The Impact of Web 2.0 on Online Dating Communities

Abstract

This paper explores the changes in online technologies that have helped facilitate growing online communities and their subsequent effects on online dating. The advancements of Web 2.0 technologies have allowed Web users to easily and more efficiently participate and collaborate in online communities. Platforms such as social networking sites encourage users to share content and form connections with other users of similar interests (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). This has helped propel online dating as virtual communities provide a better suited romantic network for people of either isolated communities or of small romantic possibilities, such as those looking for specific qualities. Even though dating, whether online or offline, is one-to-one, the affordances of Web 2.0 and communities allow Web users to meet and communicate with a far greater romantic network than they would be by offline dating practices alone. This can be seen by the abundance of online dating sites that encourage the formation of weak ties within online communities to create a bigger dating pool, so that Web users can better find a romantic match. This includes growing niche dating sites such as JDate and Christian Mingle, operated by Spark Networks, which aim to bring together people of the same faith who are seeking long-term relationships. It encourages the formation of weak ties online as users are willing and wanting to meet people outside of their offline romantic network.

Keywords: Web 2.0, communities, online dating, network, weak ties

Impact of Web 2.0 & Communities on Online Dating

The impact of Web 2.0 on the growth of online dating communities is the opportunity to forego face-to-face communication and spacial proximity when it comes to looking for a romantic partner. Web users from all over the world and of different ethnicities, religions, and sexual orientations can meet a new network of romantic possibilities as a result of changing Web 2.0 technologies. Specifically, it has changed the way people can find information and communicate with other people of interest online. Prior to the facilitation of online dating, people would generally look within their community to find a partner but are now empowered as a result of the Internet to look beyond spacial proximity and face-to-face communication to do so. Instead, users can find suitable interest communities provided by leading online dating networks such as Spark Networks. Spark Networks provides users with niche dating sites to help create weak ties among other users as they encourage similar people to come together on the same site; such as popular JDate and Christian Mingle bringing together users of the same religion. Weak ties refer to the bridges made between strangers or friends-of-friends, and is the first stage of cultivating any friendship, and help online dating site’s such as JDate to excel by providing a common community for people to meet.

Affordances of Web 2.0 on Community

Web 2.0 can be characterised by technological advancements that facilitate a more “socially connected Web” where everyone is able to add to and edit the information space (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008); a result of standards produced from people working on Web 1.0 (Berners-Lee cited by Anderson, 2007). Users of the Web have moved from mostly content consumers to now content creators; where niche groups can exchange content of any kind to people from anywhere (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). Certain features that have come to be associated with ‘Web 2.0’ include participation, user as contributor, and richer user experiences, and should be seen as a consequence of a more fully implemented Web (Anderson, 2007). Sir Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the World Wide Web, believes Web 2.0 is what the Web was supposed to be all along; an interactive and collaborative global information workspace all about connecting people (cited by Anderson, 2007). The ability that Web users can create and share content to anyone is a result of a series of technologies such as blogs, wikis, and social networking sites, that enable greater user participation and collaboration. Cormode and Krishnamurthy believe the important site features of a Web 2.0 platform include first class entities and prominent profile pages; ability to form connections between users; ability to post content in many forms, such as photos, videos, and comments; and other more technical features, such as third-party enhancements, rich content types, and communication with other users (2008). These features allow Web users to greater organise content and communication online, and thus encourage users to interact with the Web as a result of the ease of access and use of online platforms. More importantly, the ability to control Web 2.0 technologies has encouraged the formation of online communities; where users of the same interest and of same social networks can participate and collaborate together, opening the door for endless possibilities of online communication.

Online communities, as defined by Tedjamulia et al., are a social network of users who share similar interests and practices and who communicate regularly over a common communication medium (as cited by Liu et al., 2014). The abilities for online communities are therefore endless as they allow anyone with access to a common communication medium to interact, and have been found useful for knowledge sharing, building relationships, sharing experiences, buying and selling, having fun, and creating new personalities, environments, or stories (Armstrong and Iii, as cited by Liu et al., 2014). The rise in social networking sites, however, has propelled online communities as a result of their collaborative nature. As defined by Boyd & Ellison, a social network site should allow individuals to: (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system (as cited by Porter, 2015). Thus the structure of social networking sites means mutual information sharing is central in creating online communities, as it provides connection, communication, and privacy management capabilities (Porter, 2015). Just by participating in the structure of social networking sites, Web users are automatically creating and engaging in an online community fuelled by users with similar interests. This can be seen with the rise of online communities, ranging from social, professional, interest, and dating communities.

