Overcoming Relationship-Initiation Barriers: The ...

Pergamon

Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 191-204, 1995 Copyright © 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Primed in the USA. All rights reserved 0747-5632/95 $9.50 + .00

0747-5632(94)00028-X

Overcoming Relationship-Initiation Barriers: The Impact of a Computer-Dating System on Sex Role, Shyness, and Appearance Inhibitions Bradford W. Scharlott Northern Kentucky University

William G. Christ Trinity University

Abstract — A survey of the users of an online computer-mediated matchmaking service showed that their communication patterns and objectives varied by their sex, shyness level, and appearance. Men generally contacted women more than vice versa, but a substantial minority of the women contacted a great number of men, suggesting that the safety and anonymity the system offered helped them break free from traditional sex role norms. More than half of the women reported starting a romantic or sexual relationship through the system, as compared to less than a third of the men, reflecting, in part, that men outnumber women on the system nearly three to one. Users who scored higher on a shyness scale were much more likely than less shy users to say they were using the system to find romance or sex, suggesting shier users employ the system as a way to overcome their inhibitions. Women who rated their own appearance as average were less likely to be contacted by men than those who rated their appearance as above average, but there was no significant difference between appearance groups Requests for reprints should be addressed to Bradford W. Scharlott, Communication Department, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY 41076. 191

792

Scharlott and Christ

concerning the likelihood of starting a romantic or sexual relationship. Intrinsic aspects of this computer-mediated matchmaking system helped some users overcome relationship-initiation barriers rooted in sex role, shyness, and appearance inhibitions.

The last 10 years have seen an explosion in the variety and volume of computermediated communication. Within organizations, electronic mail (e-mail) systems have become commonplace (Rogers, 1986; Steinfeld, 1986). Commercial information services such as CompuServe and Prodigy offer not only an array of information products such as news and travel services but also elaborate e-mail facilities, including open "chat line" channels where numerous users can simultaneously communicate with one another. Noncommercial computer bulletin boards have proliferated, enabling individuals to share huge amounts of information or communicate with one another (Allen, 1988; Schaefermeyer & Sewell, 1988). Not surprisingly, in many computer-mediated communication (CMC) systems, socially oriented communication is common. McCormick and McCormick (1992) found that more than half of of the messages sent by undergraduates on a university e-mail system were social in nature. Rice and Love (1987) demonstrated that even on a computer network devoted to professional communications, the percentage of social messages can be considerable. CMC systems obviously have the potential of serving as an avenue for relationship initiation. Indeed, over the past decade the popular press has noted numerous examples of individuals socializing or starting romantic relationships with the help of modem-equipped computers (Bennet, 1989; Pearson, 1992; Van Gelder, 1983). But how does the use of CMC compare to other means of relationship initiation, whether interpersonal or mediated? What are the advantages and disadvantages of CMC as an avenue for starting relationships? What sorts of individuals might benefit from the use of such computer-based systems? Tentative answers to those questions are provided by this investigation of the uses and users of Matchmaker, a computer-based online dating system that has been operating in several cities in the United States since its introduction in Austin, TX, in 1987.1 To determine how and why individuals use Matchmaker, we surveyed users of the Matchmaker system in San Antonio, TX. Matchmaker is a sophisticated version of a computer bulletin board with e-mail facilities, which anybody with a computer and modem can use. Matchmaker works in this way: a newcomer to Matchmaker logs on to the system via his or her computer and answers a series of 50-odd structured questions (such as age, sex, sexual orientation, and occupation) as well as several open-ended questions (such as "What would you like to do on a first date?"). At that point, and during any subsequent session, the user can ask for the system computer to "Make me a Match" — that is, have the computer match the user's answers to the structured questions against those of other users, and produce a list of the names of others whose answers closely match those of the user. The user can vary the percentage of answers that must match other users', and, thus, can increase of decrease the number of users who will be selected as a likely match. The user may then "browse" lrThis service, which is noncommercial, is not to be confused with Matchmaker International, the commercial videotape-based matching service that advertises in many parts of the United States.

