University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
UWM Digital Commons
7".".*!&.."-//&+*.
3
Bidding on a “biddie”: Social Exchange and Online
Dating
Arrington Stoll
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
+((+1/%&.*!!!&/&+*(1+-'./ %8,.! 01)"!0"/!
-/+#/%" +))0*& /&+*+))+*.
7&.&.."-//&+*&.-+0$%//+3+0#+-#-""*!+,"* "..3&$&/(+))+*./%.""* ",/"!#+-&* (0.&+*&*7".".*!&.."-//&+*.
3*0/%+-&4"!!)&*&./-/+-+#&$&/(+))+*.+-)+-"&*#+-)/&+*,("." +*/ / +,"* "..01)"!0
" +))"*!"!&//&+*
/+((--&*$/+*&!!&*$+*5&!!&"6+ &(2 %*$"*!*(&*"/&*$ eses and Dissertations
%8,.! 01)"!0"/!
BIDDING ON A “BIDDIE”: SOCIAL EXCHANGE AND ONLINE DATING
by
Arrington Stoll
A Dissertation Submitted in
Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in Communication
at
The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
August 2017
ii
ABSTRACT
BIDDING ON A “BIDDIE”: SOCIAL EXCHANGE AND ONLINE DATING
by
Arrington Stoll
The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2017
Under the Supervision of Professor Mike Allen
The emergence of dime dating, while relatively new, has received a good deal of
attention from the popular press. With the new process of dime dating, more individuals
seeking and initiating romantic relationships are becoming curious of the cost-benefits of
dime dating. Despite the increased popularity of dime dating, little is known concerning the
processes by which individuals communicate rewards and costs, and how the principles of
social exchange apply as individuals maximize mutual relationship rewards. This study
provides a starting point for understanding the dime dating process.
A sample of 212 participants was divided into not-for-profit dating participants (196)
and for-profit dating participants (16). The participants responded to sets of structured
survey questions that focused on the rewards, costs, satisfaction, commitment,
alternatives, investment, and communication within online dating. The data from the surveys
were analyzed for each hypothesis and research question using for-profit dating
iii
participants, not-for-profit dating participants, and the combined total of all participants.
Hypothesis 1-5 were tested through the correlation between satisfaction and (a)
costs/rewards difference, (b) rewards/alternatives difference, (c) costs/alternatives
difference, (d) investments/costs difference, and (e) investments/alternatives difference.
For research question 1, a multiple regression (using the predictors of alternatives,
investments, and satisfaction) analyzed the investment model after removing the influence
of demographics [biological sex, income, education level, relational status, sexual identity].
Lastly, for research question 2, a hierarchical multiple regression evaluated the predictors
of costs, rewards, alternatives, investments, commitment and communication to analyze
the best estimators of relational satisfaction.
Results indicated that the processes by which individuals communicate rewards and
costs in for-profit and not-for-profit relationships are governed by social exchange
theoretical principals and the investment model, which depicts a clear correlation among
cost-benefit scale factors including communication, commitment, investment, rewards,
satisfaction, costs, and alternatives. The correlations contribute to the understanding of the
cost-benefit prospects of dime dating, relative to traditional online dating.
iv
ã Copyright by Arrington Stoll, 2017
All Rights Reserved
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS!.......................................................................................................!ix!
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW!..................................................!1!
Traditional!Online!Dating!.................................................................................................................!5!
The!Mating!Marketplace!of!Dime!Dating!........................................................................................!10!
Dime Dating Websites!.....................................................................................................................!11!
What’s Your Price
.!........................................................................................................................................!12!
Miss Travel
.!..................................................................................................................................................!12!
Seeking Arrangement
.!.................................................................................................................................!14!
Social!Exchange!..............................................................................................................................!16!
Social exchange theory.!.................................................................................................................!16!
Rewards.
!.......................................................................................................................................................!19!
Costs.
!...........................................................................................................................................................!20!
Cost-benefit analysis.
!.................................................................................................................................!20!
Comparison level and comparison level of alternatives.
!.........................................................................!22!
The Investment Model!.....................................................................................................................!23!
Commitment.
!...............................................................................................................................................!24!
Satisfaction.
!.................................................................................................................................................!26!
Investments.
!................................ ................................................................................................................. !26!
Social!Exchange!Framework!&!Relationships!..................................................................................!27!
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY!.............................................................................................!30!
Participants!....................................................................................................................................!30!
Measures!.......................................................................................................................................!31!
Rewards.!................................................................ ...........................................................................!33!
Costs.!...............................................................................................................................................!34!
Satisfaction.!.....................................................................................................................................!35!
Commitment.!....................................................................................................................................!36!
Alternatives.!.....................................................................................................................................!37!
Investments.!.....................................................................................................................................!39!
Communication.!...............................................................................................................................!40!
Design!............................................................................................................................................!41!
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS!........................................................................................................!43!
Hypothesis!One!..............................................................................................................................!43!
Hypothesis!Two!..............................................................................................................................!43!
Hypothesis!Three!...........................................................................................................................!44!
Hypothesis!Four!.............................................................................................................................!44!
Hypothesis!Five!.............................................................................................................................. !45!
Research!Question!One!................................ ..................................................................................!45!
Research!Question!Two!..................................................................................................................!47!
Indepe n d e nt !S ample!T - Test!................................................................................................ ............!49!
vi
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS!..................................................!49!
Limitations!.....................................................................................................................................!55!
Future!Research!.............................................................................................................................!58!
Justifications!and!Imp lications !........................................................................................................!61!
Conclusion!................................................................ .....................................................................!63!
References!...........................................................................................................................!66!
APPENDICES!.......................................................................................................................!89!
APPENDIX A: Recruitment email!.....................................................................................................!89!
APPENDIX B: For-profit online dating survey!.................................................................................!91!
APPENDIX C: Not-for-profit online dating survey!................................ ........................................!102!
APPENDIX D: Online consent!........................................................................................................!111!
APPENDIX E: IRB Approval letter!..................................................................................................!113!
Curriculum Vitae!.................................................................................................................!114!
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:
The investment model of commitment processes
................................................................. 81
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:
Demographics
............................................................................................................................................. 82
Table 2:
Dating Demographics
.............................................................................................................................. 83
Table 3:
Reliability Statistics of For-profit Measure
................................................................................... 84
Table 4:
Reliability Statistics of Not-for-profit Measure
........................................................................... 86
Table 5:
Hypothesis 1-5 Correlation Summary
............................................................................................. 88
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for providing me the support
necessary to make this process feasible. The last four years have been an incredible
journey.
Thank you to my advisor Dr. Mike Allen for his support and guidance throughout this
process. Without his knowledge and expertise, this process would not have come to fruition.
To my committee members, Dr. Nancy Burrell, Dr. Erin Ruppel, and Dr. Erin Parcell, for their
feedback and support.
Thank you to Gwen Cravens, your third floor was my writing sanctuary, and I am
forever grateful. To my friends and family, words will never do justice to how thankful I am to
still have you in my life. Dad, thank you for your guidance, wisdom, and constant
encouragement. Mom, thank you for your motivation, patience, and advice. I love you both,
and you truly make a great team. Last, but by no means least, thank you to Dino and Boots
for constant companionship.
1
Bidding on a “Biddie”: Social Exchange and Online Dating
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
The process of courtship has taken a variety of forms throughout history and across
cultures. In most Western cultures, romantic relationships are voluntary (Brown, Feiring, &
Furman, 1999). However, some individuals enter into arranged relationships while other
individuals date. Individuals can identify a partner through traditional dating by meeting a
variety of friends and potential romantic partners within existing social structures (e.g.,
grocery store, church, neighborhood, school, bar). Also, individuals meet potential partners
using non-traditional outlets such as chat rooms, online dating websites, and social media.
A relationship describes “an ongoing pattern of association and interaction between
two individuals who acknowledge some connection with each other” (Brown, Feiring, &
Furman, 1999, p. 3). Partners may be chosen for a relationship based on compatibility, using
a combination of intuition, feelings, or attractiveness (Brown, Feiring, & Furman, 1999).
Consider the scenario of a well-dressed person approaching a date’s front door, handing
the date flowers or some gift of appreciation. The couple met because of a close mutual
friend at a work function a couple of weeks prior. The two go out on a date at an elegant
restaurant and engage in conversation. After dinner, the one person pays for the meal,
drives the date home, thanks the date with a warm smile and expresses an interest in
2
looking forward to another date. They repeat the process on a regular basis, leading to
courtship and marriage. This scenario may seem ordinary for some, but for others, this
dating process is something out of the past. Instead, using technology now represents the
process of dating and finding a partner (Lucas, 2015).
The Internet is entwined in everyday life and represents a popular place for single
individuals to meet a potential romantic partner. Previous research reports that nearly half
of college students know someone entering into a marriage or long-term relationship after
meeting someone using online dating (Smith, 2016). Of the individuals using online dating,
80% agree with the statement describing the process as a good way to meet people
(Smith, 2016). Online dating altered the landscape of modern courtship for many singles
because of the resources available to look for the perfect partner expand the pool of
eligible mates. Current online dating contexts present researchers with a unique way to
study interpersonal relationships beginning online and then continuing to face-to-face.
During interpersonal interactions, individuals calculate the rewards and costs of a
specific action (Sprecher, 1998), and individuals try to maximize rewards and minimize
costs (Stafford, 2008). Within all relationships, the nature of the specific relationship
influences the exchange of resources (e.g., love, compassion, money, tangible goods).
3
Receiving a reward given voluntarily by another person a still creates a sense of obligation
for repayment (Blau, 1964; Sprecher, 1998).
Recently, the notion of dating economics or “dime dating” provides an enticing
alternative to traditional online dating websites (ODS). Dime dating involves one individual
receiving compensation for going on a date (Stoll & Kulovitz, 2013). Compensation may
include monetary bidding for a first date, the exchange of goods such as vacations, or the
negotiation of generous support for a mutually beneficial relationship. While interpersonal
interactions are traditionally guided by the calculations of costs and rewards, dime dating, a
new controversial approach to meeting potential partners, changes the way individuals
meet. This way is based much more heavily on expectations prior to meeting a dating
partner.
Interpersonal relationships involving the exchange of goods and services have
previously been studied in Asian cultures under the name, “compensated dating” (e.g., Chu
& Laidler, 2016; Lee, Shek, & Busiol, 2016; Lee & Shek, 2013). However, the practice of
compensated dating is commonly associated with terms such as teenage sex work (Lam,
2003) or casual teen prostitution (Ho, 2003), and the word client is typically associated with
a partner (Lee & Shek, 2013, McCoy, 2004). The literature on costs and rewards within
interpersonal interactions has not been concerned with monetary bidding and exchanging
4
of goods and services for first dates (i.e., dime dating) in Western culture. With dime dating
emerging as a new way to initiate dates, understanding this controversial form of dating
enables researchers to uncover how the calculations of costs and rewards motivate
individuals to participate in this type of interpersonal relationship, and the perceptions of
the modern dating scene.
However, extensive interpersonal communication research exists exploring
romantic relationships and communication between relational partners. Since the advent of
computer-mediated communication, social network sites, ODS, and other virtual
communities, research has shifted to explore how individuals communicate in technological
environments (Ben-Ze’ve, 2004; Craig & Wright, 2012; Fox & Warber, 2013; Fox, Warber, &
Makstaller, 2013; Hand, Thomas, Buboltz, Deemer, & Buyanjargal, 2013; Mansson & Myers,
2011; Mod, 2010; Sosik & Bazarova, 2014; Stewart, Dainton & Goodboy, 2014; Tong &
Walther, 2010). The different places where people meet online set different expectations;
the “kind of meeting place indicates the kinds of people who gather there, the
commonalities they share, their first impressions, and the nature of their initial contact”
(Baker, 2008, p. 164). With the variety of different places that people can meet, and with
each place presenting different expectations, researching dime dating adds to the
5
understanding of how this type of meeting place dictates the type of environment and the
expectations of anticipated goals and rewards.
This current study seeks to offer contributions to this new area of inquiry by coupling
the theory of social exchange and the investment model, drawn from communication
studies and behavioral economics, with the idea of dime dating. The central argument of
this study is that dime dating is changing the way we meet potential partners through the
explicit exchange of costs and rewards. Therefore, contending that engaging in dime dating
may prove to create a new type of dating experience in the search for a potential partner.
Traditional Online Dating
Online dating provides an avenue for the development of interpersonal relationships.
Online dating uses websites designed to facilitate interactions with the purpose of finding
short-term or long-term romantic partners (Toma, 2016) and has become an accepted
common way to search for a partner (Masden & Edwards, 2015). The appeal of ODS in
comparison to traditional face-to-face dating is the freedom of self-presentation (Masden
& Edwards, 2015). The internet provides individuals with a way to carefully choose how the
individual wants to be portrayed, and which character or personality traits are highlighted.
Also, the communication between potential partners on ODS is only between two
individuals through the use of messaging or chats sent privately to and from each individual
6
(Masden & Edwards, 2015). In traditional face-to-face dating, there is a lack of privacy
because individuals are present and allowed to hear the details of romantic encounters
whether firsthand or through another individual (Masden & Edwards, 2015). The aspect of
enhanced privacy is not typically present in the real word, face-to-face dating situations in
comparison to the privacy and anonymity provided by online meetings. Lastly, using ODS
allow individuals to weed out potential partners lacking the characteristics they desire
through the use of matching techniques (Finkel, Eastwich, Karney, Reis & Sprecher, 2012).
ODS use individualized mathematical algorithms to find potential partners for users: “these
matches are presented to the user not as a random selection of potential partners in the
local area but rather as potential partners with whom the user will be especially likely to
experience positive romantic outcomes” (Finkel, et al., 2012, p. 6). The efficiency and
increased probability of finding a quality partner provided to individuals in comparison to
traditional face-to-face dating are appealing aspects of ODS. Freedom of self-
presentation, a higher level of privacy when communicating, the ability to find a partner an
individual would not normally have access to, and increased probability of finding a quality
partner has attracted an exponential number of people to ODS.
Recent years continue to see exponential growth in the popularity of ODS, especially
for two age groups: the youngest adults and older adults (Smith, 2016). Approximately 27%
7
of adults ages 18-24 have used online dating sites; this has tripled in the last two years
(Smith, 2016). The number of adults ages 55 to 64 using ODS has doubled over the last two
years with 12% using online dating sites (Smith, 2016). Online dating mobile app use
increased, with 5% of 18 to 24-year-olds reported using dating apps in 2011 increasing to
22% in 2016 (Smith, 2016). Also, one third of individuals married between 2005 and 2012
met online (Cacioppo, Cacioppo, Gonzaga, Ogburn & VanderWeele, 2013). The growing
popularity makes internet the second most likely way to meet a partner (Rosenfeld &
Thomas, 2010). Additional research on online dating has focused on self-presentation
(Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs, 2006; Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006; Toma, Hancock, & Ellison,
2008; Toma & Hancock, 2010a), self-disclosure (Gibbs, Ellison, & Lai, 2011), uncertainty
reduction (Gibbs et al., 2011), attraction (Hefner & Kahn, 2014), expectations (Houran &
Lange, 2004), deception (Toma & Hancock, 2010b; Toma & Hancock, 2012), the market
metaphor in online dating (Heino, Ellison, & Gibbs, 2010), and the construction of values in
online and offline dating discourses (Manning, 2014).
In addition to the common ODS such as
Match.com
,
eHarmony
,
Zoosk
, and
Plenty of
Fish,
the online dating market has expanded to service niche markets for individuals who
identify as Christian, Jewish, Gothic, Vegan, or Farmers, among others. Online dating
permits individuals to find persons with shared interests, essentially cutting out the work to
8
search for the “perfect” partner (Whitty, Baker, & Inman, 2007). Although ODS vary in how
the sites connect users with partners, it is now easier than ever for individuals to find
specifically what they want by being connected to databases full of potential partners. In
addition, while ODS may vary in name, the different ODS are still very similar in terms of
structure. The first step for joining an ODS is setting up a profile.
