See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323993298

Online Dating/Dating AppsDating Apps

Chapter · March 2018

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2255-3.ch613

CITATIONS READS
0 6,757

2 authors:

V. Santiago Arias Narissra M Punyanunt-Carter

Texas Tech University Texas Tech University
9 PUBLICATIONS   56 CITATIONS    90 PUBLICATIONS   915 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tinder View project

New Book! View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Narissra M Punyanunt-Carter on 24 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Category: Social Networking and Computing
Online Dating/Dating Apps
Vladimir Santiago Arias
Texas Tech University, USA
Narissra Maria Punyanunt-Carter
Texas Tech University, USA
INTRODUCTION
Over the past several years, online dating services
are increasingly becoming popular venues for
finding romantic relationships. In 2012, Match.
com reported that one in six marriages started
online (Ramirez, Sumner, Fleuriet & Cole, 2015).
In 2013, the online mating services brought $2.1
billion (Ginsberg, 2015) whereas compared to ten
years ago, in 2004, the dating industry revenue
was only $473 million. Nowadays, there are many
online dating sites such as Match.com, eHarmony,
and PerfectMatch.com, with over 50 million us-
ers combined (Consumer Rankings., 2012), and
the online dating business keeps growing (Visual
Economics Credit Loan blog, 2015). Online dating
refers to web sites and apps that facilitate romantic
relationships’ initiation by offering users (1) access
to the profiles of potential romantic candidates, (2)
a communication channel to initiate contact, and
(3) a romantic compatibility matching-algorithm
to be paired for potential romantic initiation (see
Finkel, Eastwick, Karney, Reis & Sprecher, 2012).
Indeed, most online dating platforms are similarly
structured (Rosen, Cheever, Cummings & Felt,
2008), in general: users post a photograph and
answer questions in regards to personal informa-
tion and other relevant demographics; however,
there is considerable variance among online dating
forums with regard to users’ level of involvement,
interaction, and self-disclosure.
Despite the array of online dating sites and
apps, a new online dating app entered to the
online dating market, and it is taking over the
entire online love business: Tinder. The new app
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2255-3.ch613
Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
7069
S
just entered to the market in 2012, and, two years
later, it reached approximately 30 million users,
almost a third of the total online dating popula-
tion (e.g., 96 million users) (Forbes, November
2014). Thus, the popularity of the app has rapidly
grown. Tinder app innovates the usual online dat-
ing service explained above, by providing users a
seemingly endless selection of photos of potential
mates without the need to answer questionnaires
or forms (Bertoni, 2014a); then, the algorithm
of the app links users’ contacts from Facebook
profiles to provide photographs of potential ro-
mantic candidates. After solely looking at photos
of potential mates, users swipe right if they like
a person and, by the contrary, swipe left if not
(Bertoni, 2014a); finally, if both parties like each
other, the platform provides a parallel interface
to send messages to each other to decide whether
or not to meet in person and exchange personal
contact information.
Besides the successfulness of online dating
market, the online dating service has always
been severely criticized for its ‘overemphasis’ on
physical appearance. However, disregarding the
communication context (i.e., Face-to-Face and
Online), physical appearance is the initiator for
communication behaviors in most of the cases.
The online dating success trend has been widely
explained by the new media pervasiveness argu-
ment or the idea that this service is prosperous
‘only’ or ‘mostly’ because the access to personal
computers and smartphone is wide spread, then
focusing only on related phenomena such as self-
presentation, self-disclosure, and/or social anxiety.