The impact of a computer-dating system

193

the listed users' answers to the structured and open-ended questions and send private messages to anyone he or she wishes to contact — and many users have employed the system to find pen-pals, dates, or lovers. At the time of the survey, Matchmaker had branches in eight cities. While Matchmaker is noncommercial, the system operator in San Antonio charges a $2 monthly fee to users who have been on the system for more than a month, to defray expenses. Matchmaker and Other Marriage-Market Intermediaries

Matchmaker serves as what Adelman and Ahuvia (1991) call a marriage market intermediary (MMI), in much the same way that personal classified ads in newspapers and magazines or videotape-based introduction services help individuals get together. To understand the benefits and disadvantages of an online service like Matchmaker, it is useful to compare it to those two established forms of mass mediated MMIs — classified personals and video dating services — using a framework proposed by Adelman and Ahuvia. They suggest that a marriage market can be analyzed in much the same way as an economic market, i.e., by identifying certain functions associated with transactions and evaluating the efficiency of market mechanisms in bringing about transactions. In a dating or marriage market, the "transaction" that most singles hope to bring about is a stable romantic relationship (with marriage as the ultimate goal for many). Adelman and Ahuvia state that three specific functions need to be fulfilled before a romantic relationship can be formed: the searching function, gaining information on prospective partners available for a match; the matching function, the process of bringing together compatible partners; and the interacting function, negotiating, and implementing a relationship. The searching function encompasses at least two important dimensions in any medium: the range of potential matches, limited by the number who use a medium; and the depth of information available on each individual using the medium. In the case of classified personals in newspapers and magazines, there can be substantial range: those who place the ads as well as those who read them; but there is limited depth because of the costs involved. Thus, such ads generally give only superficial information, often focusing on one's appearance or one's preferences in a potential partner (Davis, 1990; Smith et al., 1990). A video dating service, by contrast, can provide a great deal of information on each individual user, including videotapes of individuals talking about themselves, but such services often suffer from having too limited a range of clients for there to be enough likely matches per client (Woll &Cozby, 1987). The system operator of Matchmaker reported that at the time of our survey, Matchmaker had 150 registered users (those who paid the $2 monthly fee) plus a continuous turnover of people who would try the system for several weeks and choose not to register; in addition, the system would match users with thousands of Matchmaker users in other cities, greatly expanding the range of the system, but those individuals would generally be geographically inaccessible. The lengthy survey that each user filled out upon initially signing on to Matchmaker ensured that a substantial depth of information was available on each user. Thus, in terms of the range of potential matches, the Matchmaker system at the time of the study probably fell between the great range offered by newspaper and magazine personal ads and the limited range offered by some video dating services; however, it is easy to imagine that in the near future when more people gain access to CMC technology, the number of people who might make use of a system like

194

Scharlott and Christ

Matchmaker could grow substantially. Concerning the depth of information available, Matchmaker again probably falls between the other two media: it provides far more information than the limited amount that a personal ad can contain, but less than a video dating service, since Matchmaker provides only written data, not visual or auditory information. The matching function involves selecting from all those available to be matched only those likely to be compatible, and then getting the prospective partners in contact with each other. With classified personals, the readers of the ads must themselves decide, based on scanty information, which advertisers are likely to be compatible partners with them, and then they must initiate contact — often via mail but in some systems now by telephone voice mail — and propose a meeting. Then those who had placed the ads must decide whether or not to agree to a meeting. With a video dating service, a client will generally state criteria such as age range and religious orientation for a potential partner and the service will cull out those other clients who meet the stated criteria; the client will then review their videotapes and background materials, and then propose a meeting with those partners who most interest the client. It is up to those selected, then, to decide whether or not to get together with the proposer of the meeting. With both classified personals and video dating services, the act of responding to someone interested in an ad or videotape generally implies making a date — a physical meeting — with that person. Thus, using either medium entails an substantial investment of time, effort, and possibly money. As explained, the matching function on Matchmaker is performed by the software, which provides a user with a list of possible matches; the user will then review the questionnaires of those individuals on the list, and may then send e-mail messages to users who seem to be likely matches. Those who are contacted generally will review the questionnaire of the sender of the e-mail, and then will choose whether or not to respond. Because all activity takes place at a computer terminal, finding potential partners and making contact with them on Matchmaker generally is easier than doing so with classified personal ads or with a video dating service. Moreover, neither sending nor responding to a Matchmaker e-mail message implies that an in-person meeting is immediately expected. Thus, on an online system like Matchmaker, one can initiate contact with a relatively large number of potential partners without bearing the costs of numerous dates. The interacting function, which entails negotiating and implementing a relationship, begins after the matching function has taken place. An online services like Matchmaker provides a ready means for individuals to interact in writing, possibly at length, before meeting in person. Presumably, the opportunity to do so allows a Matchmaker user to further determine whether another user is likely to be a compatible partner. By contrast, individuals who make contact via classified personals or video dating services are likely to meet more individuals incompatible with themselves, since less interaction is possible. Thus, an online service like Matchmaker may result in meetings that are more likely to lead to successful relationships than meetings brought about by the other two media. Of course, Matchmaker users do not see each other before meeting, as individuals do with a videotape service, and that fact could lead to some disappointing first encounters; however, users give a self-report of their appearance on Matchmaker, and some research suggests that individuals generally choose to pursue relationships with others whom they believe to be good matches in regard to their appearance (Kalick & Hamilton, 1986; Wong et al., 1991). Thus, considering the searching, matching,

