The Internet & Society: How They’ve Changed the Way We Meet Romantic Partners

The Internet was originally a military and corporate tool (Adams & Clark, 2001 and Kristula, 2001) that now affects every level of society by changing social interaction and communication – including how people meet and start romantic relationships. We used to meet others based upon the proximity between two people, which made long-distance relationships rare. The Internet has changed the ways we approach, construct and talk about romantic relationships, and altered the ways that we resolve romantic conflicts. Meeting a possible romantic relationship partner online illustrates everydayness by having pros and cons similar to meeting someone “face-to-face” (Adams & Clark, 2001).

Rationale and Personal Interest

This is an important topic because it deals with the effects of technology on human relationships. The Internet has had a significant impact on the ways that people interact with each, with romantic relationships an important example. We used to meet people through opportunities such through the workplace, friends or church functions and utilized more traditional media via newspaper ads or videos from dating services. This developed an idea that being with someone face-to-face (f2f) or having a sense of proximity (through reading the same newspaper or visiting the same local dating service) was fairly common. The Internet has given us more ways to meet people through such tools as discussion boards, list-serves, chat (through chat rooms or instant messenger) and online dating services (Adams & Clark, 2001). Because we are no longer bound by geographic borders or time, we have access to increasingly large pools of potential partners as well as the type of association that may develop through different modes of interaction.

Romantic relationships that begin on the Internet require two people to express their personalities via a keyboard instead of stimulating each other with physical looks or tone of voice. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is based upon a different context than face-to-face interaction, which is established by unique cues and personality factors. As an example, response time, emoticons (typographical emotional symbols), photo sharing and netiquette (rules of proper online behavior) are used to show personality and emotions. The two primary forms of CMC are e-mail and typed-text chat. Users must understand the strengths and weaknesses of each medium in order to effectively get their messages across to partners.

E-mail is a powerful form of self-expression that requires identity, context and relationship boundaries to be revealed through asynchronous interaction that does not occur in real time. This creates a sense of knowing someone over time and “reflects the dynamics of the relationship.” (Suler. J, 2002). In contrast, typed-text chat is a real-time interaction that takes place between two or more participants through instant messengers or a chat room format. Since chatters communicate in a synchronous manner context is only formed by typed words with meaning shaped by the person’s imagination, personal experiences and fantasy. This can make some people feel quickly misunderstood or disoriented “in that screen of silently scrolling dialogue” (Suler. J, 2003).

Surfers can easily find numerous stories posted in journals and other personal web pages about wonderful and horrible relationships that were started online. This stands as proof that some common rules still control relationships, whether they begin in person or via email/chat rooms; some people will always be dishonest in how they present themselves. Perhaps it is better to consider meeting people online as an alternative instead of a substitute for face-to-face meetings – neither an inferior nor superior format. It is best to take some precautions as you would meeting any blind date.

I also chose this area to study because I have had both online and face-to-face encounters that turned into romantic relationships, and I am curious as to the forces that control and influence both types of interactions. From my viewpoint, it seems as though intimate connections can be formed faster online than in face-to-face meetings, perhaps because the number of opportunities for mindful communication increases online (as opposed to waiting for “the right moment” in person). Furthermore, opinions concerning attraction are more likely to be based on ideas expressed via e-mail rather than physical characteristics. I felt that I was able to understand the core values of acquaintances to go on a date with someone well-matched. In less intimate relationships, online communication has also allowed me to come into contact with a wider circle of like-minded people than I normally would in my daily offline encounters.

Research Methods

My first step was to review our text book and discussion notes to form a list of concepts related to meeting romantic partners online and how the Internet has affected this area of human relationships. I then searched for articles using the Expanded Academic Index database, but without much success. I therefore turned to a meta-search engine and a site-specific search engine.

Using Dogpile, I performed a search for the terms “internet and romantic relationships,” “romance and internet relationships,” and “internet relationships and society.” My hits included scholarly papers reporting on studies of individuals who had formed romantic relationships via the Internet. I also searched for the terms “internet and communication” and “internet communication studies” to locate articles on netiquette and how online communication tools can help or hinder the formation of Internet romantic relationships. I used a metacrawler search engine to find several site-specific search engines, including Nua Internet Surveys and the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.

Findings and Analysis

The Internet has given us new possibilities for starting romantic relationships online. As Merkes (2002) notes, one can now build “a relationship with a person whose physical reality [the participant has] never experienced.” In order to identify the primary changes that the Internet has influenced in this area, I established the following list of questions:

�How common are online romantic relationships?
�Who has online romantic relationships?
�What are online romantic relationships based on?
�How are online conflicts resolved?

How common are online romantic relationships?

Signs of the extent to which online romantic relationships are being established include the increasing numbers of online matchmaking sites and stories describing how love was found on the Internet (Baker, 1998). At least 130,000 single people have used LoveAOL in their search for partners; according to McDowell (2003), at least 1,200 marriages have occurred through this service.

Who has online romantic relationships?

