Finding Love On The Internet

Chapter 5 Finding Love on the Internet Susan Sprecher Love is an intense and positive emotion that can be experienced for a variety of close others: a romantic partner or spouse, close friends, children, and parents, and many others. ˜e type of love that has been written about the mostŠby poets, novelists, journalists, philosophers, and social scientistsŠis the love experienced for a romantic partner. Social psychologists Reis and Aron (2008) have de˙ned love as fithe desire to enter, maintain, or expand a close, connected, and ongoing relationship with another person or other entityfl (80). Social scientists have devoted considerable e˝ort to developing typologies of love that distinguish among speci˙c types of love. Typologies have included Rubin™s (1970) distinction between liking and love, Ber -scheid and Walster™s (1974) distinction between companionate love and passionate love, Lee™s (1988) and Hendrick and Hendrick™s (1986) typology of six styles of love (eros, ludus, storge, mania, pragma, and agape), and Sternberg™s (1988) triangu - lar theory of love, which describes types of love based on the presence or absence of three components (passion, intimacy, commitment). In addition, the features people associate with love and the meaning they give to love have been studied; this has been referred to as the prototype approach to love (e.g., Fehr 1988; Fehr and Russell 1991). Most o˚en, people enter, maintain, and expand a close relationship (i.e., expe -rience love) through face-to-face interactions. Increasingly, however, there is Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved.60 The Psychology of Love another option for ˙nding love as well as for maintaining and enhancing love that already exists, and this is through the Internet. Although communication over the Internet can facilitate love, regardless of whether the relationship is new or been in existence for months or even years, most relationships that originate on the Internet, if they are to experience the full range of behaviors, cognitions, and emotions associated with love, need to exist in the real world. As noted by Boase and Wellman (2006), the fiinternet has not caused a widespread ˛ourishing of new relationships that are disembodied, existing only in the realm of an immersive online worldfl (716). Although ficybersex,fl with its associated feelings of passion - ate love, does occur online without the two people ever meeting in person (e.g., Ben-Ze™-ev 2004), this chapter will focus mostly on the type of love relationship that begins online and then migrates oˇineŠor at least has the potential to do so if it lasts long enough. ˜is chapter is divided into six sections. ˜e ˙rst section presents a description of the diverse ways in which love relationships begin on the Internet. Although fionline datingfl is an omnibus phrase used to refer to meeting a partner online, there are several distinct online settings in which interactions between two people can lead to a relationship. ˜e second section presents statistics on how common it is for people to meet their partners online. Although online-initiated relation - ships are still the minority of relationships, they are becoming more common. ˜e procedures used at the Internet dating sites for ˙nding partners is discussed in the third section. A distinction is made between the self-selection sites and the science-based matching sites. ˜e fourth section discusses how the formation of love on the Internet di˝ers from the formation of love in more traditional face-to- face settings. In the ˙˚h and sixth sections, respectively, this chapter discusses love relationships that exist only online and the dark side of ˙nding partners online. DIVER SE WAYS OF FINDING LO VE ON THE INTER NET Just as there are diverse ways and settings in which people meet partners in face- to-face settings (sometimes called the fireal worldfl), the Internet has diverse ven -ues in which people can meet partners. One major distinction is between meeting partners through fionline communitiesfl (also called fivirtual communitiesfl) and meeting partners through dating sites (Baker 1998; McKenna 2007, 2008). ˜e relationships that originate in online communities have been referred to as finatu - rally forming relationships,fl whereas relationships that originate through dating sites are referred to as fitargeted relationshipsfl (McKenna 2008). Relationships can also begin and be enhanced through online social network sites. Relationships that develop on Facebook and other social network sites have been referred to as finetworked relationshipsfl (McKenna 2008). Below, I discuss each type of online relationship formation in more detail. Today, people who use the Internet have many types of ficyberplacesfl that they can visit and that present opportunities to communicate or interact with others. Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved. Finding Love on the Internet 61˜ese include newsgroups, multi-user online games, support and interest groups, and even virtual worlds such as SIMS and Second Life, which allow interactions with others through avatars. People who enter particular online venues typically have at least some common interests, at a minimum the interests that attracted them to the site. ˜eir goals for visiting the site may also be similar and be related to the function of the particular online place: to acquire information, to obtain social support, to play a game, or to socialize. Although some of the visitors in online communities may be interested in ˙nding a romantic partner, this is o˚en not the primary goal. Although relationship formation may not be the primary goal in online com -munities, relationships can develop because of the pleasant and rewarding inter -actions that occur, the opportunity to express one™s true self to others, knowledge gained about the other, and rapport that can develop based on common inter -ests (Baker 2007; Bargh, McKenna, and Fitzsimons 2002; McKenna, Green, and Gleason 2002). Friendship is the most common type of relationship that develops, although some of the friendships can later evolve into romantic relationships (e.g., Parks and Floyd 1996). Of the relationships that begin through the Internet, those that begin at dat -ing or matching sites have received the greatest attention in the media. McKenna (2008) has referred to these as fitargeted relationships.fl As compared to roman - tic relationships that begin through online communities, romantic relationships that begin through Internet dating sites o˚en occur more rapidly, although they can also end just as rapidly. Single adults go to the Internet dating sites for the goal of ˙nding a partner. ˜ey can assume that the other members are also single and interested in ˙nding a partner, especially at the mainstream dating sites (e.g., eHarmony). Members of the dating sites tend to be strategic in how they present themselves in order to attract others (Whitty 2007; Whitty and Carr 2006). Another online venue for relationship initiation is the social network sites. Facebook, the most widely used (at the time this chapter is published) of these sites, began in 2004 with college students and then expanded to include high school students and adults. Facebook has the potential to allow people to form relationships through social proximity e˝ects, similar to the process that occurs in the fireal worldfl in which people are more likely to begin a relationship with others with whom they have one or more friends or acquaintances in common. Most active users of Facebook have many fifriends.fl It is easy, just a mere key - stroke, to add friends; furthermore, Facebook even o˝ers friend suggestions based on members having friends in common. Facebook also allows people to list their relationship status, making it possible, in an e˘cient way, to ˙nd others who are available in a larger social network and to advertise one™s own availability to others. In addition, people gain information about their Facebook friends through wall postings, which can refer, directly or indirectly, to activities, attitudes, and prefer -ences. Considerable social psychological research has shown that knowledge (or familiarity) leads to liking (Berscheid and Reis 1998); therefore, the information Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved.62 The Psychology of Love gained about others through Facebook may enhance one™s liking for these others to a greater degree than would be possible without this online information, unless, of course, the information gained emphasizes di˝erences (e.g., con˛icting political attitudes). Users of social networks state that communication through the service made them feel closer to others (Raacke and Bonds-Raacke 2008). HOW MANY R ELAT IONSHI PS BEGIN ONLIN E?˜e number of relationships that are initiated online is increasing, probably exponentially. Not long ago there were no relationships that developed online because there was not an online world, at least not for the general public. Data collected even a few years ago on the number of online-initiated relationships can be considered outdated. Even current statistics on the frequency of online rela - tionship initiation are likely to vary in accuracy depending on the quality and the type of sample (e.g., national/representative samples vs. convenience samples of Internet users) and the data source (industry statistics vs. science-based research statistics). In addition, some statistics on the frequency of online dating distin - guish among online venues (e.g., online communities vs. relationships developed at dating sites), whereas other statistics lump all venues into one category: fionline dating.fl With those caveats, I will summarize some of the data on frequency of online initiation. Early research that sampled small, targeted groups of Internet users who were members of particular online communities indicated that it was common for rela - tionships to develop from the online interactions. For example, Parks and Floyd (1996) randomly selected Internet newsgroups and then randomly selected peo - ple who had posted messages to these groups. Sixty-one percent of the partici - pants reported that they had formed a relationship with someone they had met for the ˙rst time through the Internet newsgroup. Most of the relationships were described as friendships (only 8% were de˙ned as romantic), and some of the rela - tionships had also evolved into face-to-face communication. In a follow-up study, Parks and Roberts (1998) surveyed a sample of individuals who had participated in multi-user games and discussions and found that 94 percent of the respondents reported that they formed a personal relationship with someone they met through the online venue; 26 percent of these relationships were described as romantic. McKenna, Green, and Gleason (2002) surveyed Internet newsgroup members who participated in online discussion groups and found that a majority of the users had formed friendships with other group members and approximately 20 percent had entered a romantic relationship with someone they had met through their online interactions. A two-year follow-up study of the sample indicated that the relation - ships remained relatively stable over time. Utz (2000), in a study of those involved in interactive role-playing online games, found that 77 percent reported forming online relationships and 25 percent reported those relationships to be romantic. Although the above studies were conducted several years ago, they suggest that it Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved. Finding Love on the Internet 63is common for people to form personal