A Brief History
Throughout history the nature of romantic relationships and the rationale for being in them has shifted (Berlant & Warner, 1998; Fisher, 2015; Foucault, 1978; Livingston & Caumont, 2017). For thousands of years, lives of conformity in which people respected traditional gender roles were rewarded with acceptance and prosperity (Crane & Crane-Seeber, 2003). Sexuality and relationships were centered on procreation and marriages were often arranged by families (Berlant & Warner, 1998; Crane & Crane-Seeber, 2003; Foucault, 1978). In mainstream American culture where arranged marriages are no longer the norm, people have to find other individuals that they want to be romantically involved with (Walker, Hill, Flinn, & Ellsworth, 2011). How is it possible for people to do this when they may not meet their “perfect match” by chance?
Scholars in fields such as marketing, economics, and communication have used economic models to study relationship initiation as an analytic framework (Becker, 1973; Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs, 2006). Metaphors such as “meat market,” “dating market” and “marriage market” have all been used to explain mate selection behaviors (Becker, 1973; Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs, 2006). This is exemplified in the book, Labor of Love: The Invention of Dating. Mora Weigel (2016) provides historical evidence about why the “dating market” has been dying while insisting that love isn’t dead. Similarly in Modern Romance, Ansari and Klinenberg (2015) share their research on the evolution of tools used in the dating market.
Since the advent of the Internet, dating has transformed in America via new communications media (Ansari & Klinenberg, 2015; Fisher, 2015; Weigel, 2016; Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012). Traditional methods of searching for love such as proximity to home, school, workplace or bar is no longer the norm (Ansari & Klinenberg, 2015; Weigel, 2016). Computer mediated communication (CMC) is defined broadly for this research as communication that occurs on the computer or cell phone (Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs, 2006; Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984). The ways in which people communicate online are constantly evolving and using CMC can assist in the vulnerable process of finding a romantic partner (Elison, et al, 2006; Kiesler et al., 1984).
CMC is used in a plethora of spaces online, where millions of people turn to meet a potential match (Clemens & Krishnan, 2015). Online dating is the practice of using dating websites that are made specifically for users to meet each other -- with the end goal of finding a romantic or sexual partner (Finkel et al., 2012). With the exception of meeting through mutual friends, between 2007 and 2009, more people found romantic relationships online than other any other means. In 2015, one-third of marriages originated from online dating platforms (Zhang & Yasseri, 2016). Dating online has become the new normal in America (Ramirez, Fleuriet, & Cole, 2014).
When changing communication modality from online to offline, first dates can hold significant importance in the dating relationship trajectory (Sharabi & Caughlin, 2017; Ramirez et al., 2014). This may be a result of several factors. For example, it is important to consider what scholars call the Rational Choice Perspective (Mckenna, 2008). The rational choice perspective describes the way people often idealize the person that they have met online, based on a set of suitable characteristics (McKenna, 2008). Suitable characteristics are defined by the online dater who has created a list of important traits that their potential match should possess in order to be an appropriate partner for them (McKenna, 2008). Another important factor to consider is the Disillusionment Model. According to this model, people tend to perceive others in an overly positive light (Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith & George, 2001; Sharabi & Cauaghlin, 2017). These positive views are hard to sustain once people are exposed to each other’s real selves (Huston et al., 2001), which results in disillusionment.
A small body of research has begun to explore modality switching from online interactions to FtF communication (Ramirez & Wang, 2008; Ramirez & Zhang, 2007; Sharabi & Caughlin, 2017). However, little is known about what specific courting dynamics lead to success for online daters that developed long-term relationships as a result of MDAs (Sharabi, 2015).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of my phenomenological study is to explore communication and courting dynamics that manifest in a successful offline FtF first date that leads to a long-term relationship. This research focuses on the positive experiences that people have had when switching from online communication to FtF communication to form a long-term relationship. It is important to understand the beliefs that “successful” online daters have about what made their first date go well versus poorly so that single online daters looking for long-term relationships can use mobile dating applications (MDAs) to more effectively find a suitable match.
The proposed study has two research questions. Among individuals who have been living together and/or married for at least one year, and who met within the past five years using an MDA, with the goal of having a long-term relationship:
1. What was their lived experience of meeting online and then developing a relationship offline/FtF?
2. What factors affected their ability to develop a relationship successfully?
Abramova, O., Baumann, A., Krasnova, H., & Buxmann, P. (2016). Gender Differences in online dating: What do we know so far? A Systematic Literature Review. In 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3858-3867). IEEE.
Ansari, A., & Klinenberg, E. (2015). Modern Romance. New York, NY, USA: Penguin Randome House LLC.
Becker, G. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. The Journal of Political Economy, 81, 813–846
Chan, L. S. (2017). Who uses dating apps? Exploring the relationships among trust, sensation-seeking, smartphone use, and the intent to use dating apps based on the Integrative Model. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 246-258.
Crane, B. & Crane-Seeber, J. (2003). The four boxes of gendered sexuality: Good girl/ Bad girl and tough guy/sweet guy. Sexual lives: A reader on the theories and realties of human sexualities. New York, McGraw-Hill (2003): 196-217.
Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self‐presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415-441.
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3-66.
Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality: Volume 1. New York. Vintage.
Fry, R. (2010). The reversal of the college marriage gap. Pew Research. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/10/07/the-reversal-of-the-college-marriage-gap/
Heino, R. D., Ellison, N. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2010). Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(4), 427-447.
Livingston, G., & Caumont, A. (2017). 5 facts on love and marriage in America. Pew Research. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/13/5-facts-about-love-and-marriage/
Madden, M., & Raine, L. (2006). Romance in America. The state of romance in America. Pew Research. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2006/02/13/romance-in-america/
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,30(4), 987.
Ramirez, A., Fleuriet, C., & Cole, M. (2015). When online dating partners meet offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication between online daters. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 20(1), 99-114.
Ramirez, A., & Wang, Z. (2008). When online meets offline: An expectancy violations theory perspective on modality switching. Journal of Communication, 58(1), 20 39.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of Computer mediated communication. American psychologist, 39(10), 1123.
Ortega, J., & Hergovich, P. (2017). The strength of absent ties: Social integration via online dating. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.10478.
Ramirez Jr, A., & Zhang, S. (2007). When online meets offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication. Communication Monographs, 74(3), 287-310.
Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the Internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review , 77 (4), 523-547.
Sharabi, L.L., & Caughlin, J. P. (2017). What predicts first date success? A longitudinal study of modality switching in online dating. Personal Relationships.
Sharabi L. L., (2015). Modality switching in online dating: Identifying factors that make transition from an online to offline relationship more successful. University of Illinois at Ubrana- Champaign. Urbana, IL.
Walker, R. S., Hill, K. R., Flinn, M. V., & Ellsworth, R. M. (2011). Evolutionary history of hunter-gatherer marriage practices. PLoS One, 6(4), e19066.
Wang, W., & Parker, K. (2014). Record share of Americans have never married. As Values, economics and gender patterns change. Pew Research. Retrieved from
Weigel, M. (2016). Labor of love: The invention of dating. New York, NY, USA: Farrar, Strauss Giroux.
Zhang, J., & Yasseri, T. (2016). What happens after you both swipe right: A statistical description of mobile dating Communications. arXiv preprint