Introduction
Over the years, little has changed the way romantic relationships are formed. Both scholars and the average dater agree it usually begins with physical attraction and perceived similarity, and progresses in a somewhat predictable manner from there. Typically, this progression has followed theoretical frameworks such as Knapp’s stages of relational development and Taylor’s (1968) social penetration theory. What these theorists might not have accounted for in the 1970’s (and what seems to be transforming the way young people pursue relationships) is the invention of the Smartphone.
Literature Review
One of the earliest perspectives on communication during romantic initiation is social penetration theory. Taylor's (1968) articulation of the theory posits that the pursuit of a relationship is based on the depth and breadth of conversation. Breadth refers to the quantity of information disclosed, as well as the range of topics and frequency of disclosures, while depth refers to how intimate and private the disclosed information is. If disclosure is reciprocated through initial conversation, the relationship usually progresses. From the perspective of social penetration theory, relationships develop from superficial, non-intimate areas to reveal deeper layers of self, based on the perceived cost/reward outcome (Taylor 1968). The degree of disclosure that happens usually depends on how intimate the relationships is to begin with. Whereas strangers typically start with descriptive questions to learn about one other, friends ask more evaluative, psychological questions. In this scheme, then, advancing in knowing a person involves a shift from discussion that involves describing to more engaged, evaluative discussion (Taylor 1968). In other words, the more two strangers learn about each other, the deeper the questions should get. Uncertainty reduction theory, on the other hand, conceives that the higher the level of uncertainty in a relationship, the more questions will be asked.
While regular online dating is still a pervasive method for finding a date, young adults are relying more and more on mobile phones to fill every need, including the intimate. In addition to researching face-to-face romantic initiation, it is important to examine past literature that explores communication through the use of technology. Little has been written about communication through Smartphone dating applications that match users by location. An article by Quiroz from 2013 examines the shift in dating via mobile phone applications. Performing a content analysis of GPS-based dating apps similar to Tinder, Quiroz summarizes that this shift is a product of our postmodern society, in which time, ease and proximity are elements expected of all current products. Quiroz' idea is that GPS dating has an enhanced effect on self-disclosure practices because the participants are already involved in local social ecosystems. These expectations, as well as a perceived entitlement to infinite options, create a niche for the instant-gratification generation to peruse, accept and reject potential dates at the touch of their screen. An article published in the Journal of Family Research in 2011 by Bergstrom explores the use of online dating websites in France. The study analyzes two different types of websites – those intended for serious relationships and ones intended for spontaneous flings. Results suggest online dating on non-serious sites allows both women and men (aged 20 and beyond) to engage in short-term sexual relationships without fear of stigmatization due to a peer audience. This factor is especially important for women who use these sites, as interviews reveal females are more concerned than males with avoiding the negative label associated with casual sex. The researchers here focused on the anonymous aspects of Tinder and their ability to influence and reinforce women's engagement in sexual transgressions. (Bergstrom 2011, p.333). An additional survey of serious dating site users reveals one third have experienced a short-term sexual relationship with a partner met online. Researchers conclude that online dating websites, whether serious or not, tend to facilitate short-term sexual relationships (Bergstrong 2011).
A study published in Computers in Human Behavior in 2008 by Rosen, Cheever, Cummings and Felt explains the differences between online and traditional dating. Traditional dating most often starts with physical attraction and being in close proximity. Two parties will find out their shared interests and begin a process of self-disclosure over time. This happens usually once a week but speeds up after familiarity is achieved. Dating usually begins once a week and may accelerate after a time of getting to know one another. In contrast, online dating usually begins with quick messages involving upfront self-disclosure about descriptive parts of their lives between two parties that are interested (Rosen, Cheever, Cummings & Felt, 2008). This self-disclosure leads to an increase in perceived intimacy, which leads to phone calls, then meeting live. These cues are regularly used when trying to decipher personality through internet communication. Results indicate emotionality and self-disclosure are the two most prevalent factors affecting a person’s perception of a potential partner.
A 2006 study by Ellison, Heino and Gibbs explores the strategies online dating participants use in order to attract potential dates. Research suggests that most users carefully scrutinize profiles based on cues given (pictures) and perceived (spelling, grammar, time spent online), and apply these techniques to their own online presentations as well. The study also reveals that many users share a common struggle of self-presenting their most exciting and attractive selves while maintaining authenticity and integrity with honest self-disclosure (Ellison, Heino & Gibbs 2006). Researchers mention that these favorable online presentations are not exclusive to the web, though. Two strangers meeting in a bar are just as likely to showcase their best, most favorable qualities if romantic interest is piqued.