connections with those with whom they communicate in online communities, such as newsgroups and online games. Whereas the above studies focused on targeted samples (members of particular online communities), a few studies have been conducted with national samples for the purpose of determining what proportion of romantic relationships have begun on the Internet. ˜e ˙rst of such studies was conducted in 2005 by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, a nonpro˙t research center that studies the e˝ects of the Internet on Americans. ˜e center conducted a telephone interview with a national representative sample of 3,215 adults and reported the results in a study titled fiOnline Datingfl (Madden and Lenhart 2006). Most of the sample reported that they had met their marriage partner or another serious partner in fireal-worldfl settings, such as at work or school or through family and friends. Only 3 percent of the respondents reported meeting through the Internet. Of the single adults who were Internet users and seeking a romantic partner, however, 37 percent had gone to a dating website or other online venue to meet people. Fi˚een percent of the respondents knew of someone who was in a marriage or long-term relationship with someone he or she had met online, and 31 percent knew of someone who had experimented with Internet dating. More recently, a nationally representative sample of 4,002 adults (including 3,009 with a spouse or romantic partner and an oversampling of gay and lesbian adults) were surveyed about how they had met their partner. Rosenfeld (2010) presented data from the partnered adults in Wave 1 of this new data set, How Couples Meet and Stay Together Survey. Of the participants who had met their partner in the two years prior to the administration of the survey, approximately 30 percent had met on the Internet. ˜e Internet was the second most common way to meet a partner, only behind meeting through friends. ˜e percentage who met their partner on the Internet was higher for same-sex couples (61%) than for the opposite-sex couples (23%) in the sample. In addition, among the heterosex - ual participants who met their partner within ten years of the study, those in the middle-age group (ages thirty-˙ve to forty-four) were more likely than the young -est respondents (ages eighteen to twenty-four) to have met their partner online. Although Rosenfeld™s national study shows that online relationship initiation has increased in recent years, his data did not distinguish among particular online venues. Other estimates of the frequency of Internet dating and meeting a com - mitted partner online are based on polling conducted by research ˙rms funded by some of the major dating sites. ˜ese studies have focused speci˙cally on the frequency of meeting a partner at the Internet dating sites. For example, Harris Interactive, a marketing research ˙rm, conducted an online study in July/August 2009 with 7,994 respondents ages twenty to ˙˚y-four who had married between January 1, 2008, and June 20, 2009. 1 ˜ey concluded that 4.77 percent of all new marriages in the United States during this eighteen-month period resulted from eHarmony introductions, and that every day 542 eHarmony members married. ˜is rate of eHarmony marriages was nearly double of what it had been in 2007, Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved.64 The Psychology of Love when an earlier Harris Interactive study had been conducted. ˜e Chadwick Mar -tin Bailey research ˙rm (sponsored by Match.com) conducted recent surveys (2009Œ10) with multiple groups consisting of over eleven thousand adults in the United States and found that of those who had married in the past three years, 17 percent said that they had met at an online dating site. 2 ˜e study also concluded that 20 percent of new committed relationships are between people who have met online and that online dating is the third most common way to meet partners, behind fithrough work/schoolfl and fithrough friends/family members.fl Another conclusion of this research is that more couples met through Match.com than through any of the other Internet dating sites. Finding love online is not unique to the United States. Internet dating is occur -ring around the world. For example, recent estimates are that hundreds of millions of singles, worldwide, have gone to a dating website to seek a partner (Shtatfeld and Barak 2009). A cross-national online survey (Dutton et al. 2009), supported by eHarmony and conducted with three thousand couples in Britain, Australia, and Spain, found that of the married couples in the cross-cultural sample, 6 per -cent in Britain, 5 percent in Spain, and 9 percent in Australia had met online. In sum, extrapolating from studies conducted at di˝erent times over the past decade, it can be concluded that the number of singles going to dating websites and the number of relationships that originate online are increasing. It is possible that the societal shi˚ in online relationship formation has fully occurred and there will not be any further signi˙cant increases. On the other hand, some experts pre - dict that the Internet will continue to gain in importance as an intermediary for meeting romantic partners (e.g., Ben-Ze™ev 2004; Rosenfeld 2010). TH E PROC ESS OF FINDING A LO VE PART NER ONLIN EMost Internet dating sites are based on self-selection. Members browse pro˙les and then express interest in those whom they ˙nd attractive; this expression of attraction may or may not be reciprocated. ˜e ˙rst Internet matching site, Match. com (launched in 1995), is one of the most frequently used self-selection sites. At this site and other self-selection sites, members post pro˙les, which can include demographic information, personality descriptions, interests, and, typically, multi - ple photographs. Members use the sites™ search engines to narrow the pool to those within a particular geographical location and age group and, o˚en, those with spe - ci˙c interests. It is estimated that there are currently thousands of such Internet dat - ing sites. Some of the sites charge users a fee, but some are free, generating revenue through advertising. Match.com and other such sites are for the general population of singles, whereas other sites target special niches of the population, for example, particular age groups (e.g., SeniorPeopleMeet.com), religious groups (JDate.com, ChristianMingle.com), and sexual orientations (e.g., GaySinglesOnline.com). A smaller number of dating websites present a scienti˙c approach to match -ing and claim to be able to ˙nd ficompatiblefl matches for their users. ˜e ˙rst Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved. Finding Love on the Internet 65science-based matching service was eHarmony.com, launched in 2000. ˜is site, along with PerfectMatch.com (launched in 2002) and Chemistry.com (launched in 2005), distinguish themselves from the other sites by their scienti˙c approach to matching (e.g., Gottlieb 2006). Members complete lengthy questionnaires that assess their personality characteristics, interests, attitudes, and desires in a partner. ˜e dating sites (as announced on their websites and in media releases) state that their matching surveys are based on fiscience,fl including the existing social scien - ti˙c literature on close relationships. For example, Galen Buckwalter, who was the primary creator of the matching survey at eHarmony, stated that he reviewed the psychology literature fito identify the areas that might be relevant in predicting success in long-term relationshipsfl (Gottlieb 2006, 60). ˜e Duet Total Compat - ibility System at Perfect.match and the personality test at Chemistry.com are also described as based on scienti˙c literature (see Sprecher 2009). To actually create matches, the scienti˙c dating sites™ researchers and program -mers subject the survey data obtained from the members to fimatching algo - rithms.fl Matching algorithms, which are also claimed to be guided by scienti˙c principles, are translated into computer programs that can si˚ through the vol - umes of data collected from the members in order to match pairs. ˜e scienti˙c sites have not published their matching formulas or subjected them to peer review, but information on their websites and press releases suggests that the focus is mostly on creating compatible matches through principles of similarity, although complementarity (opposites attracting) is also referred to at PerfectMatch.com and Chemistry.com (for a discussion, see Sprecher, in press). However, because similarity (and complementarity) can be operationalized in a number of ways and for a number of variables (e.g., traits, personality, demographics, attitudes, inter -ests), it is di˘cult to know exactly what variables are weighed more than others in the matching process at the various Internet matching sites. Regardless of whether matches are obtained through a self-selection process (e.g., Match.com) or through scienti˙c matching (e.g., eHarmony), the sites typi - cally provide a multiple-stage procedure for initial communication to help poten - tial matches learn about each other in a nonthreatening way. ˜e communication features include pre-programmed icebreaker messages; a procedure for sharing fimust haves,fl fican™t stands,fl and responses to multiple-choice items; voice and video greetings; and anonymous instant messaging and e-mails. Factors such as physical attractiveness as displayed in photographs and similar interests are likely to in˛uence whether members choose to initiate or respond to communication with particular potential partners, but then once communication begins, other factors likely in˛uence the continuation of communication, including speed of response and writing ability (Baker 1998). If there is online attraction and rapport, based on the information gleaned through the pro˙le information and the initial online communication, the two may move their relationship oˇineŠa progres - sion that usually begins with phone calls and proceeds to a face-to-face meeting in a safe, public place. Many people experience an attraction online only to be Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved.66 The Psychology of Love disappointed when meeting their match in person. Many active seekers eventu -ally ˙nd a partner, but they o˚en meet several potential matches before becoming involved with one. FALL ING IN LO VE ONLIN E VER SUS IN THE REAL WO RL DAlthough meeting online has become increasingly common, most long-term relationships still originate in face-to-face interactions or through mixed-mode initiation processes (i.e., a partner is met in person, but get-acquainted communi - cation or information seeking also occurs online through sites such as Facebook). Scholars have written about how the process of becoming attracted and falling in love online may di˝er from the experience in face-to-face settings (Sprecher etˆal. 