Young Adults Experiences of Romantic Love Relationships in Vitual Space

Running head: YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMATIC LOVE
RELATIONSHIPS IN VIRTUAL SPACE
YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMANTIC LOVE RELATIONSHIPS IN
VIRTUAL SPACE
Tania Lambert
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy: Psychology
in the
Department of Psychology
School of Behavioural Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
April 2017
Supervisor: Prof. J. G. Howcroft
Co-supervisor: Prof. C. N. Hoelson

YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMANTIC LOVE RELATIONSHIPS IN VIRTUAL SPACE ii
DECLARATION
I, Tania Lambert (student number: 190108890) hereby declare that the thesis for Doctor in
Philosophy: Psychology to be awarded is my own work and that it has not previously been
submitted for assessment or completion of any postgraduate qualification to another
University or for another qualification.
……………………………
Tania Lambert
In accordance with Rule G5.6.3,
5.6.3 A treatise/dissertation/thesis must be accompanied by a written declaration on the part
of the candidate to the effect that it is his/her own work and that it has not previously been
submitted for assessment to another University or for another qualification. However,
material from publications by the candidate may be embodied in a treatise/dissertation/thesis.

YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMANTIC LOVE RELATIONSHIPS IN VIRTUAL SPACE iii
DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to my parents for their everlasting love.

YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMANTIC LOVE RELATIONSHIPS IN VIRTUAL SPACE iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to:
The participants: Thank you for volunteering your time and your willingness to share your
experiences. Without you this study would not have been possible.
My supervisors, Professor Greg Howcroft and Professor Chris Hoelson: Thank you for your
constant support, encouragement, and invaluable expert guidance. Thank you for the joy and
positivity you brought to my research journey.
Professor Louise Stroud, Professor Dianne Elkonin, and Professor Blanche Pretorius: Thank
you for your support, encouragement and true interest in my career development.
My family, friends and colleagues: thank you for your unwavering support, interest,
motivation and encouragement.

YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMANTIC LOVE RELATIONSHIPS IN VIRTUAL SPACE v
ABSTRACT
The arena for finding an intimate partner has changed significantly in the 21st century with
online love relationships becoming more prevalent. Research indicates that individuals do
experience meaningful online romantic love relationships and that these relationships often
lead to face to face (FTF) relationships. However, limited research has been done on
exploring the experiences of those who are/were involved in online romantic love
relationships. Furthermore, research conducted on online love romantic relationships
generally fails to investigate how people experience passion online, hereby ignoring this
integral component of romantic love. The primary aim of the research study was to explore
young adults’ experiences of romantic love relationships in virtual space. More
specifically, the study explored how young adults experienced intimacy and passion as
elements of romantic love online. The study was viewed from an interpretative paradigm
and made use of a qualitative approach. The researcher conducted in-depth, semi-structured
interviews with seven participants which were transcribed, and analysed using
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Four superordinate themes were
identified, namely, Online Intimacy, Online Romance and Passion, Online Love, and
Social Exchange Online. The participants experienced romantic love online and reported
that these relationships were very significant, real and impacted on their psychological
well-being. The study created a heuristic base that will provide impetus for this emerging
field in research.
Keywords: Face to face (FTF), intimacy, online, passion, romantic love relationships,
virtual space
YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMANTIC LOVE RELATIONSHIPS IN VIRTUAL SPACE vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration ..................................................................................................................................... ii
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................v
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

Chapter Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1
Context of the Research .............................................................................................................. 1
Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 5
The Central Research Question and Sub-questions .................................................................... 6
Overview of Methodology .......................................................................................................... 6
Concept Definitions..................................................................................................................... 7
Love. ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Intimacy. .................................................................................................................................. 8
Passion. .................................................................................................................................... 8
Commitment. ........................................................................................................................... 9
Love Types. ............................................................................................................................. 9
Liking. ................................................................................................................................ 10
Infatuated love. .................................................................................................................. 11
Empty love. ........................................................................................................................ 11
Romantic love. ................................................................................................................... 11
Companionate love. ........................................................................................................... 12
Fatuous love. ...................................................................................................................... 12
Consummate love............................................................................................................... 12
Concepts related to the online context. .................................................................................. 13
Cyberspace. ........................................................................................................................ 13
Computer meditated communication (CMC). ................................................................... 13
Virtual relationships. .......................................................................................................... 13
YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMANTIC LOVE RELATIONSHIPS IN VIRTUAL SPACE vii
Offline/face to face (FTF) relationships. ........................................................................... 13

Delineation of Thesis ................................................................................................................ 14
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework .......................................................................................... 15
Chapter Overview ..................................................................................................................... 15
Overview of the Theoretical Framework .................................................................................. 15
Symbolic interactionism. ....................................................................................................... 16
Main concepts. ....................................................................................................................... 18
Symbols.............................................................................................................................. 18
Interaction. ......................................................................................................................... 20
The self............................................................................................................................... 21
Intellectual heritage: A brief overview. ............................................................................. 23
Contributions of Mead. ...................................................................................................... 26
Blumer’s three basis premises of symbolic interactionism................................................ 26
The five central ideas of symbolic interactionism. ............................................................ 30
Methodological and research traditions of symbolic interactionism. ................................ 32
Criticism of symbolic interactionism. ................................................................................ 33
Closing remarks. ................................................................................................................ 35
Social exchange theory. ......................................................................................................... 36
Rewards and costs. ............................................................................................................. 37
Relational outcomes. .......................................................................................................... 39
Criticism of social exchange theory. .................................................................................. 43
Traditional Theories of Romantic Love .................................................................................... 44
Biological theories of love. .................................................................................................... 45
Attachment theory of love. .................................................................................................... 46
Love styles theory. ................................................................................................................. 48
Personality and cultural theories............................................................................................ 50
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 52
Chapter 3: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 53
Introducing the Ongoing Debate ............................................................................................... 53
The Development of Online Love Relationships – An Online/Offline Comparison ................ 57
YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMANTIC LOVE RELATIONSHIPS IN VIRTUAL SPACE viii
Initiating................................................................................................................................. 58
Experimenting. ...................................................................................................................... 60
Intensifying. ........................................................................................................................... 62
Integrating. ............................................................................................................................. 63
Bonding. ................................................................................................................................ 64
Intimacy in Virtual Space .......................................................................................................... 64
Compensating for the lack of social cues in virtual space. .................................................... 64
Online anonymity. ................................................................................................................. 66
Self-disclosure in relation to intimacy. .................................................................................. 68
Self-disclosure and the development of intimacy: a brief overview.................................. 69
Online self-disclosure and the development of intimacy. .................................................. 70
The importance of mutual self-disclosure.......................................................................... 74
Quantity versus quality. ..................................................................................................... 74
Trust and online self-disclosure. ........................................................................................ 75
Self-presentation in virtual space. ......................................................................................... 77
The Hyperpersonal CMC model relating to online presentation. ...................................... 78
The online self.................................................................................................................... 79
Passion in Virtual Space ............................................................................................................ 81
Cybersex. ............................................................................................................................... 82
The relationship between intimacy and passion. ................................................................... 83
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 85
Chapter 4: Research Methodology ............................................................................................ 87
Research Aim and Research Questions ..................................................................................... 87
Research Paradigm .................................................................................................................... 88
Qualitative Research ................................................................................................................. 89
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) ..................................................................... 91
Theoretical underpinnings of IPA. ........................................................................................ 91
Phenomenology.................................................................................................................. 92
Hermeneutics. .................................................................................................................... 94
Ideography. ........................................................................................................................ 95
YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMANTIC LOVE RELATIONSHIPS IN VIRTUAL SPACE ix
Revisiting the research question. ........................................................................................... 96

Ethical Considerations............................................................................................................... 96
Institutional approval. ............................................................................................................ 97
Researcher integrity and competence. ................................................................................... 97
Informed consent. .................................................................................................................. 98
Confidentiality. ...................................................................................................................... 99
Risk and benefit assessment. ................................................................................................. 99
Reflexivity. .......................................................................................................................... 100
Dissemination of results. ..................................................................................................... 100
Research Procedures ............................................................................................................... 101
Participants and sampling procedure. .................................................................................. 101
Data collection. .................................................................................................................... 104
The interview schedule. ................................................................................................... 107
Pilot interview. ................................................................................................................. 107
Data analysis. ....................................................................................................................... 108
Step 1: Multiple reading and making notes. .................................................................... 109
Step 2: Transforming notes into emergent themes. ......................................................... 111
Step 3: Seeking relations and clustering themes. ............................................................. 113
Step 4: Establishing interrater reliability. ........................................................................ 113
Step 5: Establishing participant validity of the researcher’s interpretation. .................... 113
Limitations of IPA. .............................................................................................................. 114
Trustworthiness ....................................................................................................................... 116
Credibility. ........................................................................................................................... 116
Transferability. .................................................................................................................... 117
Dependability....................................................................................................................... 118
Confirmability. .................................................................................................................... 119
Validity .................................................................................................................................... 119
Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 121
Chapter 5: Findings and Discussion........................................................................................ 122
Chapter Overview ................................................................................................................... 122
Brief Introduction of the Participants ...................................................................................... 122
YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMANTIC LOVE RELATIONSHIPS IN VIRTUAL SPACE x
Ellen. .................................................................................................................................... 122

Butterfly. .............................................................................................................................. 123
Kirsty. .................................................................................................................................. 123
Deon..................................................................................................................................... 124
Kai. ...................................................................................................................................... 124
Latifa. ................................................................................................................................... 125
Unicorn. ............................................................................................................................... 125
Participants’ Conceptualizations of Romantic Love ............................................................... 126
Identified Themes .................................................................................................................... 131
Online Intimacy ....................................................................................................................... 133
Self-disclosure. .................................................................................................................... 133
Levels of self-disclosure. ................................................................................................. 134
Mutuality of self-disclosure. ............................................................................................ 136
Anonymity and self-disclosure. ....................................................................................... 139
I know you and understand you. ...................................................................................... 140
Interpersonal connection...................................................................................................... 144
Feelings of connectedness................................................................................................ 144
Similarity.......................................................................................................................... 147
Trust. ................................................................................................................................ 151
Time and effort. ............................................................................................................... 155
Online Romance and Passion .................................................................................................. 160
Interpersonal attraction. ....................................................................................................... 160
Feelings of being in love. .................................................................................................... 164
Sexual chemistry and desire. ............................................................................................... 167
Passion in relation to intimacy............................................................................................. 171
Longing. ............................................................................................................................... 173
Online Love ............................................................................................................................. 175
It is love. .............................................................................................................................. 175
The significance of the experience. ..................................................................................... 176
My partner influenced me.................................................................................................... 179
Symbols of love. .................................................................................................................. 184
YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMANTIC LOVE RELATIONSHIPS IN VIRTUAL SPACE xi
Social Exchange Online .......................................................................................................... 189

Online rewards. .................................................................................................................... 190
Online costs. ........................................................................................................................ 193
Comparisons. ....................................................................................................................... 195
Executive Summary............................................................................................................. 196
Closing Remarks ..................................................................................................................... 203
Chapter 6: Strengths, Limitations and Future Recommendations ...................................... 205
Chapter Overview ................................................................................................................... 205
Strengths .................................................................................................................................. 205
Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 206
Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 207
Personal Reflections ................................................................................................................ 208
References .................................................................................................................................. 211
Appendix A: Participant Information Letter ............................................................................... 237
Appendix B: Biographical Questionnaire ................................................................................... 240
Appendix C: Consent Form ........................................................................................................ 242
Appendix D: Newspaper Advertisement .................................................................................... 246
Appendix E1: Original Interview Schedule ................................................................................ 248
Appendix E2: Modified Interview Schedule .............................................................................. 249
List of Figures
Figure 1: Sternberg’s Love Triangle ..............................................................................................10
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic variables of the participants of the current research study ......................104
Table 2: Extracts from the interview with Ellen (pseudonym) and corresponding explanatory
comments .....................................................................................................................................110
Table 3: The emerging themes for the extracts of the interview with Ellen ................................112
Table 4: The superordinate and subordinate themes of the current research ...............................132
YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMANTIC LOVE RELATIONSHIPS IN VIRTUAL SPACE 1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Chapter Overview
The chapter aims to orientate the reader to the current research study. The first section
introduces the relevant background information that is associated with the study. Thereafter, the
problem statement is specified and the research question and sub-questions are stated. The
chosen research methodology is briefly introduced in the next section. Additional information is
provided in order to highlight definitions of key concepts relating to the current research study.
Lastly, the outline of chapters included in the study is provided.
Context of the Research
Interpersonal relationships form an integral part of one’s development as an optimum
being, especially the formation of close intimate relationships in young adulthood. According to
Erikson (1968) young adults need to form intimate, loving relationships with significant others.
It is proposed that success in reaching this important developmental milestone leads to strong
relationships, while failure results in loneliness and isolation. It is not surprising that most people
seek out love and believe that the formation of successful love relationships is essential for
potential happiness.
Research findings indicate that close relationships can have powerful psychological and
physical effects on an individual’s well-being (Reis & Rusbult, 2004). Psychological studies
highlighting the benefits of intimate relationships range from increased levels of social support
(Cohen & Wills, 1985; Golden, Conroy & Lawlor, 2009; Seeman, Lusignolo, Albert &
Berkman, 2001) to intimate relationships being a determinant of the quality of life (Cohen, 2004;
Helgeson, 2003). It is important to note that love relationships especially have power to
significantly affect an individual’s sense of wellbeing. As Weis (2006a) succinctly posits: love
is “the force that has the potential to cause so much happiness and so much sorrow in very
human being” (p. 324).
Traditionally, individuals seeking romantic love connections meet potential partners
through mutual friends, by socializing, by making contact at work or by joining groups, to name
a few. In these settings factors such as proximity, similarity and physical appearance have a
critical impact on the initial stages of relationship development (Bargh, McKenna & Fitzsimons,
2002). However, the arena for finding an intimate partner has changed significantly in the 21st
century with the internet becoming a popular part of how individuals seek intimate relationships.
In modern society the internet has become a vital part of people’s lifestyles and
relationships (Campbell & Murray, 2015) with research findings indicating that an increasing
number of couples develop and maintain relationships online (Fleck & Johnson- Migalski, 2015).
According to Klein (2013) interpersonal communication is currently the primary use for internet
in the home and has revolutionised the way communication takes place across the world for
many individuals. It has allowed millions of individuals to connect, to communicate immediately
in many ways over a range of means, and to develop all types of relationships including
friendship and romantic love relationships. Relationships previously initiated and maintained
through interaction are now moving to social technology, creating a new type of interpersonal
relationships (Ling Huang & Ching Yang, 2013). Ruppel (2014) echoes these findings and states
that synchronous media technologies are supplementing or replacing face-to-face (FTF)
interaction in relationship development for a growing number of individuals.
The popularity of this medium as a way of seeking intimate relationships could be
explained by considering various characteristics of the medium. For instance, some internet
platforms permit relationship formation without the barriers of mitigating features present in real
life barriers (Gibbs, Ellison & Heino, 2006) such as physical appearance, shyness and social
anxiety (Bargh et al., 2002). Research findings suggest that social cues are embedded in text
rather than in body language and physical appearance (Whitty & Gavin, 2001) leading to the
abovementioned features becoming less apparent (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004). Another important
characteristic of this medium is that individuals involved in online relationships remain to a
certain extent anonymous (Bargh et al., 2002; Whitty & Gavin, 2001). The benefits of Computer
Mediated Communication (CMC) such as anonymity, flexibility and multiple interaction allow
socially anxious or lonely people to be socially rewarded through online communication without
being overly conscious while at the same time guarding their self-image (Peter, Valkenburg &
Schouten, 2005). Chak and Leung (2004) argue that because of the perceived control over online
communication individuals prefer to use this medium to meet their social and intimacy needs.
Another possible explanation for the increase in online relationship formation is the
increase in global usage of the internet. According to the International Telecommunications
Union (ITU, 2015), from 2000 to 2009 the global number of internet users rose from 394 million
to 1.858 billion, and by 2014 it had risen to above the 3 billion mark. Therefore, it is estimated
that about 43.6 % of the world’s population has access to the internet. The internet usage in
Africa has risen from 2.4% of the population in the year 2005 to 20.7% in 2015 (ITU, 2015). In
South Africa the number of internet users increased by 1.9 million from 24.9 million in 2015 to
26.8 million in 2016 (Shezi, 2016). In other words, about 49% of the total South African
population are considered to be active internet users with the average South African spending
just under 5 hours per day online (Shezi, 2016).
Research conducted in 2009 found that more than twice as many marriages occurred
between people who met online than those who met in bars, clubs and other social events
combined (Baily, 2010). The above-mentioned statistic suggests that people do experience
meaningful online romantic relationships and that these relationships often lead to FTF
relationships. This notion is supported by research findings which indicate that high levels of
intimacy are often experienced in the virtual context, individuals find these relationships
meaningful and high levels of relationship satisfaction have been reported (Cooper & Sportolati,
1997; Whitty, 2008a; Zaczek & Bonn, 2006). Therefore, these relationships often lead to FTF
relationships.
Research focusing on the transition from online to offline relationships also highlights the
significance of online relationship experiences. According to Ramirez and Zhang (2007), non-
romantic virtual partnerships which move offline report lower levels of intimacy after
transitioning than strictly FTF partners. Higher levels of intimacy experienced by online couples
prior to shifting offline is possibly a product of heightened expectations developed via CMC that
may not be met once the relationship transitions to a FTF environment. Therefore, intimacy
levels in relationships that transitioned offline were lower after the transition than strictly offline
relationships. A study conducted by Schaefer (2011) noted similar findings. This study intended
to explore the relational turbulence model in online transitioning relationship. According to the
relational turbulence model, romantic partners encounter relational turbulence as a by-product of
fluctuating intimacy. The findings indicated that if couples involved in online romantic
relationships viewed the transition offline as a turning point in their relationship, they
experienced a decrease in intimacy throughout the transition. In the same manner, Huels (2011)
conducted a phenomenological study that investigated the transition of relationships from an
online to a FTF context. The research findings indicated that partners became so familiar with
each other online that their first meeting FTF was described as meeting an old friend for the first
time. The findings of the above mentioned studies suggest a need to investigate how contextual
differences impact on the experience of romantic relationships.
Problem Statement
The global popularity of the internet has led to a significant increase in romantic love
relationships that are initiated online. This trend is also noted in the South African context where
online relationships are becoming more prevalent. Research indicates that individuals do
experience meaningful online romantic love relationships and that these relationships often lead
to FTF relationships (Huels, 2011; Schaefer, 2011). There has been extensive research conducted
on the impact of the internet on individuals’ lives as well as the communication that occurs via
the web. Most of the research regarding online relationships has been conducted by
communication and linguistic scholars and has focused on the communication process and the
patterns that occur online (Ling Huang & Ching Yang, 2013). Researchers have now recently
started focusing on the psychological impact online relationships have, and how these
relationships are changing the traditional ideals and values of relationship formation, particularly
of romance and dating amongst individuals (Ling Huang & Ching Yang, 2013; Ruppel, 2014;
Wong AnKee & Yazdanifard, 2015). However, positive aspects regarding online romantic love
relationships have received very little attention from theorists and researchers. In addition, most
of the available research in the field of psychology tends to be quantitative (Pietkiewicz & Smith,
2014). Limited qualitative research studies have been conducted on exploring the positive (love)
experiences of young adults who were involved in online romantic love relationships.
According to Sternberg (1986) both intimacy and passion are integral components of
romantic love. However, research conducted on online romantic relationships generally fails to
investigate how people experience passion online, hereby ignoring this integral component of
romantic love. Research pertaining to people’s experiences of romantic love online will aid in
understanding the richness and the complexity of romantic love. More specifically, it will aid in
understanding this complex phenomenon in the context of virtual space. The current research
study addressed the obvious gap in the field of Relational Psychology and created impetus for
further research and theory development. The current study falls within the Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan University’s (NMMU) multidisciplinary research theme of cyber-citizenship. More
specifically, the current study falls within the subtheme of cyber-relationships.
The Central Research Question and Sub-questions
The central research question of the current research study is the following:
How do young adults experience romantic love relationships in the context of virtual space?
Since intimacy and passion form important components of romantic love (Sternberg, 1986) sub-
questions of the current research study included:
1) How do young adults experience intimacy in virtual space?
2) How do young adults experience passion in virtual space?
Overview of Methodology
The current research study falls under the interpretative paradigm which focuses on the
meaning attributed to events, behaviours and interaction, individuals and objects (Schensul,
2008). The chosen qualitative methodological framework for this study was Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). In line with the current research study, IPA is utilized if one
has a research question which aims to understand what a given experience was like and how
someone made sense of it (Larkin, Watts & Clifton, 2006). Participants in the current research
study were recruited using a purposive, convenient (non-probability) sampling method. I
conducted in-depth interviews with the participants until saturation was reached. Data were
examined using data analysis techniques (IPA) as outlined by Smith et al. (2003, 2004, 2009,
2014). The data were analysed to identify significant superordinate themes and subordinate
themes relating to the central research question: How do young adults experience romantic love
relationships in the context of virtual space?.
Concept Definitions
To fully understand the meaning of virtual romantic love relationships in the context of
the current research study, it is necessary to define and describe a number of concepts relevant to
the current study. In addition, this section aims to illustrate the interdependencies of the
concepts.
Love.
The concept of love has been widely studied throughout the ages, but still remains a
mystery with theorists and researchers of love not agreeing upon a single conceptualisation of
love. As Berscheid (2006, p. 172) puts it: “Theorists and researchers of love have spent a good
deal of time and effort trying to pin down what love is, but no conceptualisation of love has ever
been agreed upon, although some have completed the exercise to their personal satisfaction.”
However, psychological studies agree that love is associated with a constellation of emotions,
motivations and behaviours (Harris, 1995; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986, Liebowitz, 1983).
For the purpose of the current research study love was conceptualized according to
Sternberg’s triangular theory of love (Sternberg, 1986). The triangular theory of love suggests
that love can be understood in terms of three components, namely, intimacy, passion, and
commitment (Sternberg 1986, 1997). Together these three components form a triangle that can
be applied to a multiplicity of relationships. It is argued that an individual’s experience of love
depends on the strength and combination of these three components. For the purpose of the
current research study it is important to define each of these above-mentioned components.

Intimacy.
Sternberg (1986) broadly defined intimacy as people’s perceptions of connectedness,
(psychological) closeness and bondedness within a relationship. Intimacy is often defined as a
multifaceted concept that builds as the relationship develops over time (Baumeister &
Bratslavsky, 1999). Simpson, Fletcher and Campbell (2011) recognize that intimacy is a
complex concept and argue that the most satisfying intimate relationship comprised six of the
variables of intimacy namely; sharing private information, caring for each other,
interdependence, mutuality, trust and commitment. The above-mentioned variables of intimacy
are generally agreed upon by scholars (Simpson et al., 2011). In addition, several scholars have
defined intimacy as an interpersonal process encompassing partner responsiveness and self-
disclosure (Laurenceau, Feldman-Barrett, Pietromonaco, 1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988). In other
words, intimacy is reliant upon the level of truthful self-disclosure that occurs between
individuals. High self-disclosure is almost a necessary prerequisite to effective relationships
(Franzoi, 1996; Verderber & Verderber, 2008).
Passion.
Passion is defined as drives that lead to romance, longing for a person, physical
attraction, sexual consummation and related phenomenon in love relationships (Sternberg, 1986).
Passion involves physiological arousal which is not dependent on how long you have known a
person (Baumeister & Bratslavsky, 1999) and normally plays an integral role in the initial stages
of romantic relationships (Impett & Gordon, 2009; Louw & Louw, 2011). In most literature
passion is mostly equated to sexual attraction. According to Impett and Gordon (2009) sexual
attraction refers to feelings of attraction to another person on the basis of sexual desire. Research
findings indicate that sexual attraction could be measured by sexual desire (a motivational
component that refers to a need or drive to seek out sexual partners), sexual behaviour (the
behavioural component which refers to various sexual behaviours such as kissing, hugging and
intercourse), and sexual feelings (an evaluative component including feelings of intimacy and
satisfaction) (Impett & Gordon, 2009).
Commitment.
Commitment can be explained as the decision to be with a partner, to deny all other
potential partners and to maintain the relationship above all else (Young & Long, 1998). This is
therefore considered the cognitive component of love (Sternberg, 1986). The commitment
component of love interacts with both intimacy and the passion component and is often the core
of a long term relationship (Sternberg, 1986).
The importance of each of the three components of love differs when considering if a
loving relationship is short-term or long-term (Sternberg, 1986). It is suggested that in short-term
relationships, and especially romantic ones, the passion component is prominent while the
intimacy component is moderate and the decision/commitment component is in most cases not
applicable. Furthermore, the intimacy component and the commitment component typically are
significant factors in a long-term close relationship, while the passion facet changes (usually
declines) over time (Sternberg, 1986, 1997).
Love Types.
The triangular theory of love furthermore suggests 7 different love types based upon the various
combinations of intimacy, passion and commitment as depicted in figure 1 below.

Intimacy
Liking Love
Passion + Intimacy Intimacy + Commitment

Romantic Love Compassionate Love
Intimacy + Passion+
Commitment
Consummate Love
Passion Decision/ Commitment

Infatuation Empty Love
Passion + Commitment
Fatuous Love
Figure 1: Sternberg’s Love Triangle. This figure illustrates how the elements of intimacy, passion, and
commitment interact to form different types of love. Adapted from “A triangular theory of love” by Sternberg, R.J.,
1986, Psychological Review, 93 (2), 126.
Liking.
This type of love is usually referred to as friendship love. A person feels a bond, warmth,
and closeness with another without passion or long-term commitment (Sternberg, 1986, 1997).
Sternberg (1986) makes an interesting distinction between liking and other love types (such as
romantic love) in stating that the type of relationship can be determined by observing the
reaction of the individual when the friend leaves. In liking, the friend is missed, but the
individual does not persistently think about the loss. However, if the relationship is more than
just liking, the loss will have more impact and their absence will have a substantial long-term
effect.
Infatuated love.
Love that contains only the passion portion of the triangle would be considered infatuated
love. This is usually described as love at first sight and is associated with physical attraction and
feelings of a sexual nature (Sternberg, 1986, 997). This love only entails physical attraction and
sexual arousal but no feelings of closeness or intimacy, and no intention to commit oneself to the
other individual. Weis (2006a) adds that the passion component of infatuated love is so salient
that it may be associated with sex drive components, intense erotic emotions and obsession. In
the context of the current study this type of love could refer to cybersex.
Empty love.
Empty love is characterized by commitment without intimacy or passion. A stronger love
may deteriorate into empty love. This type of love is said to be characteristic of stagnant
relationships where the partners are deeply committed to each other and in which the partners do
not experience passion and intimacy (Sternberg, 1986). However, there might be comfort in the
habits of their relationship which causes the partners stay together (Weis, 2006a).
Romantic love.
Romantic love is the focus of the current research study. Romantic love derives from a
combination of the intimacy and passion components (Sternberg, 1986). Regarding the
component of passion, Berscheid (2006) argues that evidence has been gathered in support of the
notion that sexual desire is an important causal condition of romantic love which separates this
type of love from other types of love. Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) echoes the above-
mentioned and highlights that physical attraction and intense emotion is normally associated with
romantic love.
Romantic love can be defined as a “desire to enter, maintain or expand a close, connected
and ongoing relationship with another person or entity” (Reis & Aron, 2008, p. 80) and is
understood to encompass elements of passion and sexual attraction as a “passionate spiritual-
emotional-sexual attachment between two people that reflects a high regard for the value of each
other’s person” (Branden, 1988, p. 218). This type of love is also known by other names,
including passionate love, addictive love and erotic love (Berscheid, 2006).
Companionate love.
Intimacy and commitment produce companionate love (Sternberg, 1986). It appears as a
committed friendship that commonly occurs in relationships in which the physical attraction (a
major source of passion) has either been absent from the start or disappeared over time
(Sternberg, 1986). In other words, this type of love relates to liking (love), where a person feels a
bond, warmth, and closeness and makes a decision to stay committed to the relationship.
Fatuous love.
Fatuous love occurs when commitment is motivated largely by passion without intimacy
(Sternberg, 1986). In other words, commitment is made on the foundation of passion without the
stabilizing influence of intimacy. It is often described as whirlwind relationships and is
associated with an impulsive decision to commit after a short period of time (Sternberg, 1986).
Consummate love.
Consummate love is described as the complete form of love (an ideal relationship) and
includes high levels of intimacy, passion and commitment. It is considered the healthiest type of
love for a long term relationship (Sternberg, 1986). Both partners usually try to maintain
proximity, exhibit affiliative behaviours, and are concerned with one another’s welfare and try to
attend to one another’s needs (Weis, 2006a).
Concepts related to the online context.
The current research study focuses on romantic love in the virtual environment and
therefore it is deemed necessary to define relevant concepts.
Cyberspace.
Waskul and Douglass (1997) describe cyberspace as “a socially constructed reality that
exists within computer networks and supporting technologies” (p. 378). The term virtual space is
also often used in literature and is synonymous to cyberspace.
Computer meditated communication (CMC).
CMC is defined as any communicative transaction that occurs by using two or more
electronic devices (Ahern, Peck & Laycock, 1992). CMC environments can be asynchronous
where people make posts and respond to the posts of others or can upload and share data,
information and links; these include Social Networking Sites (SNS), such as Facebook and
Twitter. Other environments are also text dependent, but synchronous in nature and allow people
to communicate in real time; these include chatrooms and Instant Messenger (Evans, 2012).
Virtual relationships.
In the context of the current research study, online/virtual relationships refer to
relationships initiated and/or maintained though computer mediated communication (CMC) in
virtual space.
Offline/face to face (FTF) relationships.
Offline/FTF relationships are described as social interaction carried out without any
mediating technology (David, Crowley & Mitchell, 1994).

Delineation of Thesis
The structure of the remainder of the thesis is as follows: chapter 2 provides an overview
of traditional theories relating to love, as well as the theoretical frameworks which guides the
current research study. The basic principles of the symbolic interactionism which provide an
overarching theoretical lens through which I aimed to understand the complexities of romantic
love relationships will be discussed. In chapter 3 the focus is on positioning the current research
study within literature relevant to the study. More specifically, it aims at providing expanded
knowledge regarding individuals’ experience of romantic love in cyberspace. In that chapter
attention is drawn to the two components of romantic love, namely intimacy and passion.
Chapter 4 provides an explanation of the research methodology that was utilised to conduct the
research study. That chapter includes aspects such as research paradigm and design, data
collection, data analysis and ethical considerations. In chapter 5 the reader is provided with the
findings and discussion of the current research study. Lastly, in chapter 6 the strengths and
limitations of the current research study and recommendations for future research studies are
discussed. The next chapter provides an overview of the theoretical framework which guides the
current research study.

