Essay

Marks: 45.5/50 (this is the adjusted mark)

Grade: High Distinction

HD 90-99 (High Distinction)

An assignment graded at or above 90% is clearly superior to the vast majority of work that is normally presented at this level of university study, over a number of years and is already suitable for public presentation, excepting editorial amendment. Grades above 90% are rarely awarded.

Assignment #4- Essay

Title:

Essay Comment by Elaine Tay: A title would help garner interest, especially if it provides an idea of the position you will take on a topic.

I declare that I have retained a copy of this assignment. I have read and understood Curtin University policies on Plagiarism and Copyright and declare that this assignment complies with these policies. I declare that this assignment is my own work and has not been submitted previously in any form for assessment.

24/09/2016 Robert Kooy

(Date/Signature)

(Typing your name in the space provided is sufficient when submitting online via FLECS-Blackboard.)

Recently, there has been a shift away from offline dating, with e-dating becoming more popular. This has changed the way dating is carried out, which has, in turn, affected how people see themselves. I argue that, in the digital age, e-dating practices influence how identity is constructed. Specifically, I argue that the effects on identity are twofold. Firstly, that the act of creating an online profile (for dating purposes) is intrinsically self-reflexive, which ultimately affects one’s identity. Secondly, the negotiation of e-dating interactions can also lead to a reassessment of self-conception. C. J. Pascoe’s (2009) work on online intimacy, including notions of self-presentation and “controlled casualness”, inform my argument (Pascoe, 2009, p. 122). I will analyze e-dating platforms, such as eHarmony and Tinder, to show how the practice of e-dating, including profile writing and mediated communication (Okdie & Guadagno, 2008; Gibbs, Ellison, & Lai, 2011; Pascoe, 2009), relates to self-identification issues of controlled presentation (Hasinoff & Shepherd, 2014; Pascoe, 2009), feelings of objectification (American Psychological Association, 2016; Fiore, Shaw Taylor, Mendelsohn, & Hearst, 2008; Attwood, 2007), and self-commodification (Giddens, 1991). Comment by Elaine Tay: EXCELLENT – a well-developed and refined argument, presented clearly and concisely. You have managed to

The shift from offline dating to e-dating has had several consequences for the construction of identity. In modern society, it is necessary to consider how identity can be constructed (differently) both online and offline (Bakardjieva, 2011). As Maria Bakardjieva argues, “identity in the age of the Internet seems to be constructed through the computer screen” (Bakardjieva, Internet Society, 2005, p. 140). Identity can be understood as the different characteristics and attributes of the self that are shown (or not shown), depending on the context (Žakelj, Kocon, Švab, & Kuhar, 2015). According to Tory Higgins (1987), there are three different ways of understanding the self. These are: the actual self, which can be defined as the characteristics the individual already possesses; the ideal self, which can be defined as the characteristics that an individual would like to possess ideally; and the ought self, which are the attributes an individual believes they should possess, based on obligation and social pressure (Higgins, 1987). While self-assessment can happen at any time, the self-presentation involved in e-dating lends itself to this kind of evaluation. The difference with e-dating is that creating an online dating profile requires at least some degree of self-scrutiny in the choosing of which photos and information to include. In some cases, this can lead to feelings of inadequacy, as it invites the individual to be critical about the discrepancies between the ideal self and the actual self (Žakelj, Kocon, Švab, & Kuhar, 2015). This will ultimately influence how the individual represents themselves in their e-dating profile. Comment by Elaine Tay: Your technique is spot-on here – good topic sentences that explicitly indicate how the paragraph develops the argument and thesis. This effectively brings into the foreground the pertinence of your paragraph, but also makes your discussion immensely readable and digestible. Comment by Elaine Tay: It would be good if this was compared against Slater’s views of the inseparability of online and analogue identity.

A comprehensive treatment of the different permutations of identity that will be useful for you to analyse your case in more depth. You have fleshed out the point you are making, beyond simply supporting it. Well done!

In all forms of dating, both offline and e-dating, self-presentation is a factor (Taylor & Altman, 1987). In other words, people use strategies “to convey an impression to others which it is in his [or her] interests to convey” (Goffman, 1959, p. 4). In offline dating, research has indicated that self-presentational strategies will be used by an individual to make themselves more appealing to their prospective partner (Rowatt, Cunningham, & Druen, 1998). However, there is also pressure to reveal the actual or ‘authentic’ self, rather than a performative idealized self, to the prospective partner in order to form a truer connection (Žakelj, Kocon, Švab, & Kuhar, 2015). The tension between the desire the be authentic and the desire to make a positive impression also occurs in e-dating. Some dating websites, such as eHarmony, even encourage users to disclose certain information honestly, take a personality test, and look for people that will be ‘compatible’ with the user’s personal characteristics. However, a significant difference is that, with e-dating, the individual has a greater control over their strategic self-presentation. Comment by Elaine Tay: Great – few have negotiated or recognised these sometimes-opposing drives so well. Comment by Elaine Tay: Not only providing concrete examples to support, but using them to provide more detail and insight into the more abstract general points.

“The greater control over self-presentation is tempered by how e-dating profiles are limited and hence only a fraction of the self…etc”. E-dating profiles are limiting in the sense that they are bound by word limits and by the pressure to come across as interesting to a potential partner within that limit (before the potential partner gets bored and/or looks elsewhere). Therefore, inevitably, the individual only shows a fraction of the self in their profile. On the e-dating website eHarmony, for example, gives a very short profile, with users only having a few sentences on who they are as a person and what they are looking for, before going into basic details (age, height, smoking status, ethnicity, religion, etc.). The limited amount of information on the profile means that the individual has to be very specific in the information they provide, giving them a greater degree of control over how they present themselves. As there are virtually no non-verbal cues, potential partners have to rely primarily on linguistic cues (i.e. the text provided by the individual) in order to make judgments about the individual (Žakelj, Kocon, Švab, & Kuhar, 2015; Okdie & Guadagno, 2008). In this sense, e-dating profiles express the self in cues that are “given” in a controlled way, rather than in cues that are “given off” unintentionally (Goffman, 1959). Comment by Elaine Tay: Modify first sentence here as this paragraph adjusts the last claim in the previous paragraph. Comment by Elaine Tay: There are usually photographs – and there’s a whole host of things you can say about how images and portraits construct identity and about impression management through selfies. Comment by Elaine Tay: Moderated, of course, by the cues that people give off online in e-dating as well as other sites on the net (digital shadow).

In terms of communication, e-dating also allows for greater control over self-presentation as, at least in the early stages, interactions are mediated through the dating platform (Okdie & Guadagno, 2008). Unlike offline dating, e-dating communication is mediated by technologies which means that it is largely removed and asynchronous, including text messaging, comments on online forums, private messaging and emails (Pascoe, 2009; Okdie & Guadagno, 2008). In other words, the communication is intermittent and response times can be delayed. According to C. J. Pascoe (2009), this has implications for romantic interactions as communication can be more controlled. Unlike synchronous communication, which is continuous and requires an instant response, asynchronous communication allows users a greater opportunity to ‘craft’ a response. This practice of carefully constructing a response to appear a certain way is referred to as “controlled casualness” (Pascoe, 2009, p. 124). In view of this, e-dating can be said to offer more control over self-presentation, both in terms of the content and the presentation of that content. Returning to Higgins’s notion of the ideal self and the actual self, both in their profile and in interactions using asynchronous communication methods, e-dating allows individuals to present themselves in a certain way, potentially, as their more ideal self (Higgins, 1987). Comment by Elaine Tay: More precisely, e-dating is mediated by online technologies. All dating is somewhat mediated by technologies.

Very good, bar my earlier comment! There’s also the way platforms now allow a shift between the two (asynchronous – synchronous) e.g. chat apps that store messages and allow control of the degree of synchronicity that way.

In view of this, some theorists have claimed that e-dating gives users more freedom to embellish, censor and/or fabricate information in their online profile (Stone, 1996; Turkle, 1995). While the greater degree of control over self-presentation in e-dating does not inevitably lead to misrepresentation, it does provide more opportunities to misrepresent the self (Cornwell & Lundgren, 2001). The intentional misrepresentation of personal characteristics can include the misrepresentation of appearance, misrepresentation of relationship information/status, and misrepresentation of personal qualities and assets (Hall, Park, Song, & Cody, 2010). Studies have shown that ‘strategic misrepresentation’ is a common concern for participants in e-dating with one survey showing that 86% of users of an e-dating site felt that others had been misleading in how they represented themselves (Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating, 2006). While e-dating provides the opportunity for misrepresentation, the pressure to misrepresent the self must also be considered (Ranzini & Lutz, 2016).

· This works as it is balanced by your earlier, more complex discussion of different forms of identity and the recognition there are multiple reasons for the different selves, beyond deception.

This is particularly important when considering the nature of e-dating, which involves a degree of competition, in that it is obvious that there are many potential partners (and it is increasingly easy to compare oneself with these other suitors) (Ranzini & Lutz, 2016). In offline dating, this may also be true, but it is less apparent. good point Unlike offline dating, e-dating sites often have the capacity to search and filter potential partners on the basis of specific attributes, including age, height, race and religion (Žakelj, Kocon, Švab, & Kuhar, 2015). In this sense, e-dating can be understood as a kind of ‘market’ which encourages users to market themselves as desirable to their potential partners, or, in other words, commodify themselves: “The virtual self has to ‘sell’ its own profile in order to be ‘bought’ (i.e. clicked) as only then the process of dating can start” (Žakelj, Kocon, Švab, & Kuhar, 2015, p. 15). E-dating invites the individual to construct a ‘commodified self’ in the ways in which they market themselves in profiles on online dating platforms (i.e. reducing selfhood to a photo and a brief blurb outlining the person’s marketable attributes). For this reason, some theorists have coined the term “relationshopping” in relation to e-dating, which indicates the objectification involved in the selection of a romantic partner online (Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating, 2010). Dating sites, such as Tinder in particular, are set up in a fashion that invites users to decide whether they want to interact with a person based on very few (often superficial) details. Hence, this encourages the objectification of others, and, consequently, of the self (American Psychological Association, 2016; Lomanowska & Guitton, 2016). In this sense, commercial practices and commodification become a big part of self-identity (Lomanowska & Guitton, 2016). Comment by Elaine Tay: Minor tip: when referring to something in the previous paragraph, spell out what you are referring to, e.g. “Pressures to misrepresent the self are…”

This is exceptional – few have managed to bring together the economic aspects of the case together with the focus of identity effectively or at all, and it leads to a much more incisive critique of the online dating industry and repercussions on identity!

The issues of objectification and self-commodification involved in e-dating raise important questions about how these practices are impacting individuals. Specifically, does e-dating negatively affect how its users see themselves, and damage their self-esteem? One study conducted a questionnaire to find out about how users and non-users of Tinder felt about their body image, self-worth, how others viewed them, and other sociocultural factors (American Psychological Association, 2016). It reported that those who use Tinder, in comparison to non-users, tended to have lower self-esteem and be less satisfied with how they look (American Psychological Association, 2016). This would suggest that e-dating not only invites users to see themselves in terms of their attractiveness to others, it can also negatively impact on their sense of identity, lowering their self-esteem (Ranzini & Lutz, 2016).

Very good – you raised an important critique and then extended upon it to look for concrete manifestations of the problem.

In conclusion, e-dating is still relatively new and the full extent of its effects are not yet known. However, in comparison to offline dating, there are notable differences in how people go about dating online and how this affects their identities. As I have shown, e-dating allows users more control over self-presentation, both in profile writing and asynchronous communication, which can lead to misrepresentation. Furthermore, e-dating can encourage objectification of others and, ultimately, of the self, particularly regarding self-commodification. This can be psychologically damaging and can result in self-esteem issues. ^ needing a wrap-up sentence here.

· Decent conclusion that summarises but tails off a bit at the end.

Reference List: American Psychological Association. (2016, August 4). Tinder: Swiping self esteem? Mental Health Weekly Digest, p. 110. Retrieved from https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-461181595.html Attwood, F. (2007). No Money Shot? Commerce, Pornography and New Sex Taste Cultures. Sexualities , 10 (4), 441-456. Retrieved from http://sex.sagepub.com/content/10/4/441.abstract Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet Society. ProQuest Ebook Central: SAGE Publications. Usually cite the chapter that you were referring to Bakardjieva, M. (2011). The Internet and Everyday Life: Exploring the tenets and Contributions of Diverse Approaches. In M. Consalvo, & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 58-82). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Chong, C., Molyneaux, H., & Fournier, H. (2012). Communication as Commodification Video Technology and the Gendered Gaze. In K. Ross (Ed.), The Handbook of Gender, Sex, and Media, First Edition. (1st Edition ed., pp. 419-435). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Cornwell, B., & Lundgren, D. (2001). Love on the Internet: Involvement and misrepresentation in romantic relationships in cyberspace vs. realspace. Computers in Human Behavior , 17 (2), 197–211. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563200000406 Coupland, J. (1996). Dating advertisements: discourses of the commodfied self. Discourse & Society , 7 (2), 187-207. Include DOI/publisher’s website for journal articles Fiore, A., Shaw Taylor, L., Mendelsohn, G., & Hearst, M. (2008). Assessing Attractiveness in Online Dating Profiles. Proceedings of ACM Computer-Human Interaction, 797-806. Retrieved from http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hearst/papers/chi2008.pdf Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Lai, C.-H. (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. Gibbs, J., Ellison, N., & Heino, R. (2010). Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 27 (4), 427–447. Gibbs, J., Ellison, N., & Heino, R. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research , 33 (2), 1–26. Giddens, A. (1991). Tribulations of the Self. In A. Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (pp. 181-208). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor. Hall, J., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M. (2010). Strategic Misrepresentation in Online Dating: The Effects of Gender, Self-monitoring, and Personality Traits. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 27 (1), 117-135. Hasinoff, A. A., & Shepherd, T. (2014). Sexting in Context: Privacy Norms and Expectations. International Journal of Communication , 8, 2932–2415. Higgins, T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review , 94 (3), 319–340. Lomanowska, A., & Guitton, M. (2016, June 16). Online intimacy and well-being in the digital age. Internet Interventions , 138–144. Okdie, B. M., & Guadagno, R. E. (2008). Social Influence and Computer Mediated Communication. In S. Kelsey, Handbook of Research on Computer Mediated Communication (pp. 477-491). Hershey: IGI Publishing. Pascoe, C. (2009). Hanging Out, Messing Around, Geeking Out: Living and Learning with New Media. In I. e. (eds), Intimacy in Mizuko (pp. 117-148). Cambridge: MIT Press. Ranzini, G., & Lutz, C. (2016, August). Love at first swipe? Explaining Tinder self-presentation and motives. Mobile Media & Communication . insufficient details Rowatt, W., Cunningham, M., & Druen, P. (1998). Deception to get a date. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 24 (11), 1228-1242. Stone, A. (1996). The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Taylor, D., & Altman, I. (1987). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes. In M. Roloff, & G. Miller (Eds.), nterpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research (pp. 257–277). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster. Žakelj, T., Kocon, D., Švab, A., & Kuhar, R. (2015). Internet Dating as a Project: The Commodification and Rationalisation of Online Dating. DRUŽBOSLOVNE RAZPRAVE, 78, 7-24.

Mostly accurate but some further work needed in a few cases. The reference list, along with the body of writing, indicates good quality and exhaustive research!