If new media pervasiveness explains this new
Online Dating/Dating Apps
social trend, why did commercial video-dating not
become so popular during the 90s when the access
to video cameras was also pervasive in the U.S.?
Little attention has been directed to how online
dating mirrors human perception of first impres-
sion while forming interpersonal relationships.
Therefore, the present chapter understand the
role of human perception of physical appearance
during first impression formation which may
better tune with Tinder’ interface; in other words,
Tinder feels more natural to users compared to
other dating apps, swipe to left or to the right feels
better than ‘browsing’ profiles; in addition to the
pervasiveness argument of new media and apps,
this chapter explains Tinder’ increasing popular-
ity seems to match to interface architecture as
well. Consequently, the concept of technological
affordance tuning will be discussed to explain
the success on online dating in addition to new
media pervasiveness argument; however, the idea
of affordance tuning is not widely discussed in the
CMC research on online dating, and this concept
is the main contribution from this chapter.
BACKGROUND
The online dating technology has been around
since 1970, but the rapid rate of development of
cheap, fast, reliable, and user personal comput-
ers with Internet made online dating technology
to evolve from being just an online interface for
personal romantic advertisement (see Byrne, Ervin
& Lamberth, 1970), then to become an algorithm-
based matching system (i.e., e-Harmony.com or
Match.com) to finally a combination of both;
with the inclusion of smartphone-based dating
applications and GPS technology (i.e. Blendr or
Skout), the new version of this CMC technology
also became into satellite dating (Quiroz 2013).
Nowadays, online dating users cannot only browse
romantic candidate profiles, but also know where
they are given information to decide whether or
not meet them in person. But, if online dating suc-
cess is explained by the argument of new media
7070
pervasiveness solely, then why did commercial
video-dating not enjoy similar popularity during
the 1990s when the access to video cameras was
also pervasive in the U.S.?
Then a new app entered to the market in 2012:
Tinder. In only two years, in 2014, Tinder reached
approximately 30 million users who have used this
app to find a partner making, more than 15 million
matches daily; then, users are checking out about
a 1.2 billion profiles -14.000 per second- (Bertoni,
2014). While the entire U.S. dating business is
worth somewhere between 5 and 6 billion dollars
(Forbes, 2014), just Tinder is worth somewhere
between $.1 billion and $.1.5 billion, and some
big bank analysts said that Tinder could even top
$. 5.5 billion in few years, which is almost the
entire online market soon (Forbes, 2014). The app
is very popular and is one of the top producing
online dating apps.
This chapter argues online dating popularity
responds more to how technology closely mirrors
actual human interaction in the early stages of
forming a romantic relationship than other (and
earlier) dating services venues; furthermore: why
did Tinder get that level of popularity in only 4
years, whereas other online dating sites have been
around for more than a decade without obtaining
the same users’ preference? There exists a constant
tension between tasks and technologies in interface
design; Gaver (1991) accurately explains that a
design based on only technology innovations is
functionally awkward, and, by the contrary, a
design just based on users’ needs may lead to
overlook technological innovations; indeed, the
main purpose for artifact interface design should
be to create a CMC architecture which reflects
an interaction between human sensory systems
and CMC affordances. Consequently, in order
to answer the main queries of this chapter, non-
verbal research on physical attractiveness and
first impression formation with the concept of
affordance tuning along the way will be discussed
to explain online dating increasing engagement
across the world, an idea which has been ruled
out by scholarly research.

