This article explores how the efficiency of Internet search is changing the way Americans find romantic partners. We use a new data source, the How Couples Meet and Stay Together survey. Results show that for 60 years, family and grade school have been steadily declining in their influence over the dating market. In the past 15 years, the rise of the Internet has partly displaced not only family and school, but also neighborhood, friends, and the workplace as venues for meeting partners. The Internet increasingly allows Americans to meet and form relationships with perfect strangers, that is, people with whom they had no previous social tie. Individuals who face a thin market for potential partners, such as gays, lesbians, and middle-aged heterosexuals, are especially likely to meet partners online. One result of the increasing importance of the Internet in meeting partners is that adults with Internet access at home are substantially more likely to have partners, even after controlling for other factors. Partnership rate has increased during the Internet era (consistent with Internet efficiency of search) for same-sex couples, but the heterosexual partnership rate has been flat.
AdamicLada A.GlanceNatalie. 2005. “The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog.” Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Link Discovery pp. 36–43.
2.
AndersonChris. 2006. The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More. New York: Hyperion.
3.
BakerRegBlumbergStephen J.BrickJ. MichaelCouperMick P.CourtrightMelanieDennisJ. MichaelDillmanDonFrankelMartin R.GarlandPhilipGrovesRobert M.KennedyCourtneyKrosnickJonLavrakasPaul J.LeeSungheeLinkMichaelPiekarskiLindaRaoKumarThomasRandall K.ZahsDan. 2010. “Research Synthesis: AAPOR Report on Online Panels.” Public Opinion Quarterly74:711–81.
ChangLinchiatKrosnickJon A.2009. “National Surveys via RDD Telephone Interviewing versus the Internet: Comparing Sample Representativeness and Response Quality.” Public Opinion Quarterly73:661–74.
15.
ChaunceyGeorge. 1994. Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890–1940. New York: Basic Books.
16.
ClevelandWilliam S.1979. “Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots.” Journal of the American Statistical Association74:829–36.
17.
CorrellShelly. 1995. “The Ethnography of an Electronic Bar: The Lesbian Cafe.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography24:270–96.
18.
CouperMick P.2000. “Web Surveys: A Review of Issues and Approaches.” Public Opinion Quarterly64:464–94.
19.
D’EmilioJohn. 1998. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940–1970, 2nd ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
DiMaggioPaulHargittaiEszterNeumanW. RussellRobinsonJohn P.2001. “Social Implications of the Internet.” Annual Review of Sociology27:307–336.
21.
EnglandPaulaMcClintockElizabeth Aura. 2009. “The Gendered Double Standard of Aging in U.S. Marriage Markets.” Population and Development Review35:797–816.
22.
FischerClaude S.1985. “Studying Technology and Social Life.” Pp. 284–300 in High Technology, Space, and Society, edited by CastellsM.FischerBeverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
23.
FischerClaude S.1994. America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University of California Press.
24.
FountainChristine. 2005. “Finding a Job in the Internet Age.” Social Forces83:1235–62.
25.
FrickerScottGalesicMirtaTourangeauRogerYanTing. 2005. “An Experimental Comparison of Web and Telephone Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly69:370–92.
26.
FriedmanThomas L.2005. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
27.
GaleDavidShapleyLloyd S.1962. “College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage.” American Mathematical Monthly69:9–15.
28.
GatesGary J.2009. “Same-Sex Spouses and Unmarried Partners in the American Community Survey, 2008.” Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute.
29.
GatesGary J.OstJason. 2004. The Gay and Lesbian Atlas. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
30.
GranovetterMark S.1974. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
HargittaiEszter. 2008. “Whose Space? Difference Among Users and Non-Users of Social Network Sites.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13:276–97.
HitchGünter J.HortaçsuAliArielyDan. 2010. “Matching and Sorting in Online Dating.” American Economic Review100:130–63.
34.
KalmijnMatthijsFlapHenk. 2001. “Assortative Meeting and Mating: Unintended Consequences of Organized Settings for Partner Choices.” Social Forces79:1289–1312.
35.
KatzJames E.1997. “The Social Side of Information Networking.” Society34:9–12.
36.
KatzJames E.RiceRonald E.2002. Social Consequences of Internet Use. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
KendallLori. 2002. Hanging Out in the Virtual Pub: Masculinities and Relationships Online. Berkeley: University of California Press.
38.
KennedyElizabeth LapovskyDavisMadeline D.1993. Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold: The History of a Lesbian Community. New York: Routledge.
39.
