Imagined interactions (IIs) involve interpersonal contact with another individual within one's mind. Although primary attributes and features of IIs are well-established in the literature, the present study sought to identify which features and functions related to sexual and romantic encounters, particularly with ostensible strangers. As part of a larger study investigating online dating during the COVID-19 pandemic, we asked 315 online daters to describe their IIs with someone they recently matched with on an online dating platform. Through a qualitative coding process, six key themes emerged from their responses: (1) imagined interactions as sexual pleasure and sexual release; (2) imagining plans that lead to sexual interaction; (3) planning for future cybersex; (4) imagining first-date scenarios; (5) compensating for in-person platonic interaction; and (6) the inability to have IIs. Implications for online partners who have not met offline and contributions to the literature on IIs are discussed.
AllenT. H.HoneycuttJ. M. (1997). Planning, imagined interaction, and the nonverbal display of anxiety. Communication Research, 24(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365097024001003
2.
BodieG. D.HoneycuttJ. M.VickeryA. J. (2013). An analysis of the correspondence between imagined interaction attributes and functions. Human Communication Research, 39(2), 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12003
3.
ByersE. S.ShaughnessyK. (2014). Attitudes toward online sexual activities. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2014-1-10
4.
CarpenterG. W. (2022). Imagine me and you, I do: Characteristics and functions of imagined interactions during online dating. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 41(3), 323–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762366211050644
CharmazK. (2008). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In Hesse-BiberS. N.LeavyP. (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 155–172). Guilford Press.
7.
ChoiC. W.HoneycuttJ. M.BodieG. D. (2015). Effects of imagined interactions and rehearsal on speaking performance. Communication Education, 64(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.978795
DöringN.DanebackK.ShaughnessyK.GrovC.ByersE. S. (2017). Online sexual activity experiences among college students: A four-country comparison. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(6), 1641–1652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0656-4
10.
DuguayS.DietzelC.MylesD. (2022). The year of the “virtual date”: Reimagining dating app affordances during the COVID-19 pandemic. New Media & Society, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211072257
11.
EvelandW. P.CodutoK. D.AppiahO.BullockO. M. (2020). Listening during political conversations: Traits and situations. Political Communication, 37(5), 656–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1736701
12.
FoxJ.McEwanB. (2017). Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1332418
HoneycuttJ. M.CantrillJ. G. (2001). Cognition, communication, and romantic relationships. Routledge.
20.
HoneycuttJ. M.ChoiC. W.DeberryJ. R. (2009). Communication apprehension and imaged interactions. Communication Research Reports, 26(3), 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090903074423
21.
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
22.
HoneycuttJ. M.SheldonP. (2018). Scripts and communication for relationships. Peter Lang.
23.
HoneycuttJ. M.VickeryA. J.HatcherL. C. (2015). The daily use of imagined interaction features. Communication Monographs, 82(2), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2014.953965
HoneycuttJ. M.WiemannJ. M. (1999). Analysis of functions of talk and reports of imagined interactions (us) during engagement and marriage. Human Communication Research, 25(3), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1999.tb00451.x
26.
LeFebvreL. E. (2018). Swiping me off my feet: Explicating relationship initiation on Tinder. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(9), 1205–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517706419
27.
McDonaldN.SchoenebeckS.ForteA. (2019). Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359174
28.
NoorishadP. G.LevaqueE.ByersE. S.ShaughnessyK. (2019). More than one flavour: University students’ specific sexual fantasies, interests, and experiences. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 28(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2019-0024
29.
OlsonJ. D.McAllisterC.GrinnellL. D.Gehrke WaltersK.AppunnF. (2016). Applying constant comparative method with multiple investigators and intercoder reliability. Qualitative Report, 21(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2447
30.
RosenblattP. C.MeyerC. (1986). Imagined interactions and the family. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 35(2), 319–324. https://doi.org/10.2307/583641
31.
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, 41(2), 158–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762366211021076
32.
ShaughnessyK.ByersE. S.ClowaterS. L.KalinowskiA. (2014). Self-appraisals of arousal-oriented online sexual activities in university and community samples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(6), 1187–1197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0115-z
33.
ShaughnessyK.ByersE. S.WalshL. (2011). Online sexual activity experience of heterosexual students: Gender similarities and differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(2), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9629-9
34.
VendemiaM. A.CodutoK. D. (2022). Online daters’ sexually explicit media consumption and imagined interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 126, 106981. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106981
35.
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
36.
WaltherJ. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003
37.
WaltherJ. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(3), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001
38.
WaltherJ. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 443–479). Sage.
