This research examined how certain features of online date-finding systems affect the types of message strategies users generate to refuse requests for romantic dates. An experiment analyzed how 190 participants rejected a date request from a member of the opposite sex. Politeness strategies varied as a function of the relationship between the requester and rejector (acquaintance vs. stranger) and the type of media (email vs. online dating messaging service). Results illuminate effects of interface characteristics and dyads’ relationship type on date refusal messages. Online daters exploited certain communication features provided by dating website messaging services which allow new ways for romantic refusals to be performed that were not previously available in face-to-face communication or earlier forms of computer-mediated communication.
Baumeister, R.F., Wotman, S.R., & Stillwell, A.M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 377-394.
2.
Berger, C.R., & Bell, R.A. ( 1988). Plans and the initiation of social relationships. Human Communication Research, 15, 217-235.
3.
Besson, A.L., Roloff, M.E., & Paulson, G.D. ( 1998). Preserving face in refusal situations. Communication Research, 25, 183-199.
4.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. ( 1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Dillard, J.P. ( 1997). Explicating the goal construct: Tools for theorists. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 47-69). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
Dutton, B.W.H. ( 2009, December). Relationship position paper. Paper presented at the Oxford Internet Institute forum, Relationships and the Internet, Oxford, UK.
7.
Dutton, W.H., Helsper, E.J., Whitty, M.T., Buckwalter, G., & Lee, E., (2008). Mate selection in the network society: The role of the Internet in reconfiguring marriages in Australia, the United Kingdom and United States. Paper presented at the Oxford Internet Institute forum, Meeting, Dating, Marriage and the Internet, Oxford, UK. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1275810
8.
Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. ( 2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation process in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11 (2), article 2. Retrieved February 1, 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html
9.
Fiore, A.T. & Donath, J.S. ( 2004). Online personals: An overview. Paper presented at the 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , Vienna, Austria. Retrieved October 2, 2007, from http://smg.media.mit.edu/papers/atf/chi2004_personals_short.pdf
10.
Folkes, V.S. ( 1982). Communicating the reasons for social rejection. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 18, 235-252.
11.
Gibbs, J.L., Ellison, N.E., & Heino, R.D. ( 2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating . Communication Research, 33, 1-26.
12.
Herring, S.C. ( 1995). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication . In R. Kling (Ed.), Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices (2nd ed., pp. 476- 489). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
13.
Hiemstra, G. ( 1982). Teleconferencing, concern for face, and organizational culture. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 6 (pp. 874-904). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Hiltz, S.R. & Turoff, M. ( 1978) The network nation: Human communication via computer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
15.
Hitsch, G.J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. ( 2005). What makes you click: An empirical analysis of online dating. Retrieved September 2, 2007, from http://fmwww.bc.edu/ecj/semf2006/Hort.pdf
16.
Johnson, D.I., Roloff, M.E., & Riffee, M.A. ( 2004). Politeness theory and refusals of requests: Face threat as a function of expressed obstacles. Communication Studies , 55, 227-238.
17.
Kline, S.L. & Floyd, C.H. ( 1990). On the art of saying no: The influence of social cognitive development on messages of refusal. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 454-472.
18.
Levine, T.R., & Banas, J. ( 2002). One-tailed F-tests in communication research. Communication Monographs, 69, 132-143.
19.
Limaye, M.R. ( 2001). Some reflections on explanation in negative messages . Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15, 100-110.
20.
Madden, M. & Lenhart, A. ( 2006, March 5). Online dating. Pew Internet and American Life Project. 1-27. Retrieved February 3, 2007, from http://www.pewInternet.org/PPF/r/177/report_display.asp
21.
McGlone, M.S. & Batchelor. J.A. ( 2003). Looking out for number one: Euphemism and face. Journal of Communication, 53, 251-264.
22.
Mongeau, P.A.Hale, J.L., Johnson, K.L., & Hillis, J.D. ( 1993). Who’s wooing whom?: An investigation of female-initiated dating. In P. J. Kalbefleisch (Ed.) Interpersonal communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 51-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
23.
Mongeau, P.A., Serewicz, M.C., & Therrien, L.F. (2004). Goals for cross-sex first dates: Identification, measurement, and the influence of contextual factors . Communication Monographs, 71, 121-147.
24.
Morand, D.A. & Ocker, R.J. ( 2003). Politeness theory and computer-mediated communication: A sociolinguistic approach to analyzing relational messages. Proceedings from HICSS’03: The 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. (HICSS-36). Los Alamitos : IEEE Press. Retrieved January 28, 2007, from http://csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2003/1874/01/1874toc.htm
25.
Roloff, M.E. & Janiszewiki, C.A. ( 1989). Overcoming obstacles to interpersonal compliance: A principle of message construction. Human Communication Research, 16, 33-61.
26.
Saeki, M. & O’ Keefe, B.J. (1994). Refusals and rejections: Designing messages to serve multiple goals. Human Communication Research, 21, 67-102.
27.
Success Stories. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2, 2007, from http://success.match.com/
28.
Thomson, R. & Murachver, T. ( 2001). Predicting gender from electronic discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 193-208.
29.
Trevino, L.K., Lengel, R., & Daft, R.L. ( 1987). Media symbolism, media richness, and media choice in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Communication Research, 14, 553-574.
30.
Van Swol, L.M. ( 2007). Perceived importance of information: The effects of mentioning information, shared information bias, ownership bias, reiteration, and confirmation bias. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 239-256.
31.
Walther, J.B. ( 1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 473-501.
32.
Walther, J.B. ( 1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyper-personal interaction. Communication Research, 3, 3-43.
33.
Walther, J.B., & Parks, M.R. ( 2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed, pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
Walther, J.B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S.Y., Westerman, D., & Tong, S.T. ( 2008). The role of friends’ behavior on evaluations of individuals’ Facebook profiles: Are we known by the company we keep ? Human Communication Research, 34, 28-49.
35.
Wellman, B. ( 2001). Computer networks as social networks. Science, 293, 2031-2034.
36.
Wilson, S.R., Aleman, C.G., & Leatham, G.B. ( 1998). Identity implications of influence goals: A revised analysis of face-threatening acts and application to compliance with same-sex friends . Human Communication Research, 25, 64-96.
37.
Wilson, S.R., Kim, M., & Meischke, H. ( 1992). Evaluating Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory: A revised analysis of directives and face. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 25, 215-252.