Online dating communities, in particular, are a growing industry aimed at providing a communication channel for Web users all over the world, tailored specifically to users who are looking for a romantic partner, connection, or encounter (Quesnel, 2010). As a result of growing Web 2.0 technologies, social networking sites such as JDate and Christian Mingle have allowed Web users to better find a dating community suited to different dating needs. In particular, it has seen the rise in ‘interest communities’ where spacial proximity is not a necessary condition as it instead involves people with common interests communicating with each other (Averweg & Leaning, 2012). For example, Jewish people looking for a Jewish partner in a small community will benefit from using Jdate as it provides a central online community of varying Jewish singles looking for long-term relationships. Even though dating in these examples is one-to-one, community is an important element of online dating as it encourages similar people to come together in hopes of finding a romantic partner.

Impact of Web 2.0 & Communities on Online Dating

Ortega & Hergovich explain that dating in the past hundred years has been a result of ‘weak ties’ which serve as bridges between close friends and other clustered groups, allowing people to connect to the global community in several ways (2017). This phenomenon means that people were more likely to marry a friend-of-a-friend or someone they coincided with in the past, such as through work or educational institutions (Ortega & Hergovich, 2017). The way Web 2.0 and online communities have revolutionised dating is by connecting users “to meet and form relationships with perfect strangers, that is, people with whom they had no previous social tie” (Rosenfeld & Thomas, as cited in Ortega & Hergovich, 2017). The affordances of the Internet have brought people together from all over the world and of varying differences to better find a suited romantic network. Subsequently, people are no longer bound to geographical locations and community barriers as online dating serves as a bridge between strangers and users to meet people outside of said barriers. Online dating creates a larger dating pool for Web users as it brings people from outside their known social circle, creating connections with ‘strangers’ of similar interests in hopes of forming solid relationships. It also allows users to make weak ties with even more people and bridge over to even more communities as online dating creates a virtual community space, allowing users with a desire to connect to strengthen ties with other users (Ortega & Hergovich, 2017).

Why Interest Communities are Important for Online Dating

Above all, the importance of online communities is its ability for Web users to establish ties with people whom they would have of otherwise had no connection to. For online dating, its main attraction is to expand the romantic network for people seeking a romantic partner. Interest communities can help speed up the process by creating a central (virtual) location for people of similar orientations, ethnicities, and other qualities to easily meet online. Spark Networks does this by providing users with a portfolio of premium niche dating sites that all aim for singles seeking serious relationships (“Global Leader in Online Dating”, 2018). CEO of Spark Networks Adam Berger explains ‘niche dating’ as a tight-knit community, where “people instantly feel comfortable and know they’re among people who are just like themselves in many different ways” (as cited in Alfonsi & Thompson, 2010). By creating a narrower and shallower dating pool, niche dating sites connect people “by their beliefs, their backgrounds, and their passions” (Berger, as cited in Alfonsi & Thompson, 2010). By following Boyd & Ellison’s structure of a social network site, Web users would create a public or semi-public profile within niche dating sites in order to articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection (as cited by Porter, 2015). By creating a profile and answering a questionnaire Web users can easily identify with whom they already share similar qualities, such as Berger’s examples of beliefs, backgrounds, and passions. For example, users of Spark Network’s can create a public or semi-public profile, articulate a list of users with similar beliefs and passions, and view and create connections with suitable users. This new dating pool will be specifically tailored to each user and will subsequently increase their romantic network possibilities as it allows them to meet suitable people outside of their offline community.

Online Dating Today

CEO of Spark Networks Adam Berger believes by catering different dating sites to specific qualities of different individuals, people are more likely to feel comfortable with online dating as they are already in a community that they would want to associate themselves with. This can be seen by the success of Spark Network’s most popular niche dating site ‘JDate’ which is the “leading online community for Jewish singles and [is] responsible for more Jewish marriages than all other online dating sites combined” (“Global Leader in Online Dating”, 2018). This proves the argument that even though dating is one-on-one, online communities are a necessity and extremely influential in the online dating realm. Compared to finding a partner solely in face-to-face communities, people now have the luxury to find a better suited romantic network of people as a result of varying niche dating sites. For example, people in a small Jewish community can expand their network by using JDate to find more Jewish partners in other surrounding communities. This helps to cancel out all people the Web user is not interested in, much like in real life, as the aim of niche dating sites is to bring together similar people. Spark Network’s has other popular sites such as Christian Mingle, aimed for people who practice Christianity; Elite Singles, for educated and successful singles; and eDarling, for European users seeking long-term relationships, under their repertoire. By providing a bundle of different niche dating sites, Spark Networks increases the potential to meet the perfect partner by decreasing and specifying various dating pools. Instead of users jumping into a dating site of millions of people, they have the opportunity to find a better suited romantic network based on their own interests and qualities in a much more personal pool.