CHAPTER 2
Theoretical Framework
Chapter Overview
The chapter provides the reader with an overview of theoretical frameworks of the
current study. Firstly, the basic principles of symbolic interactionism will be discussed which
provide an overarching theoretical lens through which I aimed to understand the complexities of
romantic love relationships in cyberspace. Thereafter I provide an overview of social exchange
theory and its applicability to the current research study. The chapter concludes with a brief
overview of traditional theories of love.
Overview of the Theoretical Framework
A network of theories, including higher order theories, might best explain the
complexities of the phenomenon of virtual romantic love relationships. Norman (1993, pp. xii-
xiv) illustrated the intricacies surrounding virtual interactions in the following way:
We stumble toward a new technological era made possible by the emerging

technologies of computer, video, telephone, and high-quality sound. Alas, the
stumbling is not guided by any understanding of the nature of interaction.
Instead, it is more like the tale describing the groping of those legendary
blindmen touching an elephant. . . . We need to view each of our activities in a
larger framework.
The current research study was guided mainly by the interpretative perspective which is
concerned with understanding (and therefore interpreting) social reality (Blumer, 1969). The
basic principles of symbolic interactionism (a grand theory) provide an overarching theoretical
lens through which I aimed to understand the complexities of romantic love relationships. Grand
theories such as symbolic interactionism are the broadest form of theories within disciplines and
are often useful as organising frameworks for knowledge development in human science (Ayres,
2008).
The concepts addressed by grand theories are highly abstract and cannot easily be
operationalized into variables. Therefore, these theories are often described as being too broad,
leading to the oversimplification of complex phenomena (Ayres, 2008). For this reason, amongst
others, which will be highlighted later in the chapter, I will introduce a mid-level theory, social
exchange theory, in conjunction with symbolic interactionism. Mid-range theories have been
described as being particular useful for disciplines involving practise. Said theories are less
abstract than grand theories, but more inclusive than micro theories (Ayres, 2008).
Symbolic interactionism.
Symbolic interactionism is mainly a sociological and social-psychological theory which
is “grounded in the study of meanings that people learn and assign to the objects and actions that
surround their everyday experiences” (Williams, 2008, p. 349). The basic premise of symbolic
interactionism is that human life is inherently social and symbolic. As the word symbolic
interactionism suggests, the key elements of this perspective are the importance of social
interaction and symbolic communication (Gecas, 2009).
Symbolic interactionism focuses on the subjective meanings that people assign to objects,
events, and behaviours (Lauer & Handel, 1983) which develop and rely upon in the process of
social interaction (Williams, 2008). Subjective meanings are highly valued since it is believed
that people’s behaviour is based on what they believe and not just on what is objectively true
(Lauer & Handel, 1983). It is important to note that scholars of symbolic interactionism do not
study individuals, rather they study the social actions that individuals engage in. Williams (2008)
describes social action as any action that takes other individuals into account and includes overt
behaviours, as well as covert actions such as thoughts and emotions. In short, from a symbolic
interaction perspective, it is important to understand what individuals know about their world
and what they believe is important. Research questions focus on how individuals interpret
meanings and (consequently) act in a particular context (Benzies & Allen, 2001).
Although interactionists agree that humans rely on shared symbols to construct their
realities and on the methodological requirement of understanding behaviour by “getting inside”
the reality of the action, significant divisions remain within the perspective (Gecas, 2009;
Ponzetti, 2003). The main division is between those who highlight process and those who
emphasize structure in the study of human realities. The former, is congruent with the primary
theoretical framework of the current research study, and is associated with Herbert Blumer and
the Chicago School of Thought. This division advocates the use of qualitative methods in
studying the process of reality construction within natural social settings (Gecas, 2009). The
basic premises of symbolic interactionism according to Blumer (1969) are discussed in a later
section of this chapter. The latter, the structural version, is associated with Manford Kuhn and
the Iowa School of Thought and advocates the use of quantitative methods in studying the
products of social interaction, especially self-concepts. The differences between these two
schools reflect the fundamental division in social sciences between humanistic/interpretative
orientations and the positivistic/nomothetic orientations (Gecas, 2009). A third important
variation of symbolic interactionism, somewhat closer to the Chicago School than the Iowa
School of Thought, is Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical perspective on social life (Gecas, 2009)
which relates to the role of self-presentation (see chapter three).

Main concepts.
For the purpose of the current research study, I will focus on the main concepts and
premises of this grand theory as outlined in this chapter. The term symbolic interactionism is
comprised of two main concepts, namely, symbols and interaction. The focus of the current
research study is on the interaction between two people in a relationship (as opposed to the
interaction of the individual in groups). Therefore, I will only focus on concepts and central
premises that are most applicable to said dyadic relationship. This does not imply that the other
concepts and ideas of symbolic interactionism are regarded as being less important. The concepts
of symbols, interaction and the self will be discussed in more detail.
Symbols.
A symbol may refer to any form of social object that stands in the way of or represents
any social concept, and can include physical objects, gestures or words (Williams, 2008).
According to Lauer and Handel (1983) symbols are stimuli with learned and shared meanings
which distinguish human behaviour from infrahuman behaviour. It is argued that only humans
communicate using symbols, which can be described as particular communicative gestures.
Humans are cognitive beings functioning in a context of shared meanings which are
communicated through language. Mead (as cited in Lauer & Handel, 1983, p. 35) defines
language (a system of symbols) as, “the means whereby individuals indicate to one another what
their response to objects will be, and hence what the meanings of the objects are”. Each symbolic
definition of an object will indicate to particular people how they are to respond to the presence
of the object. Regarding the use of language, Lauer and Handel (1983) comment that it is
important to note that different meanings may be attached to the same word, both within the
same language and between languages. Gecas (2009) adds that the meaning of things is
especially variable in terms of abstract terms such as love. The meaning of love, for example, is
highly dependent on the processes of interpretation and negotiation.
Lauer and Handel (1983) furthermore emphasised that symbols form the basis of one’s
understanding of reality, for one’s cognitive processes generally, and for one’s covert behaviour.
In this regard Lauer and Handel (1983) highlight three important points. Firstly, concerning the
understanding of reality, individuals live in a symbolic environment where responses are to
symbols and relationships with the world are symbol mediated. Therefore, the individual can
only understand the world in terms of symbols that are available or through symbols one creates
to explain the world. Lauer and Handel (1983) argue that language specifically leads individuals
to see the world in specific ways. However, it does not make the individual incapable of creating
new perspectives. New interactive experiences and the development of new symbols or new
meanings, then, will change one’s perception and understanding of the world. Due to an
individual’s unique experiences people may look at the same reality and yet perceive a quite
different reality because of different symbolic meanings (Lauer & Handel, 1983).
Secondly, all cognitive processes depend upon the symbol system the individual uses.
Cognition is not possible without language and the latter must have developed before the former.
Cognition is closely dependent on symbol systems which can also change and develop (Lauer &
Handel, 1983).
Thirdly, symbols form the centre of covert behaviour since individuals are led to act by
the stimulus of symbols. Before individuals respond to a situation, they define the situation; they
make sense of it by representing it to themselves symbolically in order to make an appropriate
response (Lauer & Handel, 1983). Humans arbitrarily assign meaning by making something into
a social object (Williams, 2008). In the context of the current research study people constantly
assign meaning to symbols and in the virtual context symbols may include the use of language,
emoticons and photos.
Interaction.
The second concept, interaction, highlights the significance of interpersonal
communication in assigning meaning to the symbols used during social interactions (Williams,
2008). Lauer and Handel (1983, p. 41) define interaction as the “reciprocally influenced
behaviour on the part of one or more people”. This implies that when two people interact, each
influences the behaviour of the other, and each directs his/her behaviour on the foundation of the
other’s behaviour towards him/her. The individual exists only in relation to others and therefore
can only be understood in terms of their interaction. Symbolic interactionism proposes that
humans are primarily cognitive creatures who are influenced and shaped by their interactional
experiences (Blumer, 1969; Lauer & Handel, 1983). Therefore, what happens in interactions is a
consequence not merely of what the individual brings to it but of the interaction itself. In other
words, what a person is depends upon interaction with others and what a person does depends
not simply upon what kind of person he/she is, but on the person’s interaction with others
(Blumer, 1969; Lauer & Handel, 1983).
Lauer and Handel (1983) emphasise that interaction is a formative process in which
behaviour is created by interaction rather than merely occurring during the course of interaction.
It is argued that a differing pattern of interaction will have differential consequences for
behaviour. Therefore, behaviour is seen as a function of the interaction itself and not merely of
those qualities that an individual brings into the interaction. However, Lauer and Handel (1983)
agree with other scholars that personality and background are important and relevant.
Through social interaction culture (ideas, objects and practises that constitute everyday life)
arises (Williams, 2008). Becker (1963) argues that on the one hand, culture pre-exists
individuals’ structure of their lives, and on the other hand, people are autonomous, interpretative
beings who have the ability to negotiate, modify and reject the meanings they acquire. Therefore,
from a symbolic interaction perspective people are active creators of symbols and culture. For
example, love means different things to different people at different times in their lives. For one
person, love may signify caring, mutual understanding and communication and for another
person love may signify long term commitment. However, the personal meaning of love can
change over time (for example, due to rejecting the meaning that was learnt from parents).
Through symbolic interaction people share, construct, resist and modify various aspects of social
life (Lauer & Handel, 1983).
The self.
Another concept that is central to the social psychology of symbolic interactionism is that
humans have a self. The self enables a person to observe, respond to, and direct one’s own
behaviour. A person is also capable of behaviour towards one’s self, for example, a person can
blame or encourage him/herself (Lauer & Handel, 1983).
Lauer and Handel (1983) summarises four characteristics of the self. Firstly, the self is a
process (and not an entity) which occurs in two phases - the I and the me. I are the unpredictable,
driving impulses, and the me which refers to the organised community within one as reflected in
one’s attitudes (and reflects the generalised expectation of the environment). The self is the
process that is the ongoing contention between these two phases. In other words, one’s behaviour
is a process that includes: “carving out a line of action that mediates between one’s impulses and
the expectation of the social environment; observing and responding to one’s own behaviour and
other’s behaviour; adjusting and directing one’s subsequent behaviour on these two bases”
(Lauer & Handel, 1983, p. 67). The self as a process also implies that the individual changes and
that the structure and attitudes of the self are not permanent, but can change over time. The
second characteristic of the self is it’s reflexive nature which means that a person can be an
object to him/herself – a person can observe, evaluate, respond to, and direct his/her own
behaviour. We therefore are aware of our own qualities and the roles we play (Blumer, 1969;
Lauer & Handel, 1983). Thirdly, the self is comprised of shared attitudes. Since humans are
cognitive creatures, the self involves a set of attitudes which are aroused in both the individual
and in others who constitute the social environment. There is no self in isolation from group
membership and no self without shared attitudes (Lauer & Handel, 1983). Finally, the self is the
means whereby social control becomes self-control. The self hereby internalises the attitudes of
the community and thereby controls one’s own behaviour in terms of those attitudes. In other
words, one’s behaviour is controlled because one internalised the attitudes of the community and
therefore directs one’s behaviour in accordance with community standards (Lauer & Handel,
1983).
Therefore, the self is simultaneously social and individual and is created through
everyday interactions between the person and other persons, the person in their context and
environment. Tools and artefacts have a mediating role in the emergence of the self. The role of
‘the other’ is crucial in the emergence of self-awareness and knowledge. Symbolic
interactionism views the self as never accomplished, but always in a state of becoming and
emerging through self-reflection (Evans, 2012).
Throughout the decades there have been numerous theoretical extensions of symbolic
interactionism concepts. One extension, Goffman’s dramaturgical model of the self and self-
presentation, will be mentioned in the next chapter as well as the extension of the self as ‘online
self’. The online self consists of multiple selves in potentially numerous social network sites,
freed from offline social norms and expectations (Robinson, 2007).
It is important to emphasise the impact of others in one’s view of self. Cooley’s (1922)
concept of the looking-glass self also captures the influence that significant others have on one’s
self-esteem. As previously discussed, to some extent individuals see themselves as they perceive
others see them. Self-feelings are a consequence of how the individual imagines others perceive
and evaluate them. In other words, one often sees oneself through the eyes of others. Therefore,
the interaction with significant others, such as a romantic partner, can influence the way
individuals perceive themselves (Cooley, 1922).
Intellectual heritage: A brief overview.
Benzies and Allen (2001) highlight the intellectual heritage of symbolic interactionism by
referring to the contributions of the 18th century Scottish moralists, the 19th century German
idealists, as well as the 20th century pragmatists who are considered to be the most significant
influence. The moralists made significant contributions in terms of the concepts of “mind” and
“self” as social products. The idea was created that individual’s construct their view of the world
based on individual perception and interpretation. Therefore, an individual’s behaviour is
influenced by his/her perception of the world. The views of symbolic interactionism are based on
the idea that humans should be viewed in the context of their environment (Benzies & Allen,
2001).
The idea that each individual and his/her environment are inseparably linked through a
reciprocal relationship was inherited from evolutionary theory, such as Darwin’s theory of
evolution (Benzies & Allen, 2001). Therefore, ideas and behaviours are distinctive processes that
are constantly changing depending on how one perceives the world. In a similar way, symbolic
interactionism drew ideas from the behaviourists, namely that individuals should be understood
in their terms of their overt and covert behaviour (Charon, 1995 as cited in Benzies & Allen,
2001). However, symbolic interactionism views covert behaviour in terms of definition,
interpretation, and meaning (Benzies & Allen, 2001; Blumer, 1969).
An important influence on symbolic interactionism in the 20th century was the view of
pragmatists that the meaning of objects is not within the object, but rather resides in the action
towards the object (Benzies & Allen, 2001). According to Williams (2008) understanding
pragmatist epistemology and ontology provides an important step in understanding the premises
of symbolic interactionism. Pragmatists conceptualize reality in terms of potentiality – human
beings can only understand their existence through sensory experiences and are selective in what
they notice in the world. Therefore, for pragmatists, reality is what you make of it (Williams,
2008).
According to Williams (2008), pragmatists argue that reasoning cannot be separated from
a person’s bodily experiences in the world and that knowledge is a process. For pragmatists an
ultimate truth does not exist, rather the world is comprised of many truths (Williams, 2008).
Pragmatists such as William James, Charles Horton Cooley, John Dewey, and George Herbert
Mead made significant contributions towards symbolic interactionism (Benzies & Allen, 2001;
Williams, 2008). A brief summary of these contributions follow.
The ideas of instinct, habit and self, developed by William James (1842-1910) are very
significant in the symbolic interactionism approach. James agreed that human instinct was good-
natured and modified (or inhibited) by socially learned behaviours (Meltzer et al., 1975 as cited
in Benzies & Allen, 2001). James argued that habits arise from past experiences and influences
instincts. He suggested that individuals have derived a sense of “social self” by imagining the
reactions of others to them (Benzies & Allen, 2001).
Pragmatists emphasized that knowledge of an absolute truth is impossible and knowledge
of things/objects has greater value than things/objects. Cooley (1864-1929) built on James’ work
and differentiated between the mind and the self’. The mind refers to the action that directs the
use of symbols toward the self’ (Charon, 1995 as cited in Benzies & Allen, 2001). Cooley
emphasised the importance of tapping the meanings and definitions held by people as opposed to
merely focussing on behaviour. Cooley also made a significant contribution relating to the
concept of the looking-glass self which will be mentioned in chapter three. John Dewey (1859-
1952) focused on creating solutions to everyday problems by applying principles of symbolic
interactionism to explain behaviour. He also emphasised the importance of symbolism that is
expressed through language (Benzies & Allen, 2001).
William Isaac Thomas (1899-1977) made a significant contribution by highlighting an
important aspect of symbolic interactionism, namely the definition of the situation, which states
that when an individual defines a situation as real, it has real consequences. Thomas argued that
people’s interpretation of the situation is equally as important as what is objectively true. Thus, a
person’s response in any situation is a function of how he/she defines or interprets the situation
(Lauer & Handel, 1983).
All of the above-mentioned theorists provided significant foundations for the
development of symbolic interactionism, but it was George Herbert Mead (1863-1931) who
originally conceptualised symbolic interactionism. However, Herbert Blumer, one of Mead’s
students coined the term symbolic interactionism (Williams, 2008). In the next section the
reader is introduced to the influence of Herbert Mead after which Blumer’s (1969) basic
premises of symbolic interactionism will be discussed.
Contributions of Mead.
According to Williams (2008), George Herbert Mead developed a social psychology that
was deemed very significant for the development of symbolic interactionism. Firstly, Mead
emphasised the importance of language; a unique human capability. Humans are capable of
using language which is understood as a complex system of symbols. Therefore, humans are
capable of manipulating, negotiating, and even surpassing the physical environment through it.
Secondly, Mead argued that the human mind is an active, ongoing process capable of self-
reflexivity. Furthermore, Mead viewed one’s ability to see oneself as an object of
communication as giving rise to the mind which is processual (where there is a focus on the
process) and social in nature. This process-orientated characteristic as well as one’s ability to
use symbols emphasises the nature of human agency – the individual does not merely react to
stimuli, but also assigns meaning to objects, and then on the basis of that meaning acts towards
objects in a certain way (Williams, 2008). In addition, Blumer (1969) highlights Mead’s
contributions regarding the concept of role-taking which will be discussed later in the chapter.
Blumer’s three basis premises of symbolic interactionism.
Blumer (1969) set out three basic premises of symbolic interactionism. The first premise
is that individuals act toward things on the basis of the meaning they ascribe to them. Things
include everything observed in the world, including physical objects, actions, and concepts.
Basically, individuals act towards things and others based on the personal meanings that the
individuals have already given these things (Blumer, 1969). The focus is on meaning, which is
defined in terms of action and its consequences and is therefore likely to vary from person to
person and over time (Gecas, 2009). For example, one person’s meaning of the word partner
may mainly be a source of security whilst another person may equate it with intimacy.
In considering symbols, meanings also largely depend on the degree of consensual
responses between people (Ponzetti, 2003). Therefore, the meaning of the word partner, for
example, depends on the consensual responses for those who use it. In this example, if consensus
is low the relationship can be strained due to different expectations attached to the symbol
(partner). It is also important to note that nothing has inherent meaning; rather all meaning is
assigned (Williams, 2008). Blumer (1969) argues that although it seems as if most scholars agree
with the first premise, meaning is either taken for granted or played down. He continues his
argument by stating that: “in both such typical psychological and sociological explanations the
meanings of things for the human beings who are acting are either bypassed or swallowed up in
the factors used to account for their behaviour” (Blumer, 1969, p. 3). Blumer (1969) emphasizes
that the meaning of things is central in its own right.
The second premise refers to the source of meaning. Blumer (1969) claims that symbolic
interactionism differs according to two dominant views: a) meaning is intrinsic and as such
emanates from the thing (there is no process involved in its formation), and b) that the meaning
of things is but the expression of psychological elements that are brought into play in connection
with the perception of the thing/object. Blumer (1969) claims that the meaning of objects is
derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with other humans; people
interact with each other by interpreting each other's actions (instead of merely reacting to each
other's actions). Therefore, people’s responses are based on the meaning which they attach to
such actions. Blumer (1969) explains that human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols,
by interpretation, or by defining the meaning of one another's actions. Therefore, for Blumer
(1969), social interaction is the source of meaning and the use of symbols is a popular process
for interpretation and intelligent expression. However, the potential meanings a person assigns
are not arbitrary, but are learned through face to face interaction with others or with the object
itself or through various forms of mediated interaction, such as television, magazines, and the
internet (Williams, 2008). For example, a woman’s meaning of partner and love might be
influenced by how romance and partnership is portrayed in the media. To summarize the second
premise; symbolic interactionism considers meaning as “social products, as creations that are
formed in and through defining activities of people as they interact” (Blumer, 1969, p. 5).
In Blumer's third premise the idea of minding (inner dialogue) comes into play. Minding
could be described as the delay in one's thought process that happens when one thinks about
what one will do next. This process of talking to ourselves aids in finding the meaning of a
particular situation. According to Blumer (1969), the use of meaning occurs through a process of
interpretation. Firstly, actors (individuals) have to point out to themselves the things that have
meaning by interacting with themselves. Individuals therefore engage in communication with
themselves. Secondly, by communicating with themselves, interpretation becomes a matter of
handling meaning in which individuals “selects, checks, suspends, regroups, and transforms the
meaning in light of the situation in which they are placed and the direction of this actions”
(Blumer, 1969, p. 5). Thus, interpretation should be regarded as a formative process in which
meanings are used and revised to give guidance for actions. Blumer (1969) consequently argues
that it is important to understand that meanings play an important role in action through the
process of self-interaction. Individuals decide how to react to a situation based on their own
experiences and/or knowledge of similar situations. For example, if a person was in a

relationship in which trust lacked, he/she will be more likely to be cautious when entering a new
relationship.
The interpretive process also involves what Blumer (1969) calls role taking, the cognitive
ability to take on or understand the perspectives of someone else. This process is viewed as
crucial since it enables people to interpret one another’s reaction and in doing so it can increase
the consensus on the use of a symbol. Therefore, the assignment of meaning also depends on
mutual negotiation and adjustment of those that are interacting. Blumer (1969) recognizes the
contributions of Mead in role taking. Mead points out that in order to become objects to
themselves, individuals have to see themselves from the outside by placing themselves in the
position of others and viewing themselves from that position. We therefore see ourselves by
taking on one of three roles: the discrete individual (the play stage), the discrete group (the game
stage) and the abstract community (the generalized other). Lauer and Handel (1983) distinguish
between various kinds of role-taking, namely, reflexive, appropriative and synesic role-taking.
Reflexive role-taking relates to the reflective nature of self and is seen as a process in which a
person reflects upon the expectations and evaluation of the self as seen in the other-role.
Appropriative role-taking refers to the process of imaginatively constructing the attitudes of
another person and internalizing them (Lauer & Handel, 1983). For example, a person in an
intimate relationship begins to believe and act like his/her partner. It must be noted that this type
of role-taking is selective: a person internalizes an attitude or a few attitudes of another person
and not all of them (Lauer & Handel, 1983). Finally, synesic role-taking is the process of
capturing the feelings and perceptions of another person. It entails capturing everything
necessary to understand the behaviour of the other person. Empathy relates to synesic role-taking
where an element of feeling is added so that the other person’s experience is not only
understood, but to some extent shared (Lauer & Handel, 1983).
The five central ideas of symbolic interactionism.
More recently Charon (2007) summarised the central ideas of symbolic interactionism as
follows: individuals must be understood as social beings in constant search for social interaction;
individuals constantly define the situation they are in; individuals must be understood as
cognitive beings; the foundation of action is the result of what is occurring in one’s present
situation and; individuals are active participants in their environment. Each of the central ideas
will be discussed in more detail.
The first central idea is that human beings must be understood as social beings. As social
beings, individuals are in a constant search for social interaction. Charon (2007) argues that
ample theories focus on the personal characteristics (such personality) causing human behaviour
whereas symbolic interactionism focuses on the actions that take place between individuals and
therefore, interaction is the basic unit of this perspective. In other words, individuals are created
through interaction (Charon, 2007).
Secondly, individuals must be understood as cognitive beings. It is important to note that
an individual’s action is not only interaction among individuals but also interaction within the
individual; we are, to our very core, thinking beings, always communicating with ourselves as
we interact with others (Charon, 2007). This central idea relates to the social cognition theory
that postulates that the meaning of a given situation is intrinsically subjective, as the individual’s
mind actively constructs a reality beyond the original situation (Ross & Nisbett, 1991).
Thirdly, an individual does not sense one’s environment directly; instead, one defines the
situation one is in (Charon, 2007). According to Gecas (2009), the definition of the situation
states that an individual acts in situations on the basis of how one defines the situation. In other
words, individuals interpret one another’s behaviour and it is these interpretations, the definition
of the situation, that form the social bond. For example, in the context of online dating, whether
the context of the interaction (cyberspace) is defined as safe or potentially dangerous will
influence an individual’s interactions with a potential romantic partner. The definition of an
environment (or context) is more important than objective reality. The definition results from
ongoing social interaction and thinking (Charon, 2007). The definitional process involves the
determinants of significant identities and qualities of people interacting (Ponzetti, 2003). Gecas
(2009) adds that the definition of a situation is not static and an initial definition based on past
experiences or cultural expectations may be revised in the course of interaction. For example, a
friendship may become romantic.
Much of the negotiation in social situations involves an effort to present the self in a
favourable light (or to defend a valued identity). The role of self-presentation in the online
environment will be discussed in the following chapter. According to Gecas (2009), the
presentation of identities is an important aspect of defining the situation. The determination of
which identity to present and who we think the other is in the situation is highly relevant to the
interaction that will take place. Gecas (2009) argues that in a formal or structured environment
the determination of identities might not be as problematic (e.g. lecturers and students are
typically considered relevant in a lecture). However, in a less formal situation, such as in
romantic partnerships, identity dynamics are even more complex. For example, in a conflict
situation between two romantic partners, it might not be clear as to which identities are being
raised, that of romantic partner, parent or other personal identities.

The fourth central idea is that the cause of human action is the result of what is occurring
in the present situation. Therefore, symbolic interaction focuses on the present opposed to past
events that might shape behaviour. The influence of the past is not ignored, rather the past enters
into one’s actions primarily because the individual thinks about it and applies it to the definition
of the present situation. The cause of action unfolds in the present social interaction, present
thinking, and present definition. Therefore, it is not encounters from the past that cause current
action, nor is it the individual’s own past experiences that does (Charon, 2007).
Lastly, human beings are described as active beings in relation to their environment and
are not viewed as being passive in relation to their surroundings. We are actively involved in
what we do and therefore words such as controlled, conditioned, responding, and formed are not
used to describe the human being in symbolic interactionism (Charon, 2007). This relates to the
concept of human agency which refers to the active, goal seeking character of human beings.
Agency involves making decisions in a specific context and acting on these decisions.
The next section of this chapter focuses on the specific methodological and research
traditions which are associated with symbolic interactionism.
Methodological and research traditions of symbolic interactionism.
Research questions from the symbolic interactionism perspective focus on process rather
than structure (Benzies & Allen, 2001). In other words, researchers in this tradition are
concerned not only with knowing the individual’s point of view, but also aim to understand the
process by which points of view develop. The emphasis on process is viewed as important since
symbolic interactionism views human behaviour as a dynamic process in which individuals are
constantly defining and interpreting each other’s acts (Benzies & Allen, 2001).
Symbolic interactionists prefer naturalistic inquiry to focus on the individual’s behaviour
in a natural setting (Williams, 2008). According to Blumer (1969), naturalistic inquiry consists
of two phases, namely exploration and inspection (Williams, 2008). During the exploration
phase researchers aim to familiarize themselves with the topic at hand, generally by becoming an
insider of a particular social world. Exploration is a flexible process that allows research to
progress inductively. During this process the researcher might observe and interact with the
subject as well as examine existing research findings. Throughout the exploration phase, the goal
is to learn to understand the topic at hand from the perspective of the person that is an active
participant of that particular social world (Williams, 2008). Benzies and Allen (2001) state that
in this process researchers have an inevitable moral responsibility to be sensitive to the lives and
circumstances of the participants from whom they want to learn.
Blumer’s second phase of inspection involves the process of analyzing the data collected
in the exploration phase. In this phase field notes, interview transcripts, documents and other
data sources are analyzed as the researcher engages in the process of creating concepts which the
researcher thinks are most significant about the data (Williams, 2008). In other words, an
analytical frame for understanding the social phenomenon is being created. It must be noted that
the exploration and analytical phase may overlap as the researcher continuously inspects data
collected and modifies the exploration process as necessary (Williams, 2008). The next section
will focus on the main areas of criticism regarding symbolic interactionism.
Criticism of symbolic interactionism.
According to Ayres (2008), grand theories such as symbolic interactionism, develop
overall explanations for a discipline. As such, concepts addressed by grand theories are likely to
be very complex, and thus often difficult to operationalize into variables or be used in
hypotheses. In other words, grand theories are often criticized for being overly broad leading to
the oversimplification of complex phenomena (Ayres, 2008)
Further, according to Fine (1993) symbolic interactionism has been criticized as being
apolitical, unscientific, limited to social psychology, and fundamentally non sociological.
However, it is argued that although critics are likely to rejects its relevance elsewhere, they
might accept symbolic interactionism’s relevance to the study of face-to-face interaction and
microrelations. In responding to criticism symbolic interactionists have developed concepts that
address the macro and structural demands of sociology (Fine, 1993). Since the current research
study falls within the scope of social psychology, and not sociology, said concepts and
expansions will not be elaborated on.
Another frequent criticism of symbolic interactionism is the assertion that interactionists
only reply on human agency, however, these concerns have been addressed by amongst others,
Mead, Cooley, Blumer and Goffman (Fine, 1993). Even though personal agency is central to
symbolic interactionism, it “recognizes that much of the world is not of an individual’s making
and can only be understood in the context of the circumstances in which these social realities are
expressed” (Fine, 1993, p.69).
Since the present study focuses on Blumer’s (1969) main premises of symbolic
interactionism, the main criticism regarding Blumer’s contributions will be highlighted.
According to Lauer and Handel (1983), critics suggest that Blumer’s premises of symbolic
interactionism do not adequately focus on social structure, and the forces exceeding the
individual which impact on his/her behaviour. However, Lauer and Handel (1983) argue that
these critics misinterpret the perspective, since Blumer (1969) does not deny the presence of
social structures, but only the statement that external forces have some kind of automatic impact
on the individual. In this regard Blumer (1969) argues that there is an interpretive process
between these external factors and the real interaction which results in varied patterns of
behaviour.
Another major critique of symbolic interactionism, and specifically of Blumer’s
premises, is the notion that the importance of human emotions, and the effect of non-verbal
factors in interactions, merit more attention than what Blumer (1969) gives them (Lauer &
Handel, 1983). However, Lauer and Handel (1983, p. 322) highlight that it is not that Blumer
was unaware of these aspects, “but rather that he has chosen to stress what he considers the most
crucial facet of human life – symbolic interaction”. In defense of symbolic interactionism, Fine
(1993) argues that in more recent years the exploration of the consequences of emotional
experience and affect control, has become more prominent among researchers in this tradition.
In short, Lauer and Handel (1983) argue that Blumer has addressed the deficits and
criticism of symbolic interactionism, though he has not focused or elaborated on them.
Closing remarks.
As mentioned previously, although symbolic interactionists agree on basic premises of
symbolic interactionism, significant divisions remain within the perspective. Therefore, I only
focused on the main premises of this grand theory which are relevant to the current research
study. More specifically, in the current study emphasis is placed on the personal meaning
assigned to interactions in virtual space which ultimately leads to subjective feeling of intimacy
and passion.
According to Lauer and Lauer (2000), symbolic interactionism could also provide a lens
through which researchers view the application of other traditional relational theories. For
example, symbolic interactionism can provide a lens through which social exchange theory is
observed in the following manner: In examining relationships it is not important that rewards
exceed the costs (looking at it objectively), but rather that the people in the relationship perceive
the rewards to exceed the costs. The following section focuses on social exchange theory and its
applicability to the current research study.
Social exchange theory.
In the current research study, the social exchange perspective can contribute to an
increased understanding of the personal meaning individuals attach to their online experiences
and interactions in making a choice to maintain an online romantic relationship or to seek other
options. Social exchange theory remains a prominent conceptual framework for understanding
individuals’ behaviour and relationship dynamics across a wide range of interpersonal
relationships (Morrow, 2009; Paat, 2013). Specifically, it offers a rich framework for exploring
the initiation (a strong focus of the current research study) and development of dyadic
relationships (Hamon & Hollinger, 2009). Social exchange theories propose that all interpersonal
interaction, including romantic (love) relationships is based on the exchange of goods and
resources (Morrow, 2009; Paat, 2013).
It is important to emphasize that social exchange theory is not one theory, but rather a
frame of reference in which many theories can speak to one another (Emerson, 1976). However,
these theories agree on the general assumptions regarding human nature and the nature of
relationships. These basic assumptions about human nature include that humans seek rewards
and avoid punishment; humans are rational beings; and the standards used to evaluate costs and
rewards vary over time and from person to person. Assumptions regarding human relationships
include that relationships are interdependent; and that relational life must be viewed as a process
(Cook & Whitmeyer, 1992).