KennedyRuby Jo Reeves. 1943. “Premarital Residential Propinquity and Ethnic Endogamy.” American Journal of Sociology48:580–84.
40.
KrautRobertKieslerSaraBonevaBonkaCummingsJonathonHelgesonVickiCrawfordAnne. 2002. “Internet Paradox Revisited.” Journal of Social Issues58:49–74.
41.
KrautRobertPattersonMichaelLundmarkVickiKieslerSaraMukopadhyayTridasScherlisWilliam. 1998. “Internet Paradox: A Social Technology That Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-Being?” American Psychologist53:1017–1031.
42.
KuhnPeterSkuterudMikal. 2004. “Internet Job Search and Unemployment Durations.” American Economic Review94:218–32.
43.
LaumannEdward O.GagnonJohn H.MichaelRobert T.MichaelsStuart. 1994. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44.
LeverJanetGrovChristianRoyceTracyGillespieBrian Joseph. 2008. “Searching for Love in all the ‘Write’ Places: Exploring Internet Personals Use by Sexual Orientation, Gender, and Age.” International Journal of Sexual Health20:233–46.
45.
LightJennifer S.2006. “Facsimile: A Forgotten ‘New Medium’ from the 20th Century.” New Media & Society8:355–78.
46.
LyndRobert StaughtonLyndHelen Merrell. 1929. Middletown, a Study in Contemporary American Culture. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
47.
MaddenMaryLenhartAmanda. 2006. “Online Dating: Americans Who Are Seeking Romance Use the Internet to Help Them in their Search, but there is still Widespread Public Concern about the Safety of Online Dating.” Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
48.
NieNormanHillygusD. Sunshine. 2002. “The Impact of Internet Use on Sociability: Time-Diary Findings.” IT & Society1:1–20.
49.
ParksMalcolm R.RobertsLynne D.1998. “‘Making Moosic’: The Development of Personal Relationships On Line and a Comparison to their Off-Line Counterparts.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships15:517–37.
50.
PutnamRobert D.2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
51.
QianZhenchaoLichterDaniel T.2007. “Social Boundaries and Marital Assimilation: Interpreting Trends in Racial and Ethnic Intermarriage.” American Sociological Review72:68–94.
52.
RobnettBelindaFelicianoCynthia. 2011. “Patterns of Racial-Ethnic Exclusion by Internet Daters.” Social Forces89:807–828.
53.
RosenfeldMichael J.2007. The Age of Independence: Interracial Unions, Same-Sex Unions, and the Changing American Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
RosenfeldMichael J.2008. “Racial, Educational, and Religious Endogamy in Comparative Historical Perspective.” Social Forces87:1–32.
55.
RosenfeldMichael J.ThomasReuben J.2010. “How Couples Meet and Stay Together, Wave 2 version 2.04.” Machine Readable Data File. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries (http://data.stanford.edu/hcmst).
56.
RugglesStevenAlexanderJ. TrentGenadekKatieGoekenRonaldSchroederMatthew B.SobekMatthew. 2010. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota (http://www.ipums.org).
57.
SautterJessica M.TippettRebecca M.MorganS. Philip. 2010. “The Social Demography of Internet Dating in the United States.” Social Science Quarterly91:554–75.
58.
SchwartzChristine R.MareRobert D.2005. “Trends in Educational Assortative Marriage From 1940 to 2003.” Demography42:621–46.
59.
SmithDavid M.GatesGary J.2001. “Gay and Lesbian Families in the United States: Same-Sex Unmarried Partner Households.” Washington, DC: Human Rights Campaign. Retrieved March 26, 2011 (http://www.urban.org/publications/1000491.html).
60.
ToddPeter M.MillerGeoffrey F.1999. “From Pride and Prejudice to Persuasion: Satisficing in Mate Search.” Pp. 287–308 in Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart, edited by GigerenzerG.ToddP.M. and ABC Research Group. New York: Oxford University Press.
U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 2010. “Digital Nation: 21st Century America’s Progress Toward Universal Broadband Internet Access.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved March 15, 2011 (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/NTIA_internet_use_report_Feb2010.pdf).
63.
WangHuaWellmanBarry. 2010. “Social Connectivity in America: Changes in Adult Friendship Network Size from 2002 to 2007.” American Behavioral Scientist53:1148–69.
64.
WellmanBarry. 2001. “Physical Place and Cyberplace: The Rise of Personalized Networking.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research25: 227–52.
65.
WestonKath. 1991. Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.
66.
YzerMarco C.SouthwellBrian G.2008. “New Communication Technologies, Old Questions.” American Behavioral Scientist52:8–20.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