MAIN FOCUS OF THE ARTICLE
Issues, Controversies, Problems
Many individuals have assumed new, and even
counter, identities in their pursuit for online roman-
tic relationships (Alapack, Blichfeldt, & Elden,
2005). The Internet and CMC (Computer-Medi-
ated Communication) have become suitable forms
of communication between individuals looking
for controlled forms of relational engagement
(Hardey, 2004); the online dating phenomenon
reflects the same motivation that seeks romantic
outcomes (Whitty, 2008; Heino, et al., 2010; Kang
& Hoffman, 2011; Finkel, Eastwick, Karney, Reis,
& Sprecher, 2012); Ramirez, Summer, Fleuriet, &
Cole, 2015) such as pursuing to attain a long-term
relationship commitment (Mahfouz, Philaretou &
Theocharaous, 2008).
However, the observable human behaviors
associated with online dating have traditionally
been isolated to textual inferences. For example,
online dating has been research on the basis of
Walther’s (1996) ‘Hyperpersonal’ model which
aims to understand how users take and advantage
from CMC affordances to overcome the absence
of nonverbal cues (Walther, 1996, 2007). Thus,
in CMC, users create and exchange messages in
physical isolation from receiver, masking invol-
untary cues which make users perform overat-
tributions based on stereotypical impressions of
their partners without qualifying the spontaneity
of such impressions. In other words, as senders,
users do not show their “their natural physical
features and non-deliberate actions into the re-
ceiver’s realm of perception” (Walther, 2007, p.
2541, Italics added); then, it can be inferred that
online dating fits better for users’ dating goals in
terms of having more control on first impression
formation.
For many individuals, the thought of going
online to pursue a romantic relationship seems
different and unorthodox (Anderson, 2005). In a
study attempting to measure attitudes related to
Internet romance, numerous results indicated var-
Category: Social Networking and Computing
ied levels of romantic satisfaction. For individuals
with high levels of Internet affinity, or the desire S
to interact via the Internet, their perceptions of
romantic relationships were seen as positive and
enduring (Anderson, 2005). Research suggests
that there is a relationship between levels of per-
ceived realism and individual perceptions of online
romantic relationships. Surprisingly, the results
did not support a positive relationship between
levels of perceived realism and online romantic
relationships. Anderson (2004) discovered that
there would be a positive relationship between
amount of time (hours per week) on the Internet
and perceptions of online romantic relationships.
Anderson (2004) found that a high degree of
Internet use was instrumental in establishing posi-
tive perceptions of online romantic relationships.
Anderson (2004) noted that individuals must adjust
their behaviors to the new environment created
by online dating. Further, individuals engaging
with online relationships must adopt new forms of
nonverbal behaviors in order to offset the absence
of traditionally implemented offline cues.
Just as with face to face relationships, online
relationships are governed by certain codes and
standards (Hardy, 2004). Netiquette asserts itself
as the ruling body for all forms of romantic online
exchange (Hardy, 2004). Research dedicated to
online romances has reported that online dating
services allow for high volumes of information to
be transferred between sender and receiver (Hardy,
2004). Unlike print forms of dating services such
as the use of newspaper classifieds, Internet ser-
vices allow individuals to disseminate a plethora
of biological facts at a faster rate (Hardy, 2004).
One of the greatest forms of romantic infor-
mation dissemination is based on nonverbal ele-
ments. According to Hardy (2004), the posting of
one’s photograph onto the web is a very personal
decision. For some the posting of a photograph
takes away from the otherworld experience they
are trying to manifest through online interaction.
Individuals that choose to eliminate their photo
seek to maintain a sense of relationship based on
emotional and intellectual criterion and not physi-
7071
Online Dating/Dating Apps
cal characteristics (Hardy, 2004). For others, the
exchanging of photographs act as a mechanism
for the reduction of feelings related to ambiguity
and uncertainty (Hardy, 2004). The practice of
sending a picture electronically allows both parties
to construct a more vivid, while still nonverbal
representation of the other person. Further, by
sending a picture, both parties are better prepared
for face to face interaction (Hardy, 2004).
Social relationships start from first impression
formation (Richmond, McCroskey & Hickson,
2007), and, simultaneously, first impression is
formed through physical attractiveness assess-
ment. Consequently, dating is not the exception
for physical attractiveness as the basis for first
impression formation (see Richmond, et al., 2007;
Tidwell, Eastwick & Finkel, 2012); Eastwick &
Hunt, 2014). Indeed, nonverbal research in in-
terpersonal relationships suggests that physical
attractiveness is what determines initial com-
munication approach (Richmond, et. al., 2007).
But, attractiveness assessment is individually
performed and visually driven, it is in the eye of the
beholder (Richmond, et. al., 2007); for example,
in Eastwick and Hunt (2014) measured romantic
acquaintanceship in three different times in three
separated studies with a total of 309 undergraduate
participants, the results suggested that the romantic
evaluation of potential mates is more unique to a
person that consensual over time.
Physical attractiveness primarily sets off first
dates in online settings as well (see Walther,
2007; Kang & Hoffman, 2011; Finkel et. al.,
2012; Ramirez, et al., 2015).The problem arises
when first impression formation is mediated by
computer technology because it extrapolates
and enhances attractiveness in a hyperbolic way:
during the receiving stage in the communication
system, users perform an overreliance (idealize)
on others’ traits because they only have access
to the available pictures and textual information
and messages which prompts minimal similarity;
on the other hand, in the sender communication
stage, individuals selectively self-present in a
controlled and social desirable fashion; while as a
7072
communication channel, CMC facilitates editing,
discretion, and convenience to form impressions
(see Walther, 1996, 2007). As a matter of fact,
physical attractiveness is found to be the most
valued aspect in online dating (see for a review
Whitty, 2008; Rosen, Cheever, Cummings, &
Felt, 2008; Turner & Hunt, 2014); for example,
Ramirez, et. al., (2015) found that perceptions of
higher levels of intimacy, informality, composure,
and social orientation were positively predicted by
the number of photographs that users had on their
profiles. Therefore, attractiveness is the strongest
predictor for online relationship initiation (Witthy,
2008; Walther, 2008; Finkel, et al., 2012; Ramirez,
et al, 2015). Consequently, the important role of
physical attractiveness for dating explains the
central role of personal pictures in online dating
interface architecture, but this is an idea not widely
discussed in the scholarly literature.
CMC offers a virtual environment in which the
physical isolation prompts anonymity and makes
users experience more disinhibition; for example
Lapidot-Lefter and Barak (2012) examined the
effect of anonymity/non-anonymity, visibility/
invisibility, and eye contact/absence of eye contact
in an experimental design with 142 participants
(71 men and 71 women) from ages 18 to 34 years
during shorts debates through CMC; thus, a fac-
torial experimental design was conducted, and
the results suggest that lack of eye contact was
the primary contributor to online disinhibition
effects. As a consequence from acquiring con-
trol of the new language system through CMC,
individuals are able to openly express their feel-
ings and emotions with one another. According
to Alapack et al. (2005), the courtship behaviors
created by the evolving language system tend to
limit romantic feelings such as awkwardness and
conflict. Moreover, the use of tactical punctua-
tions during romantic interludes causes the online
environment to become strikingly similar to that
of the real world (Alapack et al., 2005).
Besides the currently broad access to personal
computer and smartphones that is also a factor
to the increasing popularity of online dating, it

is worth to consider that any technology device
become popular when its use is more close to
naturalness (Xie & Newhagen, 2012); in other
words, individuals tend to use more the devices
that are feel natural to perform a given task. The
concept of affordances refer to the process in
which individuals perceive the objects in their
environment in terms of its potential for action,
without significant intermediate stages that re-
quire memory or inferences. For example, a chair
is perceived in terms of its ‘seatability’; hence,
people perceive the affordance of ‘seatability’
(Gaver, 1991). Accordingly to Gaver’s example,
an affordance is determined in terms of the at-
tributes of both actor and object; subsequently,
there should be perceptual information for an
existent affordance. Ergo, affordances are basically
determined by the physical properties, shape and
scale of artefacts that are more or less easy to be
perceived by specific human perception processes,
and first impression formation process seems to
fit better with online dating.
Online dating affordances give users a broad
range of choices to ‘control’ self-presentation
in terms of physical attractiveness and personal
information that permits impression management
behavior. Hence, online dating interface architec-
ture seems to line up in parallel to Gaver’s (1991)
requisites of affordance because for interface
design the following postulates should be consid-
ered: 1) the artifact physical attributes should be
compatible with those of the actor, and, in online
dating, the visual perception and assessment of
physical attractiveness is paired with the central
role of personal pictures in this platform; 2) the
information of the artifact’ attributes are available
in a manner compatible with a perceptual system
of the actor, and this CMC technology is a visually
driven device to perform romantic assessment;
and 3) the attributes and the action should be
culturally and personally relevant, and, in online
dating, the profiles are individually accessed,
but culturally valued, as physical appearance
evaluation is performed. The affordance tuning for
technology design seems to be more appropriate
Category: Social Networking and Computing
in Tinder in which users do not need to fill in long
questionnaires, and simply go visually during at- S
tractiveness assessment to then asking questions
to candidates, as it happens during FtF settings.
SOLUTIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
As online romantic conversations begin to evolve
and take shape, scholars must continue to observe
and examine online relational phenomena through
the use of online dating apps which have stron-
ger effects on individuals due to its perceived
‘naturalness’ for its ‘proximity’. Through CMC
affordances such as the use of emoticons and
other tactical punctuations, nonverbal communi-
cation plays a crucial role in the development of
Internet-based courtship behaviors and romantic
online relationships. Online dating and online
apps have changed the way that people pursue
romantic relationships; it is not only important
for scholarly research to understand how users
exploit CMC affordances to overcome its limita-
tions as Walther’s model proposes, but also it is
paramount to include the analysis of how those
affordances specifically tune to human percep-
tion process making in it more or less ‘popular’,
or more or less ‘interactive’ which is also part
of the market successfulness of any technology,
as it can be inferred while trying to answer the
question about why video dating did not become
as successful as online dating did.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Future research should look at how closely online
and offline courtship behaviors overlap each other
by introducing the affordance tuning conceptual-
ization and nonverbal research. In addition, future
research should investigate the communication
behaviors that individuals use on online apps
compared to face-to-face interactions; for ex-
ample, Hunt, Eastwick & Finkel (2015) compared
7073
Online Dating/Dating Apps
the length of acquaintanceship [first impression
formation] of 167 couples taken from previous
longitudinal studies, and they found a negative
interaction between physical attractiveness and
the time couples got to know each other (i.e. up
to 9 months). In other words, the longer individu-
als had known each other, the less probability for
choosing a mate by the attractiveness criterion,
but most likely by psychological similarity such
as personality traits. By the contrary, in the online
dating context, Ramirez, et al. (2015) investigated
what is the association between the amount of time
spent online before meeting the potential candidate
FtF, a hierarchical regression model was conducted
in five dimensions (i.e., intimacy, composure, for-
mality, task social orientation, dominance) where
a curvilinear association among the first four was
found, and it indicated a significant association
to suggests that online daters benefit from the
interface if the time period of online interaction
is brief. Basically, the longer time spent on online
platform decreases the motivation to meet face-
to-face because it dampen the perceptions of
closeness because candidates start to seek more
online information about a candidate. However,
there is no longitudinal study that simultaneously
includes both dating settings (i.e. FtF and Online)
to compare how the manner in which a romantic
relationship starts may impact further romantic
relationship outcomes in the long term; since the
current state of research lacks of this type of study,
it is difficult to establish strong claims in favor or
against online dating for the long run.
CONCLUSION
As online romantic conversations begin to evolve
and take shape, scholars must continue to observe
and examine online relational phenomena through
the use of online dating apps, which will be the
next ubiquitous trend in terms of technology use
in the upcoming years due to the wide spread
7074
smartphone presence (Gerlich, Drmheller, Babb
& D’Armond, 2015). Through the use of personal
pictures, emoticons and other tactical punctua-
tions, nonverbal communication plays a crucial
role in the development of Internet-based court-
ship behaviors. The popularity of online Tinder
is better calibrated to interpersonal attraction than
the values-infused and text-heavy quality of the
typical online dating site or app, which places
users in a critical shopping mindset rather than an
orientation based solely on attraction. Moreover,
research on online dating should include inter-
face design understanding to bring in the level
of ‘affordance tuning’ to human sensory system
to perform a specific task (i.e. dating) to assess
CMC popularity and impact on human behavior.
REFERENCES
Alapack, R., Blichfeldt, M. F., & Elden, A. (2005).
Flirting on the Internet and the hickey: A herme-
neutic. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 8(1), 52–61.
doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.52 PMID:15738693
Anderson, T. L. (2005). Relationships among
Internet attitudes, Internet use, romantic beliefs,
and perceptions of online romantic relationships.
Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 8(6), 521–531.
doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.521 PMID:16332163
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis,
H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A criti-
cal analysis from the perspective of psychological
science. Psychological Science in the Public Inter-
est, 13(1), 3–66. doi:10.1177/1529100612436522
PMID:26173279
Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology Affordances.
Proceedings of the CHI 1991. ACM Press.
Hardy, M. (2004). Mediated relationships: Au-
thenticity and the possibility of romance. Informa-
tion Communication and Society, 7(2), 207–222.
doi:10.1080/1369118042000232657

Kang, T., & Hoffman, L. (2011). Why would you
decide to use an online dating site? Factors that
lead to online dating. Communication Research
Reports, 28(3), 205–213. doi:10.1080/0882409
6.2011.566109
Kindred, J., & Roper, S. (2004). Making connec-
tions via instant messenger (IM): Student use of
IM to maintain personal relationships. Qualitative
Research Reports in Communication, 5, 48–54.
Krohn, F. B. (2004). A generational approach to
using emoticons as nonverbal communication.
Journal of Technical Writing & Communica-
tion, 34(4), 321–328. doi:10.2190/9EQH-DE81-
CWG1-QLL9
Mahfouz, A. Y., Philaretou, A. G., & Theocharous,
A. (2008). Virtual social interactions: Evolution-
ary, social psychological and technological per-
spectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6),
3014–3026. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.05.008
Ramirez, A., Summer, E. M., Fleuriet, C., &
Cole, M. (2015). When online dating partners
meet offline: The effect of modality switching on
relational communication between online daters.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
20(1), 99–114. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12101
Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A., Cummings, C., &
Felt, J. (2008). The impact of emotionality and
self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional
dating. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5),
2124–2157. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.10.003
Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation
in computer-mediated communication: Hyper-
personal dimensions of technology, language,
and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior,
23(5), 2358–2557. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.002
Whitty, M. T. (2008). Revealing the real me,
searching for the actual you: Presentations of
self on an internet dating site. Computers in Hu-
man Behavior, 24(4), 1707–1723. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2007.07.002
Category: Social Networking and Computing
Xie, W., & Newhagen, J. E. (2014). The effects of
communication interface proximity on user anxi- S
ety for crime alerts received on desktop, laptop,
and hand-held devices. Communication Research,
41(3), 375–403. doi:10.1177/0093650212448670
ADDITIONAL READING
Hunt, L. L., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J.
(2015). Leveling the playing field: Longer
acquaintance predicts reduced assortative
mating on attractiveness. Psychological Sci-
ence, 1–8. doi:10.1177/0956797615579273
PMID:26068893
Rözer, J. J., Mollenhorst, G., & Volker, B. (2015,
March). Romantic relationship formation, mainte-
nance and changes in personal networks. Advances
in Life Course Research., 23, 86–67. doi:10.1016/j.
alcr.2014.12.001 PMID:26047843
Tidwell, N. D., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J.
(2012). Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts
initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evi-
dence from the speed-dating paradigm. Journal
of the International Association for Relationship
Research, 20(2), 199–215. doi:10.1111/j.1475-
6811.2012.01405.x
Turner, M., & Hunt, N. (2014). What does your
profile picture say about you? The accuracy of
thin-slice personality judgements from social
networking sites made at zero-acquaintance. In
G. Meisewitz (Ed.), Social Computing and So-
cial Media (pp. 506–516). Zurich, Switzerland:
Springer International publications.
Wendorf, J. E., & Yang, F. (2015, June). Benefits
of a negative post: Effects of computer-mediated
venting on relationship maintenance. Computers
in Human Behavior, 52, 271–277. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2015.05.040
7075
 Online Dating/Dating Apps
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Affordances: “The perceived properties of the
things that determine just how they could possibly
be used” (Norman 1998).
Away Messages: The messages that one uses
to indicate that they are away from the computer
or unavailable to communicate online.
Computer Mediated Communication: The
use of computer or computer technology to com-
municate with other individuals.
Emoticons: Nonverbal expressions that are
expressed via text.
7076
View publication stats
Internet Affinity: The desire to initiate a
romantic relationship via the Internet.
Netiquette: The etiquette and manners that
individuals use while on the Internet.
Online Dating: CMC technology designed
to facilitate romantic relationships initiation by
anticipating face-to-face interaction through
the access to personal profiles without owners’
awareness.
Other World: The notion that something is
not real.