Conclusion

To conclude, the affordances of Web 2.0 allows Web users to greater organise content and communication online and encourages users to interact with the Web and with each other. Greater interaction is the result of growing interest communities and communication platforms where groups of similar people can come together online for a myriad of reasons, such as for educational, professional, and social purposes. The success of online dating in particular is the result of the increase in social networking sites, such as Spark Networks, which encourage similar people to communicate and create meaningful connections online. Interest communities and niche dating sites have helped propel online dating as they provide users with a more suitable and personal online dating pool, bringing together people of similar qualities and interests by creating public or semi-public profiles. Without the ease of Web 2.0’s platforms, people would look within their offline community and within their weak ties to find a romantic network but are now empowered as a result of online dating sites. Instead of looking just within a geographical community, users can find various online dating communities based on beliefs, backgrounds, and passions, and are able to meet people with whom they otherwise have no connection to — only increasing their romantic network.

Maletic_18822072_ConferencePaper

References

Alfonsi, S., & Thompson, V. (2010, June 18). As Dating Pool Shrinks, Love Matches Grow. abcNews. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Broadcast/spark-networks-niche-dating-web-site/story?id=10909280

Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Retrieved from http://21stcenturywalton.pbworks.com/f/What%20is%20Web%202.0.pdf

Averweg, U. R., & Leaning, M. (2012). Social media and the re-evaluation of the terms ’community, ’virtual community’ and ’virtual identity’ as concepts of analysis. i-Manager’s Journal on Information Technology, 1(4), 12. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1671518035?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 & Web 2.0. First Monday 13(6). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2125/1972

Liu, L., Wagner, C., & Chen, H. (2014). Determinants of Commitment in an Online Community: Assessing the Antecedents of Weak Ties and Their Impact. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 24(4), (pp. 271-296). Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1080/10919392.2014.956609

Ortega, J., & Hergovich, P. (2017). The Strength of Absent Ties: Social Integration via Online Dating. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.10478

Spark Networks SE. (2018). Global Leader in Online Dating. Retrieved from https://www.spark.net/about-us/company-overview/

Porter, C. E. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni & J. A. Kanowski (Eds) Communication and Technology (pp. 161-181). Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=AhxpCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quesnel, A. (2010). Online Dating Study: User Experiences of an Online Dating Community. Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse LLC, 2(11), 3. Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/323/online-dating-study-user-experiences-of-an-online-dating-community

Who is getting more sex? A comparison of generations dating online.

Abstract

This conference paper discusses the impact web 2.0 has on older adults 65 years and older Online dating platforms have created communities and a space for single individuals to find potential partners. After online dating became an accepted norm it encouraged users to utilize the platform to meet new people from all over the world. It has had an increasingly positive effect for single adults 65 years and older. As social circles shrink it becomes harder for older adults to meet new people therefore resulting in them turning to social media and online dating sites (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011). Web 2.0 has encouraged older people to go online to find relationships. Online dating sites allow older adults to find what they want in a relationship, which is commonly a low-arousal companionship however do hold sexual attraction highly (Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga 2015). There are different sites that cater to different wants, needs and ages groups for example tinder is commonly used by younger adults whereas sites like eHarmony and Plenty of fish are used by older adults.

 

Keywords: web 2.0, online communities, online dating, perceptions, older adults, generational differences.

Web 2.0 and the acceptance of online dating

Web 2.0 is most commonly known as the ‘upgrade’ from web 1.0 (O’Reilly, 2005). Web 2.0 is commonly associated with the concept of ‘user-generated content’ (O’Reilly, 2005). User-generated content is content created by users and published online. Users of the web are no longer just reading web content but creating and participating through commenting, reacting and through own opinion blogs (O’Reilly, 2005). Web 2.0 has evolved into a participatory community where users are creating and collaborating to generate content and engagement (Karpf, 2009). Web 2.0 introduced many new and improved features and opportunities such as google AdSense, Flickr, Bit torrent, Napster, blogging, Wikipedia, tagging, online dating and many more (O’Reilly, 2005). Marwick (2013) discusses how the online community allows you to connect and communicate to other users with similar interests, who you may not have met outside of the online environment.

Web 2.0 has bought many changes to today society and how we connect, communicate. One of the major changes was to the idea of dating (Thottam, 2018). The sophistication of the internet has drastically changed the dating game over the last 10 years (Godfrey, 2011). Godfrey (2011) states that the days when a guy could simply ask a girl out on a date face-to-face or through a simple phone call are long gone. Godfrey (2011) reinforces this point by suggesting that there are now ‘unlimited options for dating and numerous tools to gain access to one’s potential soulmate’. People take time to change and adapt, especially older generations who have been so used to a certain way of doing things for so long (Thottam, 2018). When the first modern newspaper was invented, people included ads to discreetly connect and communicate with new people in hopes of finding ‘love or sex’ (Thottam, 2018). With the introduction of the internet, connecting everyone together these personal ads became digital and internet dating services were created (Thottam, 2018).

