Mobile dating apps (MDA) are popular for intimate encounters, but romantic rejection is common, and can drive surveillance using information from social media. Awareness cues convey digital information about others’ activities, but their link with rejection is underexplored. This study explores the uses of awareness cues in mobile dating applications (MDAs) in relation to rejection, social surveillance and post-digital safety. Using a 1-month diary study with eight participants of diverse gender and sexual identities, we identify a grammar of awareness cues that helps users interpret others’ intentions, manage relational uncertainty (e.g. ghosting) and navigate rejection. While awareness cues convey helpful information, they also expose users to social surveillance or even stalking. Since ‘incognito mode’ is a premium affordance on most MDAs, participants developed creative invisibility strategies to restrict access to social surveillance mechanisms.
AlburyKByronP (2016) Safe on my phone? Same-sex attracted young people’s negotiations of intimacy, visibility, and risk on digital hook-up apps. Social Media + Society2(4). DOI: 10.1177/205630511667288.
2.
AmundsenR (2021) ‘A male dominance kind of vibe’: approaching unsolicited dick pics as sexism. New Media & Society23(6): 1465–1480.
3.
AustinJL (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon.
4.
BackeELLillestonPMcCleary-SillsJ (2018) Networked individuals, gendered violence: A literature review of cyberviolence. Violence and Gender5(3): 135–146.
5.
BarkerMJGillRHarveyL (2018) Mediated intimacy: sex advice in media culture. Sexualities21(8): 1337–1345.
6.
BatisteDP (2013) ‘0 feet away’: the queer cartography of French gay men’s geo-social media use. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures22(2): 111–132.
7.
BirnholtzJFitzpatrickCHandelM, et al. (2014) Identity, identification and identifiability: the language of self-presentation on a location-based mobile dating app. In: MobileHCI’14: proceedings of the 16th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services, Toronto, ON, Canada, 23–36 September 2014, pp. 3–12. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
8.
BirnholtzJRawatSVashistaR, et al. (2020) Layers of marginality: an exploration of visibility, impressions, and cultural context on geospatial apps for men who have sex with men in Mumbai, India. Social Media + Society6(2). DOI: 10.1177/2056305120913995.
9.
BlackwellLChenTSchoenebeckS, et al. (2018) When online harassment is perceived as justified. In: Proceedings of the 12th international AAAI conference on web and social media, Palo Alto, CA, 25–28 June 2018.
10.
BrakeE (2011) Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, Morality, and the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
12.
BrownBASellenAJO’haraKP (2000) A diary study of information capture in working life. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, The Hague, 1–6 April 2000, pp. 438–445. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
13.
CampaioliGTestoniIZamperiniA (2022) Double blue ticks: reframing ghosting as ostracism through an abductive study on affordances. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace16(5): 10. https://doi.org/10.5817/CTONY022-5-10
14.
CarterSMankoffJ (2005) When participants do the capturing: the role of media in diary studies. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Portland, OR, 2–7 April 2005, pp. 899–908. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
15.
CecchinatoMECoxALBirdJ (2015) Working 9-5? Professional differences in email and boundary management practices. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 18–23 April 2015, pp. 3989–3998. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
16.
CecchinatoMECoxALBirdJ (2017) Always on (line)? User experience of smartwatches and their role within multi-device ecologies. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Denver, CO, 6–11 May 2017, pp. 3557–3568. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
17.
Coles-KempLJensenRBHeathCP (2020) Too much information: questioning security in a post-digital society. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Honolulu, HI, 25–30 April 2020, pp. 1–14. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
18.
CuiYYamashitaNLiuM, et al. (2022) ‘So close, yet so far’: exploring sexual-minority women’s relationship-building via online dating in China. In: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, New Orleans, LA, 29 April–5 May 2022, pp. 1–15. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
19.
De WieleCVCampbellJF (2019) From swiping to ghosting: conceptualizing rejection in mobile dating. In: HetsroniATuncezM (eds) It Happened on Tinder: Reflections and Studies on Internet –Infused Dating. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, pp. 158–175.
20.
D’UrsoSC (2006) Who’s watching us at work? Toward a structural–perceptual model of electronic monitoring and surveillance in organizations. Communication Theory16(3): 281–303.
21.
DuffyBEChanNK (2019) “You never really know who’s looking”: Imagined surveillance across social media platforms. New Media & Society21(1): 119–138.
22.
DunnSVaillancourtTBrittainH (2023) Supporting safer digital spaces. Special Report “Supporting Safer Digital Spaces”, Centre for International Governance Innovation.
23.
FansherAKEckingerS (2020) Tinder tales: an exploratory study of online dating users and their most interesting stories. Deviant Behavior42(9): 1194–1208.
24.
FloridiL (2015) The onlife manifesto: Being human in a hyperconnected era (p. 264). Springer nature.
25.
FramptonJRFoxJ (2021) Monitoring, creeping, or surveillance? A synthesis of online social information seeking concepts. Review of Communication Research9: 1–42.
26.
García-GómezA (2020) Discursive representation of masculinity and femininity in Tinder and Grindr: hegemonic masculinity, feminine devaluation and femmephobia. Discourse & Society31(4): 390–410.
27.
GibbsMMeeseJArnoldM, et al. (2014) #Funeral and Instagram: death, social media, and platform vernacular. Information, Communication & Society18(3): 255–268.
28.
GillettR (2018) Intimate intrusions online: Studying the normalisation of abuse in dating apps. Women’s Studies International Forum69: 212–219.
29.
GoffmanE (1955) On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry18(3): 213–231.
30.
GoffmanE (1971) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: A Pelican book.
31.
GraaffK (2021) The implications of a narrow understanding of gender-based violence. Feminist Encounters5(1): 1–12.
32.
GrimaniAGavineAMoncurW (2022) An evidence synthesis of covert online strategies regarding intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse23(2): 581–593.
33.
GuhaSBirnholtzJ (2013) Can you see me now? Location, visibility and the management of impressions on foursquare. In: MobileHCI’13: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services, Munich, 27–30 August 2013, pp. 183–192. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
34.
HancockJBirnholtzJBazarovaNGuilloryJ, et al. (2009) Butler lies: awareness, deception and design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, 4–9 April 2006, pp. 517–526. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
35.
HermidaAHernández-SantaolallaV (2020) Horizontal surveillance, mobile communication and social networking sites. The lack of privacy in young people’s daily lives. Communication & Society33(1): 139–152.
36.
Hernández-SantaolallaVHermidaA (2020) Malicious social surveillance and negative implications in romantic relationships among undergraduates. Surveillance & Society18(3): 387–399.
37.
HoganTPBrashersDE (2009) The theory of communication and uncertainty management: implications from the wider realm of information behavior. In: AfifiTDAfifiWA (eds) Uncertainty, Information Management, and Disclosure Decisions: Theories and Applications. New York: Routledge, pp. 45–66.
38.
LampeCEllisonNBSteinfieldC (2006) A face(book) in the crowd: social searching vs. social browsing. In: Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work, Banff, AB, Canada, 4–8 November 2006, pp. 167–170. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
39.
LeFebvreLEAllenMRasnerRD, et al. (2019a) Ghosting in emerging adults’ romantic relationships: the digital dissolution disappearance strategy. Imagination, Cognition and Personality39: 125–150.
40.
LeFebvreLEFanX (2020) Ghosted? Navigating strategies for reducing uncertainty and implications surrounding ambiguous loss. Personal Relationships27(2): 433–459.
41.
LeFebvreLERasnerRDAllenM (2019b) ‘I guess I’ll never know. . .’: non-initiators account-making after being ghosted. Journal of Loss and Trauma25(5): 395–415.
42.
LevordashkaAUtzS (2016) Ambient awareness: from random noise to digital closeness in online social networks. Computers in Human Behavior60: 147–154.
43.
LicoppeC (2008) Geolocalized technologies, location aware communities and personal territories: the mogi case. Journal of Urban Technology15(3): 5–24.
44.
LicoppeC (2016) Mobilities and urban encounters in public places in the age of locative media. Seams, folds, and encounters with ‘pseudonymous strangers’. Mobilities11(1): 99–116.
45.
MacDonaldGLearyMR (2005) Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bullettin131(2): 202–223.
46.
MadianouMMillerD (2013) Polymedia: towards a new theory of digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies16(2): 169–187.
47.
ManningJDenkerKJJohnsonR (2019) Justifications for ‘ghosting out’ of developing or ongoing romantic relationships: anxieties regarding digitally-mediated romantic interaction. In: HetsroniATuncezM (eds) It Happened on Tinder: Reflections and Studies on Internet –Infused Dating. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, 114–132.
48.
MarentesMPalumboMBoyM (2016) ‘Me clavó el visto’: young people and waiting scenes in love regarding new technologies. Astrolabio17: 307–330.
49.
MarwickA (2012) The public domain: surveillance in everyday life. Surveillance & Society9(4): 378–393.
50.
MarwickAEboydd (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13(1): 114–133.
51.
MuiseAChristofidesEDesmaraisS (2009) More information than you ever wanted: does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?Cyberpsychology & Behavior12(4): 441–444.
52.
NaderifarMGoliHGhaljaieF (2017) Snowball sampling: a purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides in Development of Medical Education14(3). DOI: 10.5812/sdme.67670.
53.
NezlekJBWesselmannEDWheelerL, et al. (2012) Ostracism in everyday life. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice16(2): 91.
54.
OulasvirtaA (2008) Designing mobile awareness cues. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices and services, Amsterdam, 2–5 September 2008, pp. 43–52. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
55.
OulasvirtaAPetitRRaentoM, et al. (2007) Interpreting and acting on mobile awareness cues. Human–computer Interaction22(1–2): 97–135.
56.
OwensCShrodesAKrausA, et al. (2023) Motivations to start and stop using sexual networking applications among adolescent sexual minority men. Sexuality Research and Social Policy20: 329–339.
57.
PaasonenSLightBJarrettK (2019) The dick pic: harassment, curation, and desire. Social Media + society5(2). DOI: 10.1177/2056305119826126.
58.
PancaniLMazzoniDAureliN, et al. (2021) Ghosting and orbiting: an analysis of victims’ experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships38(7): 1987–2007.
59.
ParisiLComunelloF (2020) Dating in the time of ‘relational filter bubbles’: exploring imaginaries, perceptions and tactics of Italian dating app users. The Communication Review23(1): 66–89.
60.
ParkMShinJJuY (2015) A taxonomy of social networking site users: social surveillance and self-surveillance perspective. Psychology & Marketing32(6): 601–610.
61.
PinchABirnholtzJRawatS, et al. (2022) ‘Someone else is behind the screen’: visibility, privacy, and trust on geosocial networking apps in India. Social Media + Society8(3). DOI: 10.1177/20563051221126076
ReynoldsLSmithMEBirnholtzJP, et al. (2013) Butler lies from both sides: actions and perceptions of unavailability management in texting. In: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported cooperative work – CSCW, San Antonia, TX, 23–27 February 2013, pp. 769–778. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
64.
SpitzbergBHHooblerG (2002) Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society4(1): 71–92.
65.
SpyerJ (2017) Social Media in Emergent Brazil. London: UCL Press.
66.
StinsonDAHolmesJGHeTH (2016) Rejection in romantic relationships. In: WilliamsKDNidaSA (eds) Ostracism, Exclusion, and Rejection. London: Routledge, pp. 172–186.
67.
StrateL (2004) A media ecology review. Communication Research Trends23(2): 2–48.
ThomasJODubarRT (2021) Disappearing in the age of hypervisibility: definition, context, and perceived psychological consequences of social media ghosting. Psychology of Popular Media10(3): 291.
70.
TimmermansEHermansA-MOpreeSJ (2021) Gone with the wind: exploring mobile daters’ ghosting experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships38(2): 783–801.
71.
TimmermansSTavoryI (2012) Theory construction in qualitative research: from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory30(3): 167–186.
72.
TokunagaRS (2011) Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior27(2): 705–713.
73.
WetherellMTaylorSYatesSJ (eds) (2001) Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
74.
WilliamsKD (2007) Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology58(1): 425–452.
75.
WilsonCSheridanLGarratt-ReedD (2022) What is cyberstalking? A review of measurements. Journal of Interpersonal Violence37(11–12): NP9763–NP9783.
76.
ZamperiniA (2010) L’ostracismo. Essere esclusi, respinti e ignorati (Vol. 513) Milano: Einaudi.
77.
ZuboffS (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. London: Penguin.
