive impact while 26% say it has been mostly negative.

Those who have experience with online dating (29%) are more likely than those who don’t (21%) to say online dating has had a positive impact on dating and relationships overall, although minorities in both groups say this is the case. Similar shares of those who have online dated and those who haven’t say the impact has been negative.

Those who met their current partner online are much more likely than those who met their partner in some other way to say online dating’s impact has been positive (40% vs. 21%).

Most say it’s harder for men to know how to behave on dates in the era of the #MeToo movement

The public sees challenges for men dating in the era of #MeToo

Men and women see eye to eye on the impact the #MeToo movement has had on women, but men (69%) are more likely than women (61%) to say this increased focus on sexual harassment and assault has made it harder for men to know how to interact – though most in each group agree it has made it harder.

Across demographic groups, majorities say it’s harder for men to know how to act in the #MeToo era

Older adults are also more likely to say it is now harder for women to know how to behave with someone they’re on a date with, but men and women have roughly the same opinions across age groups.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say the recent focus on sexual harassment and assault has made it harder for both men (75% vs. 56%) and women (49% vs. 38%) to know how to act. Republican men are particularly likely to say it has become harder for men (81%, compared with 69% of Republican women). Among Democrats, men and women are equally likely to say this.

Older Democrats are more likely than younger Democrats to say it is harder for men to know how to act in the era of #MeToo (61% of Democrats ages 50 and older compared with 53% of Democratic adults younger than 50). However, there is no significant difference by age among Republicans about whether it has become harder for men.

Among single people, those who are currently on the dating market (64%) are more likely than singles who are not looking for a relationship or dates (56%) to say that it is harder for men to know how to act now.

Whether or not someone has experienced any kind of harassing behaviors from someone they dated or were on a date with (such as being pressured for sex or someone they were dating spreading rumors about their sexual history) does not appear to influence views on this topic. This is true among both men and women.

Most say premarital sex is acceptable behavior, while sex on a first date and open relationships are taboo for most people

A majority of the public says premarital sex is at least sometimes acceptable

Other sexual and dating practices are generally seen as more acceptable, at least in some circumstances. About half (49%) say it is at least sometimes acceptable for consenting adults to exchange sexually explicit images of themselves. Most say casual sex between consenting adults not in a committed relationship (62%) and sex between unmarried adults who are in a committed relationship (65%) can be acceptable. Still, about a quarter of the public sees casual sex (24%) or premarital sex (25%) as never acceptable.

Some 46% of 18- to 29-year-olds and 40% of 30- to 49-year-olds say open relationships are acceptable. By contrast, 22% of 50- to 64-year-olds and 17% of those 65 and older say the same.

While the differences are less dramatic, younger adults are also significantly more accepting of premarital sex and casual sex than their older counterparts. Still, majorities of all age groups say that premarital sex is acceptable.

While men and women see eye to eye on premarital sex, men are much more likely than women to find casual sex (70% vs. 55%) and exchanging explicit images of oneself (57% vs. 41%) acceptable always or sometimes. And while a minority of both men and women say open relationships are acceptable, men (35%) are more accepting than women (29%).

Adults with a college degree or more education are more likely than those with some college experience or less to see each of these items as acceptable. The same is true of Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party compared with Republicans and Republican leaners. In fact, Democrats are twice as likely to say open relationships are acceptable (42%, compared with 21% of Republicans).

Large gaps also exist between those who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual and those who identify as straight. LGB adults were the only demographic group studied in which a majority say that having an open relationship is always or sometimes acceptable (61%, compared with 29% of straight adults). A large majority also says that two consenting adults exchanging sexually explicit images of themselves is acceptable at least sometimes (74% of LGB adults vs. 47% of their straight counterparts). Majorities of both groups say that premarital and casual sex are acceptable, but LGB adults again are significantly more likely to say this.

When it comes to the acceptability of each of these dating norms, the differences between Democrats and Republicans and between LGB and straight adults remain even after controlling for demographic differences between the groups, such as age, race and religiosity.

Most say it’s usually necessary to ask for permission before kissing someone on a date

Respondents were also asked whether it was acceptable to kiss someone on a date without asking for permission first. Most (60%) say this is rarely or never acceptable (including 36% who say it is never acceptable), while 39% say it can be acceptable at least sometimes.

Men and women and people of all ages are about equally likely to say kissing without asking permission is never acceptable. Black adults (57%), however, are much more likely to say this is never acceptable, compared with 31% of White and 39% of Hispanic adults. Democrats and those with some college or less education are also more likely to think that kissing without asking permission is never acceptable.

Relatively few adults say having sex on a first date is acceptable

There is some disagreement about what sort of behavior is appropriate on a first date. While nearly all of the public thinks it’s acceptable at least sometimes to hug on a first date, there is some gray area when it comes to kissing, and relatively few say having sex is acceptable on a first date (regardless of whether they would do it themselves).

About four-in-ten adults say having sex on the first date is never acceptable

When it comes to sex on the first date, 30% say this is always or sometimes acceptable. Meanwhile 27% say it’s rarely acceptable and 42% say it is never acceptable.

Men are more likely than women to see each of these behaviors as acceptable on a first date, but the gender gap is especially wide when it comes to having sex. About four-in-ten men (39%) say having sex on a first date can be acceptable at least sometimes, compared with 21% of women.

Men much more likely than women to find sex on a first date acceptable

Democrats and Republicans mostly see eye to eye on whether hugging and kissing are acceptable on a first date, but Democrats (38%) are more likely than Republicans (21%) to say having sex is acceptable at least sometimes.

LGB adults are more likely than their straight counterparts to say kissing on a first date is acceptable, though large shares in each group say this (79% vs. 72%). And LGB adults much more likely than those who are straight to say the same about having sex (52% vs. 27%).

Breaking up with someone through technology, ‘ghosting’ are largely seen as unacceptable

Breaking up in person is largely seen as the only acceptable way to end a committed relationship

Nearly all U.S. adults (97%) say it is at least sometimes acceptable to break up in person with someone they are in a committed relationship with, including 88% who say this is always acceptable. By contrast, about half (51%) say it can be acceptable to break up through a phone call at least sometimes, with only 10% saying this is always acceptable. Much smaller shares say it is at least sometimes acceptable to break up through a text message (14%), email (14%) or a private message on a social media site (11%). In fact, majorities say each of those methods of ending a committed relationship are never acceptable.

Men are somewhat more likely than women to say ending a committed relationship over the phone can be acceptable (55% vs. 47%), but otherwise men and women mostly agree on these break-up norms.

Adults younger than 50 are more likely than those who are older to say it’s at least sometimes acceptable to break up through a phone call (57% vs. 43%), text message (16% vs. 11%) or social media private message (15% vs. 8%). There is no difference by age in whether it is acceptable to break up via email.

Most agree that breaking up in person is preferable even when it’s only a casual relationship

Few say breaking up online with a casual partner is acceptable

Again, the vast majority (97%) say it’s at least sometimes acceptable to break up in person. Breaking up with a casual partner over the phone is seen as somewhat more acceptable than ending a committed relationship over the phone (64% vs. 51%), but still only a small share say this is always acceptable.

About one-in-five adults say it is always or sometimes acceptable to break up with a casual partner by text message (22%), email (20%) or social media private message (20%).

The patterns of gender and age differences are largely the same for breaking up with a casual partner and ending a committed relationship.

Only about one-in-ten single-and-looking adults say they would ‘ghost’ someone they didn’t want to see again

Despite apocryphal warnings of “ ghosting ,” or suddenly stopping answering phone calls or messages without explanation, few people on the dating market say they would do this after a first date. Only 8% say they would do this, compared with 40% who say they would contact the person and let them know they didn’t want to go out again. About half (52%) say they wouldn’t proactively contact the person but would let them know they weren’t interested if the person tried to get in touch.

Single-and-looking men are split on whether they would contact the person after the first date and let them know (47%) or wait for the other person to contact them before letting them know (also 47%). Meanwhile, women on the dating market are much more likely to say they would only let the other person know if they got in touch first (59%) than say they would reach out to let the person know (30%).

Young singles on the dating market – those ages 18 to 29 – are more likely than their older counterparts to say they would take the direct approach by proactively contacting the person. About half in this age group (49%) say this, compared with 37% of daters ages 30 to 49 and 34% of those 50 and older.

Social Trends Monthly Newsletter

Sign up to to receive a monthly digest of the Center's latest research on the attitudes and behaviors of Americans in key realms of daily life

Report Materials

Table of contents, for valentine’s day, facts about marriage and dating in the u.s., dating at 50 and up: older americans’ experiences with online dating, about half of lesbian, gay and bisexual adults have used online dating, about half of never-married americans have used an online dating site or app, for valentine’s day, 5 facts about single americans, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Home / Essay Samples / Life / Online Dating / Online Dating And Its Impact On Modern Relationships

Online Dating And Its Impact On Modern Relationships

Category: Life
Topic: Impact , Online Dating , Relationship

Pages: 5 (2370 words)

Downloads: -->

How online dating changed dating and relationships?

Negative stigma around online dating, pros and cons of online dating, negatives/ cons.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Empathy Essays

Courage Essays

Inspiration Essays

Fear Essays

Hope Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->