Online dating can go back to 1965 when two Harvard students used a questionnaire and an IBM 1401 to match students based on their similarities, this is considering as the beginning of match making services (Thottam, 2018). 1995, before online dating sites launched the World Wide web was available to the public to explore and meet new people (Thottam, 2018). 2000’s was an exciting time in regards to the dating atmosphere. 2000 the now popular dating site eHarmony launched, users would require to fill out a questionnaire and match with other users (Thottam, 2018). 2003 video chat channel skype was introduced making long distant relationships and meeting new people online easier, it reduced the worry about user identities through the use of live video chats (Thottam, 2018). Facebook was launched in 2004, which is not however a dating site but did majorly impact how we connect and date using the internet (Thottam, 2018). Users can now instant message and display relationships online through Facebook. 2007 bought the smart phone giving people the opportunity to communicate on the go 24/7 (Thottam, 2018). Online dating sites have since then grown to include gay dating websites and sites for those looking for different types of relationships. For example, tinder is commonly known as the ‘hook up’ app whereas sites like eHarmony are thought of a more serious commitment site.

Web 2.0 and online communities

The growth of web 2.0 signifies the change in use of internet for relational purposes (Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D. 2007). Participatory culture online encourages users who share similar interests to come together and engage in a community. Aguiton and Cardon (2007) suggest that ‘web development always contains the community ideal’. It is said that ‘common sociability and a set of roles and defined exchanges modalities gives individuals the feeling that they are part of the community and share a common vision. Web 2.0 introduced users to many different communities, the biggest being known as the blogosphere. This community is full of those who write journal like content about their interests and express opinions, allowing other users to follow, comment and co-create (Dumova & Fiordo,2012). Other online communities include social media communities, online dating communities, the wiki community and many more.

Web 2.0 has become a safe space for users to come online and be who they want to be and find those who share similar interests. Considering most people are online from many points of the world it’s a great way to find and connect with people. The online dating community has become increasing popular way to date and meet new people. Users look to online dating sites and communities like e harmony for many different reasons but mainly to find potential partners and to meet new people. Online dating communities have eased the dating process of finding new people, dating sites allow those who identify as gay or lesbian to find potential partners and also who are the same age (Clemen, atkin, Krishnan, 2015). It is now not uncommon to find someone online (Chappetta & Barth, 2016). The online dating community brings together those with similar interests and same goals allowing users to connect and communicate with like-minded people.

There are many different online dating sites which cater to different users and their different needs. Younger generations usually go for sites like tinder or grinder and look for casual relationships. Whereas middle aged adults commonly look to eHarmony.com. match.com and many more, these sites match members according to similarities shared between the two (Chappetta, & Barth, 2016). Sites that match members by their similarities allow the couples to know their personalities and interests before meeting (Chappetta, & Barth, 2016). Older adults commonly use eHarmony.com or plenty of fish (POF.com) as their online dating platform as it is more popular within an age group of adults 65+. Online dating is used by a small, but growing section of the aging population, this is evident with the numerous advertisements for ‘50-plus dating sites’ such as OurTime.com and SeniorPeopleMeet.com (McWilliams & Barrett, 2014). Match.com (2010) finds that adults 50-plus are the fastest growing segment of users and are an ‘increasing segment of the single population’ (Cooney & Dunne, 2001, as cited in McWilliams & Barrett, 2014). Online dating sites have become the most common way for adults over 50 to meet their marital partners (Gonzaga, 2010 as cited in McWilliams & Barrett, 2014).

Online Dating and Older Generations

According to Chappetta, & Barth (2016), an online dating profile is generally a “public website that other users of the online dating website can access and find information about that user”. The type of information that these profiles consists includes age, gender, location, ethnicity, height and body type, education, career and many more (Chappetta, & Barth, 2016). Online dating profiles allow users to present themselves the way they want to drawing on ‘past, present and future selves’ to create desired image (Ellison, Hancock, Toma, 2012). Identity expression is influenced by the perception of the audience, and the online dating community expects certain information to be shared (Marwick, 2013). Online dating sites are good for those “seeking companionship, sexual partners, romance, freedom from commitment and ease of meeting new people” and the reason for using online dating services will vary with each individual and with different age groups (Clemens, Atkin, Krishnan, 2015).

Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga (2015) have found that overall users value ‘interpersonal communication more than sex’. Older users rated sexual attraction as slightly less important than younger users did, however they still highly valued the goal (Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga 2015). A survey showed that singles aged 40-69 believe that sexual fulfillment was an important goal for many dating older adults (Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga 2015). Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga (2015) state that because older adults prefer low-arousal (e.g., calm) rather than a high-arousal positive emotions older adults tend to have greater preference for companionship relative to sexual attraction.

Different age groups have different perceptions and experiences towards online dating. Age is a common variable to consider when looking into the pursuit of online romances (Stephure, Boon, MacKinnon, & Deveau, 2009). Younger individuals will find that using online dating sites as a norm and an extension of their online usage (Stephure, Boon, MacKinnon, & Deveau, 2009). However, with a greater number of older individuals becoming single, motivations to seek new partners’ increases, encouraging them to go online (Stephure, Boon, MacKinnon, & Deveau, 2009). Little attention and study goes into single dating older adults due to the idea of them ‘lacking interest in intimate, particularly sexual relationships’ however many older adults enjoy dating and desire companionship (McWilliams & Barrett, 2014).

Stereotypes of older adults aged 65+ as ‘socially withdrawn or asexual’ ignore that fact that social norms are constantly changing and ‘shifting cohort demographics, it is increasingly common for ‘single older adults to be involved in dating and romantic relationships’ (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011). Opportunities to develop close relationships often reduce as social networks shrink because of ‘retirement, relocation and the death of friends and loved ones’ (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011). Due to this increased social isolation older adults are increasingly turning to social media and online dating sites to enhance their social networks. Many unmarried older adults are seen to actively participate and enjoy online dating and desire companionship (McWilliams, Barrett, 2014).

Online Versus Offline Dating

Online dating has affected the way people date and find potential partners. Online dating is fundamentally different to offline date and it can promote better romantic outcomes than conventional offline dating. Intimacy is developed at a faster rate online through online dating sites and communicating online than in a face-to-face setting (Chappetta, & Barth, 2016).  The online setting allows users to find out interests and values quicker than in a face-to-face setting which is helpful for many users especially aging adults who may want to skip the slow ‘getting to know you’ period which many young and new relationships go through. many older adults, 65 and older are commonly widows and widowers are interested in dating turn to computers to enhance their chance of meeting someone (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011). Stephure, Boon, MacKinnon, & Deveau (2009) state that due to the dating challenges older adults face, internet and online dating site users increase with age.

Online awareness within older adults can be said to be a reaction to social isolation (Thompson, 2008). Social media platforms allow users to constantly update their status and their day-to-day routines for their followers of friends to see (O’Reilly, Milstein, 2011). This results in a feeling of being in touch and a ‘lightweight but meaningful connection’ commonly known as ‘ambient intimacy’ (O’Reilly, Milstein, 2011). Ambient intimacy becomes a way to ‘feel less alone’ and as a part of a community. This is very important for the older generation to feel connected and a part of a community.

Conclusion

Online dating has fostered a dating community within the older generation involving single adults 65 years and older. It provides the aging adults a space to find and connect with new people and gives them a chance they wouldn’t usually get in reality. This virtual space works to make the users feel accepted and safe as everyone using this platform is on there for the same reason. Older generations use different online dating sites than younger generations, this allows them to not feel judged by the younger users but also to refine their search for love to those similar to their age and who are at the same point in life. Older generations are often perceived as lacking in love life and online dating helps fight this stereotype. Online dating has ultimately stepped up the dating game and has encouraged communities to form and users to come together. Older generations are able to use online dating sites to enhance their social circle and meet potential partners. Studies show that users value interpersonal communication rather than sex however sexual attraction and satisfaction is still an important goal (Menkin, Robles, Wiley and Gonzaga 2015). Web 2.0 has influenced single older adults to join online dating sites as single adults are increasingly wanting to be involved in dating and romantic relationship (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn, 2011).

References:

Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1). Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1009070

Alterovitz, S. S. R., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (2011). Partner preferences across the life span: Online dating by older adults.

Chappetta, K. C., & Barth, J. M. (2016). How gender role stereotypes affect attraction in an online dating scenario. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 738-746. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.006

Clemens, C., Atkin, D., & Krishnan, A. (2015). The influence of biological and personality traits on gratifications obtained through online dating websites. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 120-129. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.058

Dumova, T. and Fiordo, R. (eds.), (2012). Blogging in the global society: Cultural, political and geographical aspects, Hershey: IGI Global (available via library database) http://www.igi-global.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/gateway/book/49568

Ellison, N. B., Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2012). Profile as promise: A framework for conceptualizing veracity in online dating self-presentations. New Media & Society, 14(1), 45-62. doi:10.1177/1461444811410395

Godfrey, R. (2011, Jun 23). Dating in the 21st century. Canadian Jewish NewsRetrieved from https://search-proquestcom.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/879079097?accountid=10382

Karpf, D. (2009). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, by Axel Bruns: New York: Peter Lang, 2008, 405 pages (Vol. 6, pp. 81-83): Taylor & Francis Group.

Marwick, A. E. (2013) Online Identity, in A Companion to New Media Dynamics (eds J. Hartley, J. Burgess and A. Bruns), Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. doi: 10.1002/9781118321607.ch23

McWilliams, S., & Barrett, A. E. (2014). Online Dating in Middle and Later Life:Gendered Expectations and Experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 35(3), 411-436. doi:10.1177/0192513×12468437

Menkin, J. A., Robles, T. F., Wiley, J. F., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2015). Online Dating Across the Life Span: Users’ Relationship Goals. Psychology and Aging. doi:10.1037/a0039722

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved from http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=1

O’Reilly, T., & Milstein, S. (2011). The twitter book. ” O’Reilly Media, Inc.”.