Stereotypical images of who gets involved in online romantic relationships include lonely, dysfunctional, and shy people who never leave their homes yet crave outside attention (Parks & Floyd, 1996). Baker (1998) offered the following findings and description from her survey of couples who had met online:

�Most participants had or were finishing their BAs, MAs, or PhDs.
�Participants were not desperately looking for romantic relationships (16 of the 18 couples met as members of online communities).
�There was a wide age range, from 16 to 57.
�Most partners were of similar ages.

NamesAgesWhere MetDate MetDate Met IRLOutcomes
1Janice, Joe21, 31trivia game chat groupJan. ’96a few months latermarried
2Kate, Gary26, 57trivia game chat groupJune, ’96August ’96friends/still married to others
3Joanie, Sam21, 25occupational newsgroupJan. ’95July ’95engaged/then living
together
4Sandra, Keith23, 31gaming
MUDAug. ’94Feb. ’95married
5Minnie, Franklin32, 35friendship chatlineMarch ’97June ’97engaged/then split up
6Rachel, Brad19, 26chatlineSept. ’96a few months latermarried
7Allison, Mac24, 25gaming
MUDJan. ’92Jan ’96engaged not yet living together
8Shelly, Rich26, 27chatlineApril 21 ’96April 26 ’96Engaged / then living together
9Pansy, Ronald43, 36technical support forumApril / May ’94Sept. ’94living together /hope to marry eventually
10Jeanette, Andrew25, 25early Relay chatlineOct. ’91Aug. ’93married
11Tova, Josh30, 32local BBSAug. ’94Sept./Oct. ’94recently married
12Natasha, Bree46, 45through N’s website / articleNov. ’92a few weeks laterliving together
13Nina, Reggie19, 25″raunchy” chatlineJan. 20, ’97March 1, ’97living together
14Cassie, Mike42, 40community discussion groupDec. ’96Mar. ’97split up / still friends
15Lenore, Roy16, 22new age personalsFeb. 26, ’97June, ’97living together / plan to marry eventually
16Sally, Randy39, 29commercial chatlineJuly ’93Jan. ’94married
17Eve, Tommy43, 45ethnic chatlineJuly, ’96July, ’97engaged not yet living together
18Celia, Paul34, 36technical chatlineNov. ’96Feb. ’97married

What are online romantic relationships based on?

The evidence shows a broad range of responses to this question. In the absence of physical cues, CMC partners focus more on each other’s communication styles; Chenault (1998) believes that this involves a considerable amount of reading between the lines. Baker (1998) asked her survey respondents to describe what they liked about each other from the beginning of their relationships. Responses included a sense of humor, response time, interests, qualities that were described online, writing style, and commonalties-all of which are associated with communication style. Chenault (1998) has suggested that partners can “reveal more in writing than f2f” because of their sense of safety-that is, CMC participants feel more freedom to disclose their thoughts, feelings, and personal characteristics, which enhances the building of emotional bonds and trust.

How are online conflicts resolved?

Clarity is especially important for computer-mediated communication; readers have no visual or auditory clues to help them understand a writer’s comments, therefore the odds of misunderstandings occurring are very high (Munro, 2002). Munro offers the following tips for resolving conflicts online:

�Clarify what was read by reading a message at a later time and waiting to respond.
�Use emoticons to indicate actual emotions behind words.
�Discuss the situation with someone who knows you in order to arrive at an accurate perspective.
�Deliberately choose whether or not you want to respond.
�Assume that people mean well, unless they have a history or pattern of aggression.
�Clarify what was meant.
�Think about what you want to accomplish by your communication.
�Verbalize what you want to accomplish.
âÂ?¢Use “I” statements when sharing your feelings or thoughts.
�Choose your words carefully and thoughtfully, particularly when you are upset.
âÂ?¢Place yourself in the other person’s shoes.
�Start and end your post with positive, affirming, and valid statements.

Not being able to experience an individual’s character in person means that text exchanges must serve as the foundation of online romantic relationships. In other words, who we are is increasingly determined by what we type and the way we type it. We need to be careful when constructing text that is meant to show who we really are.
Back to Top

Implications

The most important implication of my research concerns the lack of physical contact in creating relationships. Clearly, online romantic relationships are established on typed text, and conflicts can result from the lack of physical and auditory cues. Individuals must take care in creating the text through which they show themselves to others.

Meeting potential partners online has changed us in the following ways:

�It has added to our social relationships by increasing our ability to meet new people without geographic or time limitations.
�It has helped us to develop positive communication skills that can extend to face-to-face encounters.
�It has the potential to allow us to build romantic relationships based on inner values instead of external features.
�It provides a larger pool of potential partners with common interests

This project has shown me that the Internet has more positive than negative uses, especially in the formation and continuation of relationships. My classmates continue to create discussion threads on how helpful CMC is in improving communication among family members. For the most part, they say that electronic communication allows them to maintain a close sense of connection despite geographic distance. Their comments are important for several reasons, perhaps the most important being that researchers need to spend more time considering the personal aspects of electronic communication. For example, Adams and Clark (2001) give a detailed review of the history and use of electronic communications and the evaluation methods used to explore these tools, but they do so from a communication studies point of view and not from a personal interaction angle-that is, as useful tools for bringing families together and establishing new romantic relationships.