2008). Factors that can in˛uence attraction and falling in love include similarity in attitudes and values, physical proximity, physical attractiveness of the partner, the rewards of self-disclosure, and the amount of support family and friends give the relationship (Berscheid and Reis 1998). Each of these factors may a˝ect attraction and falling in love both over the Internet and in the real world, but they likely play out in di˝erent ways or at di˝erent points in time in the di˝erent ways of meeting. According to Merkle and Richardson (2000), the process of attraction in face- to-face romantic relationships is likely to involve ˙rst the in˛uence of spatial factors and physical attractiveness and then the discovery of similarity and the role of self-disclosure. In contrast, they note, Internet-initiated romantic relation - ships involve fian inverted developmental sequence,fl which ˙rst involves a high level of mutual and sometimes intense self-disclosure and an initial minimal role for physical attractiveness and proximity (see also Cooper and Sportolari 1997). Physical attractiveness will likely still play a role once two people meet in per -son, but as noted by Cooper and Sportolari (9), its impact may be less because it follows learning other information about each other. Cooper and Sportalari speculated that by the time two people meet, fithe felt intensity and meaning of any unappealing physical traits are then more likely to be mitigated by the over -all attraction that existsfl (9). On a related note, Ben-Ze™ev (2004, 161) discussed how the fiattractiveness halofl found in face-to-face interactions (whereby a per -son who is viewed to be physically attractive is assumed to have a number of other desirable traits) is replaced by a fipersonality halofl whereby a person who fiis perceived as having a speci˙c, positive personality trait is assumed to have other good characteristicsŠsometimes even those connected to external appear -ancefl (161). ˜erefore, people can be attracted, online, to others due to person - ality characteristics that would not be salient in get-acquainted interactions in face-to-face settings where physical appearance and other salient characteristics can serve as gating features (McKenna 2008). An interesting ˙nding from early work on face-to-face versus online initiation is that Internet users may come to personally know one another better and share Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved. Finding Love on the Internet 67intimate knowledge more quickly than persons who meet in person (Merkle and Richardson 2000; Wysocki 1998). In a survey of persons using the Internet for matchmaking, Wysocki found that people o˚en spend a great deal of time writing about themselves and asking questions of others. Such activity may constitute a type of social penetration (Altman and Taylor 1973), which o˚en leads to reward - ing interactions. Walther and Parks (2002) argued that not only does the intensity of self-disclosure lead to the development of closeness, but closeness is enhanced by the ability to present oneself carefully by editing messages and by the tendency to make idealistic attributes of the other. Once two people meet through a dating site and continue to be attracted to each other in face-to-face interactions, they must deal with two issues that are fre - quently the major factors that contribute to relationship formation in real-world settings. First, they must, in some cases, overcome geographical distance. O˚en, in their emphasis on matching on similarity, sites form matches between people who are at a greater distance than is typical for couples who meet in real-world settings. For example, studies conducted much before the Internet existed showed that engaged couples lived very close (within blocks) of each other (Bossard 1932), including at the time they began dating (Clarke 1952). ˜e geographical distance is a cost that the relationship must overcome. Second, people who meet partners over the Internet must integrate their new partner into their larger social network. Research indicates the important role of the social network for both relationship formation and relationship maintenance (for reviews, see Parks 2007; Sprecher etˆal. 2002). LO VE RELAT IONSHI PS EXC LUSI VEL Y ONLIN EAs noted earlier, this chapter is focused primarily on the online formation of the type of love relationship that migrates oˇine, into the real world, or at least has the potential to do so. Love relationships, however, can exist exclusively online. ˜is may occur, for example, because the pair is separated by a geograph - ical distance that cannot be overcome or because one or both people are married to others and want to remain married but also engage in an online dalliance. Ben-Ze™ev (2004) presented the testimonies (obtained from various online sites) of people who experience intense feelings of love based on online interaction with others they do not meet. He noted that fiin comparison to oˇine relation - ships, online relationships usually involve greater intimacy and emotional inten - sity, but less commitment. ˜is may lead to greater emotional satisfactionfl (198). Ben-Ze™ev discusses several factors that can lead to the online intimacy, includ - ing greater anonymity and reduced vulnerability, lack of figating featuresfl (such as unattractive physical appearance, shyness) that can normally be an obstacle to the development of a relationship, and greater ease in ˙nding similar others. ˜e tendency toward greater self-disclosure online can create intimacy and feel - ings of love. Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved.68 The Psychology of Love TH E DAR K SID E OF FALL ING IN LO VE ONLIN ERegardless of whether a love relationship begins online and then migrates oˇine or remains exclusively online, there can be a dark side to seeking love online (Sprecher 2010). Of course, one disadvantage is the disappointment that occurs to the unlucky seekers, those who spend a lot of time and money trying to ˙nd a partner online but then are not successful. If people spend considerable time seeking love online, they have less time to engage in real-world interactions that could also lead to the formation of intimate relationships. In addition, the fruitless search for a partner online can reduce the time available for interaction with fam - ily and friends, who are not only important sources of intimacy and social support but also can indirectly and directly facilitate meeting new partners (for reviews of the important roles of social networks, see Parks 2007; Schmeeckle and Sprecher 2004; Sprecher et al. 2002). ˜e sites™ advertisements and claims contribute to the users™ high hopes. Con -sumers have been cautioned (e.g., ˜ompson, Zimbardo, and Hutchinson 2005) about the overpromises from the Internet dating sites. For example, ˜ompson et al. (2005) compared the number of marriages that sites claimed to occur every day based on their matches with the available statistics on the number of paid subscribers, and concluded, fiWhen eHarmony recommends someone as a com - patible match, there is a 1 in 500 chance that you™ll marry this personfl (2) and fiOur research found that only 1 in 5 who subscribed to a site, met someone they dated for at least 2 monthsfl (8). Of course, it is di˘cult to obtain accurate data on the relationship success rates at the Internet dating sites, and, furthermore, even if long-term matches are not made for a particular user, the user may enjoy the pursuit and the process of becoming acquainted with many people whom one otherwise would not have the opportunity to meet. Another dark side of Internet dating sites, especially at the self-selection sites, is that they make the marketplace phenomenon of dating and mating particu - larly salient. For example, Ahuvia, Adelman, and Izberk-Bilgin (2009) stated that a criticism of Internet matching and other commercial avenues for matching is that they represent a fiMcDonaldizingfl of romance that is fisystematizing, rational - izing, and rendering into a calculative mate quest what is supposed to be a magi - cal processfl (239). Although at the point that online-initiated relationships move oˇine and develop into real-space intimate relationships there probably is not a di˝erence between online-initiated and oˇine-initiated relationships, the search - ing and selection process that occurs online prior to the formation of relationships has been described as a crass transaction, with each person possessing a market value and being reduced to commodities. People interviewed about the process have described it as being like shopping in a grocery store or candy store (Law - son and Leck 2006). Every seeker who is exploring, selecting, and rejecting the ficandy,fl however, is also keenly aware that they are also rejected by others because they do not meet others™ standards. ˜e salience of the exchange of economic Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved. Finding Love on the Internet 69and interpersonal assets may explain why online dating is viewed as less fun than oˇine dating and than going to a movie (e.g., Frost et al. 2008, Study 1). Another concern expressed about meeting partners through Internet dating sites is that people may not always be telling the truth about themselves. In fact, there is a public perception that there is a high level of deception online (e.g., Donn and Sherman 2002; Madden and Lenhart 2006). When online daters dis - cover that their date misrepresented themselves in their pro˙le information, dis - appointment is common (Ellison, Heino, and Gibbs 2006). Although extreme lies (such as about marital status or gender) for the goal of taking advantage of others can occur through online dating sites, they are unlikely among those serious about seeking mates at matching services. Instead, the more common type of misrepresentation at online dating services, such as through pro˙le information, is also typical of most forms of early-stage courtship (e.g., Rowatt, Cunningham, and Druen 1998). People self-present in a positive way, which can include embellishing their positive traits and feigning certain interests, in order to attract a desirable partner. Although online daters value honesty and want to be genuine (Albright 2007; Whitty and Gavin 2001), they strive to balance this goal of authenticity with the desire to present them - selves strategically in order to make a good impression on others (Whitty 2007). Survey data indicate that people report they seldom or never lie to dates to make them like them (Albright 2007), but interviews conducted with Internet daters indicate that a socially acceptable type of misrepresentation does occur that is not generally labeled as deception (Ellison et al. 2006). Based on their interviews, Ellison et al. concluded that some individuals create pro˙les based on a future, ideal self rather than an actual self. For example, some interviewees in the Ellison et al. study described themselves as less heavy than they actually were and then used this fiidealfl presentation of self as a way to lose weight prior to a face-to-face meeting. ˜e interviews conducted by Ellison et al. also revealed that another socially acceptable misrepresentation in pro˙le information occurred in order to over -come the limitations of the structure of search ˙lters and the closed-ended ques - tions linked to the search ˙lters. ˜e participants seemed very aware that their answers to certain questions (e.g., regarding age, income, or body type) could be used by others to ˙lter them out of a pool of matches. In some cases, users tried to circumvent the structure of the search ˙lters by providing an answer that would keep them ˙ltered in for those to whom they would be attracted. In particular, the participants discussed how it was common and socially acceptable to misrep - resent age in their pro˙les and/or to post a photograph taken years earlier. Some stated it was necessary to do so because they believed most others were doing it, and they would otherwise be at a disadvantage. A third type of misrepresentation identi˙ed by those interviewed by Ellison et al. was due to the limitations of self- knowledge. When people are asked to describe themselves on survey questions or to describe themselves on particular dimensions in a pro˙le, they sometimes do Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved.70 The Psychology of Love