In general, social exchange theories postulate that people calculate the overall worth of a
particular relationship by considering both its costs and the rewards it provides. The worth of a
relationship influences its outcome and will determine whether people will continue with the
relationship or terminate it (Paat, 2013; West & Turner, 2007). Social exchange can be broadly
described as the exchange of activity, tangible or intangible, that is more or less rewarding or
costly, between at least two persons (Turner, 2006). Theories of social exchange share certain
analytical concepts like rewards, costs, resources, and outcomes. The following section aims to
define these concepts, and illustrates the relatedness of these concepts.
Rewards and costs.
The sociologist, George Homans introduced social exchange theory in 1958 with the
publication of his work Social Behaviour Exchange (Gaines & Sedikides, 2009). According to
Homan’s original social exchange theory, principles of economic transactions govern social
interaction. In other words, in order for one person to obtain a reward, another person must
experience a cost. Rewards are anything that a partner considers agreeable, whereas a cost is
anything a partner considers disagreeable (Gaines & Sedikides, 2009). In this manner, costs are
the elements of a relationship that have negative value to a person, such as the effort put into a
relationship and the negative characteristics of a partner. Rewards are the elements of a
relationship that have a positive value, and may include a sense of acceptance and support (West
& Turner, 2007). Therefore, resources that are pleasurable and gratifying are considered to be
rewards, while costs are exchanged resources that result in a loss or punishment.
According to Foa and Foa’s Resource Exchange Theory (1974), which built on Homan’s
social exchange theory, a resource is anything that an individual perceives as rewarding when
gained and costly when lost. (Gaines & Sedikides, 2009). This theory also distinguishes between
tangible and intangible resources. It is argued that social relationships and personal relationships
are alike in that both are characterized by the giving or taking tangible resources (such as money
and services) but personal relationships are unique in the give and take of intangible resources
(such as intimacy and love) (Gaines & Sedikides, 2009).
An important distinction between tangible and intangible resources is that intangible
resources can be given without a loss to either partner. For example, by giving support to a
partner, an individual may experience greater self-respect. Similarly, Adam’s Equity theory
(1963) built on Homan’s Social Exchange Theory in making it clear that ongoing social and
personal relationships are not necessarily based on equal investment by partners. Therefore, it is
argued that as long as both partners have agreed in advance on the inequality of the investment in
the relationship partners will likely be satisfied (Gaines & Sedikides, 2009).
In relation to rewards and costs, social exchange theories postulate that people calculate
the overall worth of a particular relationship by considering both its costs and the rewards it
provides. The worth of a relationship influences its outcome and will determine whether people
will continue with the relationship or terminate it (West & Turner, 2007) In general, if it is
perceived that rewards exceed costs, the relationship is relatively satisfying, but if costs outweigh
rewards, the relationship is perceived as comparatively dissatisfying. In this manner individuals
initiate relationships that are valuable to them and maintain those relationships as long as they
continue to benefit from the interactions (Collect, 2010).
The interdependence theory, rooted in the social exchange theory, distinguishes between
four types of rewards and costs. These types are as follows: emotional, social, instrumental, and
opportunity (Thibaut & Kelley, 1965). Emotional rewards and costs are the positive and negative
feelings, respectively, that are experienced in a relationship. Positive feelings in the initial phases
of a relationship could be excitement and feelings of connectedness. Social rewards and costs are
those related to a person’s social appearance and the ability to interact in social environments.
More specifically, social rewards consider the positive aspect of a person’s social appearance and
the enjoyable social situations in which one must engage. Conversely, social costs are those that
relate to the negative aspect of a person’s social appearance and the less enjoyable social
situations in which one engages (Thibaut & Kelley, 1965). Instrumental rewards and costs focus
on the activities and/or tasks in a relationship. Instrumental rewards are obtained when a person’s
partner is capable of handling tasks, such as assisting with chores. Instrumental costs, on the
other hand, occur when a person’s relationship partner causes unnecessary work (or the partner
obstructs the other’s progress in tasks). Lastly, opportunity rewards and costs are associated with
the opportunities that arise in relationships. Opportunity rewards include those gains that a
person is able to receive in their relationship. More specifically, opportunity rewards are those
aspects which a person would not be able to receive on their own. Opportunity costs occur when
a person must give up something that they normally would not for the sake of the relationship
(Thibaut & Kelley, 1965).
Relational outcomes.
The concept of relational outcomes refers to how the interaction is experienced
subjectively, namely the valence associated with an interaction (positive, neutral, or negative).
Outcomes reflect how an interaction feels subjectively rather than tangible or objective rewards
and costs (Arriaga, 2013). It is argued that with every relationship there will be an outcome
which is dependent on comparing the (percieved) amount of rewards present in a relationship
versus the (percieved) amount of costs present. The outcome is determined to be positive when
the (percieved) rewards outweigh the (perceived) costs in a relationship. Conversely, the
outcome is negative when the (percieved) costs outweigh the (percieved) rewards (Kelley &
Thibaut, 1978; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). Furthermore, it is argued that some interactions
(such as romantic love relationships) are only likely to continue if both parties feel they are
coming out of the exchange with more than they are giving up (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Rusbult
& Van Lange, 2003).
According to Kelley and Thibaut (1978) in evaluating the worth of their relationship,
partners need a standard to measure the acceptability of the outcomes they receive from it.
Interdependence theory labels two kinds of standards that have been identified for making such
an evaluation, namely the comparison level (CL) and the comparison level for alternatives (CL-
alt) (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Relationships involve the expectation of the kinds of outcomes a
person expects to receive in a relationship (CL) and how these expectations compare to a
person’s past relationships and current observations of the relationships of others (Kelley &
Thibaut, 1978). A person will have a high comparison level if all the relationships that they have
been exposed to are happy. Therefore, the CL is the standard against which the partners evaluate
the attractiveness of the relationship or how satisfactory it is. In this manner the standard reflects
the quality of outcomes that the partner feels he or she deserves. Outcomes falling above CL are
experienced as relatively satisfying and those below CL as unsatisfactory. Outcomes are
determined by all the outcomes known to the partner, either by direct experience or by
observation of others (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). This is linked to the concept of quality of
alternatives, which refers to the understanding of alternatives one has outside of their current
relationship. The quality of the alternatives will have an influence on relationship dynamics, and
more specifically, refers to other potential partners or relationships with others as well as the
absence of the current relationship (Paat, 2013). The attractiveness of the alternatives is likely to
alter an individual’s expectation of the current relationship (Paat, 2013). In reference to the
interdependence theory, the CL-alt can be defined informally as the lowest level of outcomes a
partner will accept in the light of available alternative opportunities in other relationships. So
defined, it follows that if outcomes drop below CL-alt the partner is likely to consider leaving the
relationship. The position of CL-alt depends mainly on the quality of the most attractive of the
alternative relationships that are available to the person (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978).
Sprecher (2010) explains the application of social exchange theory for understanding
sexuality within the relational context as follows: since social exchange theory focuses on what
each partner gives and receives from the other, it allows one to analyze why people choose each
other as romantic partners in the first place, which partner has more influence in the sexual
activities the two engage in, and whether or not one or both partners might seek sexual activity
outside of the current romantic relationship. According to Sprecher (2010), the perception that
one is invested in a romantic relationship helps to determine the onset of sexual activity in
romantic relationships. It is argued that sexual activity is one (behavioural) demonstration of a
partner’s level of commitment to a relationship. Hence, variables of rewards and costs,
comparison level and comparison for alternatives should influence how sexually involved a
relationship is. Furthermore, Sprecher (2010) argues that (traditionally) sexual activity is a
valuable commodity that a woman gives to a man in exchange for other commodities in the form
of respect, commitment, and love. Explained in this fashion, sex is primarily a female resource,
and hence women would seek to keep the price of their resource high, while men would seek to
lower the price. In the virtual environment where physical proximity is absent it can be argued
that sexuality may not be such a highly regarded commodity.

The social exchange theory could also be viewed through the lens of the symbolic
interaction theory in the following manner: what is important is not that the costs of an
interaction exceed the rewards in the objective sense, but rather that the person in the relationship
perceives that the rewards exceed the costs (Lauer & Lauer, 2000). In short, patterns of
interaction result in individuals developing positive or negative attitudes towards their partner
and the love relationship. However, Sabatelli (2009) argues that it is equally important to
consider that the levels of satisfaction experienced in the relationship will also influence the
patterns of interaction. As previously discussed, according to social exchange theory,
relationships will be experienced as satisfying if the partners perceive that the relational benefits
significantly outweigh the perceived relational costs.
Symbolic interactionism can be applied to the relationship between relational
expectations and satisfaction by focusing on the reciprocal and interdependent roles of partners
(Sabatelli, 2009). Although role construction and identity construction is not a focus of the
current study it is interesting to highlight these aspects: relational partners carry into their
relationships constructions of how they should enact their roles as partners. It is argued that due
to the reciprocal nature of relational roles, each partner’s construction of his/her role enforces a
set of expectations on the individual who occupies the counter role position as well (Sabatelli,
2009). Symbolic interactionism views identity construction and role construction as linked.
Therefore, it is argued that people are likely to be satisfied when their partners act in a manner
that is consistent with their constructions of roles because their partners’ behaviour confirms
their views of themselves. Conversely, the violation of role expectations is likely to be
experienced as identity disruption. In other words, it is problematic for individuals to not feel as
if their identities have been discounted in some significant way when they feel that their partners
fail to conform to their role expectations (Sabatelli, 2009).
In short, social exchange theory assumes that two partners are both giving and receiving
items of value in a relationship. In evaluating a relationship, a partner compares the perceived
benefit and costs in the relationship. In this evaluation of the quality of the relationship a person
is likely to compare it to other or previous relationships. In deciding whether or not a person
remains in a relationship depends on the attractiveness of other relationship alternatives,
including the option of remaining single. Although social exchange theory is considered a useful
approach in the exploration of a wide range of social interactions, and could be applied to
different types of relationships (Morrow, 2009), it is criticized at different levels. These levels of
critique will be briefly discussed in the section to follow.
Criticism of social exchange theory.
One of the primary criticisms regarding social exchange theory is that it reduces social
interaction between human beings to simple economic exchange (Mc Innes Miller & Bermudez,
2004; Miller, 2005). As Zafirovski (2005) notes: social exchange theory downplays social
interaction (the more comprehensive concept), and emphasizes the exchange (the narrower
concept).
According to Mc Innes Miller and Bermudez (2004) social exchange theory illustrates
how individuals weigh options and make decisions in their intimate relationships, but it does not
address factors such as interpersonal attraction and commitment. Another critique regarding
social exchange theory is that factors such as gender, age, and culture are generally overlooked
as important factors impacting how individuals attempt to maximise their relational outcomes,
and how individuals choose alternatives which could provide them with greater rewards (Gaines
& Sedikides, 2009; Mc Innes Miller & Bermudez, 2004).
Furthermore, according to Gaines and Sedikides (2009) reinforcement-based theories,
such as social exchange theory focus mostly on the expectations and rules which regulate the
giving and receiving of rewards or costs, whilst mostly ignoring the content of these rewards and
costs as perceived by the individual. In other words, as the ranking of rewards and costs are
subjective, the subjective understanding of rewards and costs is overlooked in individuals’
choices of partners.
Another critique of social exchange theory is that little attention is given to the
(subjective) perceptions of the relative importance of rewards and costs as they apply to different
relationships, such as friendship versus romantic relationships (Gaines & Sedikides, 2009).
Further, the same authors also argue that social exchange theory does not account for changes in
the relative importance of rewards and costs at different stages of relationships. It can be argued
that perceived rewards and costs are likely to change as function of newness, satiation, or the
availability of alternative partners. The next section focuses on traditional theories relating to the
experience of romantic love.
Traditional Theories of Romantic Love
Popular theories relating to the experience of romantic love include biological theories,
attachment theory, love typology theories such as the love style theories, personality theory, and
more recently cultural theories (Weis, 2006b). The following section briefly summarises the
main ideas of these theories. I hereby aim to illustrate the complexity of romantic love by
highlighting the key points of the above-mentioned theories and orientating the reader in this
regard.
Biological theories of love.
In its simplest form, evolutionary psychologists are of the opinion that love, more
specifically, romantic love, serves as a primary means to further one’s species. In other words,
the function of falling in love is reduced to selecting a superior mate to reproduce in order to
deliver healthy offspring (Diamond, 2004). Theorists have interesting notions regarding the
above-mentioned process of mate selection. For example, from the evolutionary perspective sex
differences regarding the role of physical appearance in mate selection can be explained as
follows: Men place a greater premium than women on physical appearance in the selection of a
long-term mate since physical appearance provides ample information about a woman’s youth,
health, and hence her fertility and reproductive value (Buss, 2006). Conversely, many of the
qualities critical to a woman’s selection of a long-term mate are not readily assessed through
physical appearance. These qualities include ambition, drive and status trajectory - qualities that
are normally linked to resource acquisition. The argument continues that love is not an emotion
typically linked with casual sex, but rather it emerges primarily in the context of long-term
mating (Buss, 2006).
Parallel to the idea of the evolutionary function of romantic love lies the biological view
of hormones, or in this context, love chemicals that cause the feelings of euphoria and excitement
when a person first falls in love (Fisher, Brown, Aron, Strong, & Mashek, 2010). According to
Fisher (2004), humans have evolved three core brain systems for mating and reproduction,
namely lust (the sex drive), romantic attraction, and attachment (deep feelings of union with a
partner). These systems evolved over humankind’s long evolutionary history and specifically
play a role in courtship, mating and reproduction. In theory, attraction evolved to influence
one’s ancestors to focus attention on a single courtship partner (Fisher, 2004). In a similar
manner, sexual desire evolved to motivate young people to seek a range of appropriate sexual
partners. Attachment, on the other hand, ensures that parents remain together and for parents and
children to form secure attachments (Fisher, 2004).
Research findings indicate that testosterone plays a significant role in sexual desire in
both males and females (Fisher, 2004; Marazziti & Canale, 2004). Feelings of attraction, which
are characterised by a yearning for a specific partner, are amongst others associated with
increased levels of the neurotransmitters, dopamine and serotonin. Research studies indicate that
these neurotransmitters are responsible for feelings and behaviours that include the elevation of
one’s general mood and sexual arousal (Fisher et al., 2010). Other research findings indicate that
most regions of the brain that are activated during the experience of romantic love are those that
are active when people are under the influence of euphoria-inducing drugs such as opiates and
cocaine (Fisher, 2004). In addition, oxytocin in women and vasopressin in men has been linked
to psychological processes that subsequently lead to long-term attachment in individuals
(Diamond, 2004).
In short, evolutionary and biological perspectives emphasise the function of evolution
and neurotransmitters in the experience of love. More specifically, these perspectives highlight
reasons why men and women are likely to experience love differently.
Attachment theory of love.
Bowlby (1979) emphasized the importance of comforting figures and the emotional
attachment to security providers throughout one’s lifespan (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2006). Bowlby
(1979, p.69) explained the significant experience of familial emotions, including love as follows:
Many of the most intense of all human emotions arise during the formation, the
maintenance, the disruption and renewal of affectional bonds – which for that
reason is sometimes called emotional bonds. In terms of subjective experience, the
formation of a bond is described as falling in love, maintaining a bond as loving

someone, and losing a partner grieving over someone. Similarly, the threat of loss
arouses anxiety and actual loss causes sorrow, whilst both situations are likely to
arouse anger. Finally, the unchallenged maintenance of a bond is experienced as
a source of security, and the renewal as a source of joy.
The attachment theory of love is based on Bowlby’s (1969, 1973) theory of attachment
which was later expanded by Ainsworth (Long-Crowell, 2014). In short, the attachment theory
of love suggests that the quality and type of romantic relationship an adult has is mainly
dependent on the quality and type of relationship the adult had with his or her primary caregiver
during infancy. It proposes that an adult’s ability to connect romantically with another adult is a
result of the attachment style the person developed as an infant with his/her primary caregiver
(Long-Crowell, 2014). The three attachment styles, namely secure, avoidant and
anxious/ambivalent, are determining factors in an adult’s experience of love. According to the
attachment theory of love, the relationship between an infant and his/her primary caregiver is
significant because it is a child’s first experience of attachment and it can set the tone for future
interactions and relationships throughout adulthood (Long-Crowell, 2014).
In infancy, secure lovers form solid, dependable, secure attachment to their primary
caregivers (Lauer & Lauer, 2000). Due to secure relationship formations, love is experienced by
these individuals as enduring and healthy, enabling them to trust their partners and less likely to
fear abandonment (Long-Crowell, 2014).
Adults with an avoidant attachment style are usually the least intimate. As infants, it is likely
that their primary caregivers did not effectively care for them and meet their needs, nor did they
attempt to develop intimacy with their children (Long-Crowell, 2014). When primary caregivers
show little or no response to the distressed infant and encourages independence, an avoidant
attachment style is likely to emerge in adult love relationships (Lauer & Lauer, 2000).
Consequently, these adults tend to expect rejection and often give up on intimacy all together.
Avoidant attached individuals tend to have had a very negative, unsatisfying experience of love
from a very young age, which is carried on into adulthood. Such adults are likely to engage in
purely physical and sexual relationships, where love itself is not involved (Long-Crowell, 2014).
Adults with an anxious/ambivalent attachment style are often characterized as needy or
clingy and have an immense desire to seek intimacy. However, they greatly fear rejection, or that
their love will not be reciprocated. As infants, their relationships with their primary caregivers
were inconsistent – sometimes their needs would be met and other times their caregivers would
be unavailable resulting in high levels of uncertainty, and consequently anxiety. For these
adults, love is not always a positive experience and with love comes anxiety, obsession,
emotional highs and lows and extreme jealousy (Taylor, Peplau, & Sears, 2006). In summary,
according to the attachment theory of love it could be argued that an individual’s attachment
style could play a significant role in his/her experience of romantic love relationships.
Love styles theory.
The typology of love styles was initially proposed by Lee and later formally developed
by Hendrick and Hendrick in 1986 (Compton & Hoffman, 2013). The analogy of a colour wheel
is used to describe the six different love styles. The primary colours or primary love styles are
described as eros, storge and ludus. The secondary colours or secondary love styles which are
viewed as combinations of the primary love styles are named agape, pragma, and mania
(Levine, Aune, & Park, 2006). It is argued that each love style represents a manifested social
style and underlying belief system for a particular person in a particular relationship (Levine et
al., 2006). The individual differences in the manifestation of love styles relate to differences in
personality style (Hendrick, 2004) and may influence individual and relational differences in the
experiences of romantic love.
The first primary love style is the eros love style and is characterised by eroticism and
passion; a person with this love style experiences love as highly emotional and intense. However,
normally the person does not display signs of obsession or extreme jealousy towards his/her
partner. In addition, erotic lovers usually display a longing for their lover, are usually secure in
their relationships, and are able to communicate effectively with their lovers (Galinha, Oishi,
Pereira, Wirtz, & Esteves, 2013). The second primary love style is storge. Storgic lovers
primarily place value on affectionate, close, and emotionally intimate relationships (Compton &
Hoffman, 2013). Individuals with this love style value stability and psychological closeness and
typically do not experience intense emotional intimacy, as in the case of the erotic love style.
Here, the experience of love develops slowly through friendship (Compton & Hoffman, 2013).
The third primary love style is ludus, described as game-playing love (Compton & Hoffman,
2013; Hendrick, 2004). Ludic lovers experience love as a pleasant pastime or game and they
usually lack emotional responsiveness and steer away from commitment (Galinha et al., 2013;
Lauer & Lauer, 2000).
The secondary love style, pragma, is a combination of the love styles of ludus and storge.
It is characterised by pragmatism in that it is based on logic and reason (Hendrick & Hendrick,
1986). People with a pragmatic love style usually take careful stock of their partner’s personal
and social characteristics with the aim of finding a partner that is compatible. In other words,
pragmatic lovers are interested in establishing and maintaining a relationship according to certain
criteria (Galinha et al., 2013; Lauer & Lauer, 2000). The secondary love style of mania is a
combination of the love styles of eros and ludus. In contrast to the pragmatic love style, people
with a manic love style are usually possessive, obsessive, and jealous. Their relationships are
highly emotion driven and it is argued that these intense emotions are normally due to personal
insecurities and their fear that their partner would not reciprocate their feelings. Consequently,
these insecurities lead to reassurance-seeking behaviour (Galinha et al., 2013; Lauer & Lauer,
2000). The final component of the secondary love styles is agape, which is a combination of the
love styles of eros and storge and is characterised by selflessness and is considered to be an
altruistic and other-centered type of love (Levine et al., 2006). Agapic lovers are usually not
very emotional and view love as a building block for overall support and tolerance towards
others (Galinha et al., 2013). Interestingly, Shaver and Hazan (1988, pp. 496-497) argued that
attachment styles and love styles matched as follows: secure (eros), avoidant (ludus), and
anxious/ambivalent (mania) and stated that the other three love styles did not represent love at
all:
Storge is interesting primarily because in some ways it is not a romantic style at

all…. Pragmatic lovers are not lovers at all in an emotional sense…Agape, or
‘self-sacrificing’ love, seems to be related to what we have called the caregiving
component of love.
It is not surprising that scholars of love have criticisms regarding the love styles theory, however,
according to Hendrick and Hendrick (2006) most criticism of the love styles research has been
relatively minor.
Personality and cultural theories.
Research suggest that there is a link between The Big Five Personality traits and the
experience of love. For example, Ahmetoglu, Swami and Chamorro-Premuzic (2010) examined
the relationship between dimensions of love, personality, and relationships length. The findings
suggest that high levels of openness and agreeableness are positively associated with
encompassing all three of Sternberg’s love dimensions (intimacy, passion and commitment),
while individuals with high levels of conscientiousness lean more towards intimacy and
commitment (and not passion) (Ahmetoglu et al., 2010). In addition, research findings indicate
that extraverts who are more capable and confident in expressing their emotions than introverts,
are more likely to experience all three dimensions of love. High neuroticism was negatively
correlated with perceptions of any form of love as this trait is accompanied by unstable
emotional expression, mood liability, and maladjustment in forming new relationships
(Ahmetoglu et al., 2010).
According to Braxton-Davis (2010) personality plays a significant role in how people
experience love since it shapes one’s perspectives on life and relationships. It is argued that is
this is especially true in Western societies as individualism coincides with freedom of lifestyle
choice in which people seek partners who fit their way of living. Weis (2006a) adds that
individualistic and collectivistic cultures vary in the extent to which, the interest of the individual
as opposed to that of the in-group, for example, the family, is considered to be more important in
decision making. Therefore, love in a collectivistic culture tends to emphasize altruistic goals
and is mainly based on friendship, whereas love in an individualistic culture tends to be more
permissive and involve more game-playing (Weis, 2006a).
Another interesting comparison between individualistic and collectivistic cultures relates
to the role of similarity in relationship development. According to Braxton-Davis (2010), trait
similarity is less important in relationship development in collectivistic cultures than in
individualistic cultures, as the focus is rather directed to corresponding backgrounds, cultures
and/or religions that foster familial and community approval.

In summary, traditional theories of love provide some valuable insights into the
universality of love, but also the differing experiences of love. However, the nature of the current
research study limits the application of some of these traditional theories. For example, the
application of attachment theory suggests that I should have insight into the participants’
attachment styles. In a similar manner, in order to view the current research study from a
personality viewpoint would involve making assumptions about participants’ personality types
which falls outside the scope of the study.
Conclusion
This chapter explored theories related to the experience of romantic love. Firstly, the
main premises of symbolic interactionism were highlighted and provide an explanatory
framework through which I was able to understand the interactions of the participants which led
to the experience of romantic love in virtual space. Thereafter, I provided an overview of social
exchange theory which contributes to an increased understanding of the personal meaning people
attach to their romantic love experiences. More specifically, the theory provides insight into how
people value the worth of their relational experience and the process of decision-making
regarding the future of their relationships. Lastly, the chapter provided a brief overview of
traditional theories of love which provide some insights to the universality of love, but also into
the differing experiences of love. These theories illustrated the complexity of love, and more
specifically, of romantic love. The next chapter provides an overview of relevant literature in
relation to the current research study.

CHAPTER 3
Literature Review
Chapter Overview
The current chapter aims to position the study within relevant existing literature. Firstly,
the chapter introduces a brief debate regarding the opposing views concerning online
interactions. I will highlight the development of online relationships by comparing them to
traditional FTF relationships – emphasizing some significant similarities and differences.
Thereafter, existing literature regarding the experience of intimacy (as a component of romantic
love) will be discussed. This section focuses on factors in online contexts that are likely to
enhance the experience of intimacy. Lastly, the chapter highlights existing literature relating to
the experience of passion (as a component of romantic love) in the online context.
Introducing the Ongoing Debate
There is an ongoing debate on whether online relationships can be considered healthy and
successful when compared to traditional FTF relationships. It is often emphasized that the
physical context of the internet as a medium of communication (that is, the lack of nonverbal
cues, anonymity and asynchrony) impacts upon the nature of online relationships (Hardie &
Buzwell, 2006; Ling Huang & Ching Yang, 2013; McKenna & Bargh, 1999; Whitty & Gavin,
2001). Some researchers describe online relationships as highly impersonal and shallow due to
the restricted nature of the medium (Wong AnKee & Yazdanifard, 2015).
Researchers have identified various concerns regarding online dating and agree that there
is undoubtedly emotional vulnerability involved in online dating (Wong AnKee & Yazdanifard,
2015). One major limitation of online dating that is widely recognised by research studies is that
deception is to a great extent possible. More specifically, researchers argue that deception online
occurs with greater ease than in FTF situations (McCown, Fischer, Page & Homant, 2001;
Ruppel, 2014). Wong AnKee and Yazdanifard (2015) state that the anonymity of cyberspace
offers more opportunities for deception in self-presentation. The possibility of deception raises
many concerns relating to the development of online relationships. For example, Couch,
Liamputtong and Pitts (2012) found that most of the participants in their study focusing on
perceived risks and dangers of online dating, were most concerned about the deception and lies
relating to fake profile pictures and/or misleading pictures.
In addition to online deception, there are ample other negative positions regarding
computer mediated communication (CMC). For example, Thurlow, Lengel and Tomic (2004)
blame CMC for the disabling growth in offline communities and the inhibition of development in
social skills. They are of the opinion that technology makes one less socially capable and
describe CMC as restrictive in terms of sensitivity, sociability, personality, warmth and visual
cues. Therefore, they argue that CMC provides less richness and closeness than FTF interactions.
Other researches in the field express mixed opinions regarding the quality of online interactions.
For example, Engelberg and Sjöberg (2004) argue that whilst self-reported experience amongst
internet users might be positive, their level of social integration could actually be compromised.
The authors concluded in their study that emotional competence is lacking in people who
frequently makes use of the internet. Kalpidou, Costin and Morris (2011) reported similar
findings. They specifically investigated the role of Facebook in the lives of university students
and found that whilst Facebook might strengthen social adjustment at college, the number of
friends acquired on Facebook does not necessarily translate into emotional adjustment.
In a similar manner Turkle (2011) illustrates the importance of cellphones in making it
possible for young people to access social media platforms anywhere and at any time, giving rise
to a generation of young people with expectations of being always online and always being
connected. Turkle (2011) further argues that technology has become like a “fake limb” since it is
so much a part of young people’s existence with the expectation of continuous connection (p.
26). However she hints that technology can create a false sense of connection: “they (young
people) nurture friendships on social networking sites and they wonder if they are among friends.
They are connected all day but are not sure if they have communicated” (Turkle, 2011, p.26).
Other studies emphasise the positive role of social network sites, for example, in Madge,
Meek, Wellens and Hooley’s (2009) study Facebook has been described as the “social glue”
amongst university students, assisting their integration into campus life. Another study echoes
this finding and concludes that Facebook serves as a “social lubricant” in enabling students to
ask for support amongst other benefits (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2011). These authors
identified three ways in which Facebook supports social behaviour, namely, meeting strangers or
making new friends, maintaining existing close ties and learning more about someone with
whom you have an offline connection.
Schouten, Valkenberg and Peter (2007) argue that involvement with technology
stimulates young people’s sense of well-being and consequently contributes towards a person’s
capacity to engage more meaningfully in the world. Lewis, Pea and Rosen (2010) add that young
people perceive that their involvement with social networking sites (SNS) broadens their sense
of community and subsequently gives them a sense of belonging. The significance of online
relationships is often described in terms of social capital which can be categorised into bonding
social capital and bridging social capital. The former refers to benefits derived from close
personal relationship whilst the latter refers to the benefits derived from casual acquaintances
and connections. Bonding social capital is reflected in the use of SNS for forming attachment
bonds from trust-based strong ties, while bridging social capital is reflected in the use of SNS for
causal affiliations among more socially distant people (Lee, 2013).
Another strong view is that the internet provides a nonthreatening environment for shy
individuals. Due to the anonymity present online, and given their discomfort in social situations,
shy individuals might be more willing to engage in online interactions rather than FTF
interactions (Orr, Sisic, Ross, Simmering, Arseneault, & Orr, 2009). As mentioned before, a
popular critique against CMC is that the medium restricts effective interaction. However, the
Social Information Processing (SIP) model claims that the basic human need to bond and reach
out to others surpasses the format in which one communicates (Walther, 1992). Therefore, some
compensatory moves help communicators to get the most out of the CMC platform. Walther
(1992) found that interpersonal connection can be improved in the use of CMC through
accessible methods such as the use of emoticons (pictures used to depict and explain expressions
and emotions), altering expectations of interactions, time spent online, and anticipation of future
interactions. Other researchers describe online interactions as very intense and significant. For
example, research findings indicate that individuals self-disclose rapidly and form deeply
intimate bonds in a short time frame (Walther, 1996; Wong AnKee & Yazdanifard, 2015).
Furthermore, Shaw and Gant (2002) found internet use to significantly increase perceived social
support, while decreasing loneliness and depression. They argued that CMC allows for increased
willingness to share personal information, leading to the increased frequency of intimate
relationships that counteracts loneliness. Other positive perceptions of online interactions and
more specifically, online romantic relationships will be discussed in detail later in the chapter.
Despite the reality of the challenges and potential dangers associated with online
relationships, many individuals do experience meaningful and significant online relationships

(Huels, 2011; Schaefer, 2011). I do not argue against the negative perspectives of online
interactions, and more specifically, of online romantic relationships, but wishes to focus more on
the meaningful online relationships and love experiences of participants in the current research
study.
The focus of the current research study was on how the components of romantic love
(that is, intimacy and passion) are experienced in virtual space. Scholars may raise the following
questions with regard to romantic love in cyberspace: How is it possible for individuals to
experience significant and deep feelings of love without being in physical contact with his/her
partner? How does virtual space aid in the development of these possibly intense emotions?
How does your understanding of love influence your experience of online relationships? What
does it mean when people claim to find more significant relations online than FTF?
The Development of Online Love Relationships – An Online/Offline Comparison
It was not the aim of the current research study to explore the differences between online
and offline relationships. However, interesting differences regarding the development of online
versus offline relationships are highlighted in the following section.
Researchers have sought to better understand how online interactions and relationships
may be different from FTF interactions and relationships (Pempek, Yermolayeva & Calvert,
2009). It is very apparent that the context wherein online relationships develop is very different
to a real life environment and different experiences in intimate relationship development are to
be expected. These differences in experiences are, for example, reflected in research findings that
levels of intimacy and self-disclosure are often higher in online relationships than FTF
relationships (Wang & Chang, 2010).