Similar to newspaper personals (but with much more information) individuals
construct a profile, describing themselves and often providing photographs of
themselves and sometimes sound bites and video. Users typically have to pay to use
this service and once they identify a person whose profile they like, online contact is
made through the system to gauge whether the other individual might also be
interested. From there, individuals typically organize to meet face-to-face. (Whitty &
Carr, 2006, p.4)
The process of creating a profile, searching for and evaluating the profiles of other
individuals, and initiating interaction online (Heino et al., 2010) follows a similar formula
across the numerous companies worldwide that run online dating sites. Depending on the
ODS, a profile could include demographic information, likes and dislikes, the type of partner
and relationship one is seeking and photos (Couch, 2006). For websites focused upon
9
connecting individuals for sex, a profile typically includes sexual preference, sexual
orientation, and specific sexual likes and dislikes (Couch, 2006).
However, online dating challenges the traditional norms of romantic courtship. Heino
et al. (2010) explored how the marketplace metaphor applies to online dating, examining
how participants assess themselves, assess others, and make decisions about which
individual(s) to pursue romantically. Results revealed a salient marketplace metaphor for
individuals using online dating websites. Over half of participants used marketplace
metaphors during interviews with the researchers. Participants compared online dating to
an economic transaction, using language about shopping and purchasing. Themes of
assessing other’s market worth, determining one’s own market worth, shopping for perfect
parts, maximizing inventory, and calibrating selectivity arose (Heino et al., 2010).
The metaphor of online dating as a marketplace where individuals can shop for a
potential romantic partner seems to be clear, and is expected to evolve as online dating
increases in popularity. In a study conducted by Long (2010, p. 206), online dating was
described using the analogy of shopping,
I think [shopping] is a perfect analogy for it. I can pick and choose; I can choose what
size I want, it’s like buying a car, what options am I looking for. I can test drive it, eh
it’s not really my fit, I’ll put it back and go try another car.
10
The online dating metaphor is synonymous with the current materialistic culture. For
example, an online dating profile can be updated any time and serves the purpose of an
individual’s “own personal shop window” (Henry-Waring & Barraket, 2008, p. 21), a personal
sales pitch or promotional device, the aspect of self-presentation and the representation of
products (potential partners) (Whitty & Carr, 2006). The marketplace metaphor associated
with online dating is even more prevalent and exemplified in dime dating.
The Mating Marketplace of Dime Dating
Dime dating, also known as for-profit dating, is an ODS where the exchange of
money, services, and gifts for time spent with attractive individuals occurs. Dime dating is
altering the traditional ways of modern courtship as it skips the basic dating initiating stage
because of the offer of money or tangible goods (Kulovitz, 2017). Economic thinking can be
used to support judgments about the “goodness” of social actions such as understanding
the mechanics of how individuals communicate and interact (Boulding, 1977). In other
words, individuals analyze the tradeoffs made in dime dating relationships in every
interaction by looking at what is given up in comparison to what is received.
The concept of a marketplace represents different aspects of life (e.g., labor
relationships, religious and charitable institutions, political structures, prostitution), including
relationships such as dime dating. Boulding (1977), states that “the concept of the market
11
can be generalized to that of the opportunities open for selecting and switching reciprocity
partners” (p. 812). The concept of a market is seen through individuals meeting new people
and initiating and ending relationships. An individual might stay with their partner and decide
that the alternatives are not worth ending the relationship, while another individual might
start dating someone new because of an imperfection with their previous partner.
Imperfections may arise out of ignorance of alternatives or out of diversity of
reciprocity offerings. I may be forced to stay with my present reciprocity partner
either because I do not know of any others that are better or because there are no
others that are better, simply because I have got the best (for me), and all the others
are different. (Boulding, 1977, p. 812)
Imperfections in the marketplace range based on many different factors such as societal
expectations, institutions, or taboos. Considering the concept of online dating as a
“marketplace” several websites using the dime dating principles will be discussed.
Dime Dating Websites. Emerging into the realm of ODS are now self-proclaimed
“dating auction” websites founded by Brandon Wade. In order to have an adequate
understanding of these websites in the context of dime dating, first, What’s Your Price will
be discussed, second, Miss Travel, and third Seeking Arrangement.
12
What’s Your Price
.
WhatsYourPrice.com
claims to level “the playing field for men
and makes dating more rewarding for women” (whatsyourprice.com, para. 2, 2016a). Such
websites distinguish between “attractive” users, typically women, and “generous” users,
typically men. Members must be 18 years old to join the website, to then create a personal
profile, sharing personal information like other ODS, and designate themselves as either an
“attractive user” or “generous user.” Next, generous users browse the profiles of attractive
users and try to find one of interest to take on a date. The generous user places a monetary
bid on the attractive user. Attractive users may review the bids from generous users, accept
or decline a bid, or set a price for a date. Creator, Brandon Wade, claims,
WhatsYourPrice.com is taking the science out of dating, because really, it’s all about
economics. Dating is about supply and demand, quality over quantity. We know what
it takes to capture the attention of a beautiful girl, but after that first date, the rest is
up to you. (whatsyourprice.com, para. 4, 2016a)
Miss Travel
. Similarly, online dating website
MissTravel.com
facilitates the
exchange of vacations for dates. Users create a personal profile, providing a profile picture,
designating themselves as an “attractive” traveler or “generous” traveler and provides
three options for trip offer types and payment features such as “i’ll pay for you”, “pay for
me”, and “50/50” (misstravel.com, para. 5, 2016). Attractive travelers are adventurous and
13
open minded people who love to travel, but they lack the budget to do so alone and are
looking to meet generous travelers who are willing to pay. As an attractive member and if
you are a female member, you get to use the “basic website features 100% free”
(misstravel.com, para. 1, 2016). After creating a personal profile, generous members create
trips or vacations they are planning to go on, and attractive members create trips they
would like to go on, including information such as location, duration of the trip, and a
description that will be visible on the profile. Next, travelers browse profiles and trips of
other travelers. If a user finds an individual of interest, they begin a conversation on the
website. Finally, once an attractive traveler and generous traveler connect and agree on a
trip, the individuals exchange contact information and communicate to plan the details of
the trip.
Miss Travel
does not run background checks on users but does encourage the use
of common sense when meeting strangers online as well as provide travel and safety tips
(misstravel.com, para. 7, 2016).
Both
What’s Your Price
and
Miss Travel
claim to be strictly an online dating service
for individuals looking for dates. However, the exchange of currency or goods for dates
suggests a similarity to escorting, or prostitution in that individuals are exchanging
money/goods for a romantic relationship that may include sex. Yet, the exchange is
14
fundamentally different than prostitution because the exchange of money/goods is
emphasized not to guarantee sexual interactions.
Seeking Arrangement
. With over five million active members,
SeekingArrangment.com
facilitates a “relationship on your terms where beautiful,
successful people fuel mutually beneficial relationships” (seekingarrangement.com, para.
1, 2016a). The website defines an arrangement as a place “where people are direct with
one another and stop wasting time. It allows people to immediately define what they need
and want in a relationship” (seekingarrangement.com, para. 5, 2016b). On the website, an
individual will self-identify as either a “sugar daddy” or “sugar baby.” A sugar daddy is a man
or a woman that knows what (s)he wants, is driven, financially stable, and generous when
agreeing to support a sugar baby because they enjoy having attractive people by their side.
A sugar baby is an individual who wants nice material possessions, trips, gifts, and wants to
experience a “luxurious lifestyle, and meet wealthy people on a regular basis”
(SeekingArrangement.com, para. 7, 2016b).
Seeking Arrangement
does not have specific
regulations over how people structure their mutually beneficial relationship. Some
individuals are interested in an allowance type relationship, some seek traditional
boyfriend-girlfriend relationships, while others may strictly want to go on exciting dates. A
sugar daddy can pamper a sugar baby by providing them with allowances, college tuition,
15
expensive gifts, exotic trips, mentorship, sex, as well as other agreed upon elements. While
a variety of “sugar daddy” sites or platforms exist, the majority follow the same structure
where wealthy sugar daddies and attractive sugar babies seeking mutually beneficial
relationships.
While dime dating is heteronormative because of the ODS subtly promoting women
as the attractive members and men as the generous members (Kulovitz, 2017), the idea of
wealthy older people supporting struggling younger individuals involves nothing
revolutionary. However, the arrangement of an older individual supporting a younger
individual is changing the way individuals meet and agree upon first dates by resembling an
online marketplace by communicating contractual service relationships in return for the
exchange of money, tangible items, or services; essentially, an interpersonal transaction.
Given the relational context, social exchange frameworks are very relevant in dime dating
relationships in order to further the understanding of why two people choose each other,
and which person has more influence given the exchange of costs and rewards. The next
section, will discuss two specific social exchange frameworks with particular relevance to
the online dating “marketplace” and identify the hypotheses and research questions.
16
Social Exchange
A social exchange framework is any model or theoretical approach that focuses on
the material or symbolic exchange of resources between individuals and/or uses one of the
concepts of costs, rewards, reciprocity, and equity (Sprecher, 1998). The social exchange
framework is both a sociological and social psychological perspective which explains
stability and change as a process of communicating exchanges between parties. This
framework is one of the major theoretical perspectives in the arena of social psychology
and communication studies since the early writings of Blau (1964), Homans (1961),
Emerson (1962, 1972), Altman and Taylor (1973), Burgess and Huston (1979), and Thibaut
and Kelley (1959). The most basic premise of any social exchange framework is: individuals
remain in relationships only as the perceived rewards from the relationship exceed the
perceived costs of continuing to participate in that relationship. Further, this paper will be
explaining the social exchange theory (SET) and the investment model.
Social exchange theory. SET is one of the most common frameworks for
researching close relationships; it emphasizes that the formation of a relationship between
humans is by the use of subjective cost-benefit analysis along with a comparison of
alternatives (Hand & Furman, 2008).
17
Central to SET is the perspective that actions seeking and eliciting approval from
another person are more likely to be repeated in comparison to actions often eliciting
disapproval from others (Cook & Rice, 2006). Therefore, the ease of predicting whether an
action will be repeated by a person or not occurs by calculating the degree of disapproval in
comparison to the rewards an individual receives.
The principles of SET include different factors guiding interpersonal attraction.
Individuals are attracted to people similar to themselves and to those who offer desirable
resources (e.g., appearance, education, income, etc.) viewed as potential rewards
(Shtatfeld & Barak, 2009). Individuals analyze the fairness of the rewards, “as partners feel
they get what they deserve in terms of relevant factors” (Shtatfeld & Barak, 2009, p. 21).
Therefore, the relationships allowing individuals to receive the greatest benefits are the
relationships individuals view as the most highly valued. Considering the context of dime
dating, the benefits may be in the form of an attractive individual embarking on an
extravagant trip. The benefit for the generous individual is having the attractive individual by
their side, while the attractive member views the extravagant trip as the benefit for
engaging and communicating with the generous member.
The value people hold in the dating market is determined by a number of
characteristics such as beauty, intelligence, social status and wealth (Fiore, 2002).
18
Understandably, people are looking for the best partner they can afford, and considering
the traditional 1-10 scale when rating an individual,
We would all like to have someone who is a 10, but a 7 can realistically expect only
another 7. Not all 7’s possess the same mix of qualities. One might make up for
lower attractiveness with a greater intellect, one shops for the preferred
combination of qualities. (Fiore, 2002, p. 23)
SET proposes the relationships individuals choose to create and maintain are the ones
maximizing rewards and minimizing costs, therefore yielding the most profit. Profit is based
upon the rewards minus the costs. In dime dating, the difference between a 10 and a 7 can
be offset by the offered price, enabling an individual to trade to a higher level. Clearly, a
price is present in any relationship over time as an individual further learns a partner’s
characteristics, whether positive or negative. However, in dime dating the price is for the
initial access (first date) with a partner perceived as holding greater stature than oneself (a
“7” paying to date a “10” for the first time). After the initial date, perceptions are
reassessed, and to the “7” the other individual no longer merits a 10 and may not be
perceived as an 8 or a 6, leading the “7” to decide if the rewards outweigh the costs
(continue versus discontinue the relationship).
19
The practicality of communication in social exchange lies in the assumption that, as
human beings, we are able to recognize and acknowledge another individuals’ situation,
their needs, and are likely to reciprocate (Lawler & Thye, 1999, Molm, Peterson &
Takahashi, 1999). The communicate exchange occurs when an individual in a relationship
responds (Lawler & Thye). This communicative exchange occurs when one partner
communicates their needs and the other partner provides a response which is then
compared to the worth of the original message. The implication of social exchange is that
communicating our wants and needs is an inherent part of interaction in a relationship.
Rewards.
Rewards take many forms such as material goods (economic) or symbolic
goods (attention, status, advice) and are defined as items that either have value or bring
satisfaction and gratification to the individual (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959, p. 12). Additionally,
behavioral rewards entail services provided by a specific individual (Chadwick-Jones,
1976). Rewards refer to the pleasures and gratifications that an individual enjoys (Thibaut &
Kelley, 1959). Meaning, that “the provision of a means whereby a drive is reduced or a need
fulfilled constitutes a reward” (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959, p. 12). Each time a rewarding service
is provided, the other party is “motivated to continue the exchange and to increase service
with the hope of future reward” (Gray, 1980, p. 312). The expectation that if an individual
receives a reward, the favor will be returned in some form (i.e., material or symbolic), is
20
called the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). The norm of reciprocity is not a new
phenomenon, and it can apply to buying cars, going on first dates, or continuing a
relationship between husband and wife rather than concluding that the divorce option is
preferable (Boulding, 1977). The norm of reciprocity serves to maintain interaction, stabilize
it, and to balance differences in power (Foster & Beresford, 1993). However, different
rewards are significant in different relationships (Foa & Foa, 1974), as rewards are viewed
differently from person to person (Foster & Beresford, 1993). The reward itself and the size
or magnitude of the reward are subjective to each individual in the exchange.
Costs.
Costs refer to “any factors that operate to inhibit or deter the performance of
a sequence of behavior. The greater the deterrence to performing a given act- the greater
the inhibition the individual has to overcome- the greater the cost of the act” (Thibaut &
Kelley, 1959, p. 12). Therefore, if a negative or conflicting consequence accompanies an
action, the cost becomes high. Considering the concepts of costs and rewards in dime
dating relationships, SET posits that individuals feel positively or negatively about
relationships because of a combination of three factors: (1) cost-benefit analysis, (2)
comparison level, and (3) comparison level of alternatives.
Cost-benefit analysis.
Cost-benefit analysis describes the process of evaluating the
value of a relationship in terms of potential rewards and costs. The potential costs are
21
elements in the relationship an individual may view as negative. Rewards or benefits are
elements an individual may view as positive such as desirable personality traits and
attractiveness. As resources are limited, and individuals cannot participate in every
exchange (i.e., relationship), each individual must evaluate the option and choose the best
option with the greatest net reward, (i.e., benefit minus cost) (Auld & Case, 1997). The
extent of the reward or cost experienced by an individual in a relationship depends on the
specific needs, values, skills, and abilities (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). In dime dating
relationships, individuals subtract the perceived costs from the perceived rewards. For
example, an individual may dislike a partner’s physical appearance, but the added benefits
of money outweigh the costs. The process of calculating the worth of a relationship in
potential rewards and costs is useful for predicting the overall value individuals place on the
relationship. Individuals assess the value at the beginning of a relationship to help an
individual decide whether the relationship is worth initiating. Individuals keep calculating the
difference between rewards and costs as the relationship develops in order to maintain the
relationship with the other individual. Therefore, the first hypothesis is:
H1: Relational satisfaction increases as the difference between rewards and costs
increases.
22
Comparison level and comparison level of alternatives.