Conclusion

Meeting potential romantic partners online is a viable alternative to meeting them face-to-face. The Internet provides a large pool of people with similar interests to choose from. Its inherent features can also help in the establishment of healthy romantic relationships based on emotional strengths instead of external looks. The process of establishing CMC-based relationships can also help in the development of positive communication skills that can be extended to face-to-face interactions.

In opening up new dimensions of human experience (Suler, 2002), the Internet is changing the ways in which we are meeting and forming relationships with each other. There are real risks associated with this mode of romance and matchmaking, yet they don’t seem to be any worse than those we face in the physical world.

Annotated Bibliography

Adams, T. L., & Clark, N. E. (2001). The Internet – Effective Online Communication. (1st ed.). Florida: Harcourt College Publishers.

Clark and Adams combine the theory and practice of Internet and communication studies. They highlight Internet history, communication media, communication contexts, online information gathering techniques, webpage construction, and laws that are shaping the Internet. The book has clear explanations, current examples, and a user-friendly style.

Baker, Andrea (1998, July). Cyberspace couples finding romance online then meeting for the first time in real life. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine. Retrieved October 10, 2003 from http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1998/jul/baker.html

Baker looks at the features and processes that are transforming online relationships into intimate f2f relationships. Much of her data comes from a survey of eighteen couples who met for the first time online sometime between 1993 and 1997. This study is noteworthy for its thoroughness and its descriptions of the transition between online meetings and offline connections.

Chenault, Brittney G. (1998, May). Developing personal and emotional relationships via computer-mediated communication. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine. Retrieved October 10, 2003 from http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1998/may/chenault.html

Chenault reviews previously published studies to analyze the presence of emotion in CMC-based personal relationships. She discusses her own experiences and presents her own definitions and assumptions in addition to presenting the views of others when showing that emotion does play a role in CMC personal relationships. Because it was written in 1998, some of the data is outdated, but her explorations of emotions, showing support, time signals, creating good online impressions, emoticons, and the dark side of Internet connections were very relevant to this project.

Kristula, Dave. (2001, August). The History of the Internet. Retrieved
October 10, 2003 from http://www.davesite.com/webstation/net-history.shtml

Kristula traces the development of the Internet from 1957, adding some detail to the information presented in our text. For that reason, the text was a much more “readable” presentation of this topic; in contrast, Kristula gives an enormous amount of information to digest.

McDowell, Sophia W. (2003). The development of online and offline romantic relationships: A turning point study. Retrieved October 10, 2003 from http://www.internetromance.org/thesis4.htm

In this thesis, McDowell studies differences between the experiences of romantic partners who met online and offline. Much of her data was not pertinent to my project because of her focus on stages that occur after the initial meeting, but the information on the skepticism that many people have when viewing online relationships was very helpful.

Merkes, Monika (2002, July). Online relationships – liars or friends?
PC Update. Retrieved October 10, 2003 from http://www.melbpc.org.au/pcupdate/2207/2207article4.htm

Merkes used three surveys to explore trust, patterns of lying, and the formation of online relationships. The surveys provide data from the perspectives of newsgroup, chat rooms, and general Internet users. I found the article to be simple in design and valuable in terms of survey data.

Munro, Kali (2002, May). Conflict in cyberspace: How to resolve conflict online. Retrieved October 10, 2003 from http://www.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/conflict.html

This article was written by a psychotherapist interested in examining why conflicts appear to be heightened online, and how they can be resolved. Munro’s rationalization of online projections and transference, and her tips for resolving conflicts served as a helpful background for presenting my findings.

Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(4). Retrieved October 10, 2003 from http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol1/issue4/vol1no4.html

This article has achieved a high level of recognition in the field of computer-mediated communication. It focuses on CMC history, discusses the frequency of personal relationships that are formed in Internet newsgroups, the types of people who tend to have online personal relationships, how such relationships develop, and common challenges in online relationships. The article is helpful in establishing a framework for additional research.

Suler, J. (2002, January). The Basic Psychological Features of Cyberspace.
The Psychology of Cyberspace. Retrieved October 10, 2003 from http://www.rider.edu/suler/psycyber/basicfeat.html

Suler investigates ten elements that are fundamental to the psychological makeup of cyberspace: reduced sensations, texting, identity flexibility, altered perceptions, equalized status, transcended space, temporal flexibility, social multiplicity, recordability and media disruption. A very clear and straightforward presentation of complex information.

Suler, J. (2003, June). E-mail Communication and Relationships.
The Psychology of Cyberspace. Retrieved October 10, 2003 from
http://www.rider.edu/suler/psycyber/emailrel.html

Suler explains online relationships in terms of what online communication entails-e.g., good writing skills, style, and knowledge of unwritten email composition rules. It is realistically written and the topics it covers are extensive.