Knapp’s (1978) relational stage model is a foundational theory in interpersonal
communication to explicate the steps of traditional (FTF) romantic relationship development and
decline (Knapp & Vangelisti, 2009). Since the model have been widely tested and applied over
the past 40 years (Derlega, Winstead, & Greene, 2008) it will be used to highlight important
differences between the development of FTF and online relationships. Knapp’s (1978) dual
staircase model elaborated how relationships escalate, stabilize, and descend over time through
communicative processes. For the purposes of the current research study the escalating stage will
be the focus of discussion. The model assumes that relationships escalate in five distinct stages:
initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, and bonding.
Initiating.
Initiating is defined as the first interaction between two individuals which occurs
immediately upon meeting someone and involves making a first impression (Knapp, 1978).
Creating a favourable impression is considered paramount in this stage. This stage is often
dictated by social norms and standards for greeting another individual and introductions and
superficial topics dominate initial conversation. Individuals will often behave in socially
acceptable ways and be aware of their words (Knapp & Vangelisti, 2009). In the virtual
environment individuals can present themselves and be viewed, free from stereotypic notions
that affect FTF relationships from the outset. Self-presentation is more malleable and more under
one's control online; people can make decisions about when and how to disclose (negative)
information about themselves. This notion of more malleable self-presentation is discussed in
greater detail later in the chapter.
Interpersonal attraction plays a key role in initiating a romantic relationship and is
defined as the desire to approach someone; the first step towards relationship formation
(Mantovani, 2002). Berscheid (2006, p.178) summarises factors that influences liking (as a
component of intimacy) in the initial stages of the romantic relationships as follows:
We feel positive affect (liking) towards those who reward us and dislike those
punish us. Some of the causes of liking, as agreed on by ample theorists, could be
summarised as follow: “we like people who are familiar (as opposed to
unfamiliar), who are as similar (as opposed to dissimilar), who like us (as
opposed to dislike us), and who are physically attractive (as opposed to
unattractive). These characteristics of a potential partner tend to make him or her
rewarding. Generally, a person attempts to achieve and maintain proximity to the
liked person. Also, a person is likely to behave in ways he or she believes the liked
person will find rewarding, in order to ensure continued interaction.
In light of the social exchange theory Berscheid (2006) identifies rewards in the initial
stages of romantic relationships as famliliarty, similaity, being liked by the partner, and
physical attractiveness.
In a traditional FTF relationship the initiation stage is often initiated by a physical
attraction (Knapp & Vangelisti, 2009). SNS and online dating sites provide the opportunity for
individuals to create a profile of themselves which can be a textual and/or visual presentation of
themselves. Textual information may include a complete physical and personality description of
oneself whereas the individual’s visual representation pertains to photographs of him-or herself.
Therefore, physical appearance may also play an important role in initiating this stage of the
relationship. However, in a virtual environment physical features are often not present and
therefore communication features become an important component in establishing and showing
attraction (Mantovani, 2002). It has been suggested that through CMC the importance of
physical attributes is reduced when it comes to how attraction is developed in the relationship.
Instead other factors such as intimacy, trust, similarity and mutual self-disclosure enhances the
connections stemming from emotional intimacy (Cooper, McLoughlin & Campbell, 2000;
Hardie & Buzwell 2006). Therefore, in a culture that emphasizes physical appearance, the
internet offers a different way of developing initial attraction.
Although there is agreement amongst most researchers that physical attractiveness
predicts initial romantic attraction, the role that other factors play in initial attraction should not
be ignored or underestimated. For example, Janz, Pepping and Halford (2015) conducted a
research study focusing on the role of dispositional mindfulness (non-judgemental awareness of
the present moment) in predicting initial romantic attraction. The study involved 91
undergraduate students who were involved in a speed dating exercise. The study found that male
physical attractiveness did not predict female romantic attraction. However, higher male
mindfulness predicted higher female attraction beyond the effects of physical attractiveness. In
other words, males were attracted to physically attractive women, whereas females were
attracted to males higher in dispositional mindfulness. Other individual characteristics influence
initial romantic attraction, including, kindness, intelligence and humour (Buss & Barnes, 1986 as
cited in Janz et al., 2015) and emotional intelligence (Gottman, 2011 as cited in Janz et al.,
2015). It is postulated that personal characteristics (such as the above-mentioned) could also be
ascertained in cyberspace and would consequently play a role in initial attraction.
Experimenting.
Experimenting is the next stage, wherein couples seek more in-depth information as a
means of determining whether or not a potential romantic partner would be a good fit (Knapp &
Vangelisti, 2009). Typically, this stage immediately follows the initiating stage, particularly if
romantic feelings are present (Knapp & Vangelisti, 2009). Experimenting may involve posing
direct or indirect questions to the potential romantic partner or asking a common acquaintance
about the potential partner to reduce uncertainty (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). The initial stages of
the relationship require that the potential partners gather and filter information about each other.
More specifically, in-depth information is explored to find similarities and common ground
between two individuals (Knapp, 1978). The perceived similarity of potential partners becomes
very important at this stage. Studies suggest that initial attraction is peaked when the potential
partner is perceived as not only being physical attractive but also attitudinally similar to the other
person (Louw & Louw, 2011).
Online contexts strengthen the likelihood of connecting with likeminded individuals since
SNSs, such as Facebook, provide a rich source of information about the potential partner (Fox &
Waber, 2013) and dating sites encourage individuals to disclose in-depth information about
themselves from the onset (Whitty, 2008a). Ongoing communication can enhance the sense of
similarity and thus enhance interpersonal attraction. Similarity replaces physical proximity in
online relationships and the more one has in common with their online partner, the closer they
will feel to them thus increasing relationship satisfaction (Anderson & Emmers-Sommer, 2006).
The enhanced interactions in virtual space create a feeling of greater propinquity (spatial
proximity) with each other regardless of the actual geographic location (Cooper & Sportalari,
1997).
Fox and Waber (2013) examined Knapp’ stage model (1978) through a new lens wherein
the role of SNSs, especially Facebook, was explored in the escalation stages of the relationship.
Findings suggest that participants almost universally used Facebook as their primary tool for
interaction during the experimenting stage of romantic relationship development. A recurring
theme was how Facebook interactions replaced phone calls. It was also found that participants
liked contacting someone via Facebook since it is less direct and therefore ego-protecting.
Furthermore, analysis revealed that Facebook is one of the primary means of uncertainty
reduction in the initial stage of the relationship (Fox & Waber, 2013). Facebook, for example
allows individuals to post as much information as they feel like sharing and is a rich source of
information about a person’s activities, interests and friends to name a few. The potential partner
therefore has, depending on the privacy settings, immediate access to a rich source of
information. Participants reported that during these early stages of relationship formation
Facebook gives users that opportunity to get to know someone without the pressure of having an
immediate favourable impression. Another perceived benefit of SNSs is that an individual can
control the communication and can edit messages before responding (Fox & Waber, 2013).
Intensifying.
The next stage, intensifying, occurs when the relationship becomes less scripted (Knapp,
1978). This stage is characterised by active participation and mutual concern. During this stage
the relational partners’ self-disclosure generally increases and relational commitment begins to
manifest (Knapp & Vangelisti, 2009). Normally there is a high level of mutual self-disclosure
which may continuously increase as the relationship progresses. Feelings about the other person
may be openly expressed during this stage (Knapp, 1978).
It is important to note that in the online context mutual self-disclosure takes place sooner
in online relationships than FTF relationships (Bonebrake, 2002; McKenna, Green & Gleason,
2002; Merkle & Richardson, 2000). Therefore, the intensity of the relationship could already be
high in the initial stages. It is important to note that in online relationships, where self-disclosure
is greater and thus intimacy is significant and occurs early in the relationship, most people first
get to know each other and only then fall in love (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004). Therefore, in contrast to
FTF relationships where passion normally develops before intimacy (Louw & Louw, 2011), in
online relationships intimacy will most likely develop before passion. This phenomenon will be
discussed in more detail later in the chapter.
Integrating.
During the integrating stage, couples form a sense of shared, public relational identity
and couples focus on connectedness within the dyad. In this stage, couples normally refer to
themselves as “we” and “us” as a way to assume an interdependent relational identity (Knapp &
Vangelisti, 2009). Online, announcing on SNS that the individual is involved in a romantic
relationship (by changing the relationship status) may be a way to assume an interdependent
relational.
Furthermore, during this stage trust is usually exceptionally high and individuals disclose
intimate details without the fear of rejection (Knapp, 1978). It is important to note that trust is a
process intended to protect against vulnerability and includes the ability to predict a partner’s
behaviour; the increased likelihood of judging the partner as dependable; and having faith that
dependability will persist. Feeling committed and caring about each other is positively associated
with greater trust (Reis & Sprecher, 2009). It is therefore expected that in the integration stage of
a romantic relationship (in the FTF environment) individuals would be more likely to have a
greater sense of commitment and mutual dependability which will foster greater levels of trust.
These levels of commitment and dependability might not be as evident in the integration phase
of an online relationship (Knapp & Vangelisti, 2009). However, as previously mentioned, in the
virtual environment high levels of self-disclosure (and trust) may be experienced during very
early stages of the relationship. Wright (2013) argues that trust may be fostered between people
who are perceived to be similar. Other researchers suggest that trust may develop faster online
than in FTF. For example, in a study conducted by Van Staden (2010), participants reported
greater feelings of trust safety earlier in online relationships. The element of trust, in relation to
self-disclosure, will be discussed in a following section of this chapter.
Bonding.
Commitment develops in this stage and individuals assume continuity in their
relationships (Knapp, 1978). During this stage of the relationship the relationship is likely to
have moved to the FTF context (which falls outside the scope of the research study). This section
highlighted some important differences regarding online and offline relationship development.
The next section will focus on the experience of intimacy in virtual space.
Intimacy in Virtual Space
Existing literature on the experience of intimacy in virtual space mainly focusses on the
following themes: compensating for the lack of social cues in virtual space; online anonymity;
self-disclosure in relation to intimacy; and self-presentation in cyberspace.
Compensating for the lack of social cues in virtual space.
According to the Reduced cues theory, reduced social cues makes CMC interactions
between people much more difficult to manage and therefore conversation becomes less fluid,
less easily regulated and more effortful (Thurlow et al., 2004). However, the Reduced cue theory
also proposes that cues represent social norms of behaviour and if these cues are absent (for
example, in virtual space), individuals are disinhibited and will disclose more freely (Thurlow et
al., 2004).
In addition, the Social information processing theory suggests that despite the
characteristic lack of cues found in the nonverbal communication of online interactions, there are
many other ways for people to create and process personal information (Walther, 1992). It is
argued that relationships grow only to the extent that parties first gain information about each
other and use that information to form interpersonal impressions of each other. Research found
that, proportionately, CMC partners ask more questions and disclose more about themselves than
do their FTF counterparts (Walther, 1992). The Social information processing theory suggests
that the absence of nonverbal information necessitates greater self-disclosure since information
that can be visually ascertained needs to be communicated verbally online (Walther, 1992).
Furthermore, research findings suggest that in the virtual environment social cues are
embedded in text rather than in body language and physical appearance (Whitty & Gavin, 2001).
These cues can be quite extensive and include language, style of writing, the use of emoticons,
length of messages, timing, and speed of writing (Doring, 2002; Ellison, Heino & Gibbs, 2006;
Mantovani, 2002). It is argued that all of the above-mentioned cues are important in the
development and experience of intimacy. For example, the use of words is especially powerful
(Wildermuth & Vogl-Bauer, 2007). The value of online written text was expressed by Cooper
and Sportolari (1997) nearly two decades ago:
Because of its informality, online written text resembles oral communication more
than most other forms of writing. At the same time, certain qualities distinctive to
writing and unavailable in spoken interactions can heighten the experience of being
intimately understood: writing offers time for reflection and revision, so that what
is communicated may be complete and intentional, with the author neither
forgetting important points nor saying too much…Because words can be saved,
they can be reread by the receiver, their importance not lost in a quickly spoken
phrase, their meaning not denied in an anxious moment. There's a quality of putting
oneself on the line in writing, of being more vulnerable and exposed to the other
(p. 8).
The obstacles to communicate caused by the lack of interpersonal interaction in online
relationships are can also be overcome by the use of other means of communicating behaviours
that suggest intimacy, such as the use of emoticons (pictures used to depict and explain
expressions and emotions). Emoticons are symbolic of facial expressions, and because they are
described as accommodations for the lack of nonverbal cues in CMC, they may have the effect
of nonverbal FTF cues. According to Anderson and Emmers-Sommer (2006) the use of
emoticons positively influences the development of online relationships and specifically the
experience of intimacy. For example, emotions such as smiley faces could create a friendly
atmosphere which aids in developing feelings towards each other by attracting attention and
showing interest (Doring, 2002; Mantovani, 2002). However, Walther and D’ Addario (2001)
examined the effects of emoticons on message interpretation and found that although emoticons
contributions were outweighed by verbal content, they still influenced the interpretation of
messages. For example, a smile emoticon, coupled with a positive verbal message, conveys
greater positivity than a positive verbal message alone. In addition, depictions of a negative
affect appeared such that any negative message aspect – verbal or graphic – shifts message
interpretation in the direction of the negative element. In combination with the power of the
written word emoticons can enhance individuals’ ability to express themselves in virtual space.
Online anonymity.
According to the social identity model of de-individuation effects theory (SIDE) online
anonymity permits neither positive or negative behaviour, but instead people behave according
to the set of rules laid out in the online environment rather than their own personal set of norms
(Coleman, Paternite & Sherman, 1999). Anonymity is likely to disinhibit online users to disclose
more personal information (Bareket-Bojmel & Shahar, 2011) which could ultimately play a role
in the development and experience of intimacy.

According to Walther (1996) CMC is more intimate and surpasses the level of emotion of
FTF interaction. Wysocki (1998) supported this notion, suggesting that relationships formed on
the internet progress far more intimately and quickly than FTF relationship partly because of the
degree of anonymity but also because of the heightened level of self-disclosure. It is argued that
in the virtual environment barriers of judgement and disapproval are eliminated allowing for
increased self-disclosure. Therefore, private information is revealed sooner in an online
relationship which leads to feelings of closeness earlier in the relationship (Bonebrake, 2002;
McKenna et al., 2002; Merkle & Richardson, 2000). Online anonymity is considered a major
factor in self-disclosure online as it allows individuals to disclose information without the fear of
rejection or ridicule because they feel hidden behind a screen (Kang & Hoffman, 2011;
McKenna et al., 2002; Ruppel, 2014).
Likewise, it is argued that online relationships also tend to develop at a faster rate than
FTF relationships due to the notion that the social awkwardness of FTF interactions is removed
(Whitty & Gavin, 2001). Whitty and Gavin (2001) state that computer users report less self-
consciousness and awareness of being socially evaluated which facilitates more intimate self-
revelation. Orr et al. (2009) shared this notion and state that due to the anonymity present online
and given their discomfort in social situations, shy individuals might be more willing to engage
in online interactions rather than offline interactions. This is echoed by the research conducted
by Anderson (2005) where individuals reported positive aspects about their online relationships.
Participants stated that the distance actually aided in increased levels of intimacy since relational
partners are disinhibited and felt freer to be themselves. Zaczek and Bonn (2006) shared the
same notion and claimed that many individuals reported feeling freer to be themselves within the
safety of online anonymity. In addition, Merkle and Richardson (2000) stated that anonymity
provides a level of psychological comfort that increases the amount of self-disclosure shared
with the other person.
Another benefit of the anonymity of the internet relates to perceived gender role in
dating. Cooper and Sportolari (1997) argue that the anonymity and safety of the internet allow
women to feel free to be more directly and explicitly sexual without the fear of real life
consequences. Online women are less inhibited about presenting themselves as sexual and can
experiment with being more flirtatious. Conversely, in the virtual environment men may feel less
responsible for setting the pace in the relationship, including “pushing” for its sexual
development. I am of the opinion that while the argument might seem dated, stereotypical gender
roles still guide relationship development.
In summary, the greater anonymity in online relationships produces higher levels of
intimacy and closeness (McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002). In fact, it is argued by some
researchers such as Wang and Chang (2010) that anonymity, offered by online interactions,
might be the greatest factor leading to higher levels of intimacy. They claim that anonymity
might trigger self-disclosure with only a modest amount of self-disclosure risk. Self-disclosure
risk includes the betrayal of trust as a result of shared information being unequal (Derlega et al.,
2008) and the fear of rejection (Knapp & Vangelisti, 1992; McKenna et al., 2002).
Self-disclosure in relation to intimacy.
SNS’s promote self-disclosure (Christofides, Muise, & Desmarais, 2009), but sharing
information on SNS’s can have social ramifications. For example, Bazarova (2012) found that in
the context of Facebook highly personal self-disclosure is perceived as inappropriate making the
discloser seem unlikable. In the above-mentioned case it is understandable that inappropriate
self-disclosure will decrease the perception of intimacy between potential relational partners.
However, as previously discussed, appropriate mutual self-disclosure plays a very significant
role in the development of intimacy. The dynamics involved in self-disclosure are therefore an
important factor to consider in order to gain a better understanding of people’s experiences of
intimacy in virtual space.
Self-disclosure and the development of intimacy: a brief overview.
According to Altman and Taylor’s (1973) social penetration theory, during the early
stages of traditional (FTF) relationship development one moves with caution discussing less
intimate topics and seeking for signs of reciprocity. Therefore, self-disclosure progresses in a
relatively systematic fashion, beginning with a breadth of disclosure and moving toward a
greater depth of disclosure. It must be noted that self-disclosure is not viewed as a static
characteristic of relationships but rather as a process that changes as individuals and relationships
change (Altman & Taylor, 1973).
Altman and Taylor (1973) suggest that disclosure can be categorized into either
peripheral, intermediate, or core layers. The peripheral layer is concerned with biographic data,
the intermediate layer with attitudes and opinions, and the core layer with personal beliefs,
needs, fears, and values. The information shared in disclosure can thus be divided into
descriptive disclosure and evaluative disclosure. Descriptive disclosure includes factual
information which is readily shared by most individuals, whereas evaluative disclosure occurs
when personal feelings and judgments are shared, and is an important element in intimacy
(Taylor et al., 2006).
In the context of offline self-disclosure, Altman and Taylor (1973) describe a self-
boundary as the boundary around the person that is created and modified by self-disclosure. This
self-boundary ensures the discloser’s safety from leakage of information to uninvited third
parties and may be open or closed depending on such interpersonal factors as the level of trust in
a disclosure target (Altman & Taylor, 1973). A related concept known as the dyadic effect,
explains how individuals disclose intimate information to some but not to others. This concept
refers to the process of mutual disclosure by relational partners in which a disclosure by one
partner is followed by a disclosure by the other. New relational partners tend to match each
other’s level of self-disclosure, each disclosing more if the other partner does so and holding
back if the partner withdraws. The extent to which the self-disclosure is mutual determines the
level of intimacy experienced and partners who self-disclose more to each other report greater
emotional involvement in dating relationships (Brehm, 1992). Mutual, intimate self- disclosure
fosters a sense of connection and empathic understanding and therefore aids the development of
intimacy (Sprecher & Hendrick, 2004).
It must be noted that intimate self-disclosure normally occurs after trust has been
established in a relationship. According to Rubin (1970) trust is a critical issue in the disclosure
of personal information because by disclosing information, individuals allow themselves to
become vulnerable. The following sections aim to illustrate the applicability to the above-
mentioned traditional views on the relationship between self-disclosure and intimacy in the
online context.
Online self-disclosure and the development of intimacy.
According to Baker and Hasting (2013) online self-disclosure has been studied
predominantly by linguistic and communication scholars with a focus on the content and
linguistic process of online disclosure. Limited research exists on the behavioural, emotional,
and psychological implications of intimate self-disclosure online. The following section
highlights research findings of studies that shed light on the phenomenon of online self-
disclosure and specifically the role of online self-disclosure in the development of intimacy and
the experience of romantic love.
Research findings suggest that individuals tend to disclose with greater frequency online
(Antheunis & Valkenburg, 2007; Joinson, 2001) which is likely to foster a sense of familiarity.
There is some evidence that the mere frequency of exposure can create a degree of attraction
between people (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). In addition, the process of self-disclosure is often
more rapid online since people feel safer to reveal core aspects of themselves (Cooper &
Sportolari, 1997; Whitty, 2004). In some virtual environments early self-disclosure is deemed a
necessity. For example, on an internet dating site a profile is set up in such a way to reveal both
depth and breadth. Depth of disclosure refers to the extent to which the content of the disclosure
is intimate or personal, while breadth of disclosure describes the variety of the topics that are
included in the disclosures (Hollenbaugh & Ferris, 2014). Within their profiles individuals
typically have to disclose surface aspects of themselves such as physical features, occupation,
and drinking and smoking habits. In addition, individuals are encouraged to disclose more in-
depth information such as personality traits, interests and political persuasion. In fact,
participants on online dating sites are encouraged to disclose on all aspects of themselves
(Whitty, 2008a).
In an experimental study, Antheunis and Valkenburg (2007) randomly assigned 81 cross-
sexed dyads into text only CMC, visual CMC or FTF groups. Participants were asked to rate the
amount of partner disclosure on five intimate topics. The findings indicated significantly greater
CMC disclosure. Likewise, Bruss and Hill (2010) found that participants involved in online
communication reported higher levels of personal self-disclosure and perceived partner self-
disclosure compared to the group that interacted FTF. Van Staden (2010) confirms the notion
that individuals’ perceived intimacy and self-disclosure develops at a faster pace in online than
offline relationships. In this study respondents reported less social anxiety, greater trust and
feelings of safety when engaging in online relationships.
According to Schouten, Valkenburg and Peter (2007) reduced nonverbal cues and
controllability may be central in explaining enhanced online self-disclosure. Reduced nonverbal
cues and controllability reduce individuals’ inhibitions when interacting online. This
disinhibition effect of CMC may in turn result in increased online self-disclosure (Ruppel, 2014;
Schouten et al., 2007). Disinhibition refers to the loss of constraints that a person experiences
when behaviour is no longer controlled by concerns about self-presentation or judgments by
others (Joinson, 2001; Joinson, Paine, Buchanan & Reips, 2008). As stated previously,
disinhibition is often considered a precursor to online self-disclosure (Joinson, 2001; McKenna
& Bargh, 1999; Walther, Liang, De Andrea, Tong, Carr & Amichai-Hamburger, 2011). It is
argued that because individuals feel less inhibited, they may feel more comfortable to disclose
personal information about themselves online. This disinhibiting effect of anonymity was
discussed in the previous section.
In an earlier study conducted by Joinson (2001), individuals communicating online
reported higher levels of self-disclosure of intimate details in shorter time frames. This was
explained as the result of the decrease in public self-focus (how an individual portrays the self in
public in relation to societal norms and standards). According to Joinson (2001), a second
possibility for increased online self-disclosure is that the online environment might encourage
private self-focus. It is argued that since most CMC occurs in a quiet room alone, it may
encourage the development of an introspective state of mind thus leading to greater disclosure.
Furthermore, the need to replace non-verbal cues, for example to smile, with a text-based
alternative, for example emoticons, may lead to heightened private self-awareness through the
act of having to focus on one's inner feelings and emotions to put them down electronically
(Joinson, 2001).
Bargh et al. (2002) offered another explanation for increased intimate self-disclosure
online. These authors argue that individuals share intimate information online because the
partners do not have access to the individuals’ social circle, thus the dyadic boundary cannot be
broken and the individual cannot be judged socially.
A possible reason for the phenomenon of faster and increased online self-disclosure could
be explained by the uncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). As previously
alluded to, this theory claims that one of the major goals of relationship development, especially
during the initial stages of a relationship, is to reduce the uncertainty between two partners.
Therefore, individuals will not only seek information to decrease the level of uncertainty but
make the attempt to respond with information that is both parallel and at the same level of
intimacy (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). In addition to the uncertainty reduction theory, other
theories have been suggested to explain the phenomenon of higher online self-disclosure.
Nguyen, Bin and Campbell (2012) conducted a systematic review in which (existing) research on
online and offline disclosure were compared to assess the evidence for existing theories dealing
with online communications. In this study the Hyperpersonal CMC model, Reduced cue theory,
and the Social information processing theory were identified as prominent theories predicting
differences in online and offline disclosure. Reference was made to the Reduced cue theory and
the Social information processing theory in a previous section of this chapter. The Hyperpersonal
CMC model predicts exaggerated self-disclosure (and intimacy) as result of the idealized
perception of the partner (Walther, 1996). This phenomenon will be discussed in more detail in a
following section of this chapter.
The importance of mutual self-disclosure.
As stated previously it is important to note that the extent to which the self-disclosure is
mutual will determine the level of intimacy experienced by partners (Brehm, 1992). This
reciprocal nature of the online relationship nurtures a feeling of dependence, support and
understanding (Rietchard, 2007). Individuals who participate in online dating sites may in fact
engage in interactive behaviour and seek confirmatory information sooner than those who
engage in FTF dating (May & Tenzek 2011). Nosko, Wood and Molema (2010) found that
individuals who sought a relationship were more likely to self-disclose personal information,
opinions, views, and relationship statuses. Early mutual self-disclosure led to potential partners
feeling more connected and familiar with each other sooner. This perceived usefulness of self-
disclosure most likely led to a positive attitude towards online self-disclosure.
The above-mentioned studies show that self-disclosure plays an essential role in
developing relationships by promoting trust, commitment, and intimacy between romantic
partners.
Quantity versus quality.
Researchers agree that an increased degree of intimacy is experienced in virtual space as
it develops more quickly and intensely due to heightened frequency of interaction (Walther,
1997). Park, Jin and Jin (2011) conducted a study that examined the association between self-
disclosure and intimacy in the context of Facebook and found that more frequent interactions
facilitated intimacy. Previous research indicated that the frequency of CMC between online
partners was a factor responsible for affecting their perceptions of one another (Walther, 1996).
More specifically, Anderson and Emmers-Sommer (2006) found that the amount of
communication time had a greater impact on perceptions than the length of the relationship.
According to Gibbs, Ellison and Lai (2011) the frequency of contact is important in the
development of attraction and establishing intimacy as constant contact between people causes
positive responses to one another. This will ultimately lead to couples sharing more personal
information with one another which leads to higher levels of intimacy.
Lastly, it should be re-emphasised that self-disclosure is not a one-dimensional construct,
and should be assessed by both the quantity and the quality of self-disclosure (Park et al., 2011).
Therefore, it is not only the quantity of the conversation, but also the quality of the conversations
which enhances the perceived levels of intimacy (Baker, 2002; Fox & Warber, 2013;
Wildermuth &Vogl-Bauer, 2007).
Trust and online self-disclosure.
According to Altman and Taylor (1973), trust is a prerequisite for intimate self-
disclosure. In a similar fashion, disclosing emotional and private information about one’s self
communicates that there is trust, liking, as well as commitment to increased intimacy in the
relationship (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Collins & Miller, 1994). As previously stated, trust is an
integral part in the disclosure of personal information especially since by disclosing information,
individuals allow themselves to become vulnerable (Ruben, 1970). This vulnerability applies
equally to disclosure in online mediums (Joinson et al., 2008). Research indicates that
individuals tend to reveal less information about themselves online until trust has been developed
(Merkle & Richardson, 2000; Ruppel, 2014). The development of trust in online relationships
requires not only the assurance that the other intends no physical harm, but also that the other
will treat the online person with respect and care. According to Jamieson (1998) trust plays an
important role as people believe that their partners will not reveal their secrets or make use of
their secrets for the purpose of imposing hurt upon them and this proves to be crucial in an
intimate relationship.
An important question that is raised, especially in cyberspace, is whether a person can
trust a potential partner’s self-disclosures and self-presentation (Gibbs et al., 2006). Ample
research studies have indicated that in an online context individuals appear to be primarily
concerned with how others are untruthful about themselves and provide inaccurate self-
presentation (Donn & Sherman, 2002; Gibbs et al., 2006; Whitty, 2008b; Whitty & Carr, 2006).
This highlights the vulnerability that individuals may initially feel when pursuing an online
romantic relationship. The question of truthful self-presentation has been a focus of several
research studies. Truthful self-presentation is viewed on a continuum, including high levels of
honesty in open self-disclosure in content, and an overall consideration of the self that is
presented (Marriott & Buchanan, 2014; Michikyan, Dennis & Subrahmanyam, 2014).
It is important to emphasize that self-presentation and self-disclosure are complex
processes and are not only dependent on the context (that is, FTF versus online). Many personal
factors contribute to these processes. For example, research studies indicate that personality traits
may influence self-disclosure and self-presentation. Hollenbaugh and Ferris (2014) found that
extroverted individuals who use Facebook to develop social networks tend to disclose more
intimate and personal information than other users. In a later study (2015) the same authors
found that another Big Five Personality Trait, Openness to Experience, predicts honesty in self-
disclosure. Individuals scoring high on this trait were more honest and more intentional in their
online disclosure. Lastly, Costa and McCrae (2010) state that honesty is associated with the
personality trait of Conscientiousness with people scoring high on this trait being more truthful.
This implies that if individuals are truthful in the FTF context they are also likely to be truthful in
the virtual environment. At the same time, the anticipation of a successful intimate relationship
may result in more open and honest self-disclosure (Ellison et al., 2006). It is argued by the
authors that if the intent is to initiate and maintain a successful online relationship, then it seems
likely that people’s behaviour will support their intent. Therefore, if the expectation is to meet a
significant romantic partner online, people are more likely to represent themselves accurately
and honestly.
Self-disclosure and self-presentation are closely related. The next section focuses on the
processes involved in self-presentation in virtual space, and more specifically how self-
presentation plays a role in the development of intimacy.
Self-presentation in virtual space.
Walther (2005) acknowledges that the development of intimate relationships relies very
much upon both partners’ levels of self-disclosure as well as the intensity of self-disclosure.
However, the author also highlights other important factors that play a role in the development of
intimacy. For example, it is suggested that close relationships also develop from the senders’
ability to carefully present themselves by editing messages before sending them, as well as the
receivers’ predisposition to form idealistic attributions about the partner. According to Goffman
(1990), during interaction with others individuals attempt to manage the image that is portrayed
of themselves by the ways in which they present themselves. The individual does this by self-
censorship, self-disclosure, and other techniques that allow for them to be in control of the
impressions others form of them. The controllability of the internet may allow individuals greater
control over self-presentation. This process is known as impression management (Bargh, et al.,
2002). While individuals tend to be strategic in their offline presentation of themselves, online
impression management is more controllable and fluid (Walther et al., 2011). This controllability
includes a person’s ability to create a desirable dating profile as well as the advantage of
carefully editing messages before sending them. It is important to note that self-presentation
serves as a tool to increase the likelihood of positive self-images and in so doing, facilitates goal-
attainment (Rui & Stefanone, 2013). With reference to the current research study goal-attainment
could be the establishment of a successful romantic love relationship.
The Hyperpersonal CMC model relating to online presentation.
The Hyperpersonal CMC model suggests CMC can become hyperpersonal because it surpasses
FTF interactions (Walther, 1996). CMCs allow message senders a multitude of communicative
advantages over traditional FTF interaction. Compared to ordinary FTF situations, a
hyperpersonal message sender has a greater ability to strategically develop and edit self-
presentation. Therefore, one could create a selective and optimized presentation of one's self to
others (Walther, 1996). Hyperpersonal communication is more socially desirable than
individuals tend to experience in parallel FTF interaction and therefore will ultimately enhance
experiences of intimacy. The Hyperpersonal CMC theory explains the exaggerated intimacy
formed online as a result of the idealised perception of the partner (Walther, 1996). In FTF
interaction a person meets the potential partner on a regular basis and gradually accommodates
their mental image to reality. However, in online relationships people fall in love with a mental
image they have constructed for themselves (Dunbar, 2012).
According to the basic premises of symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969) (which forms
the overarching theoretical approach of the study), individuals act towards objects based on the
meaning those objects have for them. These meanings result from social interaction and are
altered through interpretation (Blumer, 1969). In order to appreciate self-presentation in the

context of an online environment, it is important to distinguish between the online self and the
offline self which will be discussed in the next section.
The online self.
In an attempt to define the self, both Cooley (1922) and Goffman (1990) referred to the
self in relation to others. For Cooley, it is not the other person that forms the self, but rather the
imagined judgement that informs either the feeling of pride or shame in a person. Cooley
introduced the concept of the “looking glass self” which imagines how a person appears to be
and may be judged by others (Cooley, 1922; Robinson, 2007). The self is then conditioned to
enhance or reject those aspects in question. On the other hand, for Goffman, interactions in the
social environment, reflexivity on those interactions, and the assessment of the judgements of
others are fundamental. He elaborates on these aspects by using theatrical metaphors: The
performer is the person involved in interactions, as opposed to the audience, who are also at
times the respondents. Their interactions take place within a setting on the front stage – where
the audience sees all - which is entered into from the backstage – the place where the audience
does not see the true self (Goffman, 1990). Therefore, in one’s interactions with others all are
actors performing for a specific audience which is also applicable to the online context.
According to Robinson (2007) the online self consists of multiple selves in potentially
numerous SNSs, constructed in order to project a new sense of self (cyber-self) to the online
community, freed from offline social norms and expectations (Robinson, 2007). Identity
construction and impression management are therefore also important when constructing the
cyber-self (Marwick & Boyd, 2010; Pempek et al., 2009).
According to Robinson (2007) what an individual believes is another’s perception of his
or her appearance or behaviour occurs mainly as an imaginative process. An emotional response

is based on what an individual imagines to be perceived judgment from another. In the current
context, an online romantic partner’s perceived judgement is kept in mind. Individuals seek to
convey a certain identity, through interaction, that is in agreement with the expectations of their
romantic partners. A new and fitting (and potentially desirable) persona is therefore constructed
in light of the others’ perceived expectations (Robinson, 2007). In the virtual context this newly
created persona, or cyber-self, therefore becomes both the object and the subject of interaction
with the generalised other (the perceived or imagined audience when using SNSs) (Robinson,
2007). By perceiving another’s presence, individuals present themselves according to the
imagined expectations of their partners. According to Marwick and Boyd (2010) the imagined
audience, or the significant other, in this case the romantic partner, is kept in mind when
choosing what information, and in what style, to post on SNSs. In doing so, the individual has
control over the situation by deciding whether the mask they present is an accurate representation
of their actual self, or whether a false self is presented. The anonymity of the internet allows a
person to construct a dynamic online self. Therefore, individuals have the power to construct any
sense of self they desire at a particular moment (Turkle, 2011; Waskul & Douglass, 1997). In
fact, online individuals have the ability to present any element of their existence to be more
desirable to the potential romantic partner. For example, research findings suggest that in
choosing how to manage the generalised audience’s impression, users are more likely to disclose
positive experiences on SNSs, in order to create a better impression of their emotional well-being
(Hum, Chamberlin, Hambright, Portwood, Schat & Bevan, 2011; Qiu, Lin, Leung, & Tov, 2012;
Wilson, Gosling & Graham, 2012; Zhao, Grasmuck & Martin, 2008). Goffman (1990) states that
the imagined audience is at a disadvantage within an interaction, because of the inferences they
must make – taking what the performer presents at face value. It is only once individuals have
the advantage of collecting collateral information from other sources, that they can assess the
judgements made.
It is a popular belief that individuals are likely to distort their true selves in cyberspace.
However, it must be reiterated that several factors will determine the likelihood of
misrepresenting oneself and the level of truthful disclosure is affected by several factors.
Personality traits, amongst others, might influence the truthfulness of self-disclosure and self-
presentation. In addition, as illustrated previously, if an individual is truthful in the FTF context
he/she is likely to be truthful in the virtual environment. In summary, the ability to carefully
present oneself in a desirable light may evoke positive feelings in the romantic partner, therefore
enhancing the experience of intimacy.
Passion in Virtual Space
It is important to highlight the difference between elements of passion such as sexual
attraction and sexual desire in isolation versus in relation to romantic love. According to
Diamond (2004) sexual desire signifies a need or drive to seek out sexual objects or to engage in
sexual activities whereas romantic love signifies powerful feelings of emotional infatuation and
attachment between partners. Diamond (2004) argues that it may be easier to imagine sexual
desire without romantic love than the notion of nonsexual romantic love. However, research
findings indicate that romantic passion in the absence of sexual attraction is possible (Diamond,
2003) which highlights the importance of an intimate connection between two people. The
author argues that the evolved processes underlying sexual desire and affectional bonding are
fundamentally independent. I highlighted some theories relating to the processes involved in
affectional bonding and sexual desire in the previous chapter. Whilst romantic passion without
sexual desire is possible, it must be noted that sexual desire is considered an important factor in
romantic relationships and its absence can negatively impact the affective state of a relationship
(Klein, 2013).
In general, passion is believed to have a major physical component which is not possible
online as there is no physical proximity. Research studies suggests that true sexual connection
cannot be made online as individuals cannot experience sexual desire with someone they have
never met and thus, online relationships would seem to be antagonistic to romantic beliefs
(Wong AnKee & Yazdanifard, 2015). It is therefore argued that the lack of physical contact in
virtual romantic relationships will significantly hinder the experience and the development of
passion. I would like to argue that the belief that physical proximity is integral to the
development of passion prohibits research conducted on the online experience of passion (as a
component of romantic love). Currently, passion as a component of romantic love relationships
is neglected in research studies pertaining to relationships in virtual space.
Cybersex.
Ample research has been conducted on most aspects of passion including cybersex.
However, these research studies mainly focus on the experience of cybersex without the
experience of intimacy (which is a different phenomenon on its own and does not fall in the
scope of the current research study). In addition, the above-mentioned studies mainly focus on
the negative aspects regarding cybersex such as cybersex relating to infidelity or addiction
(Griffiths, 2011; Guadagno & Sagarin, 2010).
Cybersex can be defined in various ways. For example, Cooper, Morahan-Martin, Mathy,
and Maheu (2002) define cybersex as “looking at pictures, engaging in sexual chat, exchanging
sexual emails, and sharing mutual sexual fantasies while masturbating” (p. 106). Whitty (2003),
on the other hand, considers cybersex as being erotic communication with an individual online.
Due to the lack of physical presence it is very likely that cyber daters resort to cybersex as a
significant means of expressing their sexual attraction and sexual desire. Ben-Z’ev (2004) argues
that imagination finishes the “gaps” in cyberspace. In other words, imagination can make
cyberspace a more intense and seductive space.
Research findings indicate that individuals do report feeling sexually aroused by
engaging in cybersex and the sharing of sexual information (Cooper & Sportolari, 1997). Crystal
(2001) stated that the nature of the internet has the advantage of keeping actual behaviour at a
distance, and individuals can engage in it without censure. Therefore, online individuals can
share their erotic fantasies and sexual desires without censure, and without worrying about social
rejection. In the online context, an individual can experiment with sexual behaviour by engaging
in it online and with another person without actually getting physically involved (Gonyea, 2004;
Ross, 2005).
I am interested in the phenomenon of romantic love where passion is experienced in
combination with intimacy. The next section highlights research findings relating the experiences
of both intimacy and passion in cyberspace.
The relationship between intimacy and passion.
In FTF relationships most people fall in love due to the physical attributes of their
partners, and then that love is strengthened (or weakened) as further information is revealed
(Ben-Ze'ev, 2004). However, in online relationships where self-disclosure is greater and hence
intimacy is significant and occurs early in relationships, some researchers suggest that most
people get to know each other before passion develops. For example, according to Ben-Ze'ev
(2004) online relationships in a sense mark the return to a traditional order of falling in love. As
in arranged marriages, online romantic love is the product of a process in which two people
come to know each other before developing feelings of passion. Ben-Ze'ev (2004) argues that in
an offline relationship you get to know the person from outside in and in online relationship the
direction is from the inside out. Therefore, this manner of falling in love in virtual space may
greatly enhance the quality of the bond between partners. Individuals often testify about the great
intensity of their virtual love relationships – many of them indicating that they have never felt
this intensity for someone before (Ben-Ze'ev, 2004).
Psychological intimacy has the potential to provoke an eroticisation of the person with
whom the information is shared with and there is a desire to physically express this intimate
connection (Cooper & Sportolari, 1997). By minimizing an initial attraction based on physical
attributes and facilitating intimate, less inhibited sharing, online relationships allow erotic
feelings to develop out of emotional involvement rather than lustful attraction (Cooper &
Sportolari, 1997; Gonyea, 2004). Cooper et al. (2000) argue that the lack of physical attributes
and contact enhances other factors such as rapport, mutual self-disclosing and similarity, thus
promoting erotic connections that stem from emotional intimacy rather than “lustful attraction”.
Other researchers, such as Cooper and Sportolari (1997) share this position by stating that the
development of rapport, mutual self-disclosure, and the empathic understanding of the other are
involved in an intensifying and deepening of the connection leading to an erotic attraction to the
person. In a more recent study, Froneman (2016) conducted a phenomenological study focusing
on adults’ experiences of online dating and found that intimate online disclosure contributed to
feelings of passion: excitement and butterflies. Interestingly enough, participants in the above-
mentioned study did not report feelings of longing to be with their partners as they were
constantly connected and could communicate with them whenever they felt the need.
It appears that to a lesser extent the opposite is also true in cyberspace: intimacy can
develop based on feelings of passion. Ross (2005) explains that online, intimacy is one of the
possible outcomes of the sexual use of the internet since the discussion of sexuality involves
sharing intimate details. Froneman (2016) stated that participants in her study reported that it was
easier to express themselves sexually online. This relates to the disinhibiting effect of anonymity
which was discussed in previous sections.
Conclusion
This chapter highlighted the ongoing debate on whether online relationships can be
considered significant and meaningful when compared to traditional FTF relationships. Existing
literature suggests that the experience of romantic love in virtual space differs from traditional
FTF relationships, but can be equally rewarding and satisfying. In fact, levels of intimacy are
often higher in virtual relationships than in FTF relationships. Various factors contribute to this
finding. For example, the disinhibiting effect of anonymity facilitates more frequent and deeper
levels of self-disclosure which ultimately leads to higher levels of intimacy. It is also argued that
in the virtual environment the barriers of judgement and disapproval are eliminated allowing for
increased self-disclosure. Another important difference between the online and offline
environment is the lack of non-verbal social cues found in virtual space. However, in the above-
mentioned context, cues such as language, writing style, and the use of emoticons plays a
significant role in the development and experience of intimacy. In a sense these cues compensate
for the absence of FTF cues such as body language and physical appearance. Furthermore, the
ability to edit and develop self - presentation in the virtual environment also contributes to higher
self-disclosure and intimacy. In many instances potential partners are perceived as being ideal
based on their self-presentations. The limited existing literature regarding online passion
suggests that in the virtual context, unlike in FTF relationships, intimacy develops before
feelings of passion. More specifically, in the virtual environment passion might stem from
emotional intimacy. Literature suggests that the development of rapport, mutual self-disclosure,
and empathic understanding deepens the connection between people which leads to erotic
attraction. The next chapter provides an overview of the research methodology that underpinned
the current research study.

CHAPTER 4
Research Methodology
Chapter Overview
This chapter aims to orientate the reader to the research methodology that was utilised to
conduct the current research study. More specially, the chapter provides an explanation of the
qualitative approach of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) and its application to
this study. Firstly, the chapter re-visits the aims and research question of the study. The research
design that follows includes the background of qualitative research designs and IPA in particular.
This section demonstrates the suitability of IPA in relation to the current study. Ethical
considerations regarding the current research study are discussed in detail. Thereafter, the focus
shifts to specifics regarding the research procedures, sampling of participants, data collection
methods, the five steps of IPA, and the limitations of IPA. The chapter concludes with a detailed
discussion of the trustworthiness and validity of the current study.
Research Aim and Research Questions
As previously mentioned, limited qualitative research studies have been conducted on
exploring the specific aspects of romantic love as experienced by young adults who have been
involved in online relationships. Research studies generally focus on the negative aspects of
online relationships, ignoring the personal meaning and significance attached to these
relationships. In addition, research conducted on online romantic relationships generally fails to
investigate how people experience passion, an integral part of romantic love, online.
The aim of the current study was to explore young adults’ experiences of romantic love
online in order to:
1) Provide a heuristic base that offers impetus for this emerging research field.
2) To create impetus for theory development.

According to Creswell (2007) a qualitative study has one central research question. The
central research question of the current research study was: ”How do young adults experience
romantic love in the context of virtual space?” Sub-questions were:
1) How do young adults experience intimacy in virtual space?
2) How do young adults experience passion in virtual space?
The current research study generated rich and detailed descriptions of how individuals
(young adults, aged 22 to 34) experienced a specific phenomenon (romantic love) in a specific
context (cyberspace). The research study was focussed on the in-depth exploration of the
participants’ lived experiences. In line with the research aim, the qualitative approach of
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was deemed most appropriate. The research aim
was accomplished by attending to and documenting young adults’ lived experiences of romantic
love in the context of the virtual environment.
Research Paradigm
The current research study falls under the interpretative paradigm. According to Schensul
(2008) an interpretative paradigm focuses on the meaning attributed to events, behaviours and
interaction, individuals and objects. Meaning is considered to be widely shared, negotiated, and
constructed. Approaches that fall under this paradigm are phenomenological, interactional,
hermeneutic and constructivist and assume that phenomena are constructed or co-constructed by
the individual (Schensul, 2008). According to this paradigm, phenomena can be discovered by
collecting and analyzing conversations and texts. In this manner, approaches under this paradigm
are dependent on the researcher’s involvement with the participants in the research study. It is
postulated that meaning emerges through interactions between individuals such as the researcher
and participants. Therefore, confirmation of the findings occurs through the interaction with the
participants in the research study (Schensul, 2008). Qualitative research designs fall under the
interpretative paradigm. In the next section I will briefly discuss qualitative research and its
applicability to the current research study.
Qualitative Research
Most of the available research in the field of psychology tends to be quantitative based on
a model that involves testing theories through hypotheses which can be checked in practice via
observation or experiments (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014). However, the current research study
makes use of a qualitative research methodology that is based on a different epistemological
view, which is in line with the aim of the research study.
Qualitative research involves several methods which include case studies, life stories and
interviews, which are used to describe meanings in the lives of individuals (Denzin & Lincoln,
2003). In short, the aim of qualitative research is to gain insight into the way in which
individuals construct their personal, social and relational worlds (McLeod, 2001). Therefore, a
qualitative approach entails the in-depth exploration, description, and interpretation of the
subjective meaning of the research participants themselves (Finlay, 2006; McLeod, 2001). A
qualitative design allows the researcher to gain a deeper understanding of the research topic from
the participant’s perspective (Babbie & Mouton, 2010).
Qualitative research is considered to be naturalistic, holistic and inductive. In other
words, it explores real world situations in their entirety, paying particular attention to details and
specifics of the phenomenon in question (Terre Blanche, Durrheim & Painter, 2006). Silverman
(2011) states that qualitative research makes use of “naturally occurring data to find the
sequences (“how”) in which participants’ meanings (“what”) are deployed” (p. 17). In qualitative
studies the research design will focus on participants’ meaning of a phenomenon where the
outcome is a process rather than a product and data are collected as words (Farquhar, Ewing, &
Booth, 2011). In the current research study, I was specifically interested in the meaning
participants attached to their online romantic love relationships.
It is important to note that qualitative research emphasizes the role of self-reflexivity and
approaching the research from a point of not knowing. Tracy (2010) points out the importance of
self-reflexivity in qualitative research and states that self-reflexivity is an important feature of
sincerity which involves a researcher’s openness to and transparency regarding the methods,
goals, biases and even mistakes made during the research process. More specifically, self-
reflexivity involves the researcher’s capacity to recognise and be open to their involvement in,
and influence over, the research findings. In other words, the researcher is called upon to be
honest about his/her own strengths and weaknesses during the research process (Tracy, 2010). I
address the issue of self-reflexivity later in this chapter and in the final chapter of this thesis.
In choosing a qualitative research design for the purposes of the current research study, I
carefully considered the appropriateness of the research design in answering the research
question. For example, the rich and detailed descriptions of participants’ experiences of online
romantic love are made possible with qualitative research. In addition, the advantages and
disadvantages of the research design were considered. The advantages of qualitative research
were implied in the section above and include allowing the researcher to articulate insights that
would not necessarily be revealed in quantitative research (Willig, 2013). Disadvantages of
qualitative research, however, include the researcher’s susceptibility to personal opinions and
judgements and lack of objectivity. In addition, the findings of qualitative research are difficult
to generalise (Terre Blanche et al., 2006). The next section focuses on the chosen qualitative
methodological framework of the current research study.

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
The chosen qualitative methodological framework for this study was Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). According to Shinebourne (2011), IPA is a qualitative
approach that explores participants’ lived experiences in detail in an attempt to understand how
they make sense of their personal and social worlds. Whilst trying to understand the world from
the viewpoint of the participants, IPA acknowledges that this understanding is always mediated
by the context of cultural and socio-historical meanings. Consequently, the process of making
sense of experience is inevitably interpretative. IPA recognises that the role of the researcher in
trying to make sense of the participants’ experiences is complicated by the researcher’s own
perceptions and assumptions (Shinebourne, 2011). This aspect will be discussed in more detail in
a later section of this chapter.
In the next section I will briefly provide an overview of the IPA theoretical underpinnings
in order to position it within psychological research.
Theoretical underpinnings of IPA.
According to Shinebourne (2011), IPA shares similarities with other qualitative
approaches and is at a centre-ground position between experiential and discursive approaches.
IPA is founded in phenomenology, hermeneutics and ideography (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014).
Willig (2013, p. 86) adds that IPA is a version of phenomenology, but “does not separate
description and interpretation; instead it draws upon insights from the hermeneutic tradition and
argues that all descriptions constitute a form of interpretation.”
It is argued that IPA is also influenced by symbolic interactionism (Eatough & Smith,
2008 as cited in Shinebourne, 2011). As discussed in chapter two, symbolic interactionism holds
the basic assumption that people act on the basis of meaning that they attach to things and that
meaning emerges in the process of social interaction between people (Blumer, 1969). Thus,
meanings are constructed and modified through an interpretative process that is subject to change
and redefinition (Blumer, 1969). Individuals are therefore able to shape their own existence
through the process of the interpretation of meaning. The next section focuses on the
phenomenological underpinnings of IPA.
Phenomenology.
Phenomenology was developed by Husserl (1970, 1982) and is mainly concerned with
attending to the way things appear to the individual in his/her experience (Pietkiewicz & Smith,
2014; William, 2008). Husserl made a significant contribution to the interpretative turn in the
human science through the development of phenomenology (Constantino, 2008). Husserl (1970,
1982) proposed that phenomenology is concerned with the meaning that individuals attribute to
their experiences within particular contexts, rather than in abstract statements about the nature of
the world in general. According to phenomenology, objects and subjects are not viewed as
separate from the individual’s experience of these. Rather, the meaning that the individual
attributes to objects and subjects creates his/her reality (Husserl, 1970, 1982). According to
phenomenology the individual reflects on an experience and describes its essence through an
intuitive grasping of what is important about the occurrence (Constantino, 2008).
Phenomenology states that the experience and meaning of a phenomenon varies
depending on the individual’s mental orientation which includes the individual’s desires, wishes,
judgements, emotions, aims, and purposes (Husserl, 1970, 1982). In other words, different
individuals will perceive and experience what appears to be the same phenomenon in different
ways. Therefore, it is believed that the experiential content of consciousness, the individual’s
lived experiences, should be explored in its own terms (Husserl, 1970, 1982). Phenomenology
thus focuses on how individuals perceive and talk about objects and events, rather than on
predetermined criteria. This process involves “bracketing” one’s own experiences and “allowing
phenomena to speak for themselves” (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014, p.8).
IPA has a strong phenomenological underpinning as it is concerned with the detailed
exploration of lived human experiences in its own terms as opposed to fixed experiences in
predefined categories (Smith et al., 2009). Shinebourne (2011) adds that IPA is
phenomenological in the detailed examination of the personal lived experiences of engagement
with the world and in the exploration of how participants make sense of their experiences. In this
IPA acknowledges that the understanding of an event or an object is always mediated by the
context of socio-historical meanings (Shinebourne, 2011). People’s experiences of a certain
phenomenon define the meaning of the phenomenon to the individuals who experienced it
(Grbich, 2013).
It is argued that a phenomenological viewpoint is especially useful when a researcher is
concerned with the uncovering of complex phenomena (Giorgi & Giorgi, 2003). Furthermore,
phenomenology does not reduce the phenomenon into identifiable variables that are understood
in a controlled environment but rather seeks to accurately capture the phenomenon within the
context that it occurs (Smith, 2003). With reference to the current research study, the concept of
romantic love is very complex and even more so in the context of the virtual environment.
Larkin et al. (2006, p. 118) highlight the significance of phenomenology since it “returns
people’s perspectives and experiences to the forefront of psychological study” which was
deemed important for the current research study.
Shinebourne (2011) argues that IPA considers phenomenological inquiry as an
interpretative process and consistent with its phenomenological underpinning, IPA is concerned
with trying to understand the phenomenon from the point of view of the participants. At the same
time, a detailed IPA analysis can entail asking critical questions of participants’ experiences. In
this way interpretation can be both descriptive and empathic and also critical and questioning
(Shinebourne, 2011).
Hermeneutics.
IPA also draws on hermeneutics which is described as the theory of interpretation (Smith
et al., 2009). Husserl’s follower, Heidegger, was concerned with the ontological question of
interpretation (Freeman, 2008). According to hermeneutics one needs to understand the mind-set
of persons and their language which mediates their experiences of the world, in order to translate
their messages (Freeman, 2008). Heidegger explains that interpretations of experiences are
always shaped by language and therefore one’s interpretation can be enabled or limited by
language (Larkin, Eatough & Osborn, 2011). The influence of language in the research process
will be discussed later in this chapter.
IPA is interpretive in that it recognises the role of the researcher in making sense of the
experiences of the participants. In fact, IPA involves double hermeneutics or double
interpretation processes (Smith & Osborn, 2003): Firstly, the participant makes sense of his/her
world, and secondly, the researcher attempts to decode that meaning to make sense of the
participant’s assigned meaning. Therefore, considering the participant’s perspective is only one
part of the analytical experience. In other words, IPA is specifically concerned with how the
participant is making sense of his or her world as well as how the researcher is making sense of
the participant making sense of his or her world (Smith, 2004).
Freeman (2008) summarises the influence of hermeneutics in the theory and practice of
qualitative research as follows: Firstly, since language, and other symbolic meaning systems,
facilitate people’s understanding of the world, qualitative researchers pay more attention to the
language that research participants use while they also acknowledge the symbolic systems they
inhabit that give shape to the research study. Secondly, hermeneutics has informed how
qualitative researchers talk about research processes which are part of a dynamic, holistic and
self-reflective dialogue process (Freeman, 2008). Therefore, understanding and interpretation
are developed continuously along the way. Lastly, hermeneutics encourages social researchers to
be promoters of cross-cultural dialogue where understanding of self and others becomes
important to the inquiry into the world we share (Freeman, 2008).
Smith (2011) argues that even though hermeneutics is an important theoretical
underpinning of IPA, there is an apparent lack of understanding of researchers that IPA is
primarily an interpretative approach. This results in IPA that lacks depth and therefore
demonstrates little difference to standard thematic analysis (Smith, 2011).
Ideography.
IPA has a strong ideographic focus, which refers to an in-depth analysis of single cases
by examining individual perspectives of participants in their unique contexts (Pietkiewicz &
Smith, 2014). In this regard it offers insights into how a given person, in a given context, makes
sense of the given phenomenon (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014). In other words, IPA focuses on
detailed examinations of particular instances, either in a single case or in studies of small groups
of cases (Shinebourne, 2011). In such research studies the analytical process begins with a
detailed analysis of each case after which it moves to cautious examination of similarities and
differences across cases. In this manner detailed accounts of patterns of meanings and reflections
are produced (Shinebourne, 2011).

In IPA, usually the phenomenon in question is an experience of personal significance
(Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014) such as the development of a romantic love relationship. In the field
of psychology, an ideographic focus allows one to study an individual, who is seen as a unique
agent, with a unique background, life history and attributes that set him/her apart from other
individuals. Smith (2004) states that ideographic commitment needs to be at the heart of IPA.
In summary, IPA is concerned with how things appear and letting things speak for
themselves, but recognises that there is no such thing as an uninterpreted phenomenon
(Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014), while appreciating the uniqueness of the participant and his/her
context (Smith, 2004).
Revisiting the research question.
Shinebourne (2011) argues that the main reason for choosing a specific research
methodology is that it is consistent with the central research question. The central research
question of the current study was: “How do young adults experience romantic love relationships
online?” The research question in the current study is in line with IPA’s aims of in-depth
exploration of personal lived experiences and how people make sense of their experiences. As
Shinebourne (2011, p. 53) puts it: “the type of research question suitable for an IPA study is
likely to involve issues and experiences of considerable significance to the participant”. The
current study, as in the case with other IPA studies, started with the formulating of a suitable
central research question. The next section of this chapter focuses on the ethical considerations
pertaining to the current research study.
Ethical Considerations
Various ethical principles should be employed in conducting research in order to enhance
the ethical standing of the study. Preissle (2008) emphasizes that these ethical principles should
be considered during all aspects of the research process from the initial problem formulation to
the presentation of the results. The ethical considerations of this research study are mainly
informed by the ethical considerations prescribed by the Health Professions Council of South
Africa (HPCSA, 2008) for health researchers and the Belmont Report (1979), which provides
ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.
The Belmont Report (1979) identifies the basic ethical principles as respect for the
person, beneficence and justice. The report further states that applications of the above–
mentioned principles lead to the consideration of the following requirements: informed consent,
risk/benefit assessment and the selection of the subjects of research. The following section
summarizes the specific ethical considerations pertaining to the current research study.
Institutional approval.
I created a comprehensive research proposal for the current research study with
significant input from the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU) - SANTRUST
PhD Proposal Development Programme. The proposal was presented to stakeholders of the
above-mentioned program. After approval the proposal was presented to the Psychology
Department of NMMU. Once approved by the Psychology Department, an application to the
Faculty of Health Sciences Research Technology and Innovations (FRTI) Committee and Ethics
(Human) Committee was made to ensure that the study complied with the required ethical codes
or guidelines. Once the above-mentioned committees gave ethical approval, I commenced with
the study.
Researcher integrity and competence.
Qualitative scholars learn what they seek to know by developing relationships with their
participants and therefore it is of the utmost importance that the relationships can be caring and
just while not exploiting participants (Preissle, 2008). According to De Vos, Strydom and
Fouche (2011), all research should be based on mutual trust, acceptance, cooperation and well
accepted conventions and expectations between all parties. I took responsibility to conduct the
research study with integrity and competence. As mentioned previously, reflective and
introspective processes are necessary on the part of the researcher to maintain this integrity and
competence as described in this section of the thesis.
To the best of my ability, I remained aware of my own experience, values, interests,
preconceived ideas, and at all times tried to be faithful to the descriptions of the participants’
experiences. I sought to respect every detail of what participants described and bracketed my
own experiences. However, Mortari (2008) truthfully states that it is impossible for researchers
to observe all communicative nuances and that the context of the researcher will remain a reality.
Therefore, humility becomes necessary as the researcher continues to question and reflect on all
information observed in her conscious awareness. It was my intention to apply integrity,
competence and humility in conducting the research study in the most responsible manner
possible.
Informed consent.
According to the Belmont Report (1979) the moral requirement that informed consent
must be obtained from participants is derived from the principle of respect for persons. The
ethical principle involves providing participants with the appropriate information about the
study, participants being competent in understanding the information, voluntariness of
participants and freedom to withdraw at any point during the research study and formalising the
consent in written format (Terre Blanch et al., 2006). These aspects of informed consent were
addressed by providing each participant with a comprehensive information letter (see Appendix
A). The letter informed participants of the aim of the study, issues of confidentiality and
anonymity, a detailed description of their involvement in the study, and the dissemination of the
findings. This information letter was provided in person and participants were given the
opportunity to ask any questions relating to the research study.
Confidentiality.
The principle of confidentiality involves respecting participants’ dignity and aims to
protect participants from embarrassment, harm and stigma (HPCSA, 2008). I was committed to
confidentiality regarding any information about the research study and the anonymity of the
participants was protected throughout the entire research process. Identification information (in
the biographical questionnaire) was stored separately and securely from the data that was
analyzed to ensure confidentiality. None of the coded extracts are connected in any way to the
identities of the participants. Confidentiality was assured to each participant in both the
information given and by means of signing the consent form. As per ethical requirements at
NMMU, the transcribed data will be safely stored by the research supervisor for a period of six
years.
Risk and benefit assessment.
Risk and benefit assessments are concerned with the probabilities and magnitude of
possible harm and anticipated benefits. The requirement of risk and benefit assessment bears a
close relationship to the principle of beneficence (The Belmont Report, 1979). Although
participants in the research study did not receive any incentive to participate, participants were
made aware of the benefits of the study. The benefit of the study is contributing to the
enhancement of knowledge of the experience of romantic love in virtual space.

Related to the risk assessment, the principle of non-maleficence informs researchers of
their duty to prevent and avoid harm to research participants. This includes physical, emotional
and psychological injury or harm (HPSCA, 2008). There were no foreseeable risks involved in
the study.
Reflexivity.
The importance of researcher reflexivity was mentioned previously in this chapter. Willig
(2013) states that reflexivity is deemed an important ethical consideration since it encourages a
qualitative researcher to reflect upon the various ways in which she is implicated in the research
and its findings. Even though reflexivity throughout the research process is deemed very
important, Willig (2013) highlights that the above-mentioned aspects need to be acknowledged
in the research proposal. In this regard, researchers must mention their relationship with the
research study, their expectations of it and their investment in what they expect to find. All of
these aspects where addressed in proposal defence meetings.
Dissemination of results.
The findings of the present study are included in this thesis and will be made available in
the NMMU South Campus Library. The findings will also be made available to participants via
email and/or personal feedback based upon specific requests from the participants. Research
articles will be written and submitted for publication in accredited journals. The findings of the
research study will be presented at national and international congresses if opportunities arise. A
paper based on the preliminary literature chapter of the current study was presented and
published in the conference proceedings of the 2nd African Cyber Citizen Conference (ACCC) in
2015. The next section of this chapter focuses on specific research procedures of the current
study.
Research Procedures
Once the participants had indicated their interest in the study, I once again provided a
clear description of the aim and significance of the study as well as the research procedure (see
Appendix A: Information letter). The participants were encouraged to ask questions to eliminate
misunderstanding. The suitability of participants to the study was also confirmed by asking
prospective participants to fill in a biographical questionnaire and questions pertaining to the
inclusion criteria (see Appendix B: Biographical questionnaire).
Adherence to ethical guidelines required that participants were assured of ongoing
confidentiality and their informed consent was obtained (see Appendix C: Consent Form). The
participants were also assured of their right to withdraw at any stage. I obtained permission from
the participants for the use of an audio recording device for the interviews.
During the recruitment phase I asked participants to describe their understanding of a
romantic love relationship. Thereafter I enquired whether they have experienced any of the said
components of romantic love online. If a participant mentioned aspects pertaining to both
concepts of romantic love (intimacy and passion), he/she was invited to partake in an in-depth,
face to face interview. At that stage, a time and venue that was convenient for each participant
was established. Most interviews were conducted in my office or in the offices of participants
which provided a quiet and confidential environment.
Participants and sampling procedure.
As stated before, the main concern of IPA is to give full appreciation to each participant’s
experience. In other words, IPA aims to provide an in-depth examination of a phenomenon, and
does not aim to generalise the findings of the research study to the whole population (Pietkiewicz
& Smith, 2014). IPA’s commitment to ideography has an important implication regarding
sample size in IPA studies. Reid, Flowers and Larkin (2005) suggested that less is more in IPA:
fewer participants examined at a greater depth are always preferable to a broader, and therefore
more often, shallow and descriptive analysis of many participants. The smaller sample size in
IPA enables a detailed case-by-case analysis. The recommendation for clinical doctorate
programmes in Britain is that six to eight participants are appropriate for a IPA study as the
amount of qualitative data could become overwhelming and researchers should focus more on
the depth than breadth of the study (Turpin, 1997, as cited in Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014). The
sample size of the current research study is seven participants.
According to Shinebourne (2011) the approach to sampling participants for an IPA study
follows from the theoretical account of the epistemology of IPA and therefore participants are
selected purposively. As such, participants for the current research study were selected using a
purposive sampling method which involves selecting individuals for a research study because
they can purposefully inform an understanding of the research phenomenon (Gavin, 2008). In
other words, selection of participants in this sampling method is done in a purposeful manner by
selecting information-rich cases based on the judgement of the researcher (Gavin, 2008).
In order to obtain participants, I advertised the requirements and inclusion criteria needed to
participate in the research study in a local newspaper (Appendix D: Newspaper Advertisement).
The newspaper has a reader pool that is representative of all demographic groups within the
Nelson Mandela metropolitan area. The primary inclusion criteria for participants as they
appeared in the newspaper were that they were required to:
1. be involved in a self-reported online romantic love relationship. Young adults who had
been involved in an online romantic love relationship which had progressed to a face to
face relationship were also considered for the research study.

2. be between the ages of 18 and 35.
3. be fluent in English.
4. reside in the Nelson Mandela metropolitan area.
Since the purpose of the research study was exploratory in nature and it was not an
objective to generalise the results, no further inclusion criteria were set. Participants of any
gender, cultural background or sexual orientation were included in the current research study.
There were also no set criteria regarding the duration of the relationship. It is argued that the
development of romantic love is not time dependent. For example, one person might report
feelings of love after a few weeks whereas another person might only experience similar feelings
after a few months (which were in fact reflected in the findings of the current research study).
There were no constraints regarding the type of Computer Mediated Communication
(CMC) used since the study focused on the experiences of romantic love and not on the specific
medium of CMC. The CMC media that the participants used in the current research study were
dating sites (Tinder and OkCupid), as well as instant messenger (WhatsApp and Mixit), a SNS
(Facebook) and Interpals (a social network site for international communication and language
practice).
In addition to placing an advertisement in the local newspaper, I also employed snowball
sampling where active participants informed other potential research participants about the
current research study. Shinebourne (2011) mentioned the usefulness of snowball sampling in
addition to other sampling methods and states that snowballing is especially useful in finding
groups that are not easily accessible through other sampling methods (as in the case of the
current research study).

