The present study seeks to apply the interpersonal construct of imagined interactions (IIs) to CMC, specifically in the realm of online dating, to explore the nature of imagination work while using dating apps and sites. The relationship between the characteristics and functions of IIs and the degree to which they predict dating themes of honesty, trust, stigma, and overall experience was tested. Multiple regression analyses were carried out to locate the specific characteristics and functions of IIs that are activated during the online dating process. The adapted survey of imagined interactions (SII) proved to be a reliable measure of all characteristics and functions when applied to the context of online dating themes of honesty, trust, stigma, and overall experience. Several reliable psychometrics for investigating imagined interactions within the context of online dating have been established, and support for the hyperpersonal communication model is discussed.
AllenT. H. (1994). Absence makes the mind work harder: Imagined interactions and coping with geographical separation. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Conference, New Orleans. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365097024001003.
2.
AndersonT. L.Emmers-SommerT. M. (2006). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in online romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 57(2), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970600666834
3.
AntheunisM. L.SchoutenA. P.WaltherJ. B. (2020). The hyperpersonal effect in online dating: Effects of text-based CMC vs. Videoconferencing before meeting face-to-face. Media Psychology, 23(6), 820–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2019.1648217
4.
ArvidssonA (2006). 'Quality singles': Internet dating and the work of fantasy. New Media and Society, 8(4), 671–690. doi: 10.1177/1461444806065663
5.
BeaversA. S.LounsburyJ. W.RichardsJ. K.HuckS. W.SkolitsG. J.EsquivelS. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7275/qv2q-rk76
6.
BerkosK. (2010). The role of imagined interactions in online communication. In HoneycuttJ. M. (Ed.), Imagine that: Studies in imagined interaction (pp. 31–42). Hampton Press.
7.
BerkosK. M.AllenT. H.KearneyP.PlaxT. G. (2001). When norms are violated: Imagined interactions as processing and coping mechanisms. Communication Monographs, 68(3), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750128066
8.
BerkowitzD.TinklerJ.PeckA.CotoL. (2021). Tinder: A game with gendered rules and consequences. Social Currents, 8(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965211019486
9.
BlackwellC.BirnholtzJ.AbbottC. (2015). Seeing and being seen: Co-situation and impression formation using grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New media & society, 17(7), 1117–1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814521595
10.
CodutoK. D. (2020). Understanding receiver effects of the hyperpersonal model using the imagined interactions framework [Doctoral Dissertation]. The Ohio State University.
11.
CooperA.SportolariL. (1997). Romance in cyberspace: Understanding online attraction. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01614576.1997.11074165
12.
CurryD. (2021, March 10). Dating App Revenue and Usage Statistics (2021). Business of Apps. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/dating-app-market/.
13.
EichenbergC.HussJ.KüselC. (2017). From online dating to online divorce: An overview of couple and family relationships shaped through digital media. Contemporary Family Therapy, 39(4), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-017-9434-x
14.
EidenmullerM.HoneycuttJ. M. (2010). Characteristics and functions of imagined interactions compared to private prayer. In HoneycuttJ. M. (Ed.), Imagine that: Studies in imagined interaction (pp. 83–98). Hampton Press.
15.
EllisonN.HeinoR.GibbsJ. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x
16.
ErevikE. K.KristensenJ. H.TorsheimT.VedaaØPallesenS. (2020). Tinder use and romantic relationship formations: A large-scale longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1757. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01757
17.
EvansD. N.Blount-HillK. L. (2020). Swipe right?: Experimental analyses of app-based dating in the age of criminal stigma. Corrections, 0(0), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2020.1799726
GibbsJ. L.EllisonN. B.HeinoR. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in internet dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x
20.
GibbsJ. L.EllisonN. B.LaiC. H. (2011). First comes love, then comes google: An investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research, 38(1), 70–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210377091
21.
GoldmanM. S.RoehrichM. A. (1991). Alcohol expectancies and sexuality. Alcohol Health & Research World, 15(2), 126–132.
22.
GotcherJ. M.EdwardsR. (1990). Coping strategies of cancer patients: Actual communication and imagined interactions. Health Communication, 2(4), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc0204_4
23.
HarmonA. (2003, June 29). Online Dating Sheds Its Stigma as Losers.com. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/us/online-dating-sheds-its-stigma-as-loserscom.html.
24.
HatzenbuehlerM. L.CorbinW. R.FrommeK. (2011). Discrimination and alcohol-related problems among college students: A prospective examination of mediating effects. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 115(3), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.11.002
25.
HianL. B.ChuanS. L.TrevorT. M. K.DetenberB. H. (2004). Getting to know you: Exploring the development of relational intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(3), 0–0. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00290.x
26.
HoneycuttJ. M. (1999). Typological differences in predicting marital happiness from oral history behaviors and imagined interactions. Communications Monographs, 66(3), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376478
27.
HoneycuttJ. M. (2003). Imagined interaction conflict-linkage theory: Explaining the persistence and resolution of interpersonal conflict in everyday life. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 23(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.2190%2F240J-1VPK-K86D-1JL8
28.
HoneycuttJ. M. (2010). Imagine that: Studies in imagined interactions. Hampton Press.
HoneycuttJ. M.KeatonS. A. (2012). Imagined interactions and personality preferences as predictors of relationship quality. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 32(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.2190/IC.32.1.b
31.
HoneycuttJ. M.PenceM. E.GearhartC. C. (2013). Associations between imagined interactions and the "Big Five" personality traits. Imagination. Cognition and Personality, 32(3), 273–289. doi: 10.2190/IC.32.3.d
32.
HoneycuttJ. M.WiemannJ. M. (1999). Analysis of functions of talk and reports of imagined interactions (IIs) during engagement and marriage. Human Communication Research, 25(3), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1999.tb00451.x
33.
HoneycuttJ. M.ZagackiK. S.EdwardsR. (1990). Imagined interaction and interpersonal communication. Communication Reports, 3(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934219009367494
34.
KaramizadehS.AbdullahS. M.ManafA. A.ZamaniM.HoomanA. (2013). An overview of principal component analysis. Journal of Signal and Information Processing, 4(3B), 173. https://doi.org/10.4236/jsip.2013.43B031
35.
KieslerS.SiegelJ.McGuireT. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123
36.
LedesmaR. D.Valero-MoraP. (2007). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 12(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.7275/wjnc-nm63
37.
LeFebvreL. E.LeFebvreL.AllenM. (2021). Imagine all the people: Imagined interactions in virtual reality when public speaking. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 40(3), 189–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236620938310
38.
MappC. M. (2013). The relationship between forgiveness, imagined interactions, empathy and relational satisfaction among long-distance romantic couples [Doctoral Dissertation]. Louisiana State University.
39.
McGloinR.DenesA. (2018). Too hot to trust: Examining the relationship between attractiveness, trustworthiness, and desire to date in online dating. New Media & Society, 20(3), 919–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816675440
40.
MongeauP. A.JacobsenJ.DonnersteinC. (2007). Defining dates and first date goals: Generalizing from undergraduates to single adults. Communication Research, 34(5), 526.
41.
PachankisJ. E.HatzenbuehlerM. L.WangK.BurtonC. L.CrawfordF. W.PhelanJ. C.LinkB. G. (2018). The burden of stigma on health and well-being: A taxonomy of concealment, course, disruptiveness, aesthetics, origin, and peril across 93 stigmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(4), 451–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217741313
42.
RabouinD. (2020, September 15). Match CEO sees long-lasting changes to dating from coronavirus. Axios. https://www.axios.com/match-ceo-dating-coronavirus-495c6e2d-7176-4c71-99df-546cf65426cc.html.
43.
RosenL. D.CheeverN. A.CummingsC.FeltJ. (2008). The impact of emotionality and self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional dating. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2124–2157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.10.003
44.
RosengrenA. L.MenzaT. W.LeGrandS.MuessigK. E.BauermeisterJ. A.Hightow-WeidmanL. B. (2019). Stigma and mobile app use among young black men who have sex with men. AIDS Education and Prevention, 31(6), 523–537. https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2019.31.6.523
45.
SealyM. K. (2021). Communication in the time of COVID-19: An examination of imagined interactions and communication apprehension during the COVID-19 pandemic. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 0(0), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762366211021076
46.
SeinkoR. (2017). An examination of attribute trade and weight stigma in online dating [Doctoral Dissertation]. Eastern Michigan University].
47.
ShengY. (2019). Communication between left-behind children and their migrant parents in China: A study of imagined interactions, relational maintenance behaviors, family support, and relationship quality [Doctoral Dissertation]. Kent State University].
48.
ShresthaN. (2021). Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 9(1), 4–11. doi: 10.12691/ajams-9-1-2
49.
TidwellL. C.WaltherJ. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 317–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x
50.
TreatS. R. (2010). Imagining interactions with phantasy. In HoneycuttJ. M. (Ed.), Imagine that: Studies in imagined interaction (pp. 171–194). Hampton Press.
51.
UrsachiG.HorodnicI. A.ZaitA. (2015). How reliable are measurement scales? External factors with indirect influence on reliability estimators. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20, 679–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00123-9
52.
VezzaliL.CapozzaD.StathiS.GiovanniniD. (2012). Increasing outgroup trust, reducing infrahumanization, and enhancing future contact intentions via imagined intergroup contact. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 437–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.09.008
53.
VickeryA. J. (2019). Everyday (imagined) talk: An exploration of everyday conversational topics and imagined interaction features. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 39(2), 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236618809670
54.
VickeryA. J.KeatonS. A.BodieG. D. (2015). Intrapersonal communication and listening goals: An examination of attributes and functions of imagined interactions and active- empathic listening behaviors. Southern Communication Journal, 80(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2014.939295
55.
WallenfelszK. P.HampleD. (2010). The role of taking conflict personally in imagined interactions about conflict. Southern Communication Journal, 75(5), 471–487. doi: 10.1080/10417940903006057
56.
WaltherJ. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F009365096023001001
57.
WaltherJ. B.KashianN.JangJ.ShinS. (2016). Overattribution of liking in computer- mediated communication: Partners infer the results of their own influence as their partners’ affection. Communication Research, 43(3), 372–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214565898
58.
WaltherJ. B.Van Der HeideB.RamirezA.JrBurgoonJ. K.PeñaJ. (2015). Interpersonal and hyperpersonal dimensions of computer-mediated communication. In SundarS. S. (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 1–22). Wiley.
59.
WaltherJ. B.WhittyM. T. (2021). Language, psychology, and new new media: The hyperpersonal model of mediated communication at twenty-five years. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20967703
60.
WhittyM. T. (2018). Do you love me? Psychological characteristics of romance scam victims. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(2), 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0729
61.
YoungK. S.Griffin-ShelleyE.CooperA.O'maraJ.BuchananJ. (2000). Online infidelity: A new dimension in couple relationships with implications for evaluation and treatment. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 7(1-2), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720160008400207
62.
ZagackiK. S.EdwardsR.HoneycuttJ. M. (1992). The role of mental imagery and emotion in imagined interaction. Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379209369820