The impact of a computer-dating system

195

and interacting functions together, an online service like Matchmaker has the potential to be a substantially more efficient means of bringing compatible individuals together than either classified personals or video dating services. It should be noted that in countries other than the United States computers are being used to help bring individuals together. In Russia, a system whose name means Matchmaker in Russian has clients fill out questionnaires in paper form and that information is fed into a computer, which matches seemingly compatible individuals (Zelitchenko, 1992). In China, a similar system called Great Wall Information has been initiated (Smith, 1990). Neither of these systems offers computer-based interaction between individuals matched by the computers; generally individuals who have been matched arrange face-to-face meetings to determine compatibility. Data are not yet available indicating the success rate of either system. Matchmaker and Relationship-Initiation Barriers A CMC-based system like Matchmaker may be especially attractive to individuals who face certain relationship-initiation barriers. Sprecher and McKinney (1987) note that common obstacles to relationship initiation are traditional sex roles, shyness, and lack of confidence in one's appearance. An overarching hypothesis of our analysis was that a computer-based system like Matchmaker could help Matchmaker users overcome such relationship-initiation barriers. Most CMC among individuals is text based and, thus, devoid of the visual and auditory cues that accompany in-person communication (Chesebro, 1985). In a face-to-face setting, nonverbal cues such as body language and eye contact can be as important in conveying a message as what a person says. In a relationship-initiation setting such as a singles bar, the way a person looks is probably the most important variable in determining whether that person will be able to successfully initiate communication leading to a relationship (Cloyd, 1976). In a CMC context, by contrast, the words that a person types are of paramount importance in determining what effect any act of communication will have. Another difference between CMC and in-person communication is that CMC is asynchronous — that is, there is a significant lapse between the time a message is sent and the time a response is received (Hesse et al., 1988). In most cases, CMC is analogous to a mail system: a message sent from one individual to another is stored in the electronic equivalent of a mail box, and the recipient will not reply until after reading the message at some later time. In some cases, however, CMC can take place in "real time," in which sender and receiver are on an open channel to one another and can respond immediately to messages. But even in such cases, an individual's response to any particular message takes longer than it would in a face-toface context; the person needs to take the time mentally to compose the response, then type it. The person, thus, has much greater control over the final form of the message than he or she would in an face-to-face context. On Matchmaker, communications are of the electronic-mailbox type. Finally, a CMC-based system like Matchmaker offers its users anonymity if they wish it. Matchmaker users are identified by a computer ID/address combination such as John342 or SexyLady652, and they need not give out their actual names if they do not wish to. These differences between CMC and in-person communication suggest what some of the advantages of CMC may be for those who find it difficult to overcome certain relationship-initiation barriers.

196

Scharlott and Christ

Traditional sex roles can inhibit the ability of some people, especially women, to initiate relationships. Research has shown that in face-to-face settings such as bars, men are expected to take the first step in initiating relationships while women generally play a more passive role, choosing from available suitors (Argyle & Henderson, 1985; Cloyd, 1976; Richardson, 1981). This pattern was also found to be true for a video dating service, in which members viewed tapes of one another before trying to initiate a relationship using the service as a mediator (Woll & Cozby, 1987). Adherence to these stereotypical roles can make it very difficult for some women start relationships since they are expected to remain passive. But some men also find these traditional roles inhibiting, because it places on them expectations about initiating contact and bearing most or all the costs of dating. The anonymity offered by a system such as Matchmaker may make it easier for women, as well as men, to break free from such behavioral norms, because they are in effect hidden from potentially censorious eyes. Moreover, an online system such as Matchmaker may also offer women, in particular, a degree of safety they would not feel in an in-person setting such as a bar, because they can easily break off communication with an individual who seems potentially threatening. Shyness, which can be defined as being tense and inhibited in the presence of others, may stand as a major impediment to relationship initiation. (Maroldo, 1982; Melchoir & Cheek, 1990; Weaver, 1987). For example, Zimbardo (1977) showed that shy students were significantly less likely to have had sexual interactions with the opposite sex than less shy students. For several reasons, CMC may offer shy people a way to overcome their inhibitions and meet others in a relatively nonthreatening environment. The fact that CMC is devoid of the visual and auditory cues that accompany interpersonal communication may make it appealing to shy people, who find in-person interaction difficult (Daly & McCroskey, 1984; Duran & Kelly, 1989). The asynchronous nature of CMC — and the greater control that the users of CMC therefore have over the final form of their messages — may also appeal to shy people because they often feel uneasy about spontaneous communication. And the anonymity of a CMC-based system like Matchmaker may allow shy people to be less self-conscious and fearful of disapproval. Appearance is also a key variable in relationship-initiation, in both interpersonal and mediated contexts (Curran, 1973; Dion et ah, 1990; Garcia et al., 1991). Cloyd (1976) found that in bar settings, sexual attractiveness is the predominant focus of attention of both men and women. Woll and Cozby (1987) found that for people who use video dating, appearance was the single most important criterion by which individuals judged potential dates. However, there appear to be differences between heterosexual men and women in how important they consider appearance. For example, in his study of personal ads, Davis (1990) found that heterosexual men generally list physical attractiveness as the attribute most desired in a partner; by contrast, heterosexual women indicate they are primarily interested in a potential partner's financial and intellectual status, attributes important for a long-term relationship. But regardless of gender, people who are physically unattractive have been found less likely to be approached by others seeking to initiate a relationship (Sprecher & McKinney, 1987). A CMC-based system like Matchmaker may be attractive to people who lack self-confidence in their appearance because they can make contact with others before being seen by them. Only after establishing communications via e-mail do Matchmaker users meet. Our analysis of the survey data investigated how users' objectives, communication behavior, and attitudes varied by sex, shyness, and appearance.

The impact of a computer-dating system

197

METHODOLOGY

We placed a 74-question survey on the Matchmaker system for 3 weeks in August 1990, asking users to respond to questions about their use of Matchmaker. They were assured that their responses would be confidential, that the researchers intended to use their responses for scholarly purposes, and that they would receive 1 free week of use of the system if they completed the questionnaire. One hundred and two out of 150 registered subscribers completed the questionnaire. Fifteen of the 102 respondents indicated their sexual orientation as homosexual or bisexual and were eliminated from the analysis, since their small number would not allow for meaningful comparisons. To determine users' main purpose in using the system, one question read as follows (the number of users who gave each response is shown in brackets): What would you say is the main reason you use Matchmaker: (a) so I can use features of Matchmaker (such as browsing the questionnaires) without try ing to contact other users [2 users] (b) so I can try to find pen-pals for casual, on-line friendships [16 users] (c) so I can try to find other Matchmaker users whom I might meet in person for casual, nonromantic friendships [20 users] (d) so I can try to contact others with whom I might start a romantic or sexually oriented correspondence without necessarily meeting them [4 users] (e) so I can try to contact others whom I might meet in person and with whom I might start a romantic or sexually oriented relationship [55 users] (f) other [5 users]

We believe that an important distinction lay in whether users said they employed Matchmaker primarily for finding friends or for initiating romantic/sexual relationships; therefore, we receded this question so that choices "b" and "c" constituted a single friendship-seeking category, and "d" and "e" constituted a single romance/sex-seeking category. (We excluded those who chose "a" and "f" because of the small number and the indeterminate nature of the motivation involved in those categories.) Shyness was assessed using five questions drawn from a shyness scale (Bruch et al., 1989). Matchmaker users responded to these questions on a 5-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree: 1.1 don't find it hard to talk to strangers. 2.1 feel tense when I am with people I don't know very well. 3. When I am in a group of people, I have trouble thinking of the right things to talk about. 4. I am often uncomfortable at parties and other social functions. 5. It is hard for me to act natural when I am meeting new people. A factor analysis with varimax rotation resulted in the second through the fifth question loading on a single factor but the first one failed to, and was dropped. Using Cronbach's alpha, the reliability of the four remaining questions was found to be .83. Those four questions were then converted into a single shyness construct by adding together the values of the answers and dividing by four. Finally, the respondents were divided into two equal groups: those who scored higher on the shyness measure, and those who scored lower; the range of the scores was 1 to 5, the median (or break point) value was 3.25, and the standard deviation was .92.

198

Scharlott and Christ

Besides the questionnaire we posted on Matchmaker, we were given access to the answers users gave to a 51-item questionnaire they completed when joining the Matchmaker system. Self-perception of appearance was measured by the answers given to one of those questions.

RESULTS

Sex Roles Matchmaker is structured in such a way that heterosexual men are matched only with heterosexual and bisexual women and, thus, send messages only to women; likewise, heterosexual women are matched only with heterosexual and bisexual men and, thus, send messages only to men. The pattern of sending and receiving messages on Matchmaker suggests that, generally speaking, men are more likely to try to initiate contact with women than women are with men. One question of the survey asked how many users the respondent had sent messages to. Most men (58%) had sent messages to more than 25 women, while most women (56%) had sent messages to 25 or fewer men. But confounding any simple interpretation is that, at the far end of the scale, women were more avid communicators than men: 26% of the women had sent messages to more than 100 men, while only 11% of the men had sent messages to that many women [X2(2, N=S7) = 7.12, p < .028], The pattern in receiving messages was more straightforward. One question asked how many users the respondent had received messages from, and women were clearly more likely to receive messages from men than vice versa: 74% of women had received messages from more than 25 other users, while only 42% of the men had [X2(l, //= 87) = 6.54, p < .011]. This finding is not surprising, since there are more men than women on the system. Of the 87 heterosexuals who completed the survey, 64 (74%) were men, and 23 (26%) were women. Interestingly, this gender breakdown is very similar to that found by Hellerstein (1985) in her survey of the users of an e-mail system at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and also by Rogerat (1992) in her examination of some of the electronic bulletin boards available on Minitel, the French computer-terminal-based telephone system. While men were more likely to send messages to women than vice versa, women were more likely to carry on a correspondence than men were. Users were asked how many individuals on the system they had corresponded with (i.e., exchanged messages with at least twice); 78% of the women had corresponded with more than five other users, but only 40% of the men had [%2(1, N = 87) = 9.58, p < .002]. The pattern of sending and receiving messages on Matchmaker suggests that, generally speaking, men and women on the system employ different communication strategies. Most men seem inclined to maximize the number of users they contact, presumably to increase their chances of finding someone interested in a physically intimate relationship; most women, by contrast, seem inclined to contact fewer men and then try to establish more sustained communications. A significant minority of the women, however, seem willing to contact a great number of men. Eighty of the 87 heterosexual users indicated their main reason for using Matchmaker in a way that allowed them to be assigned to either a friendship-seeking category or a romance/sex-seeking category (as explained above). Most of the men who responded to the survey (70%) were seeking sex or romance, and most of

The impact of a computer-dating system

199

the women (68%) indicated they are interested in friendship [5C2(1, N= 80) = 11.07, p < .001]. Interpreting these statistics is problematic. Does the fact that most women indicated their primary purpose is to find friendship suggest that they are not interested in romance or sex? Probably not. The more likely explanation is that most of those women do, indeed, hope ultimately to establish a physically intimate relationship but see a relationship as a process that necessarily begins with friendship (Argyle & Henderson, 1985). This interpretation would make sense in light of how many women on the system actually have started romantic or sexual relationships: 81% of the women reported that they had established at least one in-person friendship through Matchmaker, and 29% said they have started four or more inperson friendships; by contrast, 53% of the men reported they had established at least one in-person friendship, and only 6% reported starting four or more [X2(2, N = 87) = 4.26, p < .119]. Moreover, 57% of the women report they have started a romantic or sexual relationship with at least one other user, while only 30% of the men report they have done so [X2(l, N = 87) = 11.07,p < .113]. Sex-related differences aside, the users' overall success rate of initiating relationships through Matchmaker seems substantial. Sixty-five percent of the heterosexual users reported starting at least one in-person friendship; 38% reported starting at least one in-person romantic or sexual relationship. Shyness As explained above, a single construct representing shyness was split into two categories: high shyness (with 43 users), and low shyness (43 users). Shyness proved to be an important variable in explaining how and why some people use Matchmaker. Seventy-four percent of the high-shyness users indicated their main purpose in using Matchmaker was to find a romantic or sexual relationship, while only 46% of the low-shyness users answered that way [X2(l, N = 86) = 6.41, p < .011]. Apparently, many shy users employ Matchmaker to overcome inhibitions that may prevent them from initiating relationships in face-to-face settings. Moreover, shyness seemingly (though not quite at a statistically significant level) was related to gender: 56% of the men fell into the high shyness category, as compared to only 35% of the women [3C2(1, N= 86)=2.91,p < .088]. Users' shyness manifested itself in their communication behavior, in that the shier users were less likely to send messages to other users. For example, only 2% of the shier users had sent messages to more than 100 other users, as compared to 28% of the less shy users [X2(2, N= 86) = 11.42, p < .003]. While using CMC may alleviate some of the trepidation that shier users feel when contacting others, they apparently still feel somewhat more constrained than their less shy counterparts. Insight into shier users' reasons for using Matchmaker may be gleaned from their answers to other questions. Shier users were more likely to agree that Matchmaker allows them to explore new aspects of their personalities [3C2(1, N = 86) = 5.71, p < .057], and that Matchmaker allows them to explore fantasies in an anonymous, nonthreatening environment [3C2(1, N = 86) = 4.78, p < .092]. Anonymity seems to be a key element, as Meyers (1987) found in his study of communication behavior on a computer bulletin board in New Orleans. Apparently the ability to communicate with others without revealing details about oneself enables the shier user to interact without fear of rejection. Moreover, as the questions about their personalities and fantasies reveal, Matchmaker enables these users to communicate in ways that in other contexts they might feel too socially inhibited to do.

200

Scharlott and Christ

Appearance While physical appearance is extremely important in face-to-face relationshipinitiation contexts, on Matchmaker, appearance is less important initially because there generally is no way one user can directly judge the appearance of another before they meet. Still, one of the questions that Matchmaker users complete asks them to rate their own appearance, and other users can, thus, read this self-report when browsing one's questionnaire. The possible answers to that question include "very good looks" (which 8% chose), "above average looks" (63%), and "average looks" (31%). No one chose the "below average" category. It seems fair to assume that a form of "looks" inflation exists in these selfreports, similar to the grade inflation that has taken place at many universities. Just as a grade of "C" officially means "average" but in fact represents a below-average performance at many schools, likewise a self-report of "average" to this question must, in some cases, indicate that the users believe their appearance may hamper them in initiating relationships. This appearance-inflation hypothesis may seem to fly in the face of studies showing many women tend negatively to assess their own attributes (e.g., Dion et al, 1990). However, relative to the men in the survey, the women did tend to rate themselves lower: only 4% of the women rated their appearance as very good, compared to 10% of the men, while 44% of the women rated their appearance as average, compared to 26% of the men [9C2(2, N = 102) = 3.31, p < .072]. Thus, any inflation in appearance ratings would seem to operate at the lower end of the spectrum, with both men and women declining to describe themselves as below average. There is a clear relationship between the self-reports that users gave to the appearance question and what they indicated is their main purpose in using Matchmaker. Of the users who rated their appearance as average, only 35% indicated that they are interested in romantic objectives; by contrast, of the users who rated their appearance as very good or above average, 72% indicated that they wished to pursue sex or romance [X2(l, N = 80) = 9.52, p < .002]. Seemingly, those who feel less confidence in their appearance are less likely to say they wish to pursue romantic goals on the system, even though they initially cannot be seen by their correspondents. This disinclination to pursue romance may reflect a lack of confidence or self-esteem some people feel because of their appearance. The way women rated their own appearance apparently affected the likelihood that men would contact them: among women who rated their appearance as above average or very good, 57% had received messages from more than 50 men; among women who rated their appearance as average, only 11% had received messages from more than 50 men [X2(l, W = 23) = 4.87, p < .027]. There was no similar relationship concerning the appearance of the men; those who reported average appearance received as many messages as those who reported above-average appearance. However, income made a difference: 23% of the men who reported incomes above $20,000 received messages from more than 50 women; none of the men who reported earning less than $20,000 receive message from more than 50 women [X2(l, N= 41) = 4.05,p< .044]. While the self-reports of appearance apparently did affect communication patterns to some degree, it is important to note that mere was no significant relationship between users' self-reported appearance and the number of romantic partners they found on Matchmaker: 43% of the users who reported very good or above average appearance started romantic relationships through Matchmaker, while

The impact of a computer-dating system

201

41% of those who reported average appearance did [X2(l, N = 87)=.051, p < .83]. No significant relationship was found between appearance and sex [X2(l, N = 86) = .872, p < .350], or between appearance and shyness [X2(l, N = 87) = 1.18, p < .277].

DISCUSSION

In various ways, Matchmaker seems to enable users to overcome relationship-initiation barriers posed by traditional sex roles, shyness, and appearance. As noted, many heterosexual users of Matchmaker largely conform to the gender-specific roles traditionally ascribed to "available" men and women (i.e., that men take the lead in initiating contact and that women assume a more passive role). Most of men on the system did initiate more communications than most of the women. But as noted, nearly a quarter of the women sent messages to more than 100 men, far exceeding the percentage of men who sent that many messages. What those findings may indicate is that a significant minority of the women, at least, feel able to break free from traditional gender roles on Matchmaker. A clue to why that may be true can be found in the reaction of Matchmaker users to the following statement on the survey: "One reason I enjoy using Matchmaker is that I can keep my identity a secret when communicating with others, if I so choose." Eighty-three percent of the heterosexual women either agreed or strongly agreed with that statement, as compared to 56% of the heterosexual men [X2(2, N = 86) = 5.69, p < .058]. The implication is that for the great majority of heterosexual women users, the anonymity afforded by the system helps them feel secure. For some of those women, clearly, that sense of security has translated into a willingness to take a more active role in relationship initiation than they might at, say, a singles-oriented bar. As noted, women have been relatively more successful in meeting their goals on Matchmaker than men have. About two-thirds of the women users indicated they were mainly interested in starting friendships on Matchmaker; indeed, the great majority, more than four-fifths, have been able to start in-person friendships. In addition, over half of the women have started romantic or sexual relationships through Matchmaker, even though only a third indicated that was their main goal. Undoubtedly, some of those Matchmaker relationships started as friendships and then blossomed into romance. By contrast, while more than twothirds of the men indicated they were seeking romance or sex, less than one-third had achieved that objective. Certainly one reason heterosexual women have been more successful in starting friendships and romantic or sexual relationships over Matchmaker than heterosexual men is that the men outnumber the women on the system almost three to one. With so many men pursuing so few women, the women may pick and choose from available suitors. But why do men outnumber women to such an extent? The answer may partly be that more men than women in our society at present have access to and feel comfortable using personal computers (Pope-Davis & Twing, 1991; Temple & Lips, 1989). Among heterosexual Matchmaker users who completed the survey, 73% of the men had been using personal computers for more than 4 years, while only 22% of the women had [X2(l, N = 86) = 18.35, p < .000]. Presumably, over time, as more women in society gain access to personal

202

Scharlott and Christ

computers, the disparity between the number of men and women on systems like Matchmaker will lessen. But it may also be that heterosexual men are simply more inclined to use mediated relationship-initiation avenues such as Matchmaker than heterosexual women. Among the heterosexual Matchmaker users who completed the survey, men were more likely to have used personal ads for relationship-initiation purposes than women: 35% of the men had used such ads, as compared to only 13% of the women [X2(l, N = 86) = 3.91, p < .048]. Davis (1990), likewise, found men more likely to use personal ads. One explanation for this pattern may be that a sizable number of men suffer from severe shyness and feel unable even to try to initiate relationships in face-to-face contexts. According to Gilmartin (1987), such severe shyness is far less of a problem for women in relationship-initiation contexts, because women generally are not expected to make the first move in starting relationships. The fact that a greater percentage of the heterosexual male users of Matchmaker fell hi the high shyness category supports Gilmartin's argument. If that reasoning is correct, then men will probably continue to outnumber women on systems like Matchmaker, and women will, consequently, continue to be in a advantageous position relative to men. Along with shyness, low self-esteem relating to one's appearance may also stand as an impediment to relationship initiation for some people. As seen, Matchmaker users who rated their appearance as average were less likely to indicate that their main purpose in using Matchmaker was to start a romantic or sexual relationship. But as noted, users who rated their appearance as average were just as likely to start romantic relationships on Matchmaker as those who rated their appearance as above average or very good. Apparently, in a text-based system like Matchmaker, appearance becomes less important in determining relationship-initiation success than in face-to-face contexts such as bars or even other mediated relationship-initiation avenues such as video-dating services. A text-based CMC system like Matchmaker encourages people to get to know something about one another before they meet, as opposed to allowing them to make summary judgments based on appearance that may preclude a romantic relationship. By contrast, Woll and Cozby (1987) found that on a video dating system, users employed appearance as their primary criterion in deciding whether to contact another, a strategy that doomed many users to failure because they set unreasonably high standards in their quest for an ideal partner.

CONCLUSIONS

While some people, such as many of those surveyed in this study, have used computer-mediated communication as a means to meet others for in-person relationships, others may be using CMC mainly for online interactions. CompuServe's CB-Simulator service, for example, through which users around the world can simultaneously communicate with one another, offers channels suited to various demographic or special-interest groups (e.g., adults, teens, transsexuals, homosexuals). Pearson (1991) details how users of Bell Canada's EROTICA! channel on the ALEX computer-conferencing system engage in sex-oriented discussions and fantasy role playing. And mainstream computer magazines now routinely run advertisements for nationwide bulletin board services that promise "hot chat" lines for sexu-

The impact of a computer-dating system

203

ally explicit verbal interactions and downloadable adult-oriented graphic images. Undoubtedly many, perhaps most, of the individuals using such systems see online communication as a stimulating end in itself. Thus, CMC may function as a means of helping individuals to meet and form in-person relationships, or it may serve as an alternative to forming such relationships. More research needs to be done on who uses CMC, through which channels, for what purposes, and with what effects. Nonetheless, the findings of this study suggest that a CMC system like Matchmaker can be beneficial in helping some individuals meet and form relationships, especially those who have had difficulty doing so because of sex role, shyness, or appearance inhibitions. Others who might find the use of such a system advantageous include people who, because of physical handicaps, find it difficult to meet prospective dates in face-to-face situations and individuals who, because of geographical or other reasons, have access to only a limited pool of available singles whom they meet through interpersonal channels. As suggested, such services might also appeal to individuals, especially women, who appreciate the anonymity and security CMC-based systems can provide, and to individuals who seek a more efficient mediated channel for meeting others than classified personal ads or video dating services. It seems likely that in the future, computer-based, singles-oriented services will become a viable relationship-initiation alternative for significant numbers of people, especially those facing special relationship-initiation barriers. Acknowledgements — The authors would like to thank Harry W. Haines, Trinity University, for his help in conceptualizing this study.

REFERENCES Adelman, M., & Ahuvia, A. (1991). Mediated channels for mate seeking: A solution to involuntary singlehood? Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8(3), 273-289. Allen, T. (1988). Bulletin boards of the 21st century are coming of age. Smithsonian, 19(6) 83-86; 88; 90; 92-93. Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1985). The anatomy of relationships. London: Heinemann Ltd. Bennet, J. (1985). The data game: The sexual revolution meets the information age. The New Republic, Feb. 13,1989. Bruch, M., Gorsky, J., Collins, T., & Berger, P. (1989). Shyness and sociability reexamined: A multicomponent analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 904-915. Chesebro, J. (1985). Computer-mediated interpersonal communication. In B. Ruben (Ed.), Information and behavior, 1. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Cloyd, J. (1976) The marketplace bar: The interrelation between sex, situations, and strategies in the pairing ritual of homo ludens. Urban Life, 5, 293-312. Curran, J. (1973). Correlates of physical attractiveness and interpersonal attraction in the dating situation. Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 153-157. Daly, J., & McCroskey, J. (Eds.) (1984). Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Davis, S. (1990). Men as success objects and women as sex objects: A study of personal advertisements. Sex Roles, 23,43-50. Dion, K., Dion, K., & Keelan, J. (1990). Appearance anxiety as a dimension of social-evaluative anxiety: Exploring the ugly duckling syndrome. Contemporary Social Psychology, 14, 220-224. Duran, R., & Kelly, L. (1989). The cycle of shyness: A study of self-perceptions of communication performance. Communication Reports, 2, 31-38. Garcia, S., Stinson, L., Ickes, W., Bissonnette, V., & Briggs, S. (1991). Shyness and physical attractiveness in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 35-49. Gilmartin, B. (1987). Shyness and love: Causes, consequences, and treatment. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

204

Scharlott and Christ

Hellerstein, L. (1985). The social use of electronic communication at a major university. Computers and the Social Sciences, 1,191-97. Hesse, B., Werner, C, & Altman, I. (1988). Temporal aspects of computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 147-165. Kalick, S., & Hamilton, T. (1986). The matching hypothesis reexamined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,673-682. Maroldo, G. (1982). Shyness and love on a college campus. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55, 819-24. McCormick, N., & McCormick, J. (1992). Computer friends and computer foes: Content of undergraduates' electronic mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 379-405. Melchoir, L., & Cheek, J. (1990). Shyness and anxious self-preoccupation during a social interaction. Journal of 'Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 117—130. Meyers, D. (1987). "Anonymity is part of the magic": Individual manipulation of computer-mediated communication contexts. Qualitative Sociology, 10,251-266. Pearson, I. (1991). Terminal sex. Saturday Night (January/February), 19-25. Pope-Davis, D., & Twing, J. (1991). The effects of age, gender and experience on measures of attitude regarding computers. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 333-339. Rice, R., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated network. Communication Research, 14, 85-108. Richardson, L. (1981). The dynamics of sex and gender: A sociological perspective. Boston: HoughtonMifflinCo. Rogerat, C. (1992). The case of elletel. Media, Culture and Society, 14, 73-88. Rogers, E. (1986). Communication technology: The new media in society. New York: The Free Press. Schaefermeyer, M., & Sewell, E. (1988). Communicating by electronic mail. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(2), 112-123. Smith, J., Waldorf, V., & Trembath, D. (1990). "Single white male looking for thin, very attractive ..." Sex Roles, 23, 675-685. Smith, K. (1990). High-tech heart-throbs. Far Eastern Review, 6 (December), 36-37. Sprecher, S., & McKinney, K. (1987). Barriers in the initiation of intimate heterosexual relationships. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality 5, 97-110. Steinfeld, C. (1986). Computer-mediated communication systems. In M. E. Williams (Ed.) Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 21, 167-202. Temple, L., & Lips, H. (1989). Gender differences and similarities in attitudes toward computers. Computers and Human Behavior, 5, 215-226. Van Gelder, L. (1983). Compusex: Reach out and touch someone. PC Magazine, November 1983. Weaver, J. (1987). Shyness: An inhibitor to the development of intimacy. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 5, 111-122. Woll, S., & Cozby, C. (1987). Videodating and other alternatives to traditional methods of relationship initiation. In W. Jones, & D. Periman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships J. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wong, E, McCreary, D., Dowden, C., & Jenner, S. (1991). The matching hypothesis: Factors influencing dating preferences. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 28(3-4), 27-31. Zimbardo, P. (1977). Shyness: What it is, what to do about it. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Zelitchenko, A. (1992). Information retrieval expert system "Matchmaker." Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 281-296.