Abstrakt
This
study compares presentational rhetorics in online personal advertisements to
articulated rhetorics generated through interviewing sessions to understand
rhetorics of online dating. 30 online daters from a metropolitan region of the
Midwestern United States (mostly white, aged 25–35, gender diverse) provided a
copy of their online personal advertisement and participated in an interview.
Personal advertisements and interview transcripts were analyzed separately
using values coding to consider rhetorical dimensions. At the beginning of this
study a short insight to online self-presentation is presented. Three main
categories were analyzed, presentational values, beliefs and attitude vs.
articulated values, beliefs and attitude. Although self-presentation and online
dating have been successfully studied in a variety of contexts, this manuscript
offers entry into a new epistemological realm and, consequently, allows another
angle for understanding online dating. Qualitative research is ideal for
examining new areas or breaking new ground (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011), and
the Mannings study certainly breaks ground by demonstrating how presentational online
dating rhetorics relationally compare to articulated rhetoric’s presented in a
social order (Manning, 2014).
Bibliografie
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of
social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3–26.
Business Wire.
(2008). Jupiter research sees steady growth for online personals, despite
explosion of socialnetworking. Retrieved July 9, 2012, from http://www.Businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080211005037&newsLang=en.
Duck, S.W. (2011). Rethinking relationships. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in
organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242.
Ellison, N. B., Heino, R.D., & Gibbs J. L. (2006).
Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment.
Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415-441.
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006).
Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future
interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication
Research, 33, 1-26.
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & 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.
Goffman, E.
(1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor.
Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2009). Putting your
best face forward: The accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of
Communication, 59, 367-386.
Heino, R. D., Ellison, N. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2010).
Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(4), 427-447.
Leary, M.R. (1996). Self-presentation: Impression
management and interpersonal behavior. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Liu, H. (2007). Social network profiles as taste performances.
Journal of Computer- Madden, M. & Lenhart, A. (2006). Online dating. Pew
Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved June 2, 2008 from
http://pewinternet.org/∼/media/Files/Reports/2006/PIP_Online_Dating.pdf. Mediated
Communication, 13(1). Retrieved August 7, 2011 from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/ issue1/liu.html.
Manning, J. (2014). Construction of Values in Online and
Offline Dating Discourses: Comparing Presentional and Articulated Rhetorics of
Relationship Seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19, 309-324.
Rowatt, W. C., Cunningham, M. R., & Druen, P. B.
(1998). Deception to get a date. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,
24(11), 1228-1242.
Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2010). Looks and lies:
The role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and
deception. Communication Research, 37(3), 335-351.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment