This research examines how online dating technology affects the experience of mate selection and courtship among Muslim American women. Sixteen individuals who (1) self-identified as Muslim American women and (2) were actively using online dating websites participated in interviews about their experiences. Qualitative data analysis suggests that these women balance the perceived advantages of online dating (e.g. increased individual agency in initiating romantic relationships, increased control over interaction, greater confidentiality and privacy) with their desire to maintain their cultural and religious courtship practices. Additionally, participants identified challenges they faced with online dating, including social stigma, fear of others’ misrepresentation, and frustrations with technology. This study contributes toward a deeper understanding of how new technologies integrate with existing religions and cultures and gives insights into the nature of technological change and adaptation in society more generally.
Abdel-FadilM (2015) Counseling Muslim selves on Islamic websites: walking a tightrope between secular and religious counseling ideals?Journal of Religion, Media and Digital Culture4(1): 1–38. Available at: http://www.jrmdc.com/journal/issue/view/8
Al-AsfahaniAS (2013) The Ultimate Conspectus: Matn al-Ghayat wa al-Taqrib (trans. FurberM). Dallas, TX: Islamosaic.
4.
Al-JoharD (2005) Muslim marriages in America: reflecting new identities. The Muslim World95(4): 557–574.
5.
Al-SaggafY (2013) Males’ trust and mistrust of females in Muslim matrimonial sites. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society11: 174–192.
6.
AlshugairiN (2010) Marital trends in the American Muslim community: a pilot study. Journal of Muslim Mental Health5: 256–277.
7.
AndersonJW (2003) Redefining Muslim publics. In: EickelmanDFAndersonJW (eds) New Media and the Muslim World. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, pp. 1–18.
AsamaraiLSolbergKSolonP (2008) The role of religiosity in Muslim spouse selection and its influence on marital satisfaction. Journal of Muslim Mental Health1: 37–52.
10.
Behm-MorawitzEOrtizM (2013) Race, ethnicity, and the media. In: DillK (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Media Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 252–264.
11.
BrasherBE (2004) Give Me That Online Religion. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
12.
BuntGR (2009) iMuslims: Rewiring the House of Islam. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.
13.
CaliBEColemanJMCampbellC (2013) Stranger danger? Women’s self-protection intent and the continuing stigma of online dating. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking16: 853–857.
14.
CharmazK (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
CilaJLalondeRN (2014) Personal openness toward interfaith dating and marriage among Muslim young adults: the role of religiosity, cultural identity, and family connectedness. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations17: 357–370.
16.
EllisonNHeinoRGibbsJ (2006) Managing impressions online: self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication11: 415–441.
17.
FinkelEJEastwickPWKarneyBR, et al. (2012) Online dating: a critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychology Science in the Public Interest13: 3–66.
GrewalZA (2009) Marriage in color: race, religion and spouse selection in four American mosques. Ethnic and Racial Studies32: 323–345.
20.
HaddadYYSmithJI (1996) Islamic values among American Muslims. In: AswadBCBilgeB (eds) Family and Gender among American Muslims: Issues Facing Middle Eastern Immigrants and Their Descendants. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, pp. 19–40.
21.
HammerJ (2015) Marriage in American Muslim communities. Religion Compass9: 35–44.
22.
HancockJTTomaCL (2009) Putting your best face forward: the accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication59: 367–386.
23.
KamaliMH (2015) The Middle Path of Moderation in Islam: The Qur’anic Principle of Wasatiyyah. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
KayaLP (2009) Dating in a sexually segregated society: embodied practices of online romance in Irbid, Jordan. Anthropological Quarterly82: 251–278.
25.
KelleyHH (1983) Love and commitment: analyzing close relationships. In: KelleyHHBerscheidEChristensenA, et al (eds) Close Relationships. San Francisco, CA: Freeman, pp. 265–312.
26.
KillawiADaneshpourMElmiA, et al. (2014, June) Recommendations for promoting healthy marriages & preventing divorce in the American Muslim community. Report, Washington, DC: Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.
27.
LarssonG (2011) Muslims and the New Media: Historical and Contemporary Debates. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
28.
LentonAPStewartA (2008) Changing her ways: the number of options and mate-standard strength impact mate choice strategy and satisfaction. Judgment and Decision Making3: 501–511.
29.
LoMAzizT (2009) Muslim marriage goes online: the use of Internet matchmaking by American Muslims. Journal of Religion and Popular Culture21(3): 1–20.
30.
McKennaKYAGreenAGleasonM(2002) Relationship formation on the Internet: what’s the big attraction?Journal of Social Issues58: 9–31.
31.
MandavillePG (2002) Transnational Muslim Politics: Reimagining the Umma. London: Routledge.
32.
MilesMHubermanA (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
33.
MirS (2009) Not too “college-like,” not too normal: American Muslim undergraduate women’s gendered discourses. Anthropology & Education Quarterly40(3): 237–256.
34.
MirS (2014) Muslim American Women on Campus: Undergraduate Social Life and Identity. Chapel Hill, NC: University North Carolina Press.
35.
ParksMRFloydK (1996) Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication46: 80–97.
36.
PeekL (2006) Women, gender, and marriage practices in the United States. In: JosephS (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures (Volume 3: Family, Body, Sexuality, and Health). Herndon: Brill, pp. 264–267.
37.
PielaA (2011) Piety as a concept underpinning Muslim women’s online discussions of marriage and professional career. Contemporary Islam5: 249–265.
38.
RamirezASumnerEMFleurietC, et al. (2014) When online dating partners meet offline: the effect of modality switching on relational communication between online daters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20(1): 99–114.
39.
ReadJG (2003) The sources of gender role attitudes among Christian and Muslim Arab-American women. Sociology of Religion64(2): 207–222.
40.
RiceRELoveG (1987) Electronic emotion: socio-emotional content in a computer-mediated communication network. Communication Research14: 85–105.
SoukupPA (2012) Islam and Islamic teaching online. Communication Research Trends31: 24–30.
43.
TidwellLWaltherJ (2002) Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research28: 317–348.
44.
TomaCLHancockJTEllisonNB (2008) Separating fact from fiction: deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin38: 1023–1036.
45.
TukachinskyRMastroDYarchiM (2015) Documenting portrayals of race/ethnicity on primetime television over a 20-year span and their association with national-level racial/ethnic attitudes. Journal of Social Issues71: 17–38.
46.
WaltherJB (1996) Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research23: 3–43.
47.
WaltherJB (2007) Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior23: 2538–2557.
48.
WaltherJB (2011) Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In: KnappMLDalyJA (eds) The Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. 4th ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 443–479.
49.
ZaidiAUShuraydiM (2002) Perceptions of arranged marriages by young Pakistani Muslim women living in a western society. Journal of Comparative Family Studies33: 495–514.