Stephure, R. J., Boon, S. D., MacKinnon, S. L., & Deveau, V. L. (2009). Internet Initiated Relationships: Associations between Age and Involvement in Online Dating. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(3), 658-681. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01457.x

Thottam, I. (2018). The history of online dating retrieved from https://www.eharmony.com/history-of-online-dating/

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Facebook’s Negative Impact on Romantic Relationships Through Encouraging Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance

PDF Version

 

Social Networking Site Facebook’s Negative Impact on Relationships Through Encouraging Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance

Abstract

This paper explores the negative impact that the social networking site (SNS) Facebook is having on romantic relationships through encouraging interpersonal electronic surveillance (IES) online. Examined throughout this paper is the heavy involvement that SNSs are playing in romantic relationships, whether it be building new relationships or maintaining pre-existing relationships. This paper discusses the contributions of jealous, anxious or attaching personality traits and how these can provoke relationship jealousy. This paper also discusses how jealousy within a relationship can lead to individuals conducting online surveillance of their romantic partner. The paper examines how relationships are being managed online and how SNSs are being used as a tool to maintain both online and offline relationships. It is also discussed in this paper the impact that IES can have post relationship and how individuals continue to monitor an ex-partners profile once they are no longer romantically involved with one another.

Keywords: social networking sites, social media, interpersonal electronic communication, dating, online dating, communities/networks.

 

Social Networking Site Facebook’s Negative Impact on Relationships Through Encouraging Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance

Social Networking Sites are becoming increasingly popular not only to create and develop new interpersonal relationships, but they are also commonly used to maintain existing relationships. SNSs have also presented a new platform for surveillance within romantic relationships. Tokunaga (2010, p. 705) argues that “SNSs have been reinvented into a tool for interpersonal surveillance along with their social networking capabilities”, this is an important theory to keep in mind when considering the growth of SNSs and the hierarchy that they play in romantic relationships and in online dating communities and networks. Whilst adults are still able to function without having their romantic partner right next to them, it is the emotional availability and support aspects that many expect from a romantic partner that remains a concern due to the increased use of social media and SNSs in romantic partnerships (Morey et al., 2013). This paper discusses how the online social media site Facebook has negatively impacted relationship trust by encouraging IES. The articles referenced throughout this paper will strengthen this argument by discussing how romantic relationships have been influenced by IES, what individual personalities are more likely to participate in the online surveillance of their partner and the effects that this surveillance is having on relationships and individuals even once the relationship has concluded.

Discussion

Online Relationships. Social networking sites, particularly Facebook, play an important role in the maintenance of existing online and offline romantic relationships. It has been discussed how “research has convincingly shown that SNSs are important in the emergence and maintenance of romantic relationships even though this may not be apparent from an individual’s perspective” (Neyer & Voigt, 2004, p. 282), which is an interesting point of discussion considering that majority of people use social media for reasons other than dating and romantic relationships and are becoming unaware that the emergence and maintenance of their romantic relationship, in fact, relies heavily on social media and SNSs. Social networking sites can make or break relationships; they give both a platform for individuals to find information about potential romantic partners such as hobbies and interests (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016), but also give the individuals the platform to obsess over and observe the online actions of others. Van Ouytsel et al. (2016) discuss in their article the popularity of initiating a relationship online through social networking platforms such as Facebook, with 47% of the 18-24-year-old age group surveyed admitting to using the internet and social networking sites for romantic advances. The growth and success of Facebook has created a solid platform for SNSs and its users around the world and over the years with “Facebook becoming the most successful single platform with more than one billion users worldwide” (Fox & Warber, 2014, p. 3) which shows just how dedicated users are to social media. By signing up to Facebook and creating a personal profile, romantic partners can send personal messages through the platform, can post directly to their partner’s profile publically, view photographs, investigate timeline history, and can even search through their partner’s online friends list (Fox & Warber, 2014). SNSs provide romantic partners with all they need to know about their loved one and provide users with the confidence to engage in new romantic relationships and maintain existing relationships through a social networking platform. However, there are numerous issues that can stem from individuals using Facebook as a means of communication and security within their romantic relationship.

Online Relationship Jealousy. Online social networking has been demonstrated to impact people’s romantic relationships in multiple ways. For example, “research documenting the negative impacts that social networking can have on romantic relationships by spurring jealousy, especially amongst individuals with anxious attachment styles” (Carpenter & Spottswood, 2013, p. 1531) illustrates the effects of social media and how it fuels jealousy in romantic relationships. Jealousy is a common feeling that is often experienced in romantic relationships and is especially prevalent in relationships between individuals who experience anxious or attaching personality traits. “With 950 million active Facebook members logging into their accounts daily” (LeFebvre et al., 2014, p. 79) there is no doubt that individuals are going to experience some uncertainty when it comes to their partner being active in online social networking environments such as Facebook. The frequent use of Facebook by an individual in a romantic relationship has had proven connections to some forms of jealousy (LeFebvre et al., 2014). The use of Facebook by relational partners has also been related back to Facebook-related jealousy which can be demonstrated through acts as simple as becoming jealous of a partner sending a friend request to the opposite sex (LeFebvre et al., 2014). Elphinston and Noller (as cited in LeFebvre et al., 2014, p. 80) argue that “determined cognitive jealousy and surveillance behaviours are linked to relationship dissatisfaction” this is a valid argument and puts forward the insinuation that online social networking use within romantic relationships influences the quality and outcome of the relationship.