Another study conducted by Ellison, Heino and Gibbs (2010) compares the online dating community to a “marketplace” where participants shop and sell. Using the marketplace metaphor, researchers split online dating action/interaction into five categories: assessing others’ market worth, determining one’s own market worth, shopping for the perfect parts, maximizing one's inventory and calibrating selectivity. While many participants embrace this metaphor, others explain their disenchantment is caused by the loss of excitement, lack of that magic face-to-face meeting, and the creation of expectations for more results with less effort. “Relationship compatibility involves magic
Overall, past literature suggests Tinder is a reflection of our postmodern society, where users crave the end result without the grunt work. Tinder provides fast-paced, instant-gratification seekers with plenty of options for intimacy, minus the threat of vulnerability. In face-to-face interactions, tone and nonverbal cues help determine whether or not to pursue a romantic interest. These dynamics are not available through Tinder, resulting in potential misinterpretation of intentions and similarity.
The research question of this paper asks to what extent does Tinder effect romantic initiation compared to typical face-to-face interactions, defined according to social penetration theory? Taylor's (1968) social penetration theory is one of the most widely studied processes of relational development. According to the theory, people have a natural tendency to predict the outcomes of their actions. If they foresee more reward than cost, they will pursue a relationship. The reward-cost relationship is predicted through cultural (language, shared values, beliefs and ideologies), sociological (group membership, roles and jobs), and psychological information (traits, feelings and attitudes). The more time a pair spends communicating, the more the conversation will move from cultural to psychological. This is also referred to as the depth (variety of topics) and breadth (intimacy of details) of conversation. SPT also includes stages: orientation, where impersonal information is disclosed through superficial communication, exploratory affective exchange, in which a deeper level of disclosure is achieved,
SPT concerns the range of interpersonal events that occur in growing relationships. These events include overt interpersonal behavior (i.e., verbal, nonverbal, and environmentally oriented) and subjective internal processes (e.g., like, dislike, and trust) (Taylor 1968). Although all interpersonal events are important, self-disclosure is the primary means for developing a relationship beyond a casual acquaintanceship (Taylor 1968). Self-disclosure is synonymous with open communication in relationships.
Social Penetration Theory rests on three interrelated premises: (1) relationships develop parallel to mutual self-disclosures; (2) over time and through successively deeper revelations, intimate knowledge of the parties in a relationship is revealed, and (3) over time, reciprocal self-disclosure builds trust and the people learn more and more about each other.
Over the course of relationships, self-disclosures reveal the personalities of parties in those relationships. At a basic level, personality consists of a breadth dimension and depth dimension. The breadth dimension refers to the major topical areas a person can disclose. The depth dimension refers to the intimacy level of topical areas. On this view, personality is analogous to an onion comprised of successive layers from the outer skin (surface) to the inner core (Taylor 1968). The depth dimension assumes peripheral layers (e.g., biographic characteristics), intermediate layers (e.g., attitudes, opinions), and central layers (e.g., fears, self-concept) (Taylor 1968). In growing interpersonal relationships, the depth of penetration increases over time, from more superficial to more intimate topics. Thus, the social penetration process moves from public and superficial characteristics to unique and private ones. The willingness to make the core-residence of the most threatening and socially unacceptable characteristics-known involves substantial trust between exchange partners (Taylor 1968). Self-disclosures increase trust by reducing the uncertainty surrounding exchange (i.e., self- disclosure allows an exchange partner to predict the likely reward or cost of future interactions with a discloser (Berger and Bradac 1982). Reciprocity of self-disclosure is the most consistently cited transformation agent of relationships.
Methodology
This study compares Tinder to face-to-face model theories through qualitative interviews with active Tinder users. This method allows the researcher to see the information from the point of view of the individual being interviewed in order to understand how they came to that perspective. Ten active Tinder users (five men and five women) were recruited using snowball sampling technique and interviewed face-to-face on the University of South Alabama campus. This technique provides an “escalating set of contacts” that is commonly associated with qualitative research. Interviews were structured and lasted approximately twenty-five minutes each. Active users are defined as those who use the app multiple times a week, regularly communicate with matches via Tinder’s messaging feature, and have met up with more than one match. Participants were asked questions regarding the communication that takes place after a match is made; specifically, the way romantic initiation differs on Tinder than in face-to-face situations. Interview questions are based on the theoretical frameworks of social penetration and relational development, detailed above. Responses are then categorized based on the emergence of communication patterns, and compared to the applicable theory. Names have been changed to preserve the anonymity of participants.