Individuals use two different
kinds of standards to gauge the acceptability of outcomes in a relationship: (a) the
comparison level (CL) and (b) the comparison level of alternatives (CLalt) (Thibaut & Kelley,
1959). The CL is the expected rewards, and CLalt is the discernment of how the outcomes
weigh in comparison to other alternatives. The CL “is the standard against which the
participant evaluates the ‘attractiveness’ of the relationship and how satisfactory it is” (i.e.,
the standard that an individual feels the quality of outcomes are what one deserves) (Kelley
& Thibaut, 1978, p. 8). If outcomes are above the CL, it is satisfying, while the outcomes
considered to be below the CL, are unsatisfying (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). If someone with a
high comparison level expects high rewards, then someone with a low comparison level
expects lower rewards. Laursen and Campbell (1999) explain that a CL is relative rather
than fixed because the CL depends on the relationship and the potential benefits.
Individuals social interactions are shaped by the CL, which results in distinct outcomes in
each relationship. Essentially, the CL is an analysis of an individual’s satisfaction with the
current relationship relative to the expectations of that type of relationship.
The CLalt refers to the expectations of a better alternative and can be defined as
“the lowest level of outcomes a member will accept in the light of available alternative
opportunities in other relationships” (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978, p. 9). Therefore, in dime dating
23
relationships, an individual evaluates the rewards and costs based on what the individual
feels (s)he deserves (CL), and identifies the lowest level of rewards that a person will
accept in a relationship based upon the other options available (CLalt). If the rewards drop
below the lowest level of what the individual would accept, the individual is more likely to
discontinue the relationship. Whereas if the rewards exceed the individual’s CLalt, the
individual becomes more reliant on the relationship and wants to continue the exchange
(i.e., Where a relationship falls relative to the CLalt predicts if someone will want to stay in a
relationship or leave it). In summary, if the net gain is positive, the relationship is worth
continuing, unless another potential relationship (quality of alternatives) is present for which
the perceived gain is larger than the “actual” net gain in the current relationship. Therefore,
the second and third hypothesis are:
H2: Relational satisfaction increases as the difference between rewards and
alternatives increases.
H3: Relational satisfaction decreases as the different between costs and quality of
alternatives increases.
The Investment Model. Stemming from the traditional social exchange model is
Rusbult’s (1980; 1983) investment model. While similar to social exchange theory, the
investment model adds the variable of commitment. The investment model shifts the focus
24
from why individuals like each other to how and why individuals stay together (Rusbult,
Agnew, & Arriaga, 2011). The investment model elaborates upon social exchange theory by
saying that individuals use three categories to organize their thinking about the costs and
rewards in relationships. According to this model, commitment is determined by
satisfaction, investments made in the relationship, and the previously discussed
comparison level of alternatives (Rusbult, 1980) (see Figure 1). Research conducted by
Rusbult et al. (2011), supports the investment model saying, influencing the level of
commitment to a person is the satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment
size. In addition, a meta-analysis conducted by Le and Agnew (2003) reveals that
consistently predicting commitment is the satisfaction, investment, and quality of
alternatives.
Nonetheless, very few empirical studies have compared other possible predictors of
commitment to the explanatory power of the investment model. Therefore, the investment
model variables may provide additional insight into the phenomenon of dime dating
relationships.
Commitment.
Commitment is defined as “the intent to persist in a relationship,
including long-term orientation toward the involvement as well as feeling of psychological
attachment” (Rusbult, Martz & Agnew, 1998, p. 359). Being able to examine commitment in
25
a relationship is very important because the stability of a relationship is directly affected by
commitment and therefore contributes to the happiness and success of the relationship
(Sprecher, 2001). The variable of commitment represents the long-term orientation and
feelings of attachment felt toward a relationship (Johnson, 1982; Rosenblatt, 1977). If
individuals view the relationship as long-term and feel more connected, there is a greater
chance for individuals to remain in the relationship and perform the necessary
maintenance.
The level of commitment of an individual to a relationship depends on how satisfied
the individual is about the costs and rewards present in the relationship, investment into the
relationship, and a comparison with other potential alternative relationships (Sprecher,
1988, 2001). The fewer the desirable alternatives to a relationship, the greater the urge to
invest into a particular relationship and thus greater commitment to the said relationship.
Therefore, if an individual has greater satisfaction in the dime dating relationship, views the
relationship with someone else as less-satisfying, and if the individual invests numerous
resources in the relationship, an individual will want to commit to maintaining the dime
dating relationship. The first research question is:
RQ1: Using the three variables in the investment model, will this be an adequate
description of the observed relationships?
26
Satisfaction.
Satisfaction refers to the emotions (whether positive or negative) that
individuals feel in a relationship (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). Influencing satisfaction is
whether a partner fulfills the individuals’ needs (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). The
investment model argues that individuals are more satisfied when the relationship is
providing greater rewards with lower costs that are exceeding an individual’s expectations
(Rusbult, 1983). Understanding the partner’s needs, enjoyment and happiness can lead to
greater satisfaction and increased commitment in the relationship. Considering dime dating
relationships, individuals should feel satisfied when the relationship provides more rewards
(e.g., physically attractive, wealthy), fewer costs (e.g., fewer arguments or demands), and
exceeds their expectations.
Investments.
Investments serve as a stabilizing aspect and factor in relationships
and refer to the “magnitude and importance of the resources that become attached to a
relationship that would be lost or decline in value if the relationship were to end” (Rusbult,
Agnew, & Arriaga, 2011, p. 8). At the beginning of the relationship, the time partners spend
with each other is one of the basic forms of a potential investment. “Time is a resource that
is put into a relationship that could not be recovered if the relationship were to end”
(Rusbult, Drigotas, & Verette, 1994, p. 119). As a relationship progresses, further investment
occurs through communication, energy, disclosed information, combining friend groups, or
27
purchasing items together as well as other intrinsically or extrinsically investments.
However, the investments given in the relationship are nontransferable and cannot be
returned if the relationship ends. Therefore, individuals make investments together in order
to form a strong foundation in hopes of a lasting and rewarding relationship (Sprecher,
2001).
Overall, individuals enhance the relationship and become dependent on the
relationship by feeling committed. The feeling of commitment occurs when satisfaction is
present, alternatives do not compare to the current relationship, and when individuals are
investing resources in the relationship. Therefore, the fourth and fifth hypotheses are:
H4: Relational satisfaction increases as the difference between investment and
costs increases.
H5: Relational satisfaction increases as the difference between investment loss and
quality of alternatives increases.
Social Exchange Framework & Relationships
Social exchange is a joint activity where each party possesses something the other
values. The communicative exchange is used to benefit each party and can either be
implicit or explicit such as exchanging behaviors or goods that the other person could not
produce or experience for a lower cost on their own (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; Homans, 1961;
28
Emerson 1972; Lawler, 2001). Since relationships are formed by a personal cost-benefit
analysis and a comparison of alternatives, the costs and rewards communicated by each
individual in a relationship are put under the spotlight. The major assumption, in this case, is
that both the parties in this relationship are receiving items of value from the other (Thibaut
& Kelley, 1959). The social exchange framework is a way of describing how different
individuals view the discrepancies and issues arising from relationships.
The basis of the application of this theory is upon the analysis of the rewards and
the costs that one gains, or is likely to gain, from a relationship. In relationships, individuals
join together believing that the relationship represents the best value. The whole theme and
concept behind this principle are that when individuals learn about each other in a
relationship through communicating and spending time together, over time can balance
social investments in the relationship and satisfy certain private interests (Burgess &
Huston, 2013).
The establishment of a romantic relationship depends on whether both parties are
willing and able to invest meaningfully in the life of the partner (Weiten, Dunn, & Hammer,
2014). In a bid to maintain the relationship, individuals begin to engage in certain
maintenance activities to reinforce commitment and satisfaction (Weiten et al., 2014).
Nonetheless, how the individuals in the relationship apply the principles of social exchange
29
depends on whether both parties are in the relationship to maximize
mutual
relationship
rewards or maximize
individual
rewards and give in order to receive.
Foremost, according to SET, dating individuals need to make three decisions to
ensure the stability of the relationship (Sprecher, 1998). Initially, individuals determine a
ratio of benefits to costs. Here a balance must be established between what each party
receives and what they invest in a relationship. Next, an individual considers their level of
desired satisfaction. In other words, individuals’ compare the relationship to anticipated
expectations of rewards for a relationship. Finally, regarding dependence levels or how
dependent one is on the relationship, each individual considers the possibility of making a
better relationship with a different party. Therefore, the second research question is:
RQ2: Using multiple regression predictors [costs, rewards, alternatives, investments,
commitment, and communication] what are the best estimators of relational
satisfaction after removing the influence of demographics [age, income, education
level].
In relationships, an equal exchange of rewards is desirable, and SET explains why
individuals choose to start and maintain certain relationships. Essentially, individuals want
to reap the maximum rewards from a relationship with minimal costs. The concept behind
the theory is that people value relationships which give more benefits for the minimal
30
amount of effort (Wang, 2004). In all types of interpersonal relationships, individuals feel
either positively or negatively regarding the relationship based on many different factors
(Wang, 2004). According to Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005), dating is mutual because two
people want to enter into an exchange with another that meets both person’s desires.
However, the social exchange framework provides more complexity going beyond simple
economic models of rewards and costs.
Despite the impact of dime dating on the traditional dating process, we know little
about the process by which individuals communicate their expectations. This current study
is designed to provide a starting point for understanding the dime dating process.
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
Participants
Participants in the present study were required to have used an online dating site in
the past two years and be over 18 years of age. A total of 229 eligible participants is
included in the study. Participants were recruited in two different ways: (a) email invitations
for participation sent to undergraduate courses at a large Midwestern University and a mid-
sized Midwestern liberal arts college, and (b) network sampling and public announcements
on various social media platforms. Eligible student participants received extra credit for
31
participation in the survey or for completing an alternate writing assignment (see Appendix
A).
In total, seventeen participants were excluded from the analysis because of
problems with participant data. The final sample was composed of 212 participants with 16
self-identified as for-profit daters (individuals engaging in dime dating) and 196 self-
identified as not-for-profit daters. The average participant demographics were 24 years of
age, with an income level of $0-$19,999, in college, single, heterosexual, and Caucasian
(see Table 1 & 2).
Measures
To address the hypotheses and research questions, participants completed an IRB
approved, Qualtrics online survey questions addressing online dating experiences (see
Appendix B & C). The quantitative survey contained items to measure costs, rewards,
alternatives, investment size, satisfaction, commitment, and communication. Also, survey
questions gathered specific demographic information. Using an online survey was
important because the majority of participants may feel uncomfortable disclosing content
in a face-to-face setting.
Survey participants received an online consent form (see Appendix D) that included
the study description, risks, benefits, limits to confidentiality, and voluntary participation
32
information. After acknowledgment, eligible participants were then directed to the survey.
Participants completing the survey for extra credit were directed to a separate survey link
at the end in order to identify the participant’s name, the instructor, and class. The answers
provided were not associated with the current studies results.
After the participants had granted consent by clicking on the provided survey link
and entering the site, participants were asked if they had used an online dating website. A
positive answer prompted participants to answer what type of website (traditional online
dating or for-profit dating). Participants lacking experience with for-profit dating were
directed to an adapted survey to address the different factors in regard to traditional online
dating (see Appendix C). Opening up the study to individuals who had not engaged in for-
profit dating allowed for the examination of the questions more broadly and generated
interesting and unexpected results for the comparison of the different forms of dating.
In order to examine social exchange in online dating relationships. A measure
previously used by Rusbult (1980; 1983) was adapted to assess participants’ rewards,
costs, satisfaction, commitment, alternatives, investments, and communication. The
questions were adapted in order to fit the language of everyday relationships, and dime
dating was referred to as “for-profit dating.” The only change between the for-profit dating
survey and the general online dating survey using not-for-profit participants were the words
33
“for-profit dating” changed to “online dating” in each question and is noted by [for-profit
dating/online dating] (see Table 3 & 4).
Rewards. The rewards of the relationship were explained for participants as taking
many forms such as material goods, money, attention, status, advice, or anything of value
or that brought the participant satisfaction and enjoyment. Three concrete questions were
designed to assess rewards. “How rewarding were/are your for-profit dating relationships?”
(1 not at all rewarding-5 extremely rewarding); “In terms of rewards, how did/do your [for-
profit dating/online dating] relationship(s) compare to what you expected/expect from a
dating experience?” (1 much worse than I would expect-5 Much better than I would expect);
and “In terms of rewards received, how worthwhile were/are your [for-profit dating/online
dating] relationships?” (1 not at all worthwhile-5 extremely worthwhile).
The factor structure of the three item rewards was examined for both surveys.
Factor (unweighted least squares) analysis procedures were completed on both for-profit
and not-for-profit items for the purposes of identifying latent constructs and refining the
measure. Two out of the three items contributed to a simple factor structure and met the
minimum criterion of having a primary factor loading of .5 or above. The “In terms of
rewards, how did/do your [for-profit dating/online dating] relationships compare to what you
expected/expect from a dating experience?” item for the for-profit items revealed a factor
34
loading of .477. For the not-for-profit items, the “In terms of rewards” item had a factor
loading of .451. The “in terms of rewards” item was eliminated because the item did not
contribute to a simple factor structure due to the failure to meet a minimum criterion of
having a primary factor loading of .5 or above. In the end, the reward scale included two
questions.
Using the two included items, the mean score for the rewards scale on the for-profit
dating survey was 3.16 (
SD
= 1.40) with a Cronbach’s alpha of .94. The not-for-profit dating
survey had a mean of 2.49 (
SD
= 1.22) and a Cronbach’s alpha of .87.
Costs. The costs of the relationship were explained to participants as any real or
perceived elements of the relationship that have a negative value to the participant. Costs
could be in a variety of forms such as time, money, effort, etc. Three questions were
designed to assess costs. “How costly were/are your [for-profit dating/online dating]
relationships?” (1-not at all costly-5 extremely costly); “In terms of costs, how did/do your
[for-profit dating/online dating] relationships compare to what you expected/expect from
dating relationships?” (1 much worse than I would expect-5 much better than I would
expect); and “To what degree are your [for-profit dating/online dating] relationships worth
the costs associated with them?” (1 not at all-5 extremely).
The factor structure of the three cost items was examined for both surveys. Factor
35
(unweighted least squares) analysis procedures were completed on both for-profit and not-
for-profit items for the purposes of identifying latent constructs and refining the measure.
Two out of the three items contributed to a simple factor structure and met the minimum
criterion of having a primary factor loading of .5 or above. The “How costly were/are your
[for-profit dating/online dating] relationships?” item for the for-profit items revealed a factor
loading of .025. For the not-for-profit items the “How costly” item had a factor loading of
.002. The “How costly” item was eliminated because it did not contribute to a simple factor
structure due to the failure to meet a minimum criterion of having a primary factor loading of
.5 or above. In the end, the cost scale included two questions.
Using the two included items, the mean score for the cost scale on the for-profit
dating survey was 3.06 (
SD
= 1.26) with a Cronbach’s alpha of .88. The not-for-profit dating
survey had a mean of 2.71 (
SD
= .92) and a Cronbach’s alpha of .60.
Satisfaction. Participants responded to five questions regarding the level of
satisfaction, “To what degree are/were you satisfied with your [for-profit dating/online
dating] partner(s)?” (1 very dissatisfied-5 very satisfied); “My [for-profit dating/online dating
relationship] is close to ideal.” (1 do not agree-5 completely agree); “My [for-profit
dating/online dating] relationship is better than other relationships.” (1 do not agree-5
completely agree); “The [for-profit dating/online dating] relationship makes me very happy.”
36
(1 do not agree-5 completely agree); and “My [for-profit dating/online dating] relationship
does a good job of fulfilling my needs for intimacy, companionship, etc.” (1 do not agree-5
completely agree).