not have detailed self-knowledge on these particular issues but yet still provide information. In sum, there are disadvantages of ˙nding a partner online, including that the quest, despite investments of time and money, may not be successful; one can feel like a commodity; and others may not be what they say they are. However, these disadvantages can describe other ways of ˙nding partners as well. In addition, other ways of meeting partners have their own unique disadvantages. CONCLUSIONS Are Internet-initiated relationships any di˝erent from relationships formed in face-to-face settings? ˜is is an important question, and it has not yet been adequately addressed. As noted earlier, while there may be di˝erences initially in the developmental course of the attraction process based on the initiation context (online vs. real world), once relationships exist primarily in face-to-face interactions, di˝erences may no longer exist such as in experiences of love. ˜e one interesting exception to ponder is whether relationships formed through the scienti˙c-based Internet dating sites (e.g., eHarmony) are more compatible than those formed in other ways. Neil Clark Warren has stated that he founded eHar -mony in part because of his awareness that people don™t always choose partners wisely and that the choice of a partner is a large factor in determining marital suc - cess. 3 Some have claimed that there is a large-scale social experiment underway. As Gottlieb (2006) noted about the growing number of Internet dating sites that are using fisciencefl to match singles, fi˜eir e˝orts mark the early days of a social experiment of unprecedented proportions, involving millions of couples and pos - sibly extending over the course of generationsfl (59Œ60). Perhaps love is more likely and more intense when science helps with the matching process. Or perhaps not. It™s an empirical question that will be worth investigating in the future. NOTE S1. Harris Interactive, online study, July/August 2009, http://download.eharmony.com/ pdf/Harris-09-Executive-Summary.pdf/. 2. Chadwick Martin Bailey, surveys, 2009Œ10, http://cp.match.com/cppp/media/CMB_ Study.pdf/. 3. Neil Clark Warren, NationalReview.com, http://old.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/ warren200502140751.asp/. REFERE NC ESAhuvia, A., M. Adelman, and Izberk-Bilgin. 2009. Commercial channels for mate seeking. In Encyclopedia of human relationships , vol. 1, edited by H. Reis and S. Sprecher, 45Œ48. ˜ousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved. Finding Love on the Internet 71Albright, J. M. 2007. How do I love thee and thee and thee: Self-presentation, reception, and multiple relationships online. In Online matchmaking , edited by M. T. Whitty, A.ˆJ.ˆBaker, and J. A. Inman, 81Œ93. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Altman, I., and D. Taylor. 1973. Social penetration: ˜e development of interpersonal rela -tionships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Baker, A. 1998. Cyberspace couples ˙nding romance online then meeting for the ˙rst time in real life. CMC Magazine , July. http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1998/jul/ baker.html/. Baker, A. J. 2007. Expressing emotion in text: Email communication of online couples. In Online matchmaking , edited by M. T. Whitty, A. J. Baker, and J. A. Inman, 97Œ111. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Bargh, J. A., K. Y. A. McKenna, and G. M. Fitzsimons. 2002. Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the fitrue selffl on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues 58:33Œ48.Ben-Ze™-ev, A. 2004. Love online: Emotions on the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer -sity Press. Berscheid, E., and H. T. Reis. 1998. Attraction and close relationships. In ˜e handbook of social psychology, 4th ed., vol. 2, edited by D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, 193Œ281. New York: McGraw-Hill. Berscheid, E., and E. Walster. 1974. A little bit about love. In Foundations of interpersonal attraction , edited by T. L. Huston, 355Œ381. New York: Academic Press. Boase, J., and B. Wellman. 2006. Personal relationships: On and o˝ the Internet. In ˜e Cambridge handbook of personal relationships , edited by A. L. Vangelisti and D. Perl -man, 709Œ723. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bossard, J. H. S. 1932. Residential propinquity in marriage selection. American Journal of Sociology 38:219Œ224.Clarke, A. C. 1952. An examination of the operation of residential propinquity as a factor in mate selection. American Sociology Review 17:17Œ22.Cooper, A., and L. Sportolari. 1997. Romance in cyberspace: Understanding online attrac -tion. Journal of Sex Education and ˜erapy 22:7Œ14.Donn, J. E., and R. C. Sherman. 2002. Attitudes and practices regarding the formation of romantic relationships on the Internet. CyberPsychology & Behavior 5:107Œ123.Dutton, W. H., E. J. Helsper, M. T. Whitty, N. Li, J. G. Buckwalter, and E. Lee. 2009. ˜e role of the Internet in recon˙guring marriages: A cross-national study. Interpersona 3:3Œ18.Ellison, N., R. Heino, and J. Gibbs. 2006. Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Commu -nication 11:Article 2. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/Vol11/issue2/ellison.html/. Accessed June 14, 2009. Fehr, B. 1988. Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of Per -sonality and Social Psychology 55:557Œ579.Fehr, B., and J. A. Russell. 1991. ˜e concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60:425Œ438.Frost, J. H., Z. Chance, M. I. Norton, and D. Ariely. 2008. People are experience goods: Improving online dating with virtual dates. Journal of Interactive Marketing 22:51Œ62.Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved.72 The Psychology of Love Gottlieb, L. 2006. How do I love thee? Atlantic Monthly, March, 58Œ70. http://www.theatlantic .com/doc/200603/online-love/. Accessed June 14, 2009. Hendrick, C., and S. S. Hendrick. 1986. A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:392Œ402.Lawson, H. M., and K. Leck. 2006. Dynamics of internet dating. Social Science Computer Review 24:189Œ208.Lee, J. A. 1988. Love-styles. In ˜e psychology of love , edited by R. J. Sternberg and M.ˆL.ˆBarnes, 38Œ67. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Madden, M., and A. Lenhart. 2006. Online dating. Report for the Pew Internet & American Life Project. McKenna, K. Y. A. 2007. A progressive a˝air: Online dating to real world mating. In Online matchmaking , edited by M. T. Whitty, A. J. Baker, and J. A. Inman, 112Œ124. Hamp -shire, England: Palgrave Macmillan. McKenna, K. Y. A. 2008. MySpace or your place: Relationship initiation and development in the wire and wireless world. In Handbook of relationship initiation , edited by S.ˆSpre -cher, A. Wenzel, and J. Harvey, 235Œ248. New York: Psychology Press of Taylor & Francis. McKenna, K. Y. A., A. S. Green, and M. E. J. Gleason. 2002. Relationship formation on the Internet: What™s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues 58:9Œ31.Merkle, E. R., and R. A. Richardson. 2000. Digital dating and virtual relating: Conceptual -izing computer mediated romantic relationships. Family Relations 39:187Œ192.Parks, M. R. 2007. Personal relationships, personal networks. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Parks, M. R., and K. Floyd. 1996. Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication 46:80Œ97.Parks, M. R., and L. D. Roberts. 1998. fiMaking mOOsicfl: ˜e development of personal relationships online and a comparison to their o˝-line counterparts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 15:517Œ537.Raacke, J., and J. Bonds-Raacke. 2008. MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and grati -˙cations theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior 11:169Œ174.Reis, H. T., and A. Aron. 2008. Love: What is it, why does it matter, and how does it operate? Perspectives on Psychological Science 3:80Œ86.Rosenfeld, M. J. 2010. Meeting online: ˜e rise of the Internet as a social intermediary. Pre -sentation at the Population Association of America Meetings, Dallas, April. Rowatt, W. C., M. R. Cunningham, and P. B. Druen. 1998. Deception to get a date. Personal -ity and Social Psychology Bulletin 24:1228Œ1242.Rubin, Z. 1970. Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16:265Œ273.Schmeeckle, M., and S. Sprecher. 2004. Extended family and social networks. In Hand -book of family communication , edited by A. Vangelisti, 349Œ375. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Shtatfeld, R., and A. Barak. 2009. Factors related to initiating interpersonal contacts on Internet dating sites: A view from the social exchange theory. Interpersona: An Inter -national Journal on Personal Relationships 3:19Œ37.Sprecher, S. 2009. Relationship initiation and formation on the Internet. Marriage and Fam -ily Review 45:1Œ21.Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved. Finding Love on the Internet 73Sprecher, S. 2010. Internet matching services: ˜e good, the bad, and the ugly (disguised as attractive). In ˜e dark side of close relationships II , edited by W. R. Cupach and B.ˆH.ˆSpitzberg, 119Œ143. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Sprecher, S. In press. Relationship compatibility, compatible matches, and compatibility matching. Psychological Records Journal. Sprecher, S., D. Felmlee, T. L. Orbuch, and M. C. Willetts. 2002. Social networks and change in personal relationships. In Stability and Change in Relationships , edited by A. Van -gelisti, H. Reis, and M. A. Fitzpatrick, 257Œ284. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sprecher, S., P. Schwartz, J. Harvey, and E. Hat˙eld. 2008. ˜e businesso˛ove.com: Relation -ship initiation at Internet Matching Services. In Handbook of relationship initiation , edited by S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, and J. Harvey, 249Œ265. New York: Psychology Press of Taylor & Francis. Sternberg, R. J. 1988. Triangulating love. In ˜e psychology of love , edited by R. J. Sternberg and M. L. Barnes, 119Œ138. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ˜ompson, M., P. Zimbardo, and G. Hutchinson. 2005. Consumers are having second thoughts about online dating. Unpublished report, April 29. WeAttract.com, Dallas. Utz, S. 2000. Social information processing in MUDs: ˜e development of friendships in virtual worlds. Journal of Online Behavior 1.Walther, J. B., and M. R. Parks. 2002. Cues ˙ltered out, cues ˙ltered in: Computer-Mediated communication and relationships. In Handbook of interpersonal communication , 3rd ed., edited by M. L. Knapp and J. A. Daly, 529Œ563. ˜ousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Whitty, M. T. 2007. ˜e art of selling one™s fiselffl on an online dating site: ˜e BAR approach. In Online matchmaking , edited by M. T. Whitty, A. J. Baker, and J. A. Inman, 57Œ69. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Whitty, M. T., and A. N. Carr. 2006. Cyberspace romance: ˜e psychology of online relation -ships. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Whitty, M., and J. Gavin. 2001. Age/sex/location: Uncovering the social cues in the develop -ment of online relationships. CyberPsychology and Behavior 4:623Œ630.Wysocki, D. K. 1998. Let your ˙ngers do the talking. Sex on an adult chat-line. Sexualities 1:425Œ452.Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved.Paludi, MA 2012, The Psychology of Love, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Westport. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [26 March 2018].Created from uwsau on 2018-03-26 23:09:53.Copyright © 2012. ABC-CLIO, LLC. All rights reserved.