Results
My hypothesis considers the degree of self-disclosure in typical relationship formation on Tinder. Drawing from just under a dozen personal in-depth conversations about dating on Tinder I have had with close friends and friends of friends over the course of the past 3 years, I have acquired a sense of what goes on from the point I can observe it. Here, I shall draw from these narratives in my field research to discuss hypothetical results in a formal qualitative study setting. When couples first meet, but in particular through an online impersonal medium, if they are close in age and location, they simply comparmentalize the awkwardness and choose the direct approach. At the earliest stage of the relationship both males and femlaes are direct, but its usually the females who take advantage of hiding behind the technology as a way to be more direct than they normally would be. This was the narrative report I received from at least 3 females in their 20s when discussing dating on Tinder. Males stereotypically are expected to be direct, so this is well received. Typically, couples in this stage discuss interests and hobbies to try and find common ground (with the help of facial cues). This occurs on Tinder as well, but in a more direct manner, in lieu of body language. In fact, responses suggest directness is a common theme among male and female users, but in very different ways. Female participants report using the app to ask direct questions which might make men feel uncomfortable face to face. Women might be more upfront with the men with regards to asking them what they are seeking out of potential relationships. Tinder is very open ended and I have even seen marriages flourish from this medium, so while it has a general reputation of promoting a hook-up culture, the open-ended aspect is less alienating because of its integration with other social media accounts. Once a connection is made between two people, they have access to the other's entire social reality and personal network through Facebook. There is a digital sort of intense intimacy about seeing this much of a person's life before the first date that is different from the gradual knowing that comes from patient slow face to face meetings only in traditional modes.
With these caveats in mind, there remains a baseline connection between two people based strictly off of physical appearance. So how to proceed? The emotional intimacies that build over interaction and social penetration take a sharper, quicker bent. Part of this is strategic in order to move the relationship offline and actually begin a date, of course. But the connection itself stays within the realm of physical. My suggests men also use the technology to be direct, but with different intentions. James makes a sexual innuendo to see how she responds. If she makes one back or laughs it off, it’s probably going to go well. If she’s appalled by it, I can play it off as a joke.
Adam suggests asking one question that’s very up front. Depending on her response, I can gauge what she’s feeling without the facial cues. Though not all male participants take this direct approach; some perceive level of interest simply through frequency and types of conversation. Dan says he is texting and she messages him first, he keeps the conversation going, and asks open ended statements, I can tell she’s into me. He says Other nonverbal fillers include exclamation points and emoticons (used to convey excitement about the person), open-ended questions, asking for a phone number and texting often.
Discussion and Conclusions
We earlier hypothesized that Tinder generates fickle interpersonal connections leading to short-term encounters. Whereas social penetration and the stages of relational development promote gradual, organic connection based on intimacy of conversation and nonverbal cues, Tinder’s lack thereof hinders users’ ability to build long-lasting relationships.
Experiencing Tinder first hand, as an active user (messaging matches, going on dates, etc.), might reveal characteristics of the subculture that interviews have not. Overall, research suggests that Tinder’s success is representative of the growing trend of empowerment in today’s postmodern society. Even in more conservative regions, it appears young people are seeking some deviation from the norm. Whether the intent is a one night stand, a freestanding friend, or simply an ego boost, Tinder appeals to an instant-gratification center of the mind that is emblematic of the current generation (Quiroz, 2013). It is not necessarily harmful if users manage their expectations and are open to various outcomes. If used exclusively, though, this technology may lead to diminished face-to-face interpersonal skills (including the amorous). Texting, commenting and emailing may help people feel less vulnerable, but vulnerability is a vital part of the human experience. It softens us, makes us more humane and stronger in future relationships (Witt, 2014).
Bibliography
Bergstrom, M. (2011). Casual dating online: Sexual norms and practices on French heterosexual dating sites. Journal of Family Research, 23(3), 319-336
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.Genzuk, M. (2003). A synthesis of ethnography research
Hall, J. A., Carter, S., Cody, M. J., & Albright, J. M. (2010). Individual differences in the communication of romantic interest: Development of the flirting styles inventory. Communication Quarterly, 58(4), 365-393.
Jiang, C. L., Bazarova, N. N., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). From perception to behavior: Disclosure reciprocity and the intensification of intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 40(1), 125-143.
Taylor, D. A. (1968). The development of interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 75(1), 79-90.
Quiroz, P. A. (2013). From finding the perfect love online to satellite dating and ‘loving- the-one- you’re near’: A look at grindr, skout, plenty of fish, meet moi, zoosk and assisted serendipity. Humanity & Society, 37(2), 181-185.
Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A., Cummings, C., & Felt, J. (2008). The impact of emotionality and self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional dating. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2124-2157.
Samp, J., & Palevitz, C. (2008). Dating and romantic relationships: Taking tradition into the future with a computer. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association,
Witt, E. (2014, February). Love me tinder. GQ, Retrieved from http://www.gq.com/life/ relationships/201402/tinder-online-dating-sex-app?currentPage=1