The factor structure of the five-item satisfaction scale was examined for both
surveys. Factor (unweighted least squares) analysis procedures were completed on both
for-profit and not-for-profit items for the purposes of identifying latent constructs and
refining the measure. All items contributed to a simple factor structure and met the
minimum criterion of having a primary factor loading of .5 or above. In the end, all five items
were kept in the scale. The for-profit dating mean was 2.78 (
SD
= 1.27)
with a Cronbach’s
alpha of .96. The not-for-profit dating mean was 2.50 (
SD
= 1.24) with a Cronbach’s alpha
of .94
Commitment. Six questions were used to assess the level of commitment, “How
likely is it that you will end your [for-profit dating/online dating] relationship[s]?” (1 not at all
likely-5 extremely likely); “To what extent are you committed to maintaining the
relationship/arrangement with your [for-profit dating/online dating] partner(s)?” (1 not at all-
5 a great deal); and “How obligated are/were you to fulfill your [for-profit dating/online
dating] partners’ expectations?” (1 not at all- 5 a great deal); “To what degree are/were you
committed to your [for-profit dating/online dating] partners?” (1 not at all-5 a great deal); “I
37
would feel very upset if my [for-profit dating/online dating] relationship were to end.” (1 do
not agree-5 completely agree); and “It is very likely that I will date someone other than my
[for-profit dating/online dating] partner in the next year.” (1 do not agree-5 completely
agree).
Four out of the six items contributed to a simple factor structure and met the
minimum criterion of having a primary factor loading of .5 or above. The first item, “How
likely is it that you will end your [for-profit dating/online dating] relationship[s]?” for the for-
profit items revealed a factor loading of .480. For the not-for-profit items the “How likely”
item had a factor loading of .341. The second item, “It is very likely that I will date someone
other than my [for-profit dating/online dating] partner in the next year.” for the for-profit
items revealed a factor loading of .179 and the not-for-profit items a factor loading of .209.
The two items were eliminated due to the failure to meet a minimum criterion of having a
primary factor loading of .5 or above.
In the end, the commitment scale included four questions. The for-profit dating mean
was 3.10 (
SD
= 1.35) with a Cronbach’s alpha of .89. The not-for-profit mean was 2.57 (
SD
= 1.38) with a Cronbach’s alpha of .90
Alternatives. Five questions were used to assess the level of alternatives, “In
general, how appealing are your alternatives?” (1 not at all appealing-5 extremely
38
appealing); “My alternatives to my [for-profit dating/online dating] partner are very
appealing.” (1 do not agree-5 completely agree); “If I weren’t dating [for-profit/online] I would
find another appealing person.” (1 do not agree-5 completely agree); “My need for intimacy
and companionship can be easily fulfilled in my [for-profit/online dating] relationship.” (1 do
not agree-5 completely agree) and “In general, how unappealing are your alternatives?” (1
extremely-5 not at all).
The factor structure of the five alternative items were examined for both surveys.
Factor (unweighted least squares) analysis procedures were completed on both for-profit
and not-for-profit items for the purposes of identifying latent constructs and refining the
measure. Four out of the five items contributed to a simple factor structure and met the
minimum criterion of having a primary factor loading of .5 or above. The “My need for
intimacy and companionship can be easily fulfilled in my [for-profit/online dating]
relationship.” item for the for-profit items revealed a factor loading of .10. For the not-for-
profit items the “intimacy and companionship” item had a factor loading of .05. The
“intimacy and companionship” item was eliminated because it did not contribute to a simple
factor structure due to the failure to meet a minimum criterion of having a primary factor
loading of .5 or above. In the end, the alternative scale included four questions. After the
exclusion of one item, the mean for the for-profit dating survey was 3.83 (
SD
= 1.18) with a
39
Cronbach’s alpha of .85. The not-for-profit dating survey had a mean of 3.41 (
SD
= 1.27)
and a Cronbach’s alpha of .80.
Investments. Five questions measured the level of investment in their for-profit
dating experience, “All things considered, how much would you “lose” if you were to end your
[for-profit dating/online dating] relationships?” (1 no loss-5 major loss); “In general, how
much have you invested (e.g., time, money, energy) in your [for-profit dating/online dating]
experience?” (1 I never have invested-5 I have invested a great deal); “I would lose many
aspects of my life if I were to stop my [for-profit dating/online dating].” (1 do not agree-5
completely agree); “I feel as though I put a great deal of involvement in the [for-profit
dating/online dating] relationship.” (1 do not agree-5 completely agree); and “My
relationship with friends and families would be complicated if I were to stop [for-profit
dating/online dating].” (1 do not agree-5 completely agree).
The factor structure of the five-item investment scale was examined for both
surveys. Factor (unweighted least squares) analysis procedures were completed on both
for-profit and not-for-profit items for the purposes of identifying latent constructs and
refining the measure. All items contributed to a simple factor structure and met the
minimum criterion of having a primary factor loading of .5 or above. In the end, all items
were kept in the scale. The mean of the for-profit dating survey was 2.25 (
SD
= 1.37) and a
40
Cronbach’s alpha of .90. The not-for-profit dating survey mean was 2.04 (
SD
= 1.26) with a
Cronbach’s alpha of .88.
Communication. Five questions were used to assess how participants
communicated in their for-profit relationship. “I explicitly share my dating expectations with
my partner[s].” (1 do not agree-5 completely agree); “I explicitly discuss how much I have
invested in the relationship with my partner.” (1 do not agree-5 completely agree); “To what
degree are you open with your partner about your wants and needs?” (1 not at all-5 a great
deal); “How satisfied are you with the communication about your expectations within the
relationship?” (1 extremely-5 not at all); and “In general, how satisfied are you with the
communication between you and your partner” (1 extremely-5 not at all). The factor
structure of the five communication items was examined for both surveys. Factor
(unweighted least squares) analysis procedures were completed on both for-profit and not-
for-profit items for the purposes of identifying latent constructs and refining the measure.
All items contributed to a simple factor structure and met the minimum criterion of having a
primary factor loading of .5 or above. In the end, all items were kept in the scale. The for-
profit dating survey had a mean of 3.33 (
SD
= .95) and a Cronbach’s alpha of .77. The mean
for the not-for-profit dating survey was 3.38 (
SD
= .99) with a Cronbach’s alpha of .84.
41
Design
To address the ambiguity in the literature concerning for-profit dating, three
analyses of the current data set were performed. The data were analyzed for each
hypothesis and research question using for-profit dating participants, not-for-profit dating
participants and the combined total of all participants.
The survey included positively-keyed and negatively-keyed items, the negatively-
keyed items were reverse-scored before computing individuals’ total scores and before
conducting psychometric analyses (see Appendix B & C). Reverse-scoring the negatively-
keyed items ensured that all the items were consistent with each other, in terms of what an
“agree” or “disagree” response implied, and doing so created consistency. In addition, the
discriminants were checked for each variable, and multicollinearity was not present.
First, the difference scores between each set of variables for Hypotheses 1-5 were
calculated. For research hypothesis one, as the rewards increase relative to costs, one
would expect relational satisfaction to increase. For research hypothesis two, as the
rewards increase relative to alternatives, one would expect relational satisfaction to
increase. For research hypothesis three, as the value of costs increases relative to the
quality of alternatives, one would expect relational satisfaction to decrease. For research
hypothesis four, as the investment loss increases relative to costs, one would expect
42
relational satisfaction to increase. For research hypothesis five, as the investment loss
relative to value of alternatives increases, one would expect relational satisfaction to
increase.
Second, for hypotheses 1-5 new variables were computed to show the difference
between the items identified in the hypotheses (e.g., the difference between rewards and
costs). The hypotheses were then tested through the computation of the correlation
between satisfaction and (a) costs/rewards difference, (b) rewards/alternatives difference,
(c) alternatives/costs difference, (d) investments/costs difference, and (e)
investments/alternatives difference (see Table 5). For the first research question a multiple
regression using the predictors of alternatives, investments, and satisfaction analyzed the
investment model after removing the influence of demographics [biological sex, income,
education level, relational status, sexual identity]. It is important to note that the last
component in the investment model of probability of persistence was not tested (see Figure
1). Lastly, for the second research question, a hierarchical multiple regression evaluated
the predictors of costs, rewards, alternatives, investments, commitment and
communication to analyze the best estimators of relational satisfaction.
43
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS
The purpose of this study is to take a closer look at for-profit and not-for-profit
online daters and the costs, rewards, investments, alternatives, satisfaction, commitment,
and communication within the relationship. Prior to conducting the analyses, the relevant
assumptions of each statistical analysis were tested and no multicollinearity was observed.
Hypothesis One
Results show a moderate positive correlation between participant’s level of
satisfaction and the reward/cost difference (see Table 5). The p value was less than .01 for
not-for-profit participants:
r
(194) = .46; and all participants:
r
(210) = .44, which further
means that the correlation is statistically significant. However, the results did not support
the correlation between satisfaction and reward/cost difference with for-profit dating
participants:
r
(14) = .15. However, for not-for-profit dating participants and when analyzing
all participants in the study, consistent with social exchange theory, the results indicate that
as the value of rewards increases relative to the costs in a relationship, individuals will be
more satisfied in the relationship.
Hypothesis Two
Results show a large correlation between participant’s level of satisfaction and the
reward/alternative difference (see Table 4). The p value was less than .01 for not-for-profit
44
participants:
r
(194) = .71; for-profit participants:
r
(14) = .75, and all participants:
r
(210) =
.71, which further means that the correlation is statistically significant. Consistent with
social exchange theory, the results indicate that as the value of rewards increases in the
relationship relative to the value of alternatives available, individuals will be more satisfied
in the relationship.
Hypothesis Three
Results show a large correlation between participant’s level of satisfaction and the
cost/alternative difference (see Table 5). The p value was less than .01 for, not-for-profit
participants:
r
(194) = -.56; for-profit participants:
r
(14) = -.79; and all participants:
r
(210) =
-.58, which further means that the correlation is statistically significant for all three groups.
The results indicate that the satisfaction decreases as the difference between
participant’s quality of alternatives and costs increases. This is consistent with social
exchange theory, as the value of available alternatives increase relative to the costs in a
relationship, individuals will be less satisfied in the relationship.
Hypothesis Four
The fourth hypothesis predicted satisfaction would increase as the difference
between investments and costs increases (see Table 5). Results did not support the
45
correlation for not-for-profit participants:
r
(194) = -.00; for-profit participants:
r
(14) = -.24;
and the analysis of all participants in the study:
r
(210) = -.01.
Hypothesis Five
The fifth hypothesis predicted satisfaction increased as the difference between
investments and alternatives increased (see Table 5). Results show a moderate correlation
between participant’s level of satisfaction and the investment/alternative difference for
not-for-profit participants and all participants. However, results indicated a strong
correlation among for-profit participants. The p value was less than .01 for, not-for-profit
participants:
r
(194) = .48; for-profit participants:
r
(14) = .65; and all participants:
r
(210) =
.48, which further means that the correlation is statistically significant for all three groups.
The results indicate that participants level of satisfaction increases as participant’s
investment in the relationship and quality of alternatives increases. This is consistent with
social exchange theory, as the amount of investment loss increases relative to the value of
available alternatives, individuals will be more satisfied in the relationship.
Research Question One
The first research question asked: using the three variables in the investment model,
will this be an adequate description of the observed relationships? The investment model
added the additional component of commitment to predict the probability of individuals to
46
stay in a relationship. First, the relevant assumptions of this statistical analysis were tested.
Second, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate how well alternatives,
satisfaction, and investments predicted commitment.
The independent variables investment, alternative, and satisfaction, explain 63.1%
of the variability of the dependent variable commitment. In order to check the independence
of observations, the Durbin-Watson test was used, resulting with a value of 2.002, which
indicates no serial correlations. The overall regression model was tested to see if it was a
good fit for the data. Further, the data was checked for multicollinearity using Tolerance
and VIF values. All tolerant values were between 0.2 and 0.9 and VIF values were less than
four. This further implies that the data does not show multicollinearity. The Cook’s Distance
was calculated to check for significant outliers. The Cook’s Distance shows all variables
were below 1, which indicates no outliers. The assumption of homoscedasticity was met by
using a scatterplot of standardized residuals and visually checking the assumption. Lastly,
a multiple regression was conducted to predict commitment. The results show that the
independent variables statistically significantly predict the dependent variable
F
(3, 185) =
108.378,
p
< 0.001. The variables of satisfaction and investment were statistically
significant (
p
< .05) to the prediction of commitment. However, alternatives (
p
= .74) did not
predict commitment (
p
> .05). The regression equation for predicting commitment was:
47
Predicted Commitment = (0.372*satisfaction) + (-0.016*alternatives) +
(0.504*investment)
Research Question Two
For research question 2, a hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to
evaluate how well costs, rewards, alternatives, investments, commitment, and
communication predicted satisfaction. Prior to conducting a hierarchical multiple
regression, relevant assumptions of this statistical analysis were tested.
In order to check independence of observations, the Durbin-Watson test was
conducted. The Durbin-Watson value was 2.04, indicated no serial correlations. In order to
check the presence of significant outliers in the data, the Cook’s Distance test was used.
Cook’s Distance showed all variables are below one, which further indicated no outliers in
the data. The assumption of homoscedasticity was met by using a scatterplot of
standardized residuals and visually checking the assumption. Further, the data was
checked for multicollinearity using the Tolerance and VIF values. All Tolerant values were
between 0.2 and 0.9 and the VIF values in both models are less than 4. This further implies
that the data did not show multicollinearity.
A two-stage hierarchical multiple regression was conducted with satisfaction as the
dependent variable. The demographics (age, income, education) were entered at stage one
48
of the regression to test the effects of certain predictors independent of the influence of
demographic factors. Second, the predictors of costs, rewards, alternatives, investments,
commitment and communication were entered at step two. In this case, the percentage of
variability accounted for went up from 5% to 80.7%. The change in R² was .75, which means
the predictors account for a significant additional amount of variance (
p
< .05)
.
The
variables of costs, rewards, alternatives, investments, commitment and communication
significantly predict satisfaction
F
(9, 151) = 75.47, p < .001.
The beta coefficients for the six predictors were rewards, β = .57, t = 10.12, p < .001;
costs, β = .23, t = 4.67, p < .001; commitment, β = .17, t = 2.97, p < .05; alternatives, β = .01, t
= .37, p = .72; investments, β = .04, t = .71, p =.48; and communication, β = .05, t = 1.15, p =
.25. As can be seen, the rewards, costs, and commitment had significant positive
regression weights, indicating higher scores on the three scales were expected to have
higher satisfaction, after controlling for demographics. Alternatives, investments, and
communication failed to contribute to the multiple regression model. Thus, the regression
equation for predicting satisfaction was:
Predicted Satisfaction = (.567*rewards) + (.229*costs) + (.172*commitment).
49
Independent Sample T-Test
Lastly, extra analyses were run. An independent sample t-test was run to assess
whether higher levels of costs, rewards, attitude, intention, satisfaction, commitment, and
communication were perceived by participants engaging in for-profit dating or not-for-profit
dating. The t-test yielded a statistically significant difference for rewards [
t
(210) = .04,
p <
.05)]. For-profit dating participants (
M
= 3.27,
SD
= 1.11) find it more rewarding than not-for-
profit dating participants (
M
= 2.62,
SD
= 1.04).
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The first hypothesis (H1) predicted an increase in relational satisfaction as the
difference between cost and rewards increased. The correlation between relational
satisfaction and the cost/reward difference for not-for-profit and the combination of all
participants is consistent with the social exchange theoretical framework, where individuals
enter a relationship because of the perceived gain in net values/benefits. In that context,
the net gains (the difference between the costs and rewards) enhances satisfaction in the
relationship. According to the social exchange framework, as the net gains increase, the
level of satisfaction among participants increases as well, and this is consistent with the
moderate positive correlation found in this data. As explained by Rusbult (1983), individuals
tend to report more satisfaction in relationships when greater rewards are achieved with
50
minimal costs, exceeding individual’s expectations. Therefore, as the difference between
costs and rewards increase, the overall satisfaction between individuals in a relationship
should increase.