The sample of participants were diverse regarding gender, cultural background and
sexual orientation. Table 1 provides a description of the participants in terms of demographic
variables.
Table 1: Demographic variables of the participants of the current research study.
Participant Gender Age Race Sexual Relationship CMC

(pseudonym) orientation Status medium
Ellen Female 34 White Heterosexual Engaged OkCupid
Butterfly Female 30 Coloured Heterosexual Engaged WhatsApp
Kirsty Female 29 White Heterosexual Engaged Tinder
Deon Male 24 White Heterosexual Married Interpals
Kai Female 24 Indian Heterosexual Single Facebook
Latifa Female 22 Black Heterosexual Single Mxit
Unicorn Male 25 Indian Homosexual Single Facebook
The next section focuses on the data collection method employed in the current research
study.
Data collection.
Semi-structured, in-depth, face to face interviews were conducted with participants. This
engagement of the researcher with the participants during the interviews corresponds to the
exploration phase of naturalistic enquiry (Blumer, 1969; Williams, 2008) as discussed in chapter
two.
There were several considerations in choosing this method of data collection. From an
ontological position it was argued that understandings, interpretations, expectations and

interactions were meaningful properties of social reality (Mason, 2007), making interviews a
viable method of data collection. From an epistemological position, interviewing participants is
viewed as a meaningful method to generate data by interactively talking to people, listening to
them and analysing their use of language and construction of discourse (Mason, 2007). This is
congruent with Pietkiewicz and Smith’s (2014) notion that semi-structured interviews are the
most popular IPA method to elicit a rich, detailed, first person account of experiences and
phenomena under investigation. In a similar manner, Shinebourne (2011) states that semi-
structured, one to one interviews have been used most often in IPA studies, as they are
particularly useful for in-depth ideographic studies.
Smith et al. (2009) recommend that interviewers must maintain a balance between
guiding and being led; therefore, the interview schedule should be shorter, starting with broad
general questions that allow the participant to set the parameters of the topic. In this manner the
researcher does not impose her understanding of the phenomenon on the participants’
experiences. Furthermore, Shinebourne (2011) adds that in using semi-structured interviews it is
helpful to envisage the interaction as a conversation, which although guided by the researcher’s
prepared questions, creates the opportunity for participants to provide detailed accounts of
experiences guided by their own issues or concerns. Furthermore, it is suggested that researchers
should follow unexpected turns in the interview process rather than to adhere to the original
sequence of the interview schedule (Shinebourne, 2011). The above-mentioned suggestions were
incorporated into the current study.
According to Cook (2008), the researcher is required to be aware of the major domains of
the experience likely to be discussed by the participant and be able to probe how these questions
relate to the topic under investigation. By using in-depth interviews, the conversation oscillates
among the researcher’s introduction of the research topic and the participant’s interpretation of
his or her experiences. In creating this middle ground the researcher will have access to in-depth
information about the research topic without predetermining the results. Using this set of
questions helps the participant to share information more closely related to the research question,
but also gives the participant the flexibility to share information that the researcher did not
anticipate. Therefore, the participant is viewed as the expert on the subject matter and is allowed
maximum opportunity to tell his or her story (De Vos et al., 2011).
Pietkiewicz and Smith (2014) stress the importance of mastering interviewing skills for
the purpose of an IPA. I am a practising registered Counselling Psychologist with more than ten
years of experience, which contributed to an effective interviewing process. Before the onset of
the interview rapport was established with each interviewee. I remained warm and friendly
throughout the interviews. Interviewing skills included active listening, open-ended questions
related to the participants’ experiences, clarifying of statements, and the demonstration of
empathic understanding where required. I modelled feeling comfortable with silences, thus
allowing the participants to reflect on issues discussed but remained sensitive to non-verbal cues.
The duration of the interviews was between 45 minutes and one hour. Towards the end of the
interviews the participants were thanked for their time and valuable contributions to the study.
Data collection was continued until data saturation which was reached after interviewing
seven participants. A qualified independent transcriber transcribed the interviews verbatim after
which I analysed the data. I e-mailed the participants a summary of their individual interviews
and explained how the summary was generated. The participants had the opportunity to verify
whether the summary reflected an accurate account of their experiences and to elaborate or add
to their accounts.
The interview schedule.
Informed by the central research question, research sub-questions and the relevant
literature, I designed an interview schedule (see Appendix E1). Questions one to three pertained
to the first research sub-question (How do young adults experience intimacy in virtual space?).
Questions four to six referred to the second research sub-question (How do young adults
experience passion in virtual space?). After the pilot study (see the use of a pilot study in the
following section of this chapter), the interview schedule was slightly modified (see Appendix
E2) and was utilised for the remaining interviews. The interview schedule assisted with attaining
some form of control over the direction and content of the interview, however, participants were
free to elaborate or to take new but related directions as suggested by Cook (2008).
By using in-depth, semi-structured interviews, I aimed to ascertain the richness of
participant experiences and subjective meaning of romantic love relationships that were initiated
in virtual space.
Pilot interview.
The first phase of the research study consisted of a pilot interview. A pilot interview was
deemed necessary in order to ascertain whether rich data emerged from using the interview
schedule (Appendix E1). The pilot interview also provided the opportunity to focus on specific
areas that may have been unclear previously and to test certain questions. The benefits of the
pilot interview included the opportunity to test the questions of the interviewing schedule and
allowed me to make modifications in the primary study. De Vos et al. (2011) further suggest that
effective communication patterns can also be established in a pilot study and will assist in
estimating time and costs. In addition, it allows the researcher to gain insight into possible
problems that may arise during the interviews in the primary investigation.
The participant for the pilot interview, a 34-year-old female, expressed her interest in the
research study and volunteered to participate. During a telephonic conversation, a time and
venue that were convenient for the participant were established. For the purpose of the pilot
study, I followed the same research and ethical procedures which was discussed in a previous
section of this chapter.
I perceived the pilot interviewee as very articulate and insightful and the process yielded
rich descriptive data. The interview did not occur as a linear process as suggested by the
interview schedule (see Appendix E1). After reading through the transcribed interview a few
times, minor gaps in the data were identified. Consequently, I added possible prompts to the
original interview schedule, changed some of the original questions to possible prompts and
added an extra prompt (see appendix E2). One participant was deemed sufficient for the pilot
interview. As suggested by De Vos et al. (2011), the pilot interview was beneficial and enhanced
the overall quality of the current research study by having revealed deficiencies in the original
interview schedule.
Data analysis.
IPA’s hermeneutic stance is one of inquiry and meaning-making and is utilized if one has
a research question which aims to understand what a given experience was like and how
someone made sense of it (Larkin et al., 2006). In the current research study, I was interested in
participants’ experience of romantic love relationships in virtual space.
According to Shinebourne (2011), IPA offers a flexible framework of process and
strategies for analysis of qualitative data. Analysis in IPA is described as iterative, complex, and
creative and involves the researcher’s reflective engagement in a dialogue with participants’
narratives and meanings. Smith and Osborn (2003) recommended five steps in using IPA where
the emphasis is placed on the centrality of meanings and on the importance of understanding the
content and complexity of meanings as opposed to measuring their frequency. More recently,
Pietkiewicz and Smith (2014) published a practical guide clarifying the use of IPA in qualitative
studies. I mainly used the recommendations of Smith et al. to guide the analysis of the data.
The next section outlines the steps of the process of IPA, by firstly referring mainly to the
process described by Smith et al. (2003, 2004, 2009, 2014). In this section, I also highlight my
personal account of the analysis process of the current research study.
Step 1: Multiple reading and making notes.
The initial stage of an IPA analysis involves that the researcher familiarising herself with
the text by reading and re-reading the transcript a number of times (Shaw, 2010; Smith et al.,
2009). It is recommended to listen to audio recordings a few times which assists the researcher to
immerse herself in the data and to recall the atmosphere of the interview (Pietkiewicz & Smith,
2014). At this stage, annotations can be made in the left-hand margin of the page. The
annotations may include paraphrasing participant comments, noting the use of language or even
making initial interpretive comments. By participating fully in the above-mentioned process,
researchers are enabled to establish an interpretative relationship with the text (Smith & Osborn,
2003).
I followed the above-mentioned recommendations. From the original transcripts a
summary of explanatory comments was generated with an average of approximately 60
explanatory comments per interview script. At times the generation of explanatory comments
was very taxing since participants used many descriptive words in a sentence. This process is
illustrated in Table 2 below, which contains a short extract from an interview with Ellen
(pseudonym) as well as my explanatory comments.

Table 2: Extracts from the interview with Ellen (pseudonym) and corresponding explanatory
comments.
Explanatory comments Original transcript: Ellen

Ample messages in short period of time aided And I was just, I think, based on the
in creating intimacy communication that we had and the chats that
we had and keeping in mind that we never
spoke verbally at all for the first week or so
that we knew each other and you know, but in
that time we sent many, many messages to
each other and long messages (this extract
was in response to a question regarding the
fast pace at which intimacy developed)
Explaining intimate details of themselves led so, you know, explaining who we are and
to increased emotional intimacy describing the kinds of things that make us
tick and sort of our life philosophies and the
kinds of things we are looking for in a
relationship. So I think in that sense, you
know, there was a lot of emotional intimacy
that happened in the sense that, you know, we
really gave of ourselves.
Ample messages disclosing rich and There was a lot of, you know, expression and
descriptive personal information you know, descriptions of who we are, the
kinds of things that we enjoy, the sort of
things that we are looking for in a partner and,
you know, all of that was conveyed through
many, many messages.
Exclusive online interaction created a sense of So I think we did definitely build up a sense
knowing each other (and closeness) which led of intimacy in the sense that we felt like we
to intimacy knew each other on a – in a very kind of close
way without ever having actually spoken to
each other physically or seen each other. Just
the pictures on the page.
Mutual long messages created a sense of We sent these long messages and we – we
knowing each other and to develop a deep really felt like we got to know each other
connection really, really well and developed a very deep
connection, just from the messages and we
felt like, you know, I really know the, sort of,
inner workings of this person
Step 2: Transforming notes into emergent themes.
Pietkiewicz and Smith (2014) recommend that at this stage the researcher should work
more with her notes, rather than with the original transcripts, since stage one should have
produced detailed and comprehensive notes. Step two involved returning to the beginning of the
transcripts and documenting emerging theme titles in the right-hand margin of the page (Shaw,
2010; Smith & Osborn, 2003) – aiming to transform notes into emerging themes (Pietkiewicz &
Smith, 2014). The researcher must aim to form a higher level of abstraction which still grounds
the detail of the participant’s account. At this stage, the researcher is inevitably influenced by
having already interpreted the script as a whole (Pietkiewicz & Smith 2014). The researcher
must proceed to note codes for subsequent themes in the right hand margin and recurrent themes
in the transcript must be identified and labelled appropriately (Pietkiewicz & Smith 2014). The
process should be repeated with each individual transcript. It must be noted that some sections of
the transcripts may give rise to more themes than others and that this is merely a reflection of the
richness offered by some sections (Smith & Osborn, 2003).
I followed the procedure as outlined above and used the summary of explanatory
comments to identify themes. In addition, I also returned to the original interview scripts in cases
were the explanatory comments were somewhat unclear. Identifying emerging themes was a
strenuous process due to the complexity of romantic love and the interrelatedness of the elements
of intimacy and passion. As mentioned by Smith and Osborn (2003), I did experience that some
sections of the transcripts provided more themes than others (and some transcripts of participants
provided more themes than those of other participants). The table below depicts the emerging
themes for the extracts of the interview with Ellen.

Table 3: The emerging themes for the extracts of the interview with Ellen.
Original transcript: Ellen Emerging themes
And I was just, I think, based on the Time and effort

communication that we had and the chats that
we had and keeping in mind that we never
spoke verbally at all for the first week or so
that we knew each other and you know, but in
that time we sent many, many messages to
each other and long messages (this extract
was in response to a question regarding the
fast pace at which intimacy developed)
..so, you know, explaining who we are and Levels of self-disclosure

describing the kinds of things that make us
tick and sort of our life philosophies and the
kinds of things we are looking for in a
relationship. So I think in that sense, you
know, there was a lot of emotional intimacy
that happened in the sense that, you know, we
really gave of ourselves.
There was a lot of, you know, expression and Levels of self-disclosure
you know, descriptions of who we are, the
kinds of things that we enjoy, the sort of
things that we are looking for in a partner and,
you know, all of that was conveyed through
many, many messages.
So I think we did definitely build up a sense I know and understand you
of intimacy in the sense that we felt like we
knew each other on a – in a very kind of close
way without ever having actually spoken to
each other physically or seen each other. Just
the pictures on the page.
We sent these long messages and we – we I know and understand you
really felt like we got to know each other
really, really well and developed a very deep
connection, just from the messages and we
felt like, you know, I really know the, sort of,
inner workings of this person, just based on
the messages.
Step 3: Seeking relations and clustering themes.
According to Pietkiewicz and Smith (2014) this stage involves looking for connections
between emerging themes, grouping them together (according to conceptual similarities), and
providing each cluster with a descriptive label. Themes must be compiled for each transcript
before looking for connections and clusters. Some themes might be dropped if they have a weak
evidence base or if they do not fit well with the emerging structure. A final list may comprise of
numerous superordinate themes (the main themes below into which subordinate themes are
grouped) and subthemes. At this time, the researcher should compare the emerging themes
directly with the transcript to ensure a connection with the original text (Shaw, 2010; Smith &
Osborn, 2003). Once again I followed the basic recommendations of Smith et al. (2003, 2004,
2009, 2014).
Step 4: Establishing interrater reliability.
The fourth step is to establish interrater reliability of the coded data. It is suggested that
an external (independent) coder assess the subordinate themes that have been identified by the
researcher in an attempt to determine the level of agreement regarding the themes (Pietkiewicz,
& Smith, 2014). I collaborated with a registered psychologist with experience in qualitative
methodology as an independent coder. This collaboration produced a high level of agreement
regarding the themes even though the wording of themes was different. The independent coder
also noted that some extracts of the participants’ interviews related to different subordinate
themes.
Step 5: Establishing participant validity of the researcher’s interpretation.
According to Pietkiewicz and Smith (2014), the final step entails establishing participant
validity of the researcher’s interpretation. The researcher therefore needs to return to the
participants to determine accuracy on aspects that might have been unclear. This stage also
involved obtaining feedback from the participants confirming that the captured data from the
interview were truthful reflections of what the participants had said. I e-mailed the participants
summaries of their individual interviews. Participants had the opportunity to verify whether the
explanatory comments in these summaries were an accurate account of their experiences. In
addition, the process also gave participants the opportunity to elaborate on issues that were
ambiguous or unclear. For example, in this manner one participant elaborated on aspects that he
felt were not significantly reflected in the data captured. The above-mentioned data analysis
process corresponds to the second phase of naturalistic inquiry (Blumer, 1969; Williams, 2008)
which was discussed in chapter two.
Limitations of IPA.
IPA was deemed a very appropriate and useful approach to qualitative research in
answering the research question of the current research study. More specifically IPA enabled me
to explore the participants’ lived experiences in detail in an attempt to understand how they are
making sense of their online romantic love experience. However, scholars have argued that IPA
has various limitations. Throughout the research process, I was cognisant of potential limitations.
Willig (2013) highlights the following limitations of IPA: the role of language, the
suitability of participant accounts, and the explanatory versus descriptive nature of accounts. In
the following section these limitations as stipulated by Willig (2013) will be discussed.
Firstly, IPA makes use of text and language as a data medium. The underlying
assumption here is that language can adequately describe and capture the experience of
participants in a specific context (Willig, 2013). In other words, IPA is dependent on the extent
to which language represents accurately what the participants describe. Also, Willig (2013)
argues that language precedes and therefore shapes an individual’s experience. In this instance,
language is no longer a tool for expression, but rather a prescription of what one is able to
express. In this regard it is important to note that some of the research participants involved in
the current study were not first language English speakers; however, their tertiary education was
in English.
Secondly, the suitability of participants’ accounts is viewed as a possible limitation.
Willig (2013) questions the extent to which the participants’ accounts constitute suitable material
for analysis since IPA is concerned with the rich description of phenomena. It is argued that
participants might be unable to communicate their experiences adequately (Willig, 2013). I am
of the opinion that all participants in the current research study were able to communicate with
ease, and I considered them to have a fair amount of insight into their own love experiences. I
allowed ample time for reflection, probed for richer descriptions, and used paraphrasing to
ensure their experience was understood. I deemed the account of their love experience as suitable
and in my opinion all participants were able to express emotions adequately. However, I
acknowledge that love in general is a very complex phenomenon and expression regarding this
topic is likely to be challenging.
Thirdly, the descriptive versus explanatory nature of IPA is considered as a possible
limitation (Willig, 2013). As previously mentioned, IPA is concerned with understanding
experience. Therefore, the focus is on the capacity to answer “how” rather than “why”. In this
way IPA is able to generate rich descriptive accounts of personal experiences in particular
contexts. It does not offer reasons for why or how certain events unfold.
Furthermore, another limitation of IPA relates to the ideographic nature of IPA (Larkin et
al., 2006). As mentioned previously, IPA studies are conducted on small sample sizes using a
case by case analysis and offers findings that are only relevant to the sample under investigation.
Therefore, the findings are not generalizable to a population (Larkin et al., 2006). However, as
previously mentioned, IPA focuses on the “depth “and understanding and not the “breadth” of
the data.
All of the above-mentioned limitations of IPA have been recognised, however, I am of
the opinion that the current research study demonstrates the strengths of IPA. IPA was deemed to
be an effective research approach to explore in detail the lived experiences of the participants
and their meaning making of the phenomenon of romantic love in virtual space.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness encompasses all the merits of qualitative data, and includes constructs
such as credibility, transferability, dependability and conformability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Therefore, if research is said to attain trustworthiness, the above-mentioned terms are deemed to
be evident in the research. Given and Saumure (2008) argue that these constructs provide a
critique for qualitative research; as opposed to the constructs generalizability, reliability, internal
validity and objectivity that are used to critique quantitative research. Lincoln and Guba’s (1985)
criteria of trustworthiness were employed to assure the trustworthiness of the research. A
discussion of the above-mentioned criteria follows.
Credibility.
Credibility refers to an evaluation of whether the research findings represent a credible
conceptual interpretation of the data drawn from the participants’ original data (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). In other words, it involves the accurate description of the phenomenon being researched.
Firstly, this principle was addressed by providing a thick description of young adults’ experience
of romantic love relationships in virtual space which was included in the findings chapter. I was
cognisant of linking the participants’ descriptions of their experiences and my interpretations of

the meaning of the phenomenon of love. Jensen (2008) adds that issues of data collection and
methodology are also important in this regard, as the methodological decisions need to ensure a
credible outcome of the research. In addition, as suggested by Jensen (2008), I considered the
following questions in relation to the credibility of the study: “Were the appropriate participants
selected for the study? Was the appropriate data collection methodology used? Were participant
responses open, complete and truthful?” (p. 138). I am of the opinion that the nature of the
chosen qualitative methodological framework (IPA) was appropriate and enhanced the
credibility of the current study.
Furthermore, to ensure credibility of the data analysis and research findings, an
independent researcher analysed a sample of the transcriptions according to the same (IPA)
method of data analysis.
Transferability.
Transferability is the degree to which the findings can be applied to a similar context
(Shenton, 2004). This construct relates to the quantitative notion of generalizability, which due to
the small sample size of the current research study is not appropriate. Instead, when a study is
transferable, it can be applied, or transferred, to other similar contexts and situations (Jensen,
2008). Smith et al. (2009) argue for “theoretical generalizability” where the reader may be able
to “access the evidence in relation to their existing professional and experiential knowledge” (p.
4). In this manner IPA has much to contribute to the understanding of phenomena as it
complements claims derived from quantitative studies.
In order to obtain transferability, Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested that it is the
responsibility of the researcher to ensure that sufficient contextual information about the research
is provided to enable the reader to make such a transfer. Willig (2013) echoes that reporting the
contextual characteristics of the research study in full constitutes a characteristic of “good”

qualitative research. I provided a detailed description of the context, methodology and findings
of the current research study. In addition, Jensen (2008) suggested that another strategy for
ensuring transferability is through purposeful sampling, which was used in the current research
study. This sampling method ensures that participants are selected because they most represent
the research design and delimitations of the study. It is argued that “participants most consistent
with the research design will enhance the potential that readers can assess the degree of
transferability to their given contexts” (Jensen, 2008, p. 886).
In following the above-mentioned recommendations, the reader is enabled to determine
the current research study’s transferability. In this study, it is likely that findings can be
transferred to similar individuals who are currently in a virtual romantic love relationship (or
who have previously experienced one), since that was the context of the participants in the
current research study. Since the current study utilised purposive sampling to obtain these
participants and provided a demographic description of participants, it is evident to whom the
current research study’s findings could apply.
Dependability.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) stress the close links between credibility and dependability and
argued that, in practice, a demonstration of the former goes some distance in ensuring the latter.
Dependability addresses the possibility of future repeated studies (Shenton, 2004). In order to
ensure dependability, Shenton (2004) suggests that the researcher should:
1) describe what was planned and executed on a strategic level;
2) address the details of what was done in the field;
3) and evaluate the effectiveness of the process of inquiry undertaken.
I therefore provided a detailed and transparent description of all procedures and methodological
issues pertaining to the research study. In addition, I also acknowledged a reflexive process of
analysis and interpretation which embraces the role of the researcher as integral in the
interpretation process.
Confirmability.
The concept of confirmability is the qualitative researcher’s comparable concern with
objectivity. Confirmability refers to whether the findings of the study can be confirmed by other
researchers (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and are not due to the researcher’s own predispositions
(Shenton, 2004). In this regard steps must be taken to help ensure as far as possible that the
research study’s findings are the result of the experiences and ideas of the informants, rather than
the characteristics and preferences of the researcher (Shenton, 2004). It is important to note that
the construct of confirmability does not deny that each researcher may bring her own perspective
to the research findings. In fact, Miles and Hubermann (1994) consider the extent to which the
researchers admit their own predispositions as a key criterion for confirmability. However, bias
must not be introduced so as to change the meaning of the participants’ experiences.
In attempting to understand the participants’ experience of romantic love in virtual space,
and the meanings they attributed to it, I was cognisant of my own biases and predisposition.
Predispositions include knowledge of existing literature in the field as well as preliminary
theories that ultimately were not generated from the data. Methods employed to make the
research study confirmable are similar to methods employed to make the research study
dependable. For example, I was transparent about the research design and methods used and an
independent researcher was employed to review the themes in order to verify findings.
Validity
Yardley (2000, 2008) suggests principles that need to be met to increase the validity of
qualitative research and specifically the use of IPA. In this section I will briefly mention these
principles.
The first principle, sensitivity to context, involves maintaining awareness of IPA’s
philosophical influences that guide and inform this research approach (Yardley, 2000). This
principle also refers to the needed sensitivity to the context of already existing theory and
research which is required in the development of the research topic (Yardley, 2008). Regarding
the influences that guide IPA, Yardley (2000) emphasises the importance of the researcher
remaining mindful of her own perspective and outlook with regards to how her own behaviour
can influence the “balance of power” during the analysis process. Throughout the research
process I attempted to be mindful of my own perspectives and behaviour.
The second principle, commitment and rigour, refers to the researcher’s continued
engagement with the research topic which involves both being immersed in the data and the
commitment to acquiring the skills and competence in the analysis process. I was committed to
acquiring the skills and competence required to conduct the analysis process. For example, I
consulted continuously with a research psychologist to ensure that I understood the process of
IPA correctly prior to the analysis of the data of the current research study.
The third principle, transparency and coherence, relates to the precision and strength of
the description and argumentation (Yardley, 2000). Transparency of data analysis is deemed very
important in ensuring validly (Yardley, 2008). Transparency was dealt with in providing a
detailed account of the qualitative data analysis process as discussed in this chapter. Coherence
refers to selecting the appropriate “fit between research question and the philosophical
perspective adopted, and the method of investigation and analysis undertaken” (Yardley, 2000, p.
222). Since the research question is concerned with understanding how young adults experience
romantic love online, the theoretical underpinnings of IPA support this type of research. This
was illustrated in a previous section of this chapter.

The fourth principle, impact and importance, relates to the utility of the research
(Yardley, 2000). I believe that the current research study makes a significant contribution to the
developing fields of relationship and cyber psychology which will be illustrated in the following
chapters.
Yardley’s (2008) fifth principle concerns demonstrating sensitivity to the way in which
the positions and perspectives of participants influence their ability to fully participate and freely
express themselves in the research process. In this regard the ethical principles of confidentiality,
anonymity, and privacy were employed in the current study. In addition, participants indicated
the dates and times that suited them to be interviewed. I strove to ensure that participants felt
comfortable at all times, and to be best of my ability, acknowledged them as the experts of their
experiences during the interviews.
Conclusion
This chapter provided a comprehensive description of the research design and methods
used in the current research study. The research study employed the qualitative approach of IPA
in order to successfully describe the essence of the phenomenon in question: How do young
adults experience romantic love in virtual space? The theoretical underpinnings of IPA were
described to aid the reader in understanding the background of IPA as a method of data
collection and analysis. Ethical considerations that guided the study were discussed in detail.
The chapter concluded with a detailed discussion on trustworthiness and validity. The next
chapter presents the findings and discussion of the findings of the current research study.
CHAPTER 5
Findings and Discussion

Chapter Overview
The findings of the current research study are presented in this chapter. Firstly, I will
introduce the participants to the reader by providing a brief overview of relevant background
information. Thereafter the chapter highlights the participants’ conceptualizations of romantic
love after which the identified themes will be discussed. The superordinate themes include
Online Intimacy, Online Romance and Passion, Online Love, and Social Exchange Online. The
chapter concludes with an executive summary of the findings of the current research study.
Brief Introduction of the Participants
Smith (2003) argues that a description of research participants is a fundamental part of
the findings of a qualitative study. In this section I provide general background information in an
attempt to familiarise the reader with the participants. In addition, I will briefly express some
thoughts regarding the participants in relation to the interview process and their accounts of their
romantic love experiences online.
Ellen.
Ellen (34) met her fiancé on the online dating site, OkCupid which she had joined more
due to curiosity than for the purpose of finding a partner. She found her partner’s profile very
attractive and initiated contact with him. Ellen reported that they had many long and intense
conversations over a matter of days which resulted in a strong sense of connectedness. She
appreciated her partner’s willingness to share - something she had never experienced before.
Through their constant and long conversations, they built a trusting relationship in a matter of
days. She experienced “feelings of love” for her partner after less than a week and they decided
to meet face to face. Upon meeting her partner Ellen felt as if she had known him for a long
time. I perceived Ellen as articulate and insightful as she delivered the account of her online
romantic love experience.
Butterfly.
Butterfly (30) started communicating with her partner on WhatsApp (instant messenger)
as her friends suggested that he was “nice guy” to chat to. She reported that they spent hours
each day chatting online as the “lack of judgement” that the “faceless” environment presented,
encouraged them to explore more freely. Their relationship started as pure friendship and later
progressed to a love relationship. Butterfly explained that she was initially more attracted to his
intellect and that passion grew from their strong intimate connection. She experienced a sense of
commitment from her partner online and at times her online relationship became more important
to her than her face to face relationships. Their strong feelings for each other motivated them to
meet in person after seven months of communicating online. Their relationship successfully
progressed offline and they are currently engaged. Butterfly talked passionately about her online
love relationship – her eyes lighting up while recalling the details.
Kirsty.
Kirsty (29) met her fiancé on the dating website, Tinder which she had mainly joined for
companionship. Talking to each other became a daily routine. She experienced intimacy online
by talking about every aspect of their lives. Kirsty felt a closeness in terms of deep friendship
characterised by support, unconditional acceptance and reassurance. She mentioned that there
were many similarities between her and her partner which became apparent through their online
interaction and she stated that she had found someone “like-minded” online. Although they
shared much online Kirsty indicated that she was very cautious due to previous online
experiences which also made her reluctant to meet her partner offline. However, after about three
months of communicating online they met in person and are currently engaged. Kirsty was eager
to share information and her honesty and openness struck me.
Deon.
Deon (24) met his Russian bride via Interpals, a social network site for international
communication and language practice. Due to their language barrier they translated each other’s
messages in order to communicate. The couple shared similar interests and life values and they
“talked” online for long periods of time. Deon reported that a strong emotional connection was
built by sharing their secrets and most intimate feelings with each other. He described his online
experience as “knowing her heart and soul” before meeting her in person. Even though
circumstances prevented them from meeting offline, they often fantasized about meeting each
other which gave them hope for the future. They communicated online for more than a year
before finally meeting in person. Shortly after they met offline they got engaged. Deon was
more reserved and less expressive than the other participants but provided me with very valuable
insights into his online romantic love experience.
Kai.
Kai (24) and her love interest befriended each other on Facebook. She initially found his
“dark persona” very attractive and after a few weeks of communicating online they started
developing romantic love feelings for each other. She perceived her love interest as very
empathic which contributed to their strong connection and talking to him evoked a strong sense
of familiarity. Although she had very strong feelings for her love interest, her fear of rejection
prevented her from disclosing her feelings online. However, she believed that their continued
online interactions must have “given him the message”. Due to Kai’s resistance to meet her love
interest in person they only met face to face after about two years. Her love interest “surprised”
her at a venue she disclosed online; an act that caught her by surprise and which she did not
appreciate. They are currently not in a relationship. She expressed that her online relationship
was very significant and she regrets not having met him sooner. I perceived Kai as very
insightful, honest and open as she shared her accounts of her online love experience.
Latifa.
Latifa’s (22) friends introduced her to her love interest through Mxit a few years ago. She
could clearly recall her online love experience due to the significance of the experience and she
perceived him to be very caring and appreciated him “checking up” on her wellbeing on a daily
basis. Initially she felt very invested in the online relationship and perceived it to be as important
as her offline relationships. However, she described herself as a “physical person” and stated she
missed the face to face contact. Although they developed strong feelings for each other online,
living in two different provinces prevented them from meeting face to face. She stated that the
lack of physical presence caused their relationship to “fizzle out” after about a year and a half.
Interestingly, they accidentally met each other at university and are currently “best of friends”.
Latifa was perceived as approachable and engaging as she delivered her account of her online
relationship.
Unicorn.
Unicorn (25) and his love interest befriended each other on Facebook after which they
started interacting on WhatsApp. Unicorn explained that his initial attraction to his partner was
based on physical appearance as well as perceived similarities. These perceived similarities
caused a sense of understanding and they teased and flirted with each other in a playful manner.
Reciprocated sharing and disclosing intimate details made him feel connected to his love interest.
He felt that his love interest was non-judgemental which made him share more. Unicorn had a
false sense of hope due to the perceived connection between them and he invested ample time
and effort into their online interactions and often took on the “helper-role” in the relationship.
Unicorn’s romantic love experience was different from the other participants’ experiences in that
he felt his strong romantic love feelings were not fully reciprocated. He openly and light
heartedly shared his account of his online relationship, revealing many of the pleasures but also
the hurt of being in love.
Participants’ Conceptualizations of Romantic Love
Prior to the individual interviews I posed the following question to the participants:
“What is your understanding of romantic love?” Since I was particularly interested in the
components (intimacy and passion) of romantic love I deemed it necessary to pose this question
(see previous chapter). Participants acknowledged that defining romantic love was considered a
challenging task. As Latifa put it: “It’s very difficult to actually define it. Because it is different
for everyone”. In defining romantic love, participants’ responses varied with regards to which
elements of intimacy and passion they emphasised. This confirmed the complexity of
conceptualizing romantic love.
Ellen and Butterfly highlighted their perceived importance of both intimacy and passion
as components of romantic love:
Well, I would say romantic love has many, many components. It is not just
romance. It has to do with a sense of – sort of – where you are connected with a
person. You feel a sense of connection. There is maybe a sense of mutual
understanding about things and you know, that you are able to talk to them about
things that bother you and that they can be there as a support…..But romantic
love also is obviously about physical love as well and to be able to be both
physically and emotionally intimate with someone and, you know, with the love
component is to not be afraid of giving yourself and of losing yourself with that
person because you trust them [Ellen].
To me this is the type of love that we all want that is portrayed in the movies. The
type where you have this incredible connection where you build on intimacy and
there is still that physical attraction towards that person. The type of love where
you learn so much about each other by spending time getting to know one another
and that fuels the attraction between the two of you….To me that is romantic love
[Butterfly].
Connectedness, mutual understanding, sharing and support (elements of intimacy), and
physical attraction and intimacy (elements of passion), amongst others, were mentioned as
elements of romantic love. In a similar manner, Latifa illustrated the perceived importance of
intimacy and passion:
Okay, that’s a tough one. Umm, romantic love is a relationship between two people
where there’s honesty and commitment and….I believe like if there is honesty and
commitment and loyalty, then it’s good to go….When there’s passion element to it, umm,
sexual [giggles] – sexual energy between two people. Then you know it is not just
friendship because you feel more. That’s how I know and I feel a sexual chemistry thing
with you, then….Umm, feelings of care, like you care for someone. Umm… What else? I
already said loyalty. Umm… I think for me that’s the major ones [Latifa].
Latifa identified honesty, commitment, loyalty, caring (components of intimacy) as well
as sexual chemistry (a component of intimacy) as important elements of romantic love.
I am of the opinion that the participants’ conceptualisations of romantic love relate well to
Sternberg’s definition of romantic love. According to Sternberg (1986) romantic love derives
from a combination of the intimacy (the perception of connectedness, closeness, and
bondedness), and passion (drives that lead to romance, longing for a person, physical attraction
and sexual consummation).

In contrast to the above-mentioned participants’ understanding of romantic love, Kai
placed less emphasis on elements of passion in providing a comprehensive definition of romantic
love. She highlighted various components of romantic love she considered to be important:
Okay, I feel like it should be more than physical of course. For me, I like having
a connection with someone. So for me, maybe intellectual connection works
wonders for me and then, umm, I don’t – I don’t base anything on the physical
really. If – if you are cute; if you are hot, fine. But for me intelligence is very
important. And, umm, when you do fall in love with someone, it should be more
than just a physical click. It should be clicking on all levels that are important to
you. So it will differ from person to person. Like for me, I like intellectual
conversation. So if I can keep a really good conversation with somebody, there’s
a good chance that I might end up falling for them….I might end up falling for the
person but for me, love is – is finding a common ground on – on all things that
interest you basically, like – like I said intellectualness. It’s finding maybe that I
like coffee and you like coffee too. It’s the little things….but I feel like mostly it’s
a – it’s a – it’s an intimate connection, not just a whatever connection. It’s an
intimate connection…. Someone that you trust completely, one hundred percent
and….I believe that it (romantic partner) should be your best friend first and
foremost. So someone who knows you completely, one hundred percent. I know
that I feel like we all have different people or we all are different people around
different people…. But I feel like someone you fall in love with should know all of
you and still accept it. So basically you should just be one hundred percent
yourself. There should be nothing that you are hiding from the person, at all.
She seemed to specifically value an intimate connection characterised by intellectual
connectedness, the ability to “click” on all levels, finding common ground with a person as well
as knowing and trusting a person. She acknowledged that passion was important, however, it was
not considered to be the deciding factor. She added that a romantic love partner should be one’s
best friend who accepts all aspects of one unconditionally. Upon probing on whether she
experienced these aspects of romantic love online she confirmed: “Definitely. Definitely. One
hundred percent.”
Other participants explained the phenomenon of romantic love in a less comprehensive
manner. However, both Kirsty and Deon’s understanding of romantic love suggests that both
intimacy and passion were considered to be important aspects:
I suppose the thing that stands out for me most about romantic love is that it
would be for me towards a member of the opposite sex and it would be – there
would be a sexual component to it that isn't present in other relationship where
love is possible…. Love is a lot broader. For me, like I love my friends. I love my
family. I love my brother. But romantic love is a more intimate kind of love
[Kirsty].
Romantic love is when two persons feel attracted to each other and they feel that
they can't be without each other. In other words, they have to be together to be
happy [Deon].
During the individual interviews participants further elaborated on their experience of
romantic love. For example, Deon stated: “I always felt a need to be close to her and while we
were talking online we also shared a lot of secrets and intimate feelings with each other”.
Statements like the above-mentioned one provided me with a better understanding of their
experience of romantic love as well as their conceptualisation thereof.
Interestingly, in Unicorn’s explanation of his understanding of romantic love he
expressed that his view of romantic love changed through his life experiences. More
specifically, his online relationship, the focus of the current research study, changed his views of
romantic love. He explained his experience as follow:
I used to have a one understanding of romantic love and it’s changed since… I
used to believe it was when you have feelings for someone, emotional feelings.
You feel like you need them in your life, you need them to be happy, umm, and
then we have feelings for someone you kind of expect them to have feelings for
you back and then when they don’t, that’s when the trouble comes…..And at the
moment now, my definition of romance is when you have these feelings and they
are reciprocated, umm, because from then on we can actually see if this is an
actual romantic relationship, rather than just something that’s all one-sided.
Even though his feelings were not reciprocated Unicorn viewed his online relationship as very
significant at the time. Reflecting upon his experience he added: “So it was actually a growth
experience”.
Interestingly, Butterfly and Deon suggested that in addition to intimacy and passion they
had also experienced a sense of commitment from their partners online:
It is serious, him actually wanting to commit. As with me, it was such a good
thing because it was a long time since I had been in a relationship and even
though it started off as an on-line, it – it… I felt secure [Butterfly].
…that even though all this time we talked and we never meet: we kept with each
other; we kept together; we stayed together; we stayed faithful to each other and
we never moved past each other. We always stayed together. [Deon].
It appears that both Butterfly and Deon experienced the benefits of a committed
relationship online. Furthermore, their comments suggest that they might have experienced some
features of consummate love online. Consummate love is described as the complete form of love
which includes high levels of intimacy, passion and commitment (Sternberg, 1986).
In summary, participants provided me with their unique, but equally significant
definitions of romantic love. This highlighted both the similarities as well as the differing
perceptions of the elements perceived to constitute romantic love. After providing me with an
explanation of their understanding of romantic love, all participants agreed that they had
experienced romantic love online. The next section of this chapter focuses on the superordinate,
subordinate, and subthemes which were identified in the current research study.
Identified Themes
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was the method used to analyse
interview data, highlighting the perceptions and experiences of romantic love in virtual space
from the perspective of the seven research participants. Four superordinate themes were
identified namely: Online Intimacy, Online Romance and Passion, Online Love, and Social
Exchange Online. Table 4 provides a breakdown of the superordinate themes and subordinate
themes that will be discussed in the current chapter.

Table 4: The superordinate and subordinate themes of the current research study.
Superordinate themes Subordinate themes Sub-themes
Online Intimacy Self-disclosure Levels of self-disclosure

Mutuality of self-disclosure
Anonymity and self-
disclosure
I know and understand you
Interpersonal connection Feelings of connectedness
Similarity
Trust
Time and effort
Online Romance and Passion Interpersonal attraction
Feelings of being in love
Sexual chemistry and desire
Passion in relation to
intimacy
Longing
Online Love It is love
The significance of the

experience
My partner influenced me
Symbols of love
Social Exchange Online Online rewards
Online costs
Comparison
Online Intimacy
I was specifically interested in participants’ experiences of romantic love online. More
specifically, I was interested in how participants experienced the components of romantic love,
namely intimacy and passion online. Subordinate themes under the superordinate theme of
Online Intimacy included the following: Self-disclosure and Interpersonal connection. The next
section focuses on the role of self-disclosure in relation to the experience of intimacy in the
online context.
Self-disclosure.
Self-disclosure was identified as a strong subordinate theme in the sense that all
participants provided rich information regarding the role of self-disclosure in the development of
intimacy online. For example, Kirsty stated: “I experienced a sense of intimacy. In that we were
talking about every aspect of our lives “. Unicorn and Latifa shared Kirsty’s sentiment:
Where someone is so willing to talk about anything and that’s how it went and
that’s how we became actually close before even meeting in person…. So what
drew me in further was that: Oh, we could talk about all these things [Unicorn].
I don’t know how it happened. Just… I found that I could talk to him about
anything….Umm, we became best friends, you know, just someone that I wanted
to talk to all the time. Like there was like an intimate connection [Latifa].
One participant implied that self-disclosure led to feelings of affection for the person. In the
words of Deon:
If I don’t talk with her for a day, I feel that I missed out. I feel I lost affection for
a day… To talk with a person of another sex for so long, it built feelings inside for
this person because you share.
The above-mentioned experiences of the participants are consistent with existing theories
and ample research findings that suggest a strong link between self-disclosure and the experience
of intimacy (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Joinson, 2001; Taylor, Peplau & Sears, 2006). As part of
the subordinate theme of Self-disclosure, the following sub-themes were identified: Levels of
self-disclosure, Mutuality of self-disclosure, Anonymity and self-disclosure, and I know and
understand you. These sub-themes will be discussed next.
Levels of self-disclosure.
During the experimenting stage of relationship development, the potential partners gather
and filter information about each other as a means of determining whether or not a potential
romantic partner would be a good fit (Knapp, 1978). The social penetration theory (Altman &
Taylor, 1973), which refers to traditional face to face relationships, postulates that in the early
stages of relationship development one moves with caution, discussing less intimate topics, and
seeking signs of reciprocity. Therefore, self-disclosure is likely to progress in a relatively
systematic fashion, beginning with breadth of disclosure and moving toward greater depth of
disclosure. The above-mentioned principles of the social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor,
1973) were to some extent evident in the current research study. For example, Kirsty and
Unicorn noted that early self-disclose involved general conversation about a variety of topics:
A lot of conversations were general – general kinds of things. I started off with
things like: “How old are you?” and: “Where do you stay?” and: “What do
you do for a living?” and: “Where did you go to school?” and all that kind of
stuff. And then it progressed to more like natural everyday conversation. Like:
“How is your day going?”; “What’s happening?” So it became less factual and
more kind of in the moment [Kirsty].
Well, (we disclosed) everything. We spoke about… We spoke about our interests,
what we like, what we want to do with our lives. Umm, intellectually, we spoke
about how we see the world and what we both studied and how, umm, my studies
would influence my thought process and his would influence his and it was a lot
and we also used to spoke about general, very general things, like days at work
and how the day at ‘varsity went and making jokes and all of that [Unicorn].
Self-disclosure during the exploration stages of relationship development in the current
study assisted in getting to know the potential partner which also led to feelings of intimacy. As
the participants put it:
Well, at first we asked about our lives and what we do; relationship in relation to
work; and then later on we talked about family, of the family and friends; we
talked about feelings towards each other; then we started feeling there is a
connection and then from there, we just asked each other personal questions
about romance and previous relationships and what happened in our past
relationships and how can we, if we want to be together, work on that and not
make the same mistakes again [Deon].
So you tend to grow together and explore more, the more often you guys speak.
So the intimacy, to me, with this particular relationship was something that just –
it just came out of nowhere and it grew on a daily basis because we got to know
each other based on what we decided to expose and explore together on a day by
day [Butterfly].
The development of intimacy, mutual self-disclosure, and an empathic understanding of
others are involved in a deepening of the interpersonal connection as individuals disclose more
personal information online (Finkel, Eastwick, Karney, Reis, & Sprecher 2012). In the online
context, individuals show a greater awareness of the internal aspects of themselves, such as
feelings, attitudes, and values and are less bound by interactional pressures (Finkel et al., 2012).
Ellen highlighted the significance of in-depth self-disclosure in the development of intimate
relationships:
So I think in that sense, you know, there was a lot of emotional intimacy that
happened in the sense that, you know, we really gave of ourselves. There was a
lot of, you know, expression and you know, descriptions of who we are, the kinds
of things that we enjoy, the sort of things that we are looking for in a partner and,
you know, all of that was conveyed through many, many long messages that we
used to send to each other [Ellen].
The above-mentioned extract also illustrates that online self-disclosure involved three
different levels as identified by Altman and Taylor (1973), namely the peripheral, intermediate,
and core layers. The peripheral layer mainly refers to biographical detail, the intermediate layer
refers to attitudes and opinions, and the core layer mainly refers to personal beliefs, needs, and
values (Altman & Taylor, 1973). In other words, the online disclosures of the participants
involved both descriptive and evaluative disclosure. As discussed in chapter three, descriptive
disclosures includes factual information and evaluative disclosure occurs when personal feelings
and judgments are shared, which are important elements in the development of intimacy (Taylor
et al., 2006). The section to follow focuses on the significance of mutual self-disclosure in
relation to the experience of intimacy.
Mutuality of self-disclosure.
It was evident that participants experienced mutuality in self-disclosure online.
Participants often used the words ‘we’ and ‘us’ in reference to their online romantic love
experience. On probing, several participants confirmed the mutuality of self-disclosure and
explained the significance thereof:
A word that you have used a lot is ‘both of us’. So you the disclosures were
mutual? [Tania].
Absolutely [Ellen].
And that is something that he felt as well? [Tania].

Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean he said to me, you know, when we met the first
time: “I feel like…” When we actually met physically, he said to me: “You
know, I feel like I know so much about you that we don’t actually have much to
talk about”, you know, in our actual, you know, when we actually met. But ja, so
it was amazing, just the ability to kind of share with someone who was also
willing to share as much as I was [Ellen].
Other participants also expressed the mutuality of self-disclosure:
Yes. It wasn’t a one-sided conversation where just one person shares; the other
person listens. We… It’s more like I tell something with a question and she tells
something with a question….So we always ask each other the same thing but we
hear it from that person’s perspective or that person’s life [Deon].
It was so nice because we both made each other feel comfortable to speak about
anything….But, umm, from both side, the back and forth was nice because it was
something that I don’t often get…. Because we would have this back and forth
and always talking about things [Unicorn].
Unicorn continued to explain the benefits of mutual self-disclosure: “I think it (mutual
self-disclosure) made it..it made me feel more because, umm, of the connection that it built. It
made that connection stronger and stronger”. In a similar manner Kai explained that mutual
self-disclosure made her feel more secure in the relationship:
Umm, there was nothing that was actually off limits when we spoke …It leans… I
don’t know if was it at… At the time it felt very secure. It felt like I wasn’t being
irrational with my thoughts. I wasn’t making things up in my head whether or not
he does feel the same thing. It was kind of like that was like the stamp on top of
everything, to show: Look here, what I am feeling is real.
As discussed in chapter three, in-depth and core level self-disclosure plays a very
significant role in the development of intimacy, however, the mutuality of self-disclosure is also
considered to be very significant and the extent to which the self-disclosure is mutual determines
the level of intimacy experienced (Brehm, 1992). It is argued that mutual, intimate self-
disclosure fosters a sense of connection and empathic understanding and therefore aids the
development of intimacy (Sprecher & Hendrick, 2004).
Butterfly also stated that “the sharing was mutual”. Later in the interview she explained
how her partner’s intimate disclosures encouraged her to disclose more: “He could dive deep
within himself…. it gave me the confidence to want to do that with myself”. The above-
mentioned ‘process’ relates to the concept of the dyadic effect. The dyadic effect of self-
disclosure refers to the process where one partner’s disclosure encourages the disclosure of the
other partner (Altman & Taylor, 1973). It is argued that relational partners tend to match each
other’s level of self-disclosure, each disclosing more if the other partner does so and holding
back if the partner withdraws (Altman & Taylor, 1973). In the case of Butterfly, her partner’s
willingness to explore his feeling and disclose it to her encouraged her to do the same. The
dyadic effect could also be observed in the case of Kirsty and her partner’s online interactions:
Kirsty’s partner disclosed much information about himself, but was very vague regarding his
feelings towards Kirsty, which may have caused Kirsty to be less expressive about her feelings
towards him.
The above-mentioned examples (Butterfly and Kirsty’s extracts) also relate to the
premises of symbolic interactionism that the behaviour of one partner in interaction will always
affect the other partner in a significant way (Blumer, 1969) which I discuss in greater depth later
in the chapter. The section to follow focuses on the role of anonymity in relation to self-
disclosure and the experience of intimacy.

Anonymity and self-disclosure.
Most participants mentioned that the characteristics of CMC like anonymity encouraged
them to share and disclose more as illustrated in the following extracts:
And it is easier with him because I don’t have to see him. Ja, there is no pressure
to open up face to face. It is much easier, like online, when you are just texting.
You can say whatever [Latifa].
There was… It was a way for me, like the fact that it was online, firstly, gave me a
sense of security as in I don’t have to face you tomorrow. So I don’t have to be
ashamed of what I am saying [Kai].
“Being able to vent about a specific thing I think because you haven't met the
person yet. It somehow feels safer to just put it out there” [Kirsty].
You would get to know somebody without a face. You tend to make a connection
with what they say at first and if there is not a face and you feel that feeling of
trust, that grows with your everyday communication. You… It’s just… It’s mind-
blowing to understand that you can feel like that without, umm, having to see this
person and because there is lack of judgement from the lack of face to face, you
tend to open up more [Butterfly].
Interestingly Butterfly suggested that not knowing her partners’ significant others created a sense
of anonymity which encouraged more self-disclosure:
That he could speak about things and it made it easier because I didn’t know
about the people in his realm at the moment and it was easy for him to share and
for me to be objective about what was happening in his life and the same for me
about my life [Butterfly].
Unicorn’s perceived non-judgemental understanding of his partner (see next section of this
chapter: I know and understand you) may also refer to the role of online anonymity. However, it
was my interpretation and not confirmed by Unicorn.
The role of anonymity in increased online self-disclosure is well documented. Online
anonymity is considered a major factor in self-disclosure as it allows individuals to disclose
information without the fear of rejection or ridicule because they feel hidden behind a screen
(Kang & Hoffman, 2011; McKenna et al., 2002; Ruppel, 2014). In the virtual environment
barriers of judgment and disapproval are eliminated, allowing for increased self-disclosure and
therefore private information is revealed sooner in an online relationship which leads to feelings
of closeness earlier in the relationship (Bonebrake, 2002; McKenna et al., 2002; Merkle &
Richardson, 2000). Zaczek and Bonn (2006) shared the same notion and claimed that many
individuals reported feeling freer to be themselves within the safety of online anonymity. In the
same manner, Orr et al. (2009) argue that self-disclosure online is richer and progresses faster
since the internet affords a level of anonymity that can reduce feelings of discomfort one may
experience in face to face relating. Self-disclosure amongst other factors played a significant role
in the development of a sense of ‘knowing and understanding’ each other which contributed to
the experience of intimacy online which is discussed in the section to follow.
I know you and understand you.
All participants agreed that they experienced mutual understanding online which
contributed to their experience of intimacy. For example, Unicorn described how a sense of
mutual understanding played a significant role in relationship development since it fostered a
sense of liking and acceptance:
Like because he, I mean he would laugh and joke with me and he wouldn't judge
me for the – the – the funny, weird jokes I would have, like because he would
actually get them and find them funny and talking about things. He seemed to
understand at the time ....the understanding.. I think that a lot of why he, umm,
liked me so much like in a friends’ way, but like liked my company so much, was
because I understood him. Because I like to understand everyone and that’s my
thing and I think that he also felt that he was understood by someone and not
judged and that made him talk more [Unicorn].
The above-mentioned extract also suggests that a sense of ‘being understood’ could encourage
more self-disclosure. Research findings indicate that individuals tend to disclose with greater
frequency online (Antheunis & Valkenburg, 2007; Joinson, 2001) which is likely to foster a
sense of understanding and knowing each other. Therefore, it is interesting to note that being
understood and self-disclosure are likely to be a two-way street.
Butterfly expressed how intimacy and the sense of knowing each other developed through
frequent self-disclosure:
So the intimacy, to me, with this particular relationship was something that just –
it just came out of nowhere and it grew on a daily basis because we got to know
each other based on what we decided to expose and explore together on a day by
day.
As illustrated by the extract of Butterfly, participants got to know each other based on
what they chose to expose to each other. As discussed in the previous section, self-disclosure in
the online environment is likely to be high and intense which stimulates the development of
intimacy. Through self-disclosure partners felt that they got to know each other well as expressed
by Ellen:
You know, like we spoke about our past relationships and our past marriages
because he is also divorced….And you know, the negative things that we have
been through and you know, which is why we are looking for the kind of
relationships that we are looking for…….And so you know, we were able to talk
to each other about you know, sort of real kind of matters of the heart and the
sorts of things that we were looking for, what we wanted and how we felt the
other person could fulfil that and this is without even having met one another you
know. We felt like maybe this other person could really be the one to actually
fulfil our needs [Ellen].
Ellen felt that because they disclosed high levels of intimate details about themselves, they had a
great sense of knowing who the other person is. On meeting each other in person it felt as if they
already knew each other well:
I mean he said to me, you know, when we met the first time: “I feel like…” When
we actually met physically, he said to me: “You know, I feel like I know so much
about you that we don’t actually have much to talk about”, you know, in our
actual, you know, when we actually met [Ellen].
Butterfly had similar experiences to that of Ellen: “You know, I felt like when I saw him, you
know, we know so much about each other.” She elaborated further on the significance of
knowing and understanding her partner:
In just understanding more about the two of you and not only just take a chance
and just rush into something, but to make a calculated assessment about where
you are going, knowing full-well where the person comes from and where you
want him in your life [Butterfly].
Several participants felt that they got to know each other through the long, and uninterrupted,
conversations online:
We got to know each other very well over a very short period of time where we
were able to communicate with each other, where it was just him and I talking to
one another via e-mail and there weren't any interruptions; we weren't at a coffee
shop; we didn’t go for drinks…..[Ellen].
Well, at first talking for so long and we talked for quite a while before we felt a
love relationship. Then you understand the person and you know the person. So
you can… You make a joke and they will tell you online: “Listen, I don’t like this
joke. It is not nice” [Deon].
Kirsty expresses the significance of knowing your partner well:
For me, it is like my closest friend who knows everything about me. The good, the
bad, the ugly. Probably has more knowledge than any one friend of mine because
we spend the most time together [Kirsty].
Latifa echoed Kirsty’s experience and stated: “The emotion side of it (was very significant)
because we were very close. He knows things about me that people don’t know [Latifa].
On several occasions throughout the interview Kai mentioned that she felt her love
interest knew and understood her well during their online interactions. For example, in reference
to her developmental challenges she stated:
Yes, he definitely understood and maybe it is because he had similar situations

happening or had happened to him already. But I always felt like he knew what I
was speaking about. Like even when I didn’t know he knew. Like when I was
trying to figure out a mess in my head, he would be like – he would already know
what I meant. Without me even having to make sense sometimes [Kai].
From the extract above it appears that Kai experienced her partner as very in tune with her on an
emotional level.
In summary, participants agreed that self-disclosure played a very significant role in their
experience of intimacy online. More specifically, in-depth, mutual self-disclosure was deemed
important in the development of intimacy. Most participants were of the opinion that the
anonymity of the internet encouraged them to share and disclose more to each other. Lastly,
intimate self-disclosure aided in participants’ experience of knowing and understanding each
other, which enhanced their experience of intimacy. The next section introduces the second
subordinate theme, Interpersonal connection.
Interpersonal connection.
This subordinate theme explores other factors, in addition to self-disclosure, that
contributed to participants’ experiences of connectedness. Sub-themes include, Feelings of
connectedness, Similarity, Trust and, Time and effort.
Feelings of connectedness.
Sternberg (1986) broadly defined intimacy as people’s perceptions of connectedness,
closeness, and bondedness within a relationship. In a previous section of this chapter I briefly
referred to the role of self-disclosure in the development of intimacy. However, it is evident that
other factors also influenced participants’ sense of connectedness to their partners. I will
elaborate on these factors in this section.
All participants reported feelings of closeness and connectedness to their partners. Kai
mentioned that she felt so close to her love interest and described the feeling as “being at home”.
Upon probing how feelings of connectedness developed, she replied:
In a lot of things that he did or said or would mention. There’s a lot of things that
felt like home….So that’s what… There was a lot of things he did that kind of
brought on different feelings of different spaces in my life. Sometimes I didn’t
even remember where it came from. But that would just feel like home to me
[Kai].
Ellen commented on the significance of the connection early in their online relationship:
So ja, you know, I find that the physical or the actual like off-line relationships
that I have had, I haven't felt such a significant sense of connection with someone
so soon into the relationship [Ellen].
I am of the opinion that Ellen’s early online connection could be explained by early
disclosure of intimate details (see theme 1). Chang and Chen (2014) state that early mutual self-
disclosure could lead to potential partners feeling more connected and familiar to each other
sooner. In the online contexts mutual self-disclosure takes place sooner in an online relationship
than in offline relationships (Bonebrake, 2002; McKenna et al., 2002; Merkle & Richardson,
2000) resulting in feelings of connectedness early in the relationship.
Ellen referred to the long and intimate online conversations through which she felt she
got to know her partner very well. Her sense of “knowing him well” most likely made her feel
very connected to him. As Ellen put it:
We sent these long messages and we – we really felt like we got to know each
other really, really well and developed a very deep connection, just from the
messages and we felt like, you know, I really know the, sort of, inner workings of
this person, just based on the messages [Ellen].
Individuals often enquire how is it possible to feel very connected to someone one has
never met – a question that was also intriguing to me. In this regard, Kirsty mentioned some
factors that resulted in feelings of connectedness:
Strangely enough there were those feelings of intimacy and connectedness online.
So similar sense of humour, umm, the – the support and reassurance in terms of if
we were going through a difficult patch, that kind of thing……he would make me
feel like I was already something he was considering in his day to day life when
he came home…So that was really sweet and that did make me feel a sense of
closeness [Kirsty].
For Kirsty the sense of connectedness stemmed from, amongst others, her partner’s support,
reassurance, and sense of commitment. On probing how the sense of connectedness developed,
Deon explained as follows:

Well, to be honest, the first time she talked with me, it felt that this girl, she wants
attention – not attention from me but she wants my companionship. She wants to
talk with me also, as much as I want to talk with her.
From this comment I gathered that the connection started due to a mutual interest in each other,
as well as the mutuality in wanting companionship. Later in the interview Deon elaborated more
on his sense of connectedness:
Well, we shared similar interests and similar points of view on life and if you
started – if I started a conversation with her about politics or religion or
anything, it is something that she likes and something that I like. So we can talk
all day about one thing. So it is not a boring conversation every day. Every day,
it is a full day of conversation, not just dead ends after a conversation.
I interpreted that Deon’s perception of similarity between him and his partner brought about a
sense of connectedness. The role of perceived similarity in the development of intimacy will be
discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
As alluded to, Butterfly’s connection with her partner was built on everyday
conversation (opposed to pure physical attraction). She suggested that the anonymity of the
internet made her open up, and disclose more, since she did not feel judged. Anonymity also
played a role in Butterfly’s enhanced experience of intimacy.
Consistent with the experience of some of the other participants, Unicorn expressed that
his sense of connectedness stemmed from mutual self-disclosure, perceived similarity, and
common interests:
..and talk about how we saw things and joke about stuff and the – the stuff we had
in common made me feel more connected. But also, the fact that we are talking
about things that we find interesting. We are sharing things. We are disclosing
things to each other. That, umm, influenced her levels of connectedness that I felt.
However, in contrast to the experience of the other participants, Unicorn’s perceived
connectedness to his love interest created a false sense of hope. Unicorn explained:
I think so much of it was my mind. Like I think it was the wishful thinking and –
and a – a false sense of hope that I gave myself because I thought that if we
connect like this, that was already enough for me, the way we worked together…I
think that was what motivated me and kept me, because we were so
connected….But that connection and especially like I keep saying it because that
was something that was like highlighted to me, was when he would say: “We
connect.” Like I want to find someone that I can connect with….That shows
whether there is connection. But for me that was enough.
The extract above illustrates the significance of perceived online connections.
In summary, all participants reported a strong sense of connection with their partners.
Factors influencing their perceived connections included high levels of intimate self-disclosure,
perceived support and commitment, as well as perceived similarity. The next section focuses on
the role of perceived similarity in the development of intimacy.
Similarity.
To differing degrees, all participant agreed that perceived similarity and finding common
ground, played a role in the development of intimacy and a love connection. As Latifa put it:
I might end up falling for the person but for me, love is – is finding a common
ground on – on all things that interest you basically, like – like I said
intellectualness. It’s finding maybe that I like coffee and you like coffee too. It’s
the little thing….Umm, emotional one, mental one, because he is very smart
and…. I consider myself smart as well. We would like to talk about books we were
reading and he’s artistic and I used to be artistic when I was younger. So we
would like talk about… Umm, he’s a musician. So we would talk about music and
art and… So there was like a lot of things in common, that we had in common
(which contributed to our intimate connection) [Latifa].
Similarity can be described as an individual’s perception of how similar one is to another
individual, or what they have in common (Anderson & Emmers-Sommer, 2006). As discussed in
chapter three, ongoing communication can enhance the sense of similarity and thus enhance
interpersonal attraction. Anderson and Emmers-Sommers (2006) furthermore express that
similarity replaces physical proximity in online relationships and the more one has in common
with one’s online partner, the “closer” one will feel to the partner, thus increasing relationship
satisfaction.
Participants mentioned that through everyday communication with their partners they
became aware of similarities they shared with them.
…And then through the in the moment kind of conversation, I picked up on similar
values, similar interests, similar frustrations, similar goals, that kind of thing. So
it is not like we had a very factual conversation about what are your values but
those things came through in the conversation [Kirsty].
We established where we came from, that we – we could have, in the past have
met earlier. We went to the same school but obviously I left – he left before I got
to the high school. He knew of people that I went camping with. So we found out
that there were different ways that we could have initially met [Butterfly].
Research indicates that online contexts strengthen the likelihood of connecting with like-
minded individuals (Fox & Waber, 2013). More specifically, online dating sites encourage
individuals to disclose in-depth information about themselves from the onset (Whitty, 2008b).
For example, online dating sites provide the opportunity for individuals to create a profile of
themselves which can be a textual and/or visual presentation of themselves which may include a
complete physical and personality description of oneself. However, it seems that Butterfly and
Kirsty found common ground with their partners more through everyday conversation.
Kirsty specifically mentioned the significance of similar interests, beliefs and values
which was evident online and also became evident in her offline relationship. She elaborated:
There was a… There were a lot of similarities in terms of the online and offline
sense of intimacy or getting to know each other. Similar interests. Similar belief
systems. Similar values came through [Kirsty].
She expressed that their similarities made her excited: “Excited because it made me think I have
met someone like-minded”. On probing how the perceived similarity influenced their relationship
Kirsty replied:
It still does. It makes him all the more attractive to me. I have never met an OCD guy
before. And I love it although his OCD tendencies are a little bit different to mine. We
can tease each other. We can joke with each other about it. Umm, I find… It is just like
we don’t have to explain anything. We just get it.
During the conversation with Kirsty I got the impression that the perceived similarity to her
partner played an important role in the development of their love relationship. She often used the
word “significant” in the interview and therefore I probed: “What do you think created that
feeling of significance in the relationship?”. She replied: “The significance? I su-… It is difficult
to pinpoint but I would say the similarities….That, for me, made it significant, that I was able to
find my kind of person online.” She thereby confirmed that she highly valued the similarities she
shared with her partner. In a similar manner Ellen and Deon expressed how perceived
similarities influenced their relationship development. In reference to the written communication
between her and her partner Ellen stated the following:
I found that incredibly attractive because obviously he and I are similar in the
sense that we both write well, you know, we both use the language well and you
know, so I mean if there were typo’s, it was purely accidental.
It was interesting how much Ellen valued the similarity regarding her partner’s language
ability and writing skills, illustrating that individuals value different characteristics in partners.
Proficient language ability could be equally important to Ellen, for example, as religion is to
another individual. Ellen highlighted the significance of having good writing skills:
He and I both are good writers… ja, so we were able to… We were able to bring across
our feelings very effectively and emotively through the words that we chose in our e-mails
[Ellen].
In a later section of this chapter (Symbols of love) I will elaborate on how Ellen and her partner’s
writing skills and expressive ability fostered a sense of intimacy.
Deon was in agreement with other participants regarding the role that similarity played in
the development of intimacy. Upon probing if there was anything else that made him feel
connected to his partner, he replied:
Well, we shared similar interests and similar points of view on life and if you
started – if I started a conversation with her about politics or religion or
anything, it is something that she likes and something that I like. So we can talk
all day about one thing.
Later he continued with the same train of thought:
The stuff that she shared with me, that I understood because we share similar
interests and talking about the things that I like with somebody else, it makes me
feel pulled to this person, to be able to talk with them.
Deon shared similar interests and life views as his partner, encouraging long
conversations, which made him feel connected with his partner. In a similar manner, Unicorn
stated that perceived similarity, such as, the same sense of humour and common interests, played
a role in attraction and perceived connectedness. Latifa also stressed the importance of sharing
similar interests with a romantic love partner. She explained that in the online context artistic and
intellectual commonalities contributed to developing an intimate connection.
In short, similarity played an integral role in participants’ perceived connectedness and
the development of intimacy. The next section focuses on trust in relation to the development of
close connections.
Trust.
It was interesting that all participants indicated to different degrees that they trusted their
partners whilst being in an online relationship. As Latifa put it:
(I trusted him) because he always told me whatever he is doing. If he is going