It is the feeling of jealousy that seemingly drives those in romantic relationships to feel the need to dig further into their romantic partners’ social networking lives and online media profiles for more information on what they are doing, who they are engaging with and what they are engaging in online. This leads to uncertainty and trust issues within the relationship, “relational uncertainty stems from perceptions of ambiguity within the relationship, such as not knowing if the partner is serious about the relationship or if the relationship has a future” (Fox & Warber, 2014, p. 4). In other words, relational uncertainty in a relationship is often the cause for individuals in relationships to participate in jealous online behaviours such as IES. It is extremely normal for “the partner experiencing uncertainty to explore the content on their partner’s profile to determine what their partner is doing and who they are interacting with so that they can alleviate any uncertainty they may have about their partner and the relationship” (Fox & Warber, 2014, p.4) on the other hand, looking through a partner’s profile can also confirm any suspicions being had. Significantly, relationship surveillance through social networking sites such as Facebook is often seen as a tool of control and has also been referred to as the term Little Brother.

Little Brother is described as the occurrence in which individuals on the internet engage in surveillance through social networking sites to gain further awareness about the online behaviours and actions of others (Tokunaga, 2010). Today where online social networking is the norm, participation on social networking sites has become one of the most important ways to stay a fundamental part in a partner’s daily life (Tokunaga, 2010), which is considerably concerning. When we consider being in a romantic relationship or partnership with someone we do not presume that this means staying furthermore in touch with their social networking lives and profiles than reality itself and the physical and emotional sensations of a relationship. It is not uncommon for individuals to not realize that they are participating in IES as “surveillance can be as simple as an individual casually examining their romantic partner’s profile to gather the simplest information” (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 706). As this suggests, IES whether it is intentional or not can have a negative impact on a couple’s relationship.

Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance. Interpersonal electronic surveillance can impact romantic relationships in numerous ways. Le et al. (as cited by Sinclair et al., 2015, p. 78) state that in fact “analysis has shown that perceived social network approval is a consistent, negative predictor of relationship termination” which is an interesting argument and shows the impact that SNSs have on approval within romantic relationships online. Online social media profile analysis is otherwise known as IES, which is characterized as “surreptitious strategies individuals use over communication technologies to gain awareness of another user’s offline and/or online behaviours” (Tokunaga, 2010, p. 706). IES is an interesting concept and is very real in many romantic relationships where partners are regularly using social media platforms and SNSs to communicate with others outside of the relationship. The use of SNSs can provoke jealousy and surveillance which often leads to trust being broken within a romantic relationship, one individual may feel that their privacy has been invaded by their partner. Online social networking, in general, has affected the way in which we communicate with our romantic partners. Instead of face-to-face communication in relationships, couples are now turning to media and SNSs to communicate with their romantic partners; the internet specifically is changing relational communication, which is altering the quality of the communication within their relationship. IES, however, can develop further than just consistently observing a partner’s Facebook profile. Helsper and Whitty (as cited in Utz & Beukeboom, 2010, p. 514) report that “in about 30% of married couples at least one partner has at least once secretly read the e-mails of SMS text messages of the other partner” however, reading a partner’s emails or SMS messages is ultimately a breach of trust within a romantic relationship and is still a form of IES even though it is not conducted through social media or SNSs.

There are many different reasons for which individuals may feel the need to conduct surveillance of their partner in a romantic relationship. The first is suspicious jealousy, which can arise when a romantic partner may feel threatened by an external source whilst in a relationship (Tokunaga, 2010). The second is that individuals who have previously experienced a break of trust or infidelity with their romantic partner feel some uncertainty within their relationship and feel the need to observe their partners’ social networking profiles (Tokunaga, 2010). Interpersonal electronic surveillance can continue even after a relationship has ended with many individuals continuing to observe their ex-partner’s profiles.

Post-Relationship Surveillance. If it were not for online social networking and social media, after a break-up, many couples would have no option but to go their separate ways and would most likely not hear from or need to see their ex-partner again. But due to most individuals having online Facebook profiles along with other social networking profiles, it has become increasingly easier for people to stay in touch with one another.

It has also become increasingly easier for individuals to keep an eye on what their ex-partner is doing and who they are communicating with both online and offline. Furthermore, “when romantic relationships dissolve, people can retain access to an ex-partners status updates and pictures by remaining friends or through shared friends or information that is publically available” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) this is concerning when considering the lack of privacy and security that SNSs often don’t provide. With Facebook allowing the upload of status updates and pictures, other users still have a clear view of what is occurring in a person’s life events, even if they are no longer romantically connected (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). Interestingly, “almost a quarter of American adult social networking site users have admitted to searching online for information about someone they had dated in the past” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) which many would consider seemingly unnecessary and inappropriate considering the romantic relationship has already ended. It is compelling to consider that even once a romantic relationship has ended that individuals can still watch what their ex-partners are doing. Whether an individual chooses to observe their ex-partners Facebook profile depends entirely on the individual themselves and the circumstances in which the relationship ended. There are many relationships that end and with that communication and online friendship is also cut off, and whilst this is the case for some it is not uncommon for “individuals who did not terminate the relationship themselves to search for information about their ex-partner rather than those who have initiated the breakup themselves” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78).

Often, social networking usage after a breakup can turn nasty, unreasonable and sometimes obsessive. IES is not the only way that ex-partners can keep in contact through social networking post-breakup (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). Individuals can post on their personal profiles after a breakup to try and catch the attention of their ex-partner or someone who may be in contact with their ex-partner. There are three main ways that ex-partners can disturb each other through social networking; covert provocation, public harassment and venting (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). Covert provocation can be simple things such as posting song lyric or poetry lines within status updates in reference to their ex-partner (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). However, “these messages can be used to hurt the ex-partner or to communicate with the intention to get back together” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) which often ends up having a negative effect on both the ex-partner and the individual committing the act. Public harassment activities, on the other hand, are less frequent and can include things such as “changing one’s relationship status from “in a relationship” with the intent to make the ex-partner jealous or posting embarrassing pictures of the ex-partner to humiliate them” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) however, public harassment activities can also lead to a more damaging outcome. The third process of online social media disturbance is venting which includes “writing negative comments about the ex-partner and posting mean-spirited or hateful comments in a response to pictures of an ex-partner” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, p. 78) which is more commonly seen between young adults on social media today and majority of people have fallen victim to venting. Personality traits can also influence social media usage after breakups. Fox and Warber (2014, p. 2) discuss how “attachment styles influence reactions to breakups and that those with anxious attachment styles often have a longer recovery period and may continue to seek information about their partner after the breakup.” Fox and Warber (2014) conclude that their findings have proven that anxious attachment can cause further distress and frequent partner monitoring post-breakup. Overall, SNSs and IES can continue to impact a relationship even once it has concluded.

Conclusion

The popularity of social networking sites being used within relationships as a tool to both create new, and develop on, existing romantic relationships is becoming an increasing issue within social media platforms and SNSs which negatively impacts romantic relationships and breaks the trust between romantic partners. Social networking sites have also amplified the issue of surveillance within relationships particularly interpersonal electronic surveillance. The online social networking site Facebook has negatively impacted romantic relationships by encouraging interpersonal electronic surveillance. Surveillance within romantic relationships has been identified throughout this paper in relation to personality traits and jealousy issues being the leading causes when it comes to individuals observing their partner’s online profiles. Trust has also been identified as a contributor to interpersonal electronic surveillance. The impact that online surveillance has on relationships is negative and has affected the way that people may feel in a relationship or may treat their partner in a relationship. It was also discussed how surveillance of social networking profiles can continue even after the relationship has ended. There are many contributing factors into why individuals choose to observe their romantic partner’s social networking profiles but overall conducting surveillance of a partner’s Facebook profile is both an invasion of privacy and a violation of trust. Arguably, without the ability to survey a partner’s social networking profile, romantic relationships would work differently and would not be so negatively impacted by social media usage.

 

References

Carpenter, C., & Spottswood, E. (2013). Exploring romantic relationships on social networking sites using the self-expansion model. Computers In Human Behaviour29(4), 1531-1537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.021

Fox, J., & Warber, K. (2014). Social Networking Sites in Romantic Relationships: Attachment, Uncertainty, and Partner Surveillance on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, And Social Networking17(1), 3-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0667

LeFebvre, L., Blackburn, K., & Brody, N. (2014). Navigating romantic relationships on Facebook. Journal Of Social And Personal Relationships32(1), 78-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407514524848

Morey, J., Gentzler, A., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A., & Westerman, D. (2013). Young adults’ use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associations with attachment style. Computers In Human Behavior, 29(4), 1771-1778. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.019

Neyer, F., & Voigt, D. (2004). Personality and social network effects on romantic relationships: a dyadic approach. European Journal Of Personality18(4), 279-299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.519

Sinclair, H., Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Wright, B. (2015). Don’t Tell Me Who I Can’t Love. Social Psychology Quarterly78(1), 77-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0190272514565253

Tokunaga, R. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers In Human Behaviour27(2), 705-713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014

Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. (2011). The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication16(4), 511-527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01552.x

Van Ouytsel, J., Van Gool, E., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., & Peeters, E. (2016). Exploring the role of social networking sites within adolescent romantic relationships and dating experiences. Computers In Human Behaviour55, 76-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.042

Creative Commons License: CC BY-ND