Hypothesis two predicted that as the difference between rewards and alternatives
increased, relational satisfaction increases. The analysis indicates that as rewards
increased in a relationship, relative to the alternatives an individual had outside of the
relationship, individuals report more satisfaction with the existing relationship. In the
investment model, Rusbult, Agnew, and Arriaga (2011) clarify that individuals commit in a
relationship because of fewer desirable alternatives to that relationship, which encourages
investment and exhibiting greater commitment in their current relationship. The explanation
remains consistent with the results of the present study, when fewer alternatives to a
relationship exist, relative to the rewards obtained in a relationship, individuals remain
committed to the current relationship. In that context, commitment comes after the
individuals completed a cost/benefit analysis of the current relationship and their
alternative relationships. Notably, relationship satisfaction, is enhanced by the increase in
the reward/alternative difference, as explained by the social exchange theoretical
framework. As such, the results that confirm hypothesis two are consistent with both the
social exchange theory framework and the investment model.
51
Hypothesis three speculated that relational satisfaction would decrease when the
difference between the costs and quality of alternatives increased. The finding supports
the hypothesis, concluding that satisfaction tends to decrease as the difference between
participants’ cost and quality of alternatives increases. As discussed in the social
exchange theoretical framework, individuals start a relationship mainly because the
perceived benefits of the relationship are greater than the costs. The social exchange
framework demonstrates that relationships come into existence after the participating
individuals conduct a cost/benefit analysis, comparing alternatives to ascertain whether
the current relationship offers the best value (in terms of cost and benefits). Relational
satisfaction should decrease as the difference between participant’s cost and quality of
alternatives increases; as specified in hypothesis three. In other words, satisfaction with a
current relationship improves as the quality of alternatives per unit of costs decreases.
In contrast to hypotheses 1-3, the research results failed to support hypothesis 4,
which stated that relational satisfaction would increase as the difference between
investment loss and cost increases. The correlation results for the relationship between
relational satisfaction and the difference between investment loss and cost does exist as
predicted by the investment model. According to Rusbult, Drigotas, and Verette (1994),
investments are the “resources that become attached to a relationship and would decline
52
in value or be lost if the relationship were to end” (p. 119). These resources could mean
investing in a house together, time spent, or even children. On the other hand, costs refer to
“any factors that operate to inhibit or deter the performance of a sequence of behavior”
(Thibaut & Kelley, 1959, p. 12). Thus, if a negative or conflicting consequence accompanies
an action, the cost becomes high. In that context, since an increase in investment loss is a
significant negative consequence in a relationship, the cost became high. As a result, the
difference between investment loss and cost must increase in a relationship. The previous
explanation suggests why there was no significant correlation while testing hypothesis 4.
However, given the lack of significance in the results of this hypothesis, there was
speculation as to the relationship between satisfaction and solely investments. An
additional analysis considered whether a positive correlation between relationship
satisfaction and the level of investment exists. Results indicate a positive correlation
between relationship satisfaction and the level of investment loss in for-profit, not-for-
profit, and all participants in the study. Therefore, just as satisfaction increases with net
benefits, satisfaction would be greater as the loss diminishes from ending the relationship.
Hypothesis 5 expected that the level of satisfaction would increase as the
difference between alternatives and investments increased. The results remain consistent
with a research finding compiled by Durko and Petrick (2016), which revealed similar
53
correlations among satisfaction, commitment, and quality of alternatives; quality of
alternatives and relationship satisfaction are good predictors of relationship commitment.
Notably, the results indicated a significant correlation among for-profit participants. In that
context, the results are supported stating that increases in the difference between
participants’ investments in the relationships and the quality of alternatives, leads to
greater levels of satisfaction. Consistent with social exchange theory and the investment
model, the relationships formed use individual cost-benefit analysis and a comparison of
alternatives. Given the current studies results, when the cost-benefit analysis indicates
more gains in the current relationship than in an alternative relationship, the individual will
tend to perceive greater satisfaction.
Research question 1 was answered using the variables of satisfaction, investment,
and alternatives to establish the best estimators of commitment. Consistent with the
results from the research question, commitment is influenced by satisfaction, the quality of
alternatives, and investments (Rusbult, Drigotas, Verette, 1994). Results in the present study
indicated that the overall model was significant accounting for 63.1% of the variance in
commitment. This result compares to past research identifying the three variables as
collectively accounting for 50-90% of the variation in commitment (Rusbult et al., 1994).
Specifically, the research conducted by Le and Agnew (2003) supports the above finding
54
reporting that about 61 percent of the variation in commitment is accounted for by
alternatives, investments, and satisfaction. However, independently investment and
satisfaction significantly predicted commitment while the variable of alternatives failed to
explain a significant amount of the variation in commitment. However, consistent with past
research which found the quality of alternatives to be inversely related to the commitment
variable (Rhatigan & Axsom, 2006). The results of the current study suggest that
participants identify the quality of the alternatives, but there is no direct impact on whether
an individual is committed to staying in the relationship.
Research question 2 was answered using a multiple regression to find the best
estimators of relational satisfaction. Costs, commitment, and rewards were significant
predictors of satisfaction. The results are consistent with social exchange theory and the
investment model which asserts that individuals are more satisfied and thus committed
when the relationship holds greater rewards and fewer costs (Rusbult, Drigotas, Verette,
1994). Notably, the communication, alternatives and investment variables failed to
contribute as predictors in the multiple regression models and, therefore, did not qualify as
predictors of satisfaction.
55
Limitations
The present study makes valuable contributions to the social exchange framework
and the field of interpersonal communication as a whole. Results highlight inconsistencies
in the literature, which indicates the social exchange framework variables play an important
role in online dating relationships. Despite the merits of the current research, a few
limitations exist in the study’s research design and methodology. The following limitations
qualify the findings of the study and should serve as a guide for future research.
The first potential limitation was the data collection process, which relied on self-
reports. A question such as: “how much would you lose if you were to end your [for-profit
dating/online dating] relationships?” might be subject to self-bias because participants
might portray desperation as negative. As such, the respondents would tend to align
answers to “no loss” at the expense of “major loss” leading individuals to be more sensitive
to privacy and potential loss of face.
A second potential limitation encountered during the execution of the study was the
nature of the subject matter. While discussing not-for-profit online dating relationships in
the current study remains fairly non-threatening, discussing for-profit dime dating
relationships where goods and services are exchanged for time spent is a taboo topic. It is
considered to a taboo topic because society has a negative perception of dime dating
56
relationships, and they could be linked to prostitution. This may have created difficulty for
participants to give open, honest answers and potentially an unwillingness to disclose their
private life. In many cases, the taboo nature of the topic may have deterred participants
from answering questions altogether. Although anonymity was guaranteed and definitions
were provided as a guide for participants, a number of participants began the online
questionnaire but did not continue to completion. Therefore, the proposed limitation may
have influenced the findings and limited the ability to generalize conclusions. However, self-
report is acceptable and commonly used in current research studies. In addition, the
information provided comes from the perception of each participant, and may not be
accessible using another data collection method other than self-report.
A third potential limitation lies in the homogeneity of the selected sample regarding
background and demographic characteristics (e.g., white, middle class, in college,
homosexual, and all from the United States). According to Le and Agnew (2003), sample
demographics appeared to moderate the associations between commitment and its
determinants. Particularly, Le and Agnew (2003) conducted an analysis by selecting
demographic variables such as ethnicity (whites and non-whites), gender (men and women)
and sexual orientation (gay men, lesbians, heterosexual men and heterosexual women).
Results indicated commitment, satisfaction, alternatives, and investments differed
57
significantly based on sexual orientation. Since the current study did not consider the sexual
orientation of participants, future research could test the effects of sexual orientation on
the social exchange framework regarding for-profit and not-for-profit online dating
relationships. In addition, the majority of participants in the current study were white, so the
results may not generalize to non-white individuals. Results from Le and Agnew (2003)
found white participants scored slightly higher for commitment than non-white participants.
Therefore, future research should include more participants from various ethnicities and
check the results with previous findings.
The fourth potential limitation was the research method, which was based only on
quantitative survey research and was not accompanied by interviews or open-ended
questions. Therefore, specifically for this study, the findings could lack the descriptive
information provided by the integration of qualitative methods. Using additional open-ended
questions might have led to the revelation of important variables such as, specific types of
rewards, elaboration of previous experiences, individual qualities, and qualities of the
participants’ partners, which were not taken into account even though the findings may
have added significant value to this study.
The fifth potential limitation is the number of participants. The current research
study collected data from 212 individuals, 16 participants represented for-profit daters, and
58
196 participants represented not-for-profit daters. Clearly, there is a need for equal
representation of both groups. In addition, the literature review shows results that vary
based on demographic variables such as gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.
Therefore, future research should include a wider heterogeneous sample to represent
various demographic variables such as the inclusion of samples from other cultural
backgrounds and different sexual orientations.
Lastly, the sixth potential limitation involved the methods used. Some participants
may have found difficulty in understanding the questionnaire, despite the instructions which
appeared at the top of each measure. Specifically, for the not-for-profit online dating
participants, because for-profit online daters are entering into a relationship under the
pretense of using free market principles, such as words like cost and rewards. Failing to
adequately define the conceptual domain of the measure may have caused problems
related to poor construct definition, which led to confusion about what the variables means
or refers to, and not being able to make conclusions about how the question relates to the
individuals online dating experiences.
Future Research
The current study has provided some insights into the emerging ways in which
people are communicating free marketing principles in online dating and specifically dime
59
dating relationships. The increasing number of people using the internet for online dating
suggests that there is room for future research in the area of dime dating or for-profit online
dating relationships.
First, further research could investigate if safe sex practices between people who
have met online using dime dating websites differ from those who meet on traditional ODS.
From a health perspective, the opportunity to promote sexual health services on dime
dating websites should be explored.
Second, ODS specifically for dime dating relationships have the capacity to
dramatically extend individuals’ networks through increasing the overall number of
relational partners individuals have and broadening the geographic and demographic range
from which individuals can seek dime dating partners. It may be worth determining if some
dime daters could be considered “core members,” that is, individuals who have high rates of
partner change and interaction on the dime dating websites.
Third, future researchers should examine the nature of the geographic distribution of
dime daters. In the present study, 7% of participants identified themselves as dime daters
and in a for-profit dating relationship. While in some areas this may not be viewed as a large
percentage of participants, but all data were collected from participants in the Midwest.
This percentage has a greater impact when considering the demographic and economic
60
characteristics of the Midwest. For example, in Las Vegas there is an emphasis on youth,
sex, and money; there may be a difference in the number of people engaging in dime dating
than in rural Montana. Places or cities that have a higher density because of cultural issues,
higher cost of living, or cities with students graduating with large amounts of debt, may
attract more individuals who engage in dime dating relationships.
Fourth, using a mixed methods design can provide practical advantages (Driscoll,
Appiah-Yeboah, Salib, & Rupert, 2007) for future researchers. One of the most interesting
elements of dime dating is the rewards individuals receive, either in monetary or tangible
form. Using different methods could enhance findings within dime dating research. For
example, qualitative data can provide a further understanding of survey responses, and
statistical analyses can provide an evaluation of patterns of responses (Driscoll et al.,
2007). Future research using different research methods are likely to shed further insight
into the matter and provide a more comprehensive understanding.
Lastly, future research on dime dating using longitudinal tracking over time should be
conducted. Using longitudinal tracking from the initial development stages would allow
researchers to track the same participants across time allowing for more control. In
addition, it would allow for the examination of trends over time, and how participants react
to changing conditions across time. That is, using longitudinal tracking would allow
61
researchers to document changing cultural norms surrounding the formation of a dime
dating relationship, and to gain insight into important behavioral aspects such as
impression formation, self-presentation, and how communication transitions from online to
offline.
Justifications and Implications
The present study is the first one to apply the social exchange framework to dime
dating relationships. The findings shed light on the impact dime dating has made on the
social exchange theoretical principles.
Traditionally, couples are likely to end up with a person who is fairly similar to
themselves in terms of social desirability and may view others as suitable matches based
on a number of factors such as self-esteem, education, intelligence, looks, and physical
health or disability (Hatfield & Rapson, 2011). However, dime dating is changing the
relationship formation stage because the normative dating initiation stage is skipped under
the influence of money or tangible goods.
Past research demonstrates that individuals are more attracted to others who are
similar to themselves and share their opinions (Bryne, 1971). Within dime dating
relationships, the typical scenario is older men dating younger women, and given this
generational gap and the negotiation of a mutually beneficial relationship, the likelihood of
62
the relationship being formed based on traditional factors is slim. When considering the
longevity of a relationship, previous research shows that even in long-term relationships,
the more similar and compatible individuals are, the more likely they will remain together
(Bryne, 1997). Dime dating is changing this way of thinking because although dime dating
relationships are similar to traditional dating relationships in the sense that long-term dime
dating relationships do occur, they are not furthered by true similarities and compatibility.
While the majority of for-profit participants in the current study did have a long-term
dime dating partner, the motivation for maintaining the relationship was not influenced by
emotional rewards, but by monetary or tangible rewards. The normativeness of discussing
relationships in terms of rewards received is evolving into the discussion of tangible versus
emotional rewards. Lastly, this study was framed within the theoretical framework of SET
and the investment model. The results of this study indicate that the general predictability of
the SET principles and the investment model worked for everyone in this study. Therefore,
the change between dime dating and traditional online dating is not in the variables
themselves, but within the explicitness of the communication regarding the expectations in
dime-dating relationships. Dime dating is changing the traditional approach to relationships.
While human beings may be inherently selfish, the explicit and expected communication
regarding rewards provided in the dime dating relationships is drastically influencing how
63
relationships are formed, and the expectations required to initiate and maintain these
relationships.
Conclusion
The findings of the present study shed light on the nature of how people explicitly
communicate the costs and rewards in relationships. This study was guided by the
theoretical framework of SET and the investment model. The main objectives of this study
were attained by providing a comprehensive answer to the study’s two research questions
while examining a set of five additional hypotheses. Answering the research questions with
the approval/disapproval of the hypotheses using statistical data analysis has contributed
to the understanding of the cost-benefit prospects of dime dating, relative to the traditional
online dating.
Rusbult’s approach was utilized in the assessment of participants’ costs,
satisfaction, investments, alternatives, commitment, communication, and rewards to
facilitate the examination of the social exchange framework in online dating relationships.
The findings will aid researchers in understanding how individuals maximize benefits while
minimizing costs in the modern dime dating platforms. Researchers interested in
investigating dating relationship satisfaction, and those who may use these results to
further research in this area can incorporate the optimization of benefits while minimizing
64
costs in dating interactions. In addition, these results can contribute to a better design of
online dating platforms for developers, by considering how individuals identify their needs,
establish what they offer in return, understand the dating market, evaluate options and,
lastly, pick the best fit as per their cost-benefit analysis. Hopefully, with this information,
online dating sites can further the goal of relationship-establishment.
Dime dating also applied the theoretical principles of both the investment model and
social exchange theory. Individuals form relationships with people who add value to the
relationship by contributing fewer costs and providing greater rewards, giving individuals an
incentive to stay in the relationship instead of evaluating potential alternatives. The findings
agree with the basic social exchange principle which states that individuals are attracted
towards one another if the relationship offers resources and potential rewards (Shtatfeld &
Barak, 2009). Also, individuals were more likely to be committed to maintaining the
relationship if there was higher satisfaction, greater investment in the relationship, and
individuals felt the quality of alternative partners outside the relationship was low. These
findings are important for dime dating relationships because of the significant impact that
the explicitness of rewards plays when initiating first dates. While the initial interaction is
based on the free market principles, the investment model was able to highlight that
rewards are not the only factor that contributes to an individual staying in the relationship.
65
When an individual is satisfied, and feels they have invested a great deal in the relationship,
that individual is more likely to maintain the relationship and stay committed to their partner.
Based on the above discussion, the results of the present research are consistent with the
traditional social exchange theory and the investment model.
The current study demonstrates the usefulness of social exchange theory and the
investment model in providing a rich and comprehensive understanding of behavior in
human relationships, and specifically in dime dating relationships. The results introduce
preliminary findings that could promote understanding of online dating and especially dime
dating relationships. Even if additional research is still needed, this present research
proposes an important purpose when aiding understanding of how and why relationships
persist.
66
References
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Auld, C., & Case, A. (1997). Social exchange processes in leisure and non-leisure settings:
A review and exploratory investigation.
Journal of Leisure Research
,
29
(2), 183-200.
Baker, A. (2008). Down the rabbit hole: The role of place in the initiation and development of
online relationships. In A. Barak (Eds.),
Psychological aspects of cyberspace:
Theory, research, applications
(
pp. 163-184
). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ben-Ze-ev, B. (2004).
Lone online emotions on the internet.
New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Boulding, K. (1977). Prices and other institutions.
Journal of Economic Issues, 11
, 809-921.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1977.11503486
Brown, B.B, Feiring, D., & W. Furman, (1999). Missing the love boat. In W. Furman, B.B. Brown,
& C. Feiring (Eds.),
The development of romantic relationships in adolescence. (pp.
1-16).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Byrne, D. (1971).
The attraction paradigm.
New York: Academic
67
Byrne, D. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction
paradigm.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14
, 417-431.
Burgess, R. L., & Huston, T. L. (2013). Social Exchange in Developing Relationships [Kindle
Edition version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com
Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn, E. L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2013).
Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
,
110
, 10135–10140. doi:
10.1073/pnas.1222447110
Chadwick-Jones, J.K. (1976).
Social Exchange Theory.
New York: Academic Press.
Chu, C. S. K., & Laidler, K. J. (2016). Becoming a male client of compensated dating.
Deviant
Behavior 27
(1), 47-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.983007
Cook, K. S., & Rice, E. (2006). Social Exchange Theory. In J. Delamater (Ed.),
Handbook of
Social Psychology
(
pp. 53–76
). Springer US. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-387-36921-X_3
Couch, D. (2006).
Online dating and mating: The use of the internet to meet sexual partners
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia.
Craig, E.A., & Wright, K.B. (2012). Computer-mediated relational development and
68
maintenance on Facebook
. Communication Research Reports,
29
, 119-129.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2012.667777
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 31
(6), 874-900. DOI: 10.1177/0149206305279602
Driscoll, D. L., Appiah-Yeboah, A., Salib, P., & Rupert, D, J. (2007). Merging qualitative and
quantitative data in mixed methods research: How to and why Not.
Ecological and
Environmental Anthropology
. Paper 18. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmeea/18
Durko, A. M., & Petrick, J. F. (2016). Travel as Relationship Therapy: Examining the Effect
of Vacation Satisfaction Applied to the Investment Model.
Journal of Travel
Research
,
55
(7), 904-918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287515592970
Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation
processes in the online dating environment.
Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 11
(2), 415-441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2006.00020.x
Emerson, R. (1962). Power-dependence relations.
American Sociological Review, 27
(1), 31-
41.
Emerson, R. (1972).
Sociological theories in progress
. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Finkel, J. E., Eastwick, P.W., Karney, B.R., Reis, H.T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A
69
critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science.
Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 13
(1), 3-66.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436522
Fiore, A. T. (2002).
Romantic regressions: An analysis of behavior in online dating systems.
(Unpublished master’s thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA.
Foa, U., & Foa, E. (1974).
Societal structures of the mind.
Horsham: Thomas Publishing
Company.
Foster & Beresford. (1993). Behaviorism, Social Learning, and Exchange Theory. In S.
Robbins, P. Chatterjee, & E. Canda.
Contemporary human behavior theory: a critical
perspective for social work
(
pp. 349-385
). New York, NY: Pearson.
Fox, J., & Warber, K. (2013). Social networking sites in romantic relationships: attachment,
uncertainty, and partner surveillance on Facebook.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 17
(1), 3-7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0667
Fox, J., Warber, K., & Makstaller, D. (2013). The role of Facebook in romantic relationship
development: An exploration of Knapp’s relational stage model.
Journal of Social &
Personal Relationships
,
30
, 772-795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407512468370
Gibbs, J., Ellison, N., & Heino, R. (2006). Presentation in online personals: The role of
70
anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure and perceived success in internet
dating.
Communication Research
,
33
, 152-177.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650205285368
Gibbs, J., Ellison, N. & Lai, C. (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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650210377091
Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.
American
Sociological Review, 25
(2), 161-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2092623
Gray, P. S. (1980). Exchange and Access in Field Work.
Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 9
(3), 309-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089124168000900303
Hand, L.S., & Furman, W. (2008). Rewards and costs in adolescent other-sex friendships:
comparisons to same-sex friendships and romantic relationships.
Social
Development, 18
(2), 270-287. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00499.x
Hand, M., Thomas, D., Buboltz, W., Deemer, E., & Buyanjargal, M. (2013). Facebook and
romantic relationships: intimacy and couple satisfaction associated with online
social network use.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16
(1), 8-13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0038
71
Hatfield, E. & Rapson, R. L. (2011). Culture and passionate love. In M. Deutsch, M. Boehnke,
U. Kuhnen, & K. Boehnke (Eds.),
Crossing borders: Cross- cultural and cultural
psychology as an interdisciplinary, multi-method endeavor.
(
pp. 1-11
). Bremen,
Germany: International Academy of Cross Cultural Psychology.
Hefner, V. & Kahn, J. (2014). An experiment investigating the links among online dating
profile attractiveness, ideal endorsement, and romantic media.
Computers in Human
Behavior, 37,
9-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.022
Heino, R., Ellison, N. & Gibbs, J. (2010). Relationshopping: Investigating the market
metaphor in online dating.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
,
27
. 427-
447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407510361614
Henry-Waring, M., & Barraket, J. (2008). Dating & intimacy in the 21st century: The use of
online dating sites in Australia.
International Journal of Emerging Technologies and
Society, 6
, 14–33.
Ho, J. (2003). From Spice Girls to enjo kosai: Formations of teenage girls’ sexualities in
Taiwan.
Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 4
(2), 325-336.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1464937032000113033
Homans, G. C. (1961).
Social behavior: Its elementary forms
. New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World.
72
Houran, J. & Lange, R. (2004). Expectations of finding a ‘soul mate’ with online dating.
North
American Journal of Psychology, 6
(2), 297–308.
Johnson, M. P. (1982). Social and cognitive features of the dissolution of commitment to
relationships. In S. Duck, (Eds.),
Personal Relationships 4: Dissolving Personal
Relationships
(
pp. 51-73).
New York: Academic Press.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978).
Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence
.
New York: Wiley.
Kulovitz, K. (2017). Dime Dating. In
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research
Methods.
Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lam, O. W. (2003). Why did enjo kosai anchor in Taiwan but not in Hong Kong? Or the
convergence of “enjo” and “kosai” in teenage sex work.
Inter-Asia Cultural Studies,
4
(2), 353-363.
Laursen, B. & Campbell, L. (1999). The nature and functions of social exchange in
adolescent romantic relationships. In W. Furman, B.B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.),
The
development of romantic relationships in adolescence
(
pp. 50-74
). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Lawler, E. (2001). An affect theory of social exchange.
American Journal of Sociology, 107
(2), 321-352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/324071
73
Lawler, E. & Thye, S. (1999). Bringing emotions in social exchange theory.
Annual Review of
Sociology,
25, 217-244.
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis
of the Investment Model.
Personal Relationships
,
10
(1), 37–57. doi:10.1111/1475-
6811.00035
Lee, T. Y., & Shek, D. (2013). Compensated dating in Hong Kong: prevalence, psychosocial
correlates, and relationships with other risky behaviors.
Journal of Pediatric and
Adolescent Gynecology, 26
(3), S42-S48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2013.03.014
Lee, T. Y., Shek, D., & Busiol, D. (2016). A longitudinal study of compensated dating and
juvenile prostitution behaviors among adolescents in Hong Kong.
Journal of
Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 29
(1), S31-S37.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2015.10.006
Long, B. L. (2010).
Scripts for online dating: A model and theory of online romantic
relationship initiation
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bowling Green State
University, OH.
Lucas, A. (2015).
Spreading the #love: How technology is changing the way we date and
74
relate.
Retrieved May, 2016, from
https://www.cmich.edu/news/article/Pages/spreading-the-love-how-technology-is-
changing-the-way-we-date-and-relate.aspx.
Manning, J. (2014). Construction of values in online and offline dating discourses:
Comparing presentational and articulated rhetorics of relationship seeking.
Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19
(3), 309-324.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12037
Mansson, D., & Myers, S. (2011). An initial examination of college students’ expressions of
affection through Facebook.
Southern Communication Journal, 76
(2), 155-168.
Masden, C. & Edwards, K. (2015). Understanding the role of community in online dating.
Proceedings of the 33
rd
Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems
, Seoul, Republic of Korea. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702417
McCoy, A. (2004). Blaming children for their own exploitation: The situation in East Asia. In
ECPAT Report on the Implementation of the Agenda for Action against the
Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children
. (
pp. 36-43
). Bangkok, Thailand: ECPAT
International.
Misstravel.com (2016). Retrieved from: https://www.misstravel.com/how-it-works/
Mod, G.B. (2010). Reading romance: The impact Facebook rituals can have on romantic
75
relationships.
Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology, 1
(2),
61-77.
Molm, L. S., Peterson, G., & Takahashi, N. (1999). Power in negotiated and reciprocal
exchange.
American Sociological Review, 64
(6), 876-890.
Rhatigan, D. L., & Axsom, D. K. (2006). Using the investment model to understand battered
women's commitment to abusive relationships.
Journal of Family Violence
,
21
(2),
153-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-9013-z
Rodrigues, D., & Lopes, D. (2015). The role of moral commitment within the investment
model.
International Journal of Psychology, 50
(2), 155-160. DOI: 10.1002/ijop.12088
Rosenblatt, P.C. (1977). Needed research on commitment in marriage. In G. Levinger & H.L.
Raush (Eds.),
Close relationships: Perspectives on the meaning of intimacy
(
pp. 73-
86
). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2010).
Meeting online: The rise of the Internet
as a social intermediary
. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Rusbult, C. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A "test of the
investment model.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16,
172-186.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4
76
Rusbult, C. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: the development (and
deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements.
Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 45
(1), 101-117.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101
Rusbult, C. E., Agnew, C., & Arriaga, X. (2011). The investment model of commitment
process.
Department of Psychological Sciences Faculty Publications,
Paper 26.
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/psychpubs/26
Rusbult, C.E., Drigotas, S.M., & Verette. (1994). The investment model: an interdependence
analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phenomena. In D.
Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.),
Communication and relational maintenance
(
pp. 115-
139
). New York: Academic Press.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. (1998). The investment model scale: measuring
commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size.
Personal Relationships
, 5, 357-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-
6811.1998.tb00177.x
Seekingarrangement.com (2016a). Retrieved from: https://www.seekingarrangement.com
Seekingarrangement.com (2016b). Retrieved from:
https://www.seekingarrangement.com/how-it-works/
77
Shtatfeld, R., & Barak, A. (2009). Factors related to initiating interpersonal contacts on
internet dating sites: A view from the social exchange theory.
International Journal
on Personal Relationships
,
3
, 19-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v3isupp2.74
Smith, A. (2016).
15% of American adults have used online dating sites or mobile dating
apps.
Retrieved October 3
rd
, 2016 from
http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2016/02/PI_2016.02.11_Online-Dating_FINAL.pdf
Sosik, V. S., & Bazarova, N. (2014). Relational maintenance on social networking sites: How
Facebook communication predicts relational escalation.
Computers in Human
Behavior, 35,
124-131. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.044
Sprecher, S. (1988). Investment model, equity, and social support determinants of
relationship commitment.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 51
(4), 318–328.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2786759
Sprecher, S. (1998). Social exchange theories and sexuality.
Journal of Sex Research,
35
(1), 32-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551915
Sprecher, S. (2001). Equity and social exchange in dating couples: Associations with
satisfaction, commitment, and stability.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 63
(3), 599-
613. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00599.x
Stafford, L. (2008). Social exchange theories. In D. Braithwaite & L. Baxter,
Engaging
78
theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives
(
pp. 377-389
). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stewart, M., Dainton, M., & Goodboy, A. (2014). Maintaining relationships on Facebook:
Associations with uncertainty, jealousy, and satisfaction.
Communication Reports
.
27
(1), 13-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2013.845675
Stoll, A., Kulovitz, K. (2013, October).
“Escorts are not welcome.”: A content analysis of
online bidding for first dates
. Paper presented at the International Association for
Relationship Research. Louisville, Kentucky.
Thibaut, J. & Kelley, H. (1959).
The Psychology of groups.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Toma, C. L. (2016) Online dating. In C. Berger & M. Roloff,
The International Encyclopedia of
Interpersonal Communication (pp. 1-5).
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An
examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles.
Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin
,
34,
1023–1036.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318067
Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2010a). A new twist on love’s labor: Self-presentation in online
79
dating profiles. In K. B. Wright & L. M. Webb (Eds.),
Computer-mediated
communication in personal relationships
(
pp. 41–55
). New York, NY: Peter Lang
Publishing.
Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2010b). Looks and lies: The role of physical attractiveness in
online dating self-presentation and deception.
Communication Research
,
37
, 335-
351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650209356437
Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2012). What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in
online dating profiles.
Journal of Communication
,
62
, 78–97.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01619.x
Tong, S. T., & Walther, J. B. (2010). Relational maintenance and CMC. In K. B. Wright & L. M.
Webb (Eds.),
Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships
(
pp. 98–
118
). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Wang, E. (2004). Social exchange theory applied to romantic relationships.
9.00 Paper III:
Rewriting the Textbook, 3
, 1-8.
Weiten, W., Dunn, D. S., & Hammer, E. Y. (2014).
Psychology Applied to Modern Life:
Adjustment in the 21st Century
. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Whats Your Price. (2016). http://www.whatsyourprice.com.
Whatsyourprice.com, (2016a). Retrieved from:
80
https://www.whatsyourprice.com/about/?ref=goo~622788715_31497898576_wha
ts%20your%20price
Whitty, M., Baker, A., & Inman, J. (2007).
Online Matchmaking
. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Whitty, M. T. & Carr, A. N. (2006).
Cyberspace romance: The psychology of online
relationships
. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
81
Figure 1: The investment model of commitment processes
82
Table 1: Demographics
Age
24.14
7.94
--
--
Income level
$0-$19,999
137
64.9
$20,000-$39,999
40
19.0
$40,000-$59,999
19
9.0
$60,000-$79,999
11
5.2
$80,000-$99,999
1
.5
$100,000+
3
1.4
Education level
--
--
High school degree or equivalent
10
4.8
Associate's degree
6
2.9
College freshman
10
4.8
College sophomore
39
18.6
College junior
51
24.3
College senior
70
33.3
Master's degree
17
8.1
Doctoral degree
7
3.3
Current relationship status
Single never married
119
56.1
Married/domestic partnership
19
9.0
Divorced
4
1.9
Separated
1
.5
Open relationship
5
2.4
Committed relationship
62
29.2
Other (Please identify)
2
.9
Sexual identity
--
--
Homosexual
13
6.1
Heterosexual
176
83.0
Bisexual
17
8.0
Pansexual
3
1.4
Other (Please identify)
3
1.4
Ethnicity
--
--
American Indian
3
1.4
Asian
11
5.3
Black/African American
14
6.7
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
1
.5
Middle Eastern
8
3.8
White
161
77.0
Hispanic
11
5.3
83
Table 2: Dating Demographics
Dating Types
Frequency
%
For-profit
16
6%
Online not-for-profit
196
74%
Current online dating status N = 212
--
--
Yes
63
29.7
No
149
70.3
Current for- profit dating status N=16
--
--
Yes
4
25.0
No
12
75.0
Current online dating not-for-profit status N=196
Yes
48
24.4
No
149
75.5
84
Table 3: Reliability Statistics of For-profit Measure
Variable and Items
Mean
SD
Rewards α = .94
3.16
1.40
How rewarding were/are your for-profit dating
relationship[s]?
3.13
1.41
In terms of rewards received, how worthwhile were/are your
for-profit dating relationship[s]?
3.19
1.47
Eliminated: In terms of rewards, how did/do your for-profit
dating relationship[s] compare to what you expected/expect
from a dating experience?
------
--------------
Costs α = .88
3.06
1.26
To what degree are your for-profit dating relationship[s]
worth the costs associated with them?
2.81
1.42
In terms of costs, how did/do your for-profit dating
relationship[s] compare to what you expected/expect from
dating relationships?
3.31
1.25
Eliminated: How costly were/are your for-profit dating
relationships?
------
--------------
Satisfaction α = .96
2.78
1.27
To what degree are/were you satisfied with your for-profit
dating partner[s]?
3.25
1.07
My for-profit dating relationship[s] are close to ideal.
2.56
1.32
My for-profit relationship[s] is/are better than other
relationship[s].
2.44
1.37
The for-profit relationship makes me very happy.
2.69
1.62
My for-profit relationship does a good job of fulfilling my
needs for intimacy.
2.94
1.44
Commitment α = .89
3.10
1.35
To what extent are you committed to maintaining your
relationship/arrangement with your for-profit dating
partner[s]?
3.13
1.41
How obligated are/were you to fulfill your for-profit dating
partners’ expectations?
3.67
1.23
To what degree are/were you committed to your for-profit
dating partner[s]?
3.00
1.25
I would feel very upset if my for-profit relationship[s] were to
2.60
1.50
85
end.
Eliminated: How likely is it that you will end your for-profit
dating relationship[s]?
------
--------------
Eliminated: It is very likely that I will date someone other than
my for-profit dating partner in the next year.
------
--------------
Alternatives α = .85
3.83
1.18
In general, how appealing are your alternatives to for-profit
dating?
3.60
1.30
My alternatives to my for-profit dating partner[s] are very
appealing.
3.80
1.08
If I weren’t dating for-profit I would find another appealing
person.
4.27
.96
In general, how Unappealing are your alternatives?
3.67
1.40
Eliminated: My need for intimacy and companionship can be
easily fulfilled in my for-profit relationship
------
--------------
Investments α = .90
2.25
1.37
All things considered, how much would you “lose” if you were
to end your for-profit dating relationship[s]?
2.60
1.60
In general, how much have you invested (e.g., time, money,
energy) in your for-profit dating experience?
2.80
1.32
I would lose many aspects of my life if I were to stop my for-
profit dating.
2.20
1.70
I feel as though I put a great deal of involvement in the for-
profit relationship.
2.20
1.47
My relationship with friends and families would be
complicated if I were to stop for-profit dating.
1.47
.743
Communication α = .77
3.33
.95
I explicitly share my dating expectations with my partner[s].
3.14
1.51
I explicitly discuss how much I have invested in the
relationship with my partner.
2.79
1.58
To what degree are you open with your partner about your
wants and needs?
3.79
1.05
How satisfied are you with the communication about your
expectations within the relationship?
3.57
1.16
In general, how satisfied are you with the communication
between you and your partner?
3.36
1.22
86
Table 4: Reliability Statistics of Not-for-profit Measure
Variable and Items
Mean
SD
Rewards α = .87
2.49
1.22
How rewarding were/are your online dating relationship[s]?
2.48
1.23
In terms of rewards received, how worthwhile were/are your
online dating relationship[s]?
2.50
1.36
Eliminated: In terms of rewards, how did/do your online
dating relationship[s] compare to what you expected/expect
from a dating experience?
------
--------------
Costs α = .60
2.71
.92
To what degree are your online dating relationship[s] worth
the costs associated with them?
2.57
1.31
In terms of costs, how did/do your online dating
relationship[s] compare to what you expected/expect from
dating relationships?
2.85
.81
Eliminated: Q113. How costly were/are your online dating
relationships?
------
--------------
Satisfaction α = .94
2.50
1.24
To what degree are/were you satisfied with your online
dating partner[s]?
2.96
1.12
My online dating relationship is close to ideal.
2.39
1.40
My online dating relationship is better than other
relationships.
2.16
1.34
The online dating relationship makes me very happy.
2.49
1.45
My online dating relationship does a good job of fulfilling my
needs for intimacy.
2.51
1.50
Commitment α = .90
2.57
1.38
To what extent are you committed to maintaining your
relationship/arrangement with your online dating partner?
2.45
1.40
How obligated are/were you to fulfill your online dating
partners’ expectations?
2.62
1.24
To what degree are/were you committed to your partner[s]?
2.74
1.38
I would feel very upset if my online dating relationship[s]
were to end.
2.46
1.50
Eliminated: It is very likely that I will date someone other than
my online dating partner in the next year.
------
--------------
87
Eliminated: How likely is it that you will end your online dating
relationship?
------
--------------
Alternatives α = .80
3.41
1.27
In general, how appealing are your alternatives to online
dating?
3.22
1.30
My alternatives to my online dating partner are very
appealing.
3.21
1.29
If I weren’t dating online I would find another appealing
person.
3.66
1.302
In general, how Unappealing are your alternatives?
3.54
1.19
Eliminated: My need for intimacy and companionship can be
easily fulfilled in my online dating relationship
------
--------------
Investments α = .88
2.04
1.26
All things considered, how much would you “lose” if you were
to end your for-profit dating relationship[s]?
1.98
1.29
In general, how much have you invested (e.g., time, money,
energy) in your for-profit dating experience?
2.65
1.22
I would lose many aspects of my life if I were to stop my for-
profit dating.
1.72
1.22
I feel as though I put a great deal of involvement in the for-
profit relationship.
2.35
1.52
My relationship with friends and families would be
complicated if I were to stop for-profit dating.
1.50
1.08
Communication α = .84
3.38
.99
I explicitly share my dating expectations with my partner[s].
3.43
1.38
I explicitly discuss how much I have invested in the
relationship with my partner.
3.04
1.42
To what degree are you open with your partner about your
wants and needs?
3.56
1.21
How satisfied are you with the communication about your
expectations within the relationship?
3.46
1.13
In general, how satisfied are you with the communication
between you and your partner?
3.39
1.22
88
Table 5: Hypothesis 1-5 Correlation Summary
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Not-for-Profit
For-Profit
ALL
Hypothesis 1
.46**
.15
.44**
Hypothesis 2
.71**
.75**
.71**
Hypothesis 3
-.56**
-.79**
-.58**
Hypothesis 4
-.00
-.24
-.01
Hypothesis 5
.48**
.65**
.48**
89
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Recruitment email
Hello!
I am seeking participants to take part in a study looking at online dating
experiences. The questions will ask about your motivations, benefits, and satisfaction for
online dating.
To take part in this study, you will need to meet the following criteria: 1) at least 18
years of age, and 2) used an online dating site or engaged in for-profit dating (dating for
money, time spent, material goods, etc.).
The survey is confidential. Your participation is voluntary, and there is no penalty for
non-participation. Furthermore, you may refuse to answer any question or withdraw from the
study at any time without penalty.
The questions for this questionnaire should take about 20 minutes to complete. In
exchange for your participation, you may receive extra credit in an amount to be determined
by your instructor or you may refer someone to take the survey on your behalf. If you don’t
qualify and don’t know anyone who would qualify to take it on your behalf, you can
participate in an alternative option.
At the end of the survey, you will be redirected to a separate survey which is NOT
linked to your responses at all. At that point, there will be an area for you to enter your
information in to receive credit and the individual who may take the survey can also enter
your information in.
The alternative option for extra credit is as follows:
If you are ineligible, do not know anyone to take it on your behalf, or choose not to
participate in the online survey, you can complete this alternative option to receive extra
credit.
1. Select and read one of following articles.
-Fitzpatrick, M. & Winke, J. (1979). You always hurt the one you love: Strategies and tactics
in interpersonal conflict.
Communication Quarterly,
27
(1)
, 3-11.
-Sheldon, P., Gilchrist-Petty, E., & Lessley, J. (2014). You did what? The relationship between
forgiveness tendency, communication of forgiveness, and relationship satisfaction in
married and dating couples,
Communication Reports
, 27
(2),
78-90.
2. Write a brief report about the selected article.
-First line of document: write your name, course name that you want to get extra credit, and
90
course instructor’s name.
-First paragraph: Summarize the article
-Second paragraph: suggest one or two the most important points of the article and explain
why you think the points are important.
-Font size: 12pts, single spaced and 1-inch margin (top, right, left, and bottom).
-Total length of report: approximately one page.
3. Email your report with the subject line reading “Extra Credit Alternative Option
Submission.”
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. This survey link and potential
alternative option papers should be completed by 11:59 pm on October 31
st
.
Thank you,
Arrington Stoll
91
APPENDIX B: For-profit online dating survey
Have you ever engaged in online dating through a website or phone application?
m Yes (1)
m No (2)
If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey
Please enter your age using only two numbers. (e.g., 18)
What is your annual income level
m $0-$19,999 (1)
m $20,000-$39,999 (2)
m $40,000-$59,999 (3)
m $60,000-$79,999 (4)
m $80,000-$99,999 (5)
m $100,000+ (6)
What is your education level? If currently enrolled, mark the current level.
m Some high school (1)
m High school degree or equivalent (2)
m Associate's degree (3)
m College freshman (4)
m College sophomore (5)
m College junior (6)
m College senior (7)
m Master's degree (8)
m Doctoral degree (9)
92
What is your current relationship status?
m Single never married (1)
m Married/domestic partnership (2)
m Divorced (3)
m Widowed (4)
m Separated (5)
m Open relationship (6)
m Committed relationship (7)
m Other (Please identify) (8) ____________________
What is your sexual identity?
m Homosexual (1)
m Heterosexual (2)
m Bisexual (3)
m Pansexual (4)
m Other (Please identify) (5) ____________________
How do you describe your ethnicity?
Are you currently dating online?
m Yes (1)
m No (2)
If Yes Is Selected, Then Skip To How long have you been dating online?...If No Is Selected,
Then Skip To Before you ended your online dating e...If No Is Selected, Then Skip To Why
did you end your online dating ex...
Have you ever engaged in for-profit dating? (i.e., money or goods of some kind were
exchanged to go on a date or spend time together)
m Yes (1)
m No (2)
What role do you play in the current or previous for-profit dating relationships (e.g., sugar
baby, sugar daddy, generous member, attractive member, etc.)
93
What websites or phone applications have you used to engage in for-profit dating?
q WhatsYourPrice.com (1)
q MissTravel.com (2)
q SeekingArrangement.com (3)
q AshleyMadson.com (4)
q Arrangement.com (5)
q Establishedmen.com (6)
q Sugardaddymeet.com (7)
q Sugardaddyforme.com (8)
q Craislist.com (9)
q Tinder (10)
q Carrot Dating (11)
q Misstravel.com (12)
q Other (Please specify) (13) ____________________
The following questions refer to the rewards you receive from your relationships. Rewards
can take many forms such as material goods, money, attention, status, advice, or anything
that has value or brings you satisfaction and enjoyment.
How rewarding were/are your for-profit dating relationships?
m Not at all rewarding (1)
m Slightly rewarding (2)
m Somewhat rewarding (3)
m Moderately rewarding (4)
m Extremely rewarding (5)
In terms of rewards, how did/do your for-profit dating relationship[s] compare to what you
expected/expect from a dating experience?
m Much worse than I would expect (1)
m Worse than I would expect (2)
m About what I would expect (3)
m Better than I would expect (4)
m Much better than I would expect (5)
94
In terms of rewards received, how worthwhile were/are your for-profit dating relationships?
m Not at all worthwhile (1)
m Slightly worthwhile (2)
m Somewhat worthwhile (3)
m Moderately worthwhile (4)
m Extremely worthwhile (5)
The following questions refer to the costs associated with your relationships. Costs are any
real or perceived elements of the relationship that have negative value to you. Costs can
be in a variety of forms such as time, money, effort, etc.
How costly were/are your for-profit dating relationships?
m Not at all costly (1)
m Slightly costly (2)
m Somewhat costly (3)
m Moderately costly (4)
m Extremely costly (5)
In terms of costs, how did/do your for-profit dating relationships compare to what you
expected/expect from dating relationships?
m Much worse than I would expect (1)
m Worse than I would expect (2)
m About what I would expect (3)
m Better than I would expect (4)
m Much better than I would expect (5)
To what degree are your for-profit dating relationships worth the costs associated with
them?
m Not at all (1)
m Slightly (2)
m Somewhat (3)
m Moderately (4)
m Extremely (5)
The following questions ask about your satisfaction with your for-profit relationship
partners and for-profit dating in general.
95
To what degree are/were you satisfied with your for-profit dating partner(s)?
m Very dissatisfied (1)
m Dissatisfied (2)
m Neutral (3)
m Satisfied (4)
m Very satisfied (5)
My for-profit relationship is close to ideal.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
My for-profit relationship is better than other relationships.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
The for-profit relationship makes me very happy.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
96
My for-profit relationship does a good job of fulfilling my needs for intimacy, companionship,
etc.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
The following questions refer to how committed you are in the relationship and in for-profit
dating.
How likely is it that you will end your for-profit dating relationship[s]?
m Not at all likely (1)
m Slightly likely (2)
m Somewhat likely (3)
m Moderately likely (4)
m Extremely likely (5)
To what extent are you committed to maintaining your relationship/arrangement with your
for-profit dating partner(s)?
m Not at all (1)
m Little (2)
m Some (3)
m A lot (4)
m A great deal (5)
How obligated are/were you to fulfill your for-profit dating partners’ expectations?
m Not at all (1)
m Little (2)
m Some (3)
m A lot (4)
m A great deal (5)
97
To what degree are/were you committed to your for-profit dating partners?
m Not at all (1)
m Little (2)
m Some (3)
m A lot (4)
m A great deal (5)
I would feel very upset if my for-profit relationship were to end. Do not agree to agree
completely
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
It is very likely that I will date someone other than my for-profit dating partner in the next
year.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
The following questions refer to the alternatives you have to for-profit dating, such as other
types of online dating sites or dating in traditional ways (e.g., asking someone out that you
meet through friends).
In general, how appealing are your alternatives to for-profit dating?
m Not at all appealing (1)
m Slightly appealing (2)
m Somewhat appealing (3)
m Moderately appealing (4)
m Extremely appealing (5)
98
My alternatives to my for-profit dating partner are very appealing.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
If I weren’t dating for-profit I would find another appealing person.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
My need for intimacy and companionship can be easily fulfilled in my for-profit relationship.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
In general, how UNappealing are your alternatives?
m Extremely (1)
m Moderately (2)
m Somewhat (3)
m Slightly (4)
m Not at all (5)
The following questions refer to what you have invested in the relationship and for-profit
dating. This could be financial investments, time, emotion, esteem, energy, etc.
99
All things considered, how much would you “lose” if you were to end your for-profit
relationships?
m No loss (1)
m Minor loss (2)
m Neutral (3)
m Moderate loss (4)
m Major loss (5)
In general, how much have you invested (e.g., time, money, energy) in your for-profit dating
experience?
m I never have invested (1)
m I rarely have invested (2)
m I occasionally have invested (3)
m I have invested a moderate amount (4)
m I have invested a great deal (5)
I would lose many aspects of my life if I were to stop my for-profit dating.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
I feel as though I put a great deal of involvement in the for-profit relationship.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
100
My relationship with friends and families would be complicated if I were to stop for-profit
dating.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
The following questions refer to how you communicate in your relationship.
I explicitly share my dating expectations with my partner[s].
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
I explicitly discuss how much I have invested in the relationship with my partner.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
To what degree are you open with your partner about your wants and needs?
m Not at all (1)
m Little (2)
m Some (3)
m A lot (4)
m A great deal (5)
101
How satisfied are you with the communication about your expectations within the
relationship?
m Extremely (1)
m Moderately (2)
m Somewhat (3)
m Slightly (4)
m Not at all (5)
In general, how satisfied are you with the communication between you and your partner?
m Extremely (1)
m Moderately (2)
m Somewhat (3)
m Slightly (4)
m Not at all (5)
102
APPENDIX C: Not-for-profit online dating survey
Have you ever engaged in online dating through a website or phone application?
m Yes (1)
m No (2)
If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey
Please enter your age using only two numbers. (e.g., 18)
What is your annual income level
m $0-$19,999 (1)
m $20,000-$39,999 (2)
m $40,000-$59,999 (3)
m $60,000-$79,999 (4)
m $80,000-$99,999 (5)
m $100,000+ (6)
What is your education level? If currently enrolled, mark the current level.
m Some high school (1)
m High school degree or equivalent (2)
m Associate's degree (3)
m College freshman (4)
m College sophomore (5)
m College junior (6)
m College senior (7)
m Master's degree (8)
m Doctoral degree (9)
What is your current relationship status?
m Single never married (1)
m Married/domestic partnership (2)
m Divorced (3)
m Widowed (4)
m Separated (5)
m Open relationship (6)
m Committed relationship (7)
103
m Other (Please identify) (8) ____________________
What is your sexual identity?
m Homosexual (1)
m Heterosexual (2)
m Bisexual (3)
m Pansexual (4)
m Other (Please identify) (5) ____________________
How do you describe your ethnicity?
Have you ever engaged in for-profit dating? (i.e., money or goods of some kind were
exchanged to go on a date or spend time together)
m Yes (1)
m No (2)
Q105 What websites or phone applications have you used to engage online dating?
q Match.com (1)
q eHarmony (2)
q Plenty of Fish (3)
q Zoosk (4)
q Tinder (5)
q Other (Please list) (6) ____________________
The following questions refer to the rewards you receive from your relationships. Rewards
can take many forms such as material goods, money, attention, status, advice, or anything
that has value or brings you satisfaction and enjoyment.
How rewarding were/are your online dating relationships?
m Not at all rewarding (1)
m Slightly rewarding (2)
m Somewhat rewarding (3)
m Moderately rewarding (4)
m Extremely rewarding (5)
104
In terms of rewards, how did/do your online dating relationship[s] compare to what you
expected/expect from a dating experience?
m Much worse than I would expect (1)
m Worse than I would expect (2)
m About what I would expect (3)
m Better than I would expect (4)
m Much better than I would expect (5)
In terms of rewards received, how worthwhile were/are your online dating relationships?
m Not at all worthwhile (1)
m Slightly worthwhile (2)
m Somewhat worthwhile (3)
m Moderately worthwhile (4)
m Extremely worthwhile (5)
The following questions refer to the costs associated with your relationships. Costs are any
real or perceived elements of the relationship that have negative value to you. Costs can
be in a variety of forms such as time, money, effort, etc.
How costly were/are your online dating relationships?
m Not at all costly (1)
m Slightly costly (2)
m Somewhat costly (3)
m Moderately costly (4)
m Extremely costly (5)
In terms of costs, how did/do your online dating relationships compare to what you
expected/expect from dating relationships?
m Much worse than I would expect (1)
m Worse than I would expect (2)
m About what I would expect (3)
m Better than I would expect (4)
m Much better than I would expect (5)
105
To what degree are your online dating relationships worth the costs associated with them?
m Not at all (1)
m Slightly (2)
m Somewhat (3)
m Moderately (4)
m Extremely (5)
The following questions ask about your satisfaction with your online dating relationship
partners and for-profit dating in general.
To what degree are/were you satisfied with your online dating dating partner(s)?
m Very dissatisfied (1)
m Dissatisfied (2)
m Neutral (3)
m Satisfied (4)
m Very satisfied (5)
My online dating relationship is close to ideal.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
My online dating relationship is better than other relationships.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
The online dating relationship makes me very happy.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
106
m Completely agree (5)
My online dating relationship does a good job of fulfilling my needs for intimacy,
companionship, etc.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
The following questions refer to how committed you are in the relationship and also
in online dating.
How likely is it that you will end your online dating relationship[s]?
m Not at all likely (1)
m Slightly likely (2)
m Somewhat likely (3)
m Moderately likely (4)
m Extremely likely (5)
To what extent are you committed to maintaining your relationship/arrangement with
your online dating partner(s)?
m Not at all (1)
m Little (2)
m Some (3)
m A lot (4)
m A great deal (5)
How obligated are/were you to fulfill your online dating partners’ expectations?
m Not at all (1)
m Little (2)
m Some (3)
m A lot (4)
m A great deal (5)
107
To what degree are/were you committed to your online dating partners?
m Not at all (1)
m Little (2)
m Some (3)
m A lot (4)
m A great deal (5)
I would feel very upset if my online dating relationship were to end. Do not agree to agree
completely
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
It is very likely that I will date someone other than my online dating partner in the next year.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
The following questions refer to the alternatives you have to online dating, such as other
types of online dating sites or dating in traditional ways (e.g., asking someone out that you
meet through friends).
In general, how appealing are your alternatives to online dating dating?
m Not at all appealing (1)
m Slightly appealing (2)
m Somewhat appealing (3)
m Moderately appealing (4)
m Extremely appealing (5)
108
My alternatives to my online dating dating partner are very appealing.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
If I weren’t dating online I would find another appealing person.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
My need for intimacy and companionship can be easily fulfilled in my online dating
relationship.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
In general, how UNappealing are your alternatives?
m Extremely (1)
m Moderately (2)
m Somewhat (3)
m Slightly (4)
The following questions refer to what you have invested in the relationship and online
dating. This could be financial investments, time, emotion, esteem, energy, etc.
Q140 All things considered, how much would you “lose” if you were to end your online
dating?
m No loss (1)
m Minor loss (2)
109
m Neutral (3)
m Moderate loss (4)
m Major loss (5)
In general, how much have you invested (e.g., time, money, energy) in your online
dating experience?
m I never have invested (1)
m I rarely have invested (2)
m I occasionally have invested (3)
m I have invested a moderate amount (4)
m I have invested a great deal (5)
I would lose many aspects of my life if I were to stop my online dating.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
I feel as though I put a great deal of involvement in the online dating relationship.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
My relationship with friends and families would be complicated if I were to stop online
dating.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
The following questions refer to how you communicate in your relationship.
110
I explicitly share my dating expectations with my partner[s].
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
I explicitly discuss how much I have invested in the relationship with my partner.
m Do not agree (1)
m Somewhat disagree (2)
m Neither agree nor disagree (3)
m Somewhat agree (4)
m Completely agree (5)
To what degree are you open with your partner about your wants and needs?
m Not at all (1)
m Little (2)
m Some (3)
m A lot (4)
m A great deal (5)
How satisfied are you with the communication about your expectations within the
relationship?
m Extremely (1)
m Moderately (2)
m Somewhat (3)
m Slightly (4)
m Not at all (5)
In general, how satisfied are you with the communication between you and your partner?
m Extremely (1)
m Moderately (2)
m Somewhat (3)
m Slightly (4)
m Not at all (5)
111
APPENDIX D: Online consent
University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee
Consent to Participate in Online Survey Research
Study Title: Bidding on a “biddie”: Social exchange and online dating
Person Responsible for Research: Arrington Stoll
Study Description: The purpose of this research study is to better understand your online dating
experiences. Approximately 100 subjects will participate in this study. To take part in this study, you will
need to meet the following criteria: 1) at least 18 years of age, and 2) used an online dating site or
engaged in for-profit dating (dating for money, time spent, material goods, etc.). If you agree to
participate, you will be asked to complete an online survey that will take approximately 15-20 minutes to
complete. The questions will ask about your motivations, benefits, and satisfaction for online dating.
Risks / Benefits: Risks to participants are considered minimal. There are no foreseen risks for
participating. Collection of data and survey responses using the internet involves the same risks that a
person would encounter in everyday use of the internet, such as breach of confidentiality. While the
researchers have taken every reasonable step to protect your confidentiality, there is always the
possibility of interception or hacking of the data by third parties that is not under the control of the
research team.
There will be no costs for participating. Benefits of participating include the possibility of extra credit and
furthering research in the interpersonal communication and online dating field.
Limits to Confidentiality: Identifying information such as your name, email address, and the Internet
Protocol (IP) address of this computer will not be asked or available to the researchers. Data will be
retained on the Qualtrics website server for two years and will be deleted by the research staff after this
time. However, data may exist on backups or server logs beyond the timeframe of this research project.
Data transferred from the survey site will be saved on a password protected computer for six months.
Only the principle investigators listed on this study have access to the data collected by this study.
Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose to not answer any of
the questions or withdraw from this study at any time without penalty. Your decision will not change any
present or future relationship with the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.
112
Who do I contact for questions about the study: For more information about the study or study
procedures, contact Arrington Stoll at [email protected], or Mike Allen at [email protected].
Who do I contact for questions about my rights or complaints towards my treatment as a research
subject? Contact the UWM IRB at 414-229-3173 or [email protected]
Research Subject’s Consent to Participate in Research:
By entering this survey, you are indicating that you have read the consent form, you are age 18 or older
and that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.
113
APPENDIX E: IRB Approval letter
114
Curriculum Vitae
ARRINGTON STOLL
University Address:
Department of Communication
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Johnston Hall Room 210
P.O. Box 413
Milwaukee, WI 53201
EDUCATION
Ph.D. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, May 2017
Concentration: Interpersonal Communication
Adviser: Dr. Mike Allen
M. A. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, May 2013
Major Area: Interpersonal Communication
Concentration: Lying, deception, darkside of communication
Thesis:
Be honest with me: An exploration of lies in relationships
Adviser: Dr. Erik Timmerman
B. A. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, December 2010
Major: Communication
Minor: Business Administration
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Teaching Assistant
, Communication Department, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
Milwaukee, WI, January 2011-present
Adjunct Professor
, Communication & Digital Media, Carthage College, Kenosha, WI, August
2014-present
PUBLICATIONS
Ruppel, E., Kim, S., Gross, C., Stoll, A., Peck, B., & Allen, M. (2016). Meta-analysis of
115
differences in online and offline self-disclosure
. Journal of Mediated Communication
.
Manuscript accepted for publication.
Stoll, A. (2015). Systematic Differential. In
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication
Research Methods.
Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Stoll, A. (2015). ANOVA Post hoc Test: Duncan. In
The SAGE Encyclopedia of
Communication Research Methods.
Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Stoll, A. (2015). ANOVA Post hoc Test: Student-Newman-Keuls. In
The SAGE
Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods.
Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Stoll, A. (2015). ANOVA Post hoc Test: Tukey HSD. In
The SAGE Encyclopedia of
Communication Research Methods.
Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Under Review
Baker, B., Stoll, A. (2016)
“Being female is just the ‘second choice’”: Exploring female
video game players’ online experiences.
Manuscript under review.
Stoll, A. (2015)
Making the Choice: The Influence of Messages and Relational Sources
about Marriage
. Manuscript under review.
Stoll, J. R., Winden, M., & Stoll, A.
Impact of Communication upon the Selection
of Environmental Targets, Policy Implementation, and Political Acceptability
.
Manuscript under review.
Anderson, C. & Stoll, A.
Scavenging for Topics: Tasking Students with Exploring
Their Communities for Paper and Presentation Topics.
Manuscript under review.
Stoll, A., Quinn, S., & Kulovitz, K.
“Just like the first day of a regular job”:
Exploring first time prostitute experiences
. Manuscript under review.
Stoll, A., Becker, K., & Schneider, S.
How we lie: An exploration of deception in
intimate dating relationships
. Manuscript under review.
PRESENTATIONS
116
Anderson, C. & Stoll, A. (2016).
Scavenging for Topics: Tasking Students with Exploring
Their Communities for Paper and Presentation Topics.
Central States
Communication Association. Grand Rapids, MI.
Stoll, J. R., Winden, M., & Stoll, A. (2015).
Impact of Communication upon the Selection
of Environmental Targets, Policy Implementation, and Political Acceptability.
Midwest Economics Association
, Minneapolis, MN.
Motel, L. & Stoll, A. (2015).
The Changing Face of Leadership: A Meta-Analysis of
Personality Traits as Predictors of Leadership Effectiveness Over Time
. Top Paper,
National Communication Association, Las Vegas, NV.
Stoll, A., Quinn, S., & Kulovitz, K. (2015
). “Just like the first day of a regular job”:
Exploring first-time prostitute experiences
. National Communication Association,
Las Vegas, NV.
Ruppel, E. K., Kim, S., Gross, C., Stoll, A., Peck, B., & Allen, M. (2015).
Reflecting on
connecting: Meta-analysis of differences between mediated and face-to-face self-
disclosure.
National Communication Association, Las Vegas, NV.
Baker, B., Stoll, A. (2015
). “Being female is just the ‘second choice’”: Exploring female
video game players’ online experiences
. National Communication Association,
Las Vegas, NV.
Stoll, A., Kulovitz, K. (2015).
Bidding on a “biddie”:Social exchange theory and for-profit
dating
. International Association of Relationship Research, Amsterdam, July.
Kohler, K., Olson, M., Stoll, A. (2015).
Sex Guilt and Homophobia Experiences of Young
Adults
. Central States Communication Association. Madison, WI.
Stoll, A., Kulovitz, K. (2014).
Catfishing, Not Just a Sport: Interpersonal Deception
Theory in Online Relationships
. National Communication Association Chicago,
Illinois, November.
Stoll A. (2014)
Be honest with me: An exploration of lies in relationships
. National
Communication Association Chicago, Illinois, November.
117
Kulovitz, K., Stoll, A. (2014). “
Prince Charming He Says”: An Analysis of Monetary
Bidding and The Trading of Goods for First Dates
. National Communication
Association Chicago, Illinois, November.
Dilbeck, K., & Stoll, A. (2014). The Self-Report Passing Measure (SRPM). National
Communication Association Chicago, Illinois, November.
Stoll, A. (2013, OCT).
Team Problem Solving Workshop
. University of Wisconsin
Milwaukee Student Scholarship Program. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, October.
Stoll, A., Timmerman, E. (2013).
What motivates marriage?: The Combination of
Messages and Relational Sources That Influence Marriage
. International
Association for Relationship Research
.
Louisville, Kentucky, October 2013.
Stoll, A., Kulovitz, K. (2013).
“Escorts are Not Welcome.”: A Content Analysis of
Online Bidding for First Dates
. International Association for Relationship Research.
Louisville, Kentucky, October.
Stoll, A. (2013)
Making the Choice: The Influence of Messages and Relational Sources
about Marriage
. Central States Communication Association, Kansas City, Kansas,
April.
Stoll, A., Becker, K., & Schneider, S. (2012
) How we lie: An exploration of deception in
intimate dating relationships
. International Association of Relationships Research,
Chicago, Illinois, July.
AWARDS & RECOGNITION
2017 Recipient UWM Department of Communication Graduate Student Research Fund
2016 Recipient, Communication Department NCA Travel Grant
2016 Recipient, UWM Graduate School Travel Grant
2015 Recipient, UWM Graduate School Travel Grant
2015 Recipient, Communication Department NCA Travel Grant
2014 Featured guest Spawn Point Podcast, Episode 39 Gaming Indicted
2014 Recipient, Communication Department NCA Travel Grant
2014 Recipient, UWM Graduate School Travel Grant
2013 Melvin H. Miller Master’s Service Award
118
2013 Recipient, UWM Graduate School Travel Grant
2012 Recipient, UWM Graduate School Travel Grant
2011 First Year Student Success Teaching Award- University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee
2011 Nominated for the National Society of Collegiate Scholars