out: “I am going out now. Talk to you later”. So I didn’t feel like he was lying
to me. I don’t know how it happened. Just… I found that I could talk to him about
anything. Like I didn’t realise what was happening until it was happening. So I
can't really tell you how it began or anything. Just I found myself really invested
in him all of a sudden [Latifa].
As illustrated in previous chapters, trust forms an integral part of any intimate
relationship. In the online context, individuals appeared to be primarily concerned about the
possibility that others were untruthful about themselves, and may provide inaccurate self-
presentations (Donn & Sherman, 2002; Gibbs et al., 2006; Whitty, 2008b; Whitty & Carr, 2006).
In this regard, some participants in the current research study indicated that they were aware of
people’s misrepresentation of themselves online, even though it did not necessarily apply to their
current partners. As Ellen put it: “I believed that he was genuine, you can obviously never trust
anybody on-line”. In a similar manner Kai noted:
Umm, the most unfortunate I think is that, umm, you don’t really fully know
someone….I feel like you can try and fully know someone but we all show pieces
of ourselves that we want other people to see [Kai].
It is interesting to note that participants suggested that trust was built based on the mutual
willingness of partners to disclose intimate details. This phenomenon was evident from the
following extracts:
But I think just from how we spoke to each other and the words that we used, you
know, the kind of information that was disclosed between us, I felt like I could
trust him…And I think he felt the same way otherwise I don’t think that we would
have agreed to meet…. So it was a very effective kind of way for us to kind of trust
each other, was just to sort of send out those messages to one another and
communicate honestly with each other, you know and just say, you know, like: “I
am being honest. I am not trying to, …,to scam or whatever and I am just doing
this for interest’s sake” and things. I don’t know. I just got sense that I could
trust him…And I think he got that same sense from me [Ellen].
You feel that feeling of trust, that grows with your everyday communication …I
felt secure…Enough to trust myself and to trust him. So the easing in, into this
and the fact that we had to exchange very relevant information about ourselves, it
made me realise that I need to trust somebody else. I can't go and not trust
anybody. I need to put myself there to understand that there are good people out
there [Butterfly].
By sharing deep thoughts, deep secrets, talking about history in the family, history
– relationship history, just telling her more about myself and the stuff I went
through and on that way she also could tell me she knows she could trust me and
she also told me stuff from her side….we had the understanding of trust towards
each other because what we shared is a secret between us. It is private messages
between us [Deon].
I think for me, it was, umm, the fact that he opened up first. He would, even
though I would be reluctant to tell him things, he would tell me personal things
about himself and I feel like when someone makes themselves vulnerable, there’s
– there’s a certain degree of rawness or naturalness in it. So there’s no reason for
me not to trust you on that level. Let me put it that way. And, umm, the more he
kept doing it, it, like you – and the things he had said, he never intentionally hurt
me or intentionally say something nasty. Or intentionally just disregard what I
say….I just felt it was a feeling more than a logical explanation of why I trust him
[Kai].
According to Rubin (1970), trust influences self-disclosure in that intimate self-disclosure
normally occurs after trust has been established in a relationship. Rubin (1970) adds that trust is
critical in the disclosure of personal information since by disclosing information, individuals
allow themselves to become vulnerable. In terms of the online context, research findings indicate
that individuals tend to reveal less information about themselves online until trust has been
developed (Merkle & Richardson, 2000; Ruppel, 2014).
The link between online self-disclosure and trust could be viewed through the lens of
symbolic interactionism by considering Blumer’s three basic premises of symbolic
interactionism. Blumer (1969) set out the three basic premises as follow: The first premise states
that individuals act toward objects on the basis of the meaning one ascribes to them. For
example, if a person (the object) is perceived as a potential partner (opposed to a friend) one’s
(inter)actions would specifically be influenced by the meaning one attaches to the object (the
potential partner). If a potential partner is perceived as trustworthy, a person might be more
willing to disclose intimate details which could result in reciprocal self-disclosure.
According to Blumer’s (1969) second premise, the meaning of objects is derived from, or
arises out of, the social interaction that one has with other humans. As demonstrated in the
above-mentioned extracts, participants of the current research study agreed that intimate self-
disclosures were prominent in their online social interactions which resulted in a sense of trusting
one another. In other words, through the online interaction, which was characterized by high
levels of intimate self-disclosure, partners were viewed as trustworthy objects.
Thirdly, Blumer (1969) states that meaning occurs through a process of interpretation
where meanings are handled and modified though an interpretative process. For example, in the
case where participants might have viewed online daters, in general, as untrustworthy, their
positive interactions with their present partners might have modified their view of online dating
in general.
In contrast to other participants, Kirsty did not mention trust as a component of intimacy
present in her online relationship. She seemed more cautious regarding online dating which she
attributed to her previous dating experiences:
I have dated online before and experienced love on line before…But also learnt
through experience not to get carried away with my feelings…Because often when
you meet the person, it is not what you expected. So I think I was a little bit more
guarded.
Kirsty also indicated that she was nervous to meet her partner since she had been disappointed
previously: “It made me nervous. Probably about: Is he going to live up to my expectations?”
Symbolic interactionism focuses on the present as opposed to past events that might
shape behaviour (Charon, 2007; Lauer & Handel, 1983). However, the influence of the past is
not ignored, rather the past enters into one’s actions primarily because one thinks about it and
applies it to the definition of the present situation (Charon, 2007; Lauer & Handel, 1983).
Therefore, it is not encounters in our past that cause current action, nor is it our own past
experience that does (Charon, 2007). Considering the above-mentioned principles of symbolic
interactionism, Kirsty’s guarded behaviour could partly be attributed to her online interactions
with her partner. She stated that her partner was not expressive regarding his feelings towards
her, which made her feel unsure. Her definition of the situation could therefore have been one of
uncertainty which caused her to act in a guarded manner.
In addition, for participants in the current research study trust developed very early in
their relationships. During the pilot interview with Ellen, I was a bit more directive than with
other participants, and asked her: How long did it take to develop this sense of trust?”, to which
she replied:
I think probably a few days. But then also remember that we were communicating
with each other from the moment that I sent him that initial message. We were
talking to one another consistently and constantly throughout the day and
obviously as we got to know each other better, the messages got longer and
longer and longer until eventually, obviously, we decided it is time to meet now.
So ja, it was – it was very quick that we started trusting each other [Ellen].
Ellen’s experience was consistent with some existing research findings. For example, in a
research study conducted by Van Staden (2010), participants reported feelings of trust and safety
early in their online relationships.
In summary, this section illustrated how trust formed an integral part of the participants’
online romantic love experiences. More specifically, trust was mainly built on the mutuality of
intimate self-disclose, which ultimately enhanced participants’ experiences of online intimacy.
The next section focuses on the sub theme, Time and effort, which participants invested in their
relationships, that contributed to the experience of connectedness.
Time and effort.
Most participants reported that their relationship developed very quickly online due to the
time and effort invested in their relationships. For example, Kirsty stated that after a few days of
conversing online, they started talking about meeting each other in person. Butterfly, on the other
hand, stated that she felt she loved her partner after about two months of connecting online. Ellen
describes the quick pace and process of getting to know and trust her partner:
I think when we sort of had been chatting for a few days and we had really gotten
to know each other. But then also remember that we were communicating with
each other from the moment that I sent him that initial message. We were talking
to one another consistently and constantly throughout the day and obviously as
we got to know each other better, the messages got longer and longer and longer
until eventually, obviously, we decided it is time to meet now. So ja, it was – it
was very quick that we started trusting each other….Ja, but it feels like a very
long time (with reference to her meeting her partner after communicating with
him for about a week)…Because you know, obviously with all the back and forth
and the messages and the talking that took place, you know, we were… It was
only about a week that we were chatting to each other on-line before we actually
– before we met and even though some people might go: “Oh my word, that’s
really not a long time”, I can tell you that when you are – when you feel so sure
about someone, seven days can also feel like a very long time. [Ellen].
On asking Ellen to elaborate on her experience of connectedness and mutual understanding she
responded:
And I was just, I think, based on the communication that we had and the chats
that we had and keeping in mind that we never spoke verbally at all for the first
week or so that we knew each other and you know, but in that time we sent many,
many messages to each other and long messages so, you know, explaining who we
are and describing the kinds of things that make us tick and sort of our life
philosophies and the kinds of things we are looking for in a relationship. So I
think in that sense, you know, there was a lot of emotional intimacy that happened
in the sense that, you know, we really gave of ourselves [Ellen].
Consistent with Ellen’s experience, some of the other participants agreed that a lot of time and
effort was invested in their relationships which resulted in high levels of intimacy in a short time
frame. Butterfly explained as follows:
You could dive into things and explore it and talk for hours and hours about these
things… We would spend hours on the phone, literally, where parents and family
members and friends would shout at both of us because we would rather be on the
phone with each other every day instead of doing things with family. So there was
this genuine connection between the two of us [Butterfly].
It appears that Butterfly viewed her online relationship as being so significant that to some extent
it replaced offline relationships. She further elaborated: “I would be on the phone literally on a
weekend from nine o'clock in the morning, every hour, on the hour, until probably two o'clock in
the morning”. Although it might not be true in Butterfly’s case, some research findings suggest
that perceived successful online relationships could harm offline relationships. For example,
Engelberg and Sjöberg (2004) argue that whilst self-reported experience amongst internet users
might be positive, their level of social integration could actually be compromised.
In a similar manner, Kirsty’s online relationship became a number one priority as she
invested ample time and effort in her love online relationship:
We were talking throughout the day, kind of thing and he became part of my
routine in the time that we were talking online……..…number one priority, like
this relationship is the relationship I spend the most time and effort on….For me,
what does stand out – I don’t know if other people have had similar experiences,
is how much conversation there was…. So he was the first person I would text
when I woke up and the last person I would text or speak to before I went to bed.
But there was communication throughout the day [Kirsty].
For Kirsty, it became very important to invest time in her relationship, partly since her partner
especially valued the time she invested in him:
I don’t know if you have ever come across that five love languages book. I know it
is very self-psychology. But his love language or the love language he likes to
receive things in, is time. He doesn’t care what mood I am in, what I look like,
what we are doing, as long as I am there.
Kirsty referred to Chapman’s (2007) theory of the five love languages. In short, Chapman
(2007) theorises that there are basically five ways in which individuals experience and express
love which is referred to as love languages. The five love languages include, words of
affirmation, quality time, receiving gifts, acts of service, and physical touch. The theory also
suggests that people naturally give love in the way they prefer to receive it. It is interesting that
Kirsty mentioned that their investment in quality time online was mutual.
The theory of the five love languages could also be viewed from a social exchange
perspective. In reference to social exchange theory, the investment of time was considered as a
valuable reward in Kirsty’s online relationship. I will elaborate more on the social exchange
participants experienced online later in the chapter.
Consistent with other participants’ experiences, Deon reported that he invested ample
time and effort in staying connected. I probed about the nature of their online relationship, and
Deon responded:
Umm… Well, it basically starts off, the day, when you go online and I wait for
her; she waits for me; and then as soon as one person is online, we talk about the
evening when we could not talk. We talked about how we slept, about what are
the plans for the day because on the weekend and… and so on. We created
reasons to talk, reasons to stay online to be with each other. In honesty, to do it
every day takes a lot out of a person to talk every second of every day about
something but we were able to do it [Deon].
Frequency of contact is also important in the development of attraction and establishing a
romantic relationship, as constant contact between people causes positive responses to one
another (Gibbs et al., 2011). There is some evidence that the mere frequency of exposure can
create a degree of attraction between people (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). Therefore, it is very
likely that the frequent communication between Deon and his partner fostered as sense of
belonging. It was interesting that Deon expressed communicating more with his partner online
than in their face to face relationship. This was evident in the following extracts of our
conversation:
So if I understand you correctly, the quality time in terms of speaking to each

other, talking to each other, was actually more than in real life? [Tania].
.. on the computer – online – we talked more than any person. Even when we are
together, we will talk. So online we would talk more than we talk now [Deon].
This finding is consistent with previous research findings suggesting that intimacy is
likely to decrease when relationships move offline. For example, Ramirez and Zhang (2007)
found that non-romantic virtual relationships which move offline report lower levels of intimacy
after transitioning than strictly face to face partners. A study conducted by Schaefer (2011)
noted similar findings in that participants experienced a decrease in intimacy throughout the
transition from the virtual environment to the real life environment. I am of the opinion that this
occurrence illustrates the unusual levels of intimacy that couples, like Deon and his fiancé, may
experience online.
Deon further highlighted the significance of their long online conversations: “So we can
talk all day about one thing. So it is not a boring conversation every day. Every day, it is a full
day of conversation, not just dead ends after a conversation.”
Consistent with Deon’s account of his online experience, Unicorn agreed that a lot of
time and effort was invested in his online relationship:
..on some WhatsApp you can also voice-note and it became a daily thing…. The
way we chatted to each other every day, all day, voice-noting. To me, that meant
a lot because I wouldn't necessarily voice-note with everyone. Especially every
single day.
Interestingly, in contrast to other participants’ experiences Unicorn expressed how his
investment in the relationship was emotionally taxing: “Umm, so but that was a lot of investing
my time and my energy because like some of the stuff he would tell me would be, umm, a bit
draining”. Unicorn later expressed resentment to the fact that the invested so much time and
effort in the relationship and that his feelings were not reciprocated.
In summary, the participants of the current research study were in agreement that a much
time and effort was invested in their online relationships resulting in a sense of connectedness
and intimacy, mostly, in a short time frame. The next section of this chapter focuses on the
second superordinate theme, namely, Online Romance and Passion.
Online Romance and Passion
Sternberg (1986) defines passion as drives that lead to romance, longing for a person,
physical attraction, sexual consummation and related phenomenon in love relationships. This
superordinate theme included initial interpersonal attraction, the experience of being in love,
sexual chemistry and sexual desire, the experience of passion in relation to intimacy, and the
longing for partners whilst being online.
Interpersonal attraction.
All the participants in the current research study reported on the experience of
interpersonal attraction, for example, Kai stated:
So, umm, he was effortlessly attractive, but I think it’s his personality that added
to the attractiveness, if you know what I mean….I think that (his personality)
contributed to me finding him physically attractive.
Kai also emphasised that she viewed her love interest’s passion, drive, ambition and intellect as
very attractive. She added that she was drawn to his “dark personality”. In a similar manner,
Latifa reported that she considered her love interest’s physical appearance as attractive, however,
his caring nature was deemed more appealing. She added:
It was more the talking (which made me feel attracted to him) but the picture did
help. Because then you are like: “Oh, at least I know who I am talking to”. Ja,
but it was more his personality. He is a very loving, very sweet guy, very down to
earth.
As discussed in chapter three, interpersonal attraction plays a key role in initiating a romantic
relationship (Knapp & Vangelisti, 2009; Mantovani, 2002). Interpersonal attraction is described
as the desire to approach someone, which is the first big step towards a relationship (Mantovani,
2002). Research findings suggest that physical appearance, proximity, perceived similarity, and
familiarity play an important role in initial interpersonal attraction (Berscheid, 2006).
In contrast to the other participants, Ellen and Kirsty met their partners on dating sites.
Both reported that their partners’ profiles, and specifically their profile pictures, played a role in
initial attraction:
And then I saw this guy on there and he looked so nice and I read his profile and I
said to him: “You know…” like because I initiated the contact and I said to him:
“You seem re- - you sound fascinating” and then he replied back and he was like:
“Well, thank-you very much” and it was… And we started talking from there
[Ellen].
Later during the interview, she reiterated:
I saw this photograph of him and it was just – he looked so open and friendly in
the picture and so what I decided to do was just send a message and then from
there, it was just, you know…[Ellen].
Kirsty referred to her partner’s profile picture and stated: “I found him very sexy in his
photograph”. It is not surprising that Kirsty and Ellen found their partners’ profile pictures
appealing, since online dating sites encourages positive self-presentation (Fox & Waber, 2013).
In a similar manner, Unicorn stated that his initial attraction to his love interest was mostly
physical:
Okay, I think it is so… It is so superficial but like when you think somebody is
attractive, like I used to see his Facebook pictures and I thought: “Oh, this guy is
hot” and then you see his, umm, profile pictures on WhatsApp and stuff and you
would be like: “Okay, he is hot” and you know and then that – that makes you
think of things and then your mind goes to places and you have these fantasies
and I think that’s how that started.”
Unicorn highlighted the importance of physical appearance in initial attraction in the context of a
potential romantic relationship. He explained as follow:
What’s very interesting about thinking about it now is that what drew me in to
talk so much to him was because I was attracted to him initially….I didn’t chat to
him as: “Oh, I want to be this guy’s friend”. I chatted to him because this guy’s
hot. Let us see where this goes.
The findings of the current research study found that participants do agree on the importance of
physical appearance, especially during initial stages of relationship development. However,
consistent with other research findings (Cooper et al., 2000; Finkel et al., 2012; Hardie &
Buzwell 2006) Butterfly acknowledged that her online relationship did not start with initial
physical attraction:
..we did not initially meet. We did not see each other face to face. So that initial
physical attraction didn’t start. It started off as a pure friendship, where you
would share things with someone without thinking: “Oh my word, I can't”.
Deon acknowledged his physical attraction towards his partner: “Yes, when I saw a photo and
saw how she looked, she was a… She is a beautiful woman”. However, he responded to my
probe regarding online attraction as follows:
Well, attraction for us, it wasn’t… it was emotional attraction because we talked over a
screen. We never saw each other. We can't see emotion on each other’s face….So we
saw photos of each other but it was profile photos and it is nice photos, not how a person
looks every day.
Whilst not denying the importance of physical attraction, Deon emphasised the role of emotional
attraction in the online context. Research findings suggest that the importance of physical
attributes is reduced when it comes to how attraction is developed in online relationships. Instead
it is suggested that other factors such as trust, similarity, and mutual self-disclosure enhance the
connections stemming from emotional intimacy (Cooper et al., 2000; Finkel et al., 2012; Hardie
& Buzwell 2006). Interestingly, consistent with previous research findings, trust and mutual self-
disclosure and similarity were identified as themes depicting the romantic love experience of
participants in the current research findings.
The participants of the current research study were very also clear that other factors also
sparked attraction for them. Both Ellen and Butterfly referred to their partners’ cognitive ability
as attractive features:
…the fact that Nick is a brilliant writer, that he is really able to communicate
effectively through his words, that was a major, major draw card for me….I found
that incredibly attractive [Ellen].
Throughout the interview, Ellen referred to her partner’s good writing ability and how this
specific skill played a significant role in their relationship development. With reference to social
exchange theory, I am of the opinion that her partner’s expressive ability was one of the biggest
rewards she gained from their relationship. I will discuss this more in detail later in the chapter
(see the themes Symbols of love and Social Exchange Online).
Butterfly explained why her partner’s intelligence was particularly rewarding to her:
..and the mere fact that this time around, it was with someone who, I would say,
had more than half a brain. So I got too deep, to dive into not only my feelings
but also my thought process and what became more attractive to me was his mind
than anything else [Butterfly].
It was interesting how Butterfly’s perception of her partner’s intelligence challenged her to
become a “deeper thinker”. This is consistent with a basic principle of symbolic interaction: one
influences one another’s behaviour during social interaction (Lauer & Handel, 1983). In the
process of becoming a deeper thinker it could also be concluded that Butterfly’s partner
influenced her view of herself. I will elaborate on this phenomenon later in the chapter.
In addition to his partner’s physical appearance, perceived similarities, and sense of
humour, Unicorn found his love interest’s playful interaction attractive: “And we would like diss
each other but it was more a playful kind of thing which I found made me more attracted (to
him)”. The findings of the current research study are consistent with literature indicating that
other individual characterises which influence interpersonal romantic attraction include kindness,
intelligence, and humour (Buss & Barnes, 1986 as cited in Janz et al., 2015) as well as emotional
intelligence (Gottman, 2011 as cited in Janz, et al., 2015). The next section focuses on the
experience of being in love in the online context.
Feelings of being in love.
All participants reported experiencing feelings associated with being in love, especially
the feeling of excitement. Unicorn and Latifa described the excitement of meeting a new love
interest:
..in the beginning, I think that it is just the thrill of getting to know someone. A
new person that you can talk about anything with. I think that led us to want to
talk more and more and more. About everything [Unicorn].
…..and this (new relationship) was new and exciting and – and I love being
excited [Latifa].
Feelings of excitement and euphoria are especially evident in new relationships and are
considered characteristic of falling in love (Fisher et al., 2010). Interestingly, both Butterfly and
Ellen used the analogy of ‘butterflies’ in reference to their feelings of excitement:
when we started telling each other the whole high school thing of: “I think I like
you. I think I have feelings”, it was… One can't explain. One can't explain those
butterflies that come from not knowing that. I don’t really know what we would
be like if we were sitting here face to face….[Butterfly].
It was amazing, ja. I mean you get that. I mean you got that butterflies in your
stomach and stuff and even though it wasn’t crazy butterflies, I mean because at
thirty-four, you know, you don’t really get butterflies. You are not a teenager
[Ellen].
Ellen further elaborated on how anticipation of waiting for messages and the reading of her
partner’s messages caused feelings of excitement:
..while we were busy communicating, yes of course, I was anxious, waiting for his
message…..I felt a sense of excitement and elation and the butterflies again, when
I received his messages…You know, I was all like, you know, shaky while I was
reading them as well [Ellen].
The excitement of receiving and reading a message can be equated to the anticipation of seeing a
loved-one in the face to face context. Research studies indicate that feelings of excitement in a
relationship can strengthen the relationship. For example, Aron, Norman, Aron, McKenna and
Heyman’s (2000) reported that experiencing excitement in a relationship has valuable effects on
a couple’s relationship. More specifically, it is suggested that excitement in the relationship is
correlated with more warmth and positivity toward the partner (Aron et al., 2000).
Butterfly elaborated on her experience of being in love:
And that sense of fulfilment within this relationship. Just, it gave you weak knees
and jelly and just the manner in which he would speak, it would calm me
completely. It would open me up and this feeling of overall warmth would just
show [Butterfly].
It was interesting that Butterfly used commercialised phrases to describe her experience
of being in love, such as “butterflies”, “weak knees”, “jelly” and the “flame of love” (see next
section). In her conceptualisation of romantic love, Butterfly referred to the type of love that is
portrayed in the movies. Throughout the interview, Butterfly talked passionately about the
intensity of their relationship online, which reminded me of the erotic love style which was
mentioned in chapter two. An individual with an erotic love style experiences love as highly
emotional and intense, and is able to communicate effectively with his/her lover (Galinha et al.,
2013). Butterfly reported all of the above-mentioned characteristics.
According to Regan (2009), people who experience passionate love often report focusing
on specific events or objects associated with the beloved and remembering and reminiscing over
things that the beloved said or did. Both Ellen and her partner displayed features of obsession
and compulsion which is often involved when a person is deeply in love:
But it was a sense of excitement at hearing from them, umm, you know, a sense
of… I can't even explain it. Like a feeling of – of… I would say a feeling of love
when you looked at their photograph even though you had seen that picture a
thousand times before because you know, you have been looking at their pictures
now obsessively for the last few days because they are – they are constantly on
your mind and re-reading their messages over and over because I know that he
told me that that is what he used to do as well [Ellen].
The above-mentioned behaviour could be viewed from a biological perspective of love.
According to Regan (2009), increased levels of dopamine are associated with heightened
attention, and increased levels of norepinephrine are associated with enhanced memory for new
stimuli. In addition, people in love often report thinking about the loved one obsessively. Low
levels of serotonin are also implicated in the type of intrusive thinking that is associated with
obsessive-compulsive disorder (Regan, 2009).
Kirsty and Deon were less expressive regarding feelings associated with being in love.
Kirsty stated that she was very excited to meet her partner since she fell in love with the ‘idea of
him’. She attributed feelings of excitement to perceived like-mindedness. Deon on the other hand
referred to feelings he developed for his partner by sharing and self-disclosure: “To talk with a
person of another sex for so long, it built feelings inside for this person because you share”.
The next section focuses on the related experiences of sexual chemistry and sexual desire
in the context of the online environment.
Sexual chemistry and desire.
Most participants agreed that they felt sexual chemistry whilst being online. As Latifa put
it:
Like when he sent me pictures, I could see like myself hugging him or kissing him
or….So there was that. A little bit of sexual chemistry between us, ja, because ja,
he was very good looking. Even now, he is still good looking.
Latifa explained that adding pictures and photos to verbal communication assisted in the
development of sexual chemistry. (The role of physical appearance in the development of
interpersonal attraction and passion were highlighted in a previous section of this chapter). I
asked Ellen to elaborate on the passion that she experienced online, to which she replied:
Sure. Umm, it’s amazing because you know, when you meet someone for the first
time or you see someone on-line, sometimes you wonder. Sometimes you think to
yourself: What would it be like to have sex with this person, you know, what
would it be like to kiss them? ……And when I looked at the photograph of Justin
(pseudonym), I kind of thought to myself: He must be a really nice guy to be able
to love, not just the physical aspect but there was obviously physical aspect.
Diamond (2004) defines sexual desire as the need or drive to seek out sexual objects or to
engage in sexual activities and gestures. According to Klein (2013) sexual desire is considered
an important factor in romantic relationships, and its absence can negatively impact the affective
state of a relationship. It was interesting how sexual desire played out in cyberspace, for
example, Ellen expressed that the feelings and sexual desire for her partner evolved in a matter
of days – once again emphasising the significance and meaning she attached to her online
interactions. On their first date, face to face, Ellen and her partner demonstrated their desire for
each other with a shared kiss.
Butterfly was equally expressive about the passion, including sexual desire, she
experienced online. When asked to elaborate on how she expressed her feelings of passion to her
partner she replied:
Well now you get a bit steamy (laughter). I didn’t take off my (inaudible –
laughter). You obviously have to start exploring new ways of trying to show
someone how much they feel for you…. So you obviously start having more than
love talks…Umm, you start making life interesting and you start doing what you
think you would do in a face to face relationship….But you do that on the phone…
so you would have those [clears throat, blushes] one would call inappropriate
conversations. And you would send some very raunchy pics and those things
worked. It really did work. It – it made one not lu- - start to lust after someone
but also wanting that: “I need to see you. I need to be with you” So the passion
then grew from that also because we couldn't physically show each other
things…We had to find other ways to do those things.
Due to the lack of physical presence it is very likely that cyber daters resort to cybersex
as a significant means of expressing their sexual attraction and sexual desire. The extracts above
illustrate the significance of engaging in cybersex, which broadly entails looking at pictures,
engaging in sexual chat, exchanging sexual emails, and sharing mutual sexual fantasies (Cooper
et al., 2000). Consistent with Butterfly’s experience, research indicates that individuals do report
feeling sexually aroused by engaging in cybersex and the sharing of sexual information (Cooper
& Sportolari, 1997). In fact, Butterfly stated that engaging in cybersex activities enhanced her
experience of passion online.
Unlike Ellen and Butterfly’s experiences, Kirsty did not mention strong sexual desire for
her partner while engaging in online dating. However, Kirsty reported feelings of passion
towards her partner, but did not mention sexual desire per se. However, she did mention that
they flirted with each other. It was interesting that Kirsty actually stated that the lack of sexual
expression from her partner made her feel more attracted to him:
A lot of men online do turn the conversation into a sexual kind of thing….and he
didn’t and that also struck me as he is a gentleman; he would treat me right; that
kind of… It led to that line of thinking. So it was the absence of those things
online that actually made him more attractive to me.
Kirsty interpreted the absence of sexual conversation as her partner having respect for her which
made him more appealing to her. She continued to explain how men in the online context
generally start having sexual conversations early in the relationship – something that she
regarded as “off-putting”:
So there weren't any sexual conversations and: “What’s your cup size?”…To be
honest with you, I have spent a lot of time online and I would say probably ninety
percent of the people that I have spoken to, some immediately, so you know why
they are online and others feel like: “Oh, I have been chatting to you for a few
days now. Let’s take it to the next level”….And I am not really comfortable with
that and I wouldn't have that kind of conversation with someone I was serious
about meeting. It would be awkward for me to meet a person that I have had this
sexual conversation with online…. So for me it is a very off-putting thing and
that’s something that the – the blatantly sexual stuff was absent.
In reference to social exchange theory, more specially, the Interdependence theory,
(Kelley & Thibaut, 1978), Kirsty compared the interactions of her current relationship with
previous encounters she previously had online. In comparison to previous encounters she viewed
her current relationship as more satisfying and rewarding which encouraged her to remain in the
relationship. I will focus more on this issue later in the chapter (see Social Exchange Online).
Unicorn implied having feelings of sexual desire for his love interest: “Okay, he is hot”
and you know and then that – that makes you think of things and then your mind goes to places
and you have these fantasies”. However, similar to Kirsty and her partner’s interactions,
Unicorn did not engage in sexual conversation with his love interest while online as he was
unsure whether his feelings would be reciprocated. Kai, on the other hand, suggested that she felt
sexual desire for her love interest, but did not express her feelings since she is not an emotionally
expressive individual. However, she noted a change in herself once her love interest declared his
feelings for her:

But from there (after his love declaration), like you could feel things were
different between us. Like we would say things without saying them. Like I… Like
he knew I liked him and then I tease him about certain things or he tease me
about certain things[Kai].
In summary, this section highlighted the experiences of participants’ experience of sexual
chemistry and sexual desire. The next subordinate theme focuses on the passion in relation to
intimacy.
Passion in relation to intimacy.
Some findings of the current research study suggest that the experience of passion
stemmed from the intimacy that participants experienced. The following extract form Butterfly’s
interview illustrates the perceived link between intimacy and passion:
So basically it sounds as if your experience of intimacy, this – this connectedness

gave rise to the feelings of passion? [Tania].
To the passion, yes. It definitely was that. It was the fact that he could dive deep
within himself as well as it gave me the confidence to want to do that with myself
[Butterfly].
Ja, ja [Butterfly].
It – it... It sparked not only the intimate part but the flame. It sparked the flame
and the flame grew from those conversations where I would be on the phone
literally on a weekend from nine o'clock in the morning, every hour, on the hour,
until probably two o'clock in the morning [Butterfly].
Joh. Elaborate a little bit more on the flame. If you talk about that ‘flame’, what
do you mean? [Tania].
[Laughter]
Umm, it’s very difficult to – to [sighs] explain to someone. When you talk about
someone, your eyes light up [Butterfly].
Mmm. Mmm [Tania].
Your soul is at ease. Your mind is at rest, where you feel you can almost do
anything because this person is with you and it is what you have been looking for,
for so long [Butterfly].
Ja, ja? [Tania].
And it is finally yours and only yours and the mere fact that that gets not only told
to you but shown to you [Butterfly].
Yes? [Tania].
It just sparks so much more and you want to – you have that hunger to want to
meet this person because you want to start your life with this person. [Butterfly].
Mmm. Mmm [Tania].
So that is how I would explain that flame, that – that not only a need from one
side but a full connection through both people in order to make the relationship
go to the next level [Butterfly].
Cooper and Sportolari (1997) argue that psychological intimacy has the potential to
provoke an eroticization of the person with whom the information is shared with and that there is
a desire to physically express this intimate connection. I am of the opinion that Ben-Ze'ev (2004)
confirms this phenomenon well in stating that in traditional, face to face relationships one gets to
know the person from outside in, and in online relationships the direction is from the inside out.
This phenomenon was experienced by other participants in the current research study as
well. For example, Deon stated: “So I felt physical and emotional but it was more emotional
feelings because of not interacting, not seeing, not… just talking, just letting out feelings and
emotions”. As illustrated in previous sections of this chapter, the frequency of communication

and the depth of mutual self-disclosure fostered a sense of intimacy for both Deon and his
partner. In a similar manner Ellen explained: “I found his more nurturing side also, yes…so it did
lead to more kind of romantic affectionate feelings.” In reference to passion and intimacy Kai
added:
It’s all one thing for me. Like if I see someone attractive.. he’s good looking but
then I have a conversation with him and he’s got the personality of a brick wall.
Then the attractiveness just falls away for me. So they tie in very closely. For me.
Unicorn did not deny the role of sexual attraction in his experience of romantic love,
however, he highlighted the importance of an emotional connection which stemmed from deep
conversation and disclosure. He explained as follow:
But romantically, deep conversations is something that draws me in because it

shows me that a person has depth. And if we can talk about these things, there’s
substance there. And that is something that draws me…. I think it (mutual self -
disclosure) made it… It made me feel more because, umm, of the connection that
it built. It made that connection stronger and stronger and it also helped that I
was madly attracted to him. [laughter].
In summary, it appears that most participants were in agreement that passion mostly
stemmed from intimate connections with their partners, or at least that intimacy and passion were
closely related in cyberspace. The following section briefly highlights the longing for their
partners online that the participants of the current research study experienced.
Longing.
Longing for the loved-one is a characteristic of the passion component of romantic love
(Sternberg, 1986). The participants expressed longing for their partners which also contributed to
wanting to meet their partners face to face. As Ellen put it:

I just wanted to be with him, you know, and I think that he also said he just wants
to be with me as well, like you know. …“You know, we really just want to be
together now”, you know. We want to meet now to get, to really kind of get to
know each other and see one another as well, like in the flesh.
Kirsty expressed that it was difficult for her to keep their face to face meeting on hold:
And very excited to meet him but we waited a long time because he was out of the
Country when we started talking and he wasn’t able to say when he was going to
be back in the Country. So I was very eager to meet him and it actually made it
hard that we spoke for so long.
As discussed previously, Latifa stