Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-09
Location and Modality Effects in Online Dating: Rich Modality Profile and Location-Based Information Cues Increase Social Presence,While Moderating the Impact of Uncertainty Reduction Strategy
This study investigates how different interface modality features of online dating sites, such as location awareness cues and modality of profiles, affect the sense of social presence of a prospective date. We also examined how various user behaviors aimed at reducing uncertainty about online interactions affect social presence perceptions and are affected by the user interface features. Male users felt a greater sense of social presence when exposed to both location and accessibility cues (geographical proximity) and a richer medium (video profiles). Viewing a richer medium significantly increased the sense of social presence among female participants whereas location-based information sharing features did not directly affect their social presence perception. Augmented social presence, as a mediator, contributed to users' greater intention to meet potential dating partners in a face-to-face setting and to buy paid memberships on online dating sites.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SmithA, DugganM.Online dating & relationships. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, Oct. 21, 2013.
2.
GibbsJL, EllisonNB, LaiCH. First comes love, then comes Google: an investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research, 2010; 38:70–100.
3.
EllisonN, HeinoR, GibbsJL. Managing impressions online: self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2006; 11:415–441.
4.
AntheunisML, ValkenburgPM, PeterJ. Getting acquainted through social network sites: testing a model of online uncertainty reduction and social attraction. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010; 26:100–109.
5.
AndersonTL, Emmers-SommerTM. Predictors of relationship satisfaction in online romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 2006; 57:153–172.
6.
GefenD, StraubDW. Consumer trust in B2C e-commerce and the importance of social presence: experiments in e-Products and e-Services. Omega, 2004; 32:407–424.
7.
HassaneinK, HeadM. Manipulating perceived social presence through the web interface and its impact on attitude towards online shopping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2007; 65:689–708.
8.
SunnafrankM.Predicted outcome value during initial interactions A reformulation of uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 1986; 13:3–33.
9.
ParksMR, AdelmanMB. Communication networks and the development of romantic relationships: an expansion of uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 1983; 10:55–79.
10.
TidwellLC, WaltherJB. Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 2002; 28:317–348.
11.
GibbsJL, EllisonNB, HeinoRD. Self-presentation in online personals: the role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 2006; 33:152–177.
12.
WaltherJB.Computer-mediated communication impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 1996; 23:3–43.
13.
LombardM, DittonT. At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1997; 3.
14.
LombardM, DittonTB, CraneD, et al. (2000) Measuring presence: a literature-based approach to the development of a standardized paper-and-pencil instrument. In Third international workshop on presence, Delft, Netherlands, Volume 240, pp. 2–4.
15.
NowakKL, BioccaF. The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users' sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ, 2003; 12:481–494.
16.
GoffmanE. (1963) Behavior in public places: notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
17.
BioccaF, HarmsC, BurgoonJK. Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence, 2003; 12:456–480.
18.
ScellatoS, MascoloC, MusolesiM, et al. (2010) Distance matters: geo-social metrics for online social networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Online Social Networks. Boston, MA: The Advanced Computing Systems Association. www.usenix.org/legacy/events/wosn10/tech/full_papers/Scellato.pdf (accessed September1, 2017).
19.
JinSAA.Modality effects in second life: the mediating role of social presence and the moderating role of product involvement. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2009; 12:717–721.
20.
JinSAA.The roles of modality richness and involvement in shopping behavior in 3D virtual stores. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 2009; 23:234–246.
21.
KimHS.What drives you to check in on Facebook? Motivations, privacy concerns, and mobile phone involvement for location-based information sharing. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 54:397–406.
22.
MathewsAJ, LuY, PattonMT, et al.College students' consumption, contribution, and risk awareness related to online mapping services and social media outlets: does geography and GIS knowledge matter?. GeoJournal, 2013; 78:627–639.
23.
HancockJT, TomaCL. Putting your best face forward: the accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication, 2009; 59:367–386.
24.
RamirezA, WangZ. When online meets offline: an expectancy violations theory perspective on modality switching. Journal of Communication, 2008; 58:20–39.
25.
HancockJT, TomaCL, EllisonN. (2007) The truth about lying in online dating profiles. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. San Jose, CA: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 449–452.
26.
TomaCL, HancockJT, EllisonNB. Separating fact from fiction: an examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2008; 34:1023–1036.
27.
FeingoldA.Gender differences in mate selection preferences: a test of the parental investment model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1992; 112:125–139.
28.
KockN. (2017) WarpPLS 6.0 User Manual. Laredo, TX: ScriptWarp Systems.
29.
NevittJ, HancockGR. Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Model, 2001; 8:353–377.
30.
Business Insider. Snapchat is releasing its most impressive use of augmented reality to date. www.businessinsider.com/snapchat-introduces-world-lenses-2017-4 (accessed May26, 2017).
31.
Forbes. Facebook F8 Day 1: Crushing Snapchat, new VR community, maybe serious about collaboration. www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoorhead/2017/04/19/facebook-f8-day-1-crushing-snapchat-new-vr-community-more-serious-with-productivity/#14cedc69e0f4 (accessed May26, 2017).
32.
KuoYF, WuCM, DengWJ. The relationships among service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services. Computers in Human Behavior, 2009; 25:887–896.
33.
SundarSS.Loyalty to computer terminals: is it anthropomorphism or consistency?. Behaviour & Information Technology, 2004; 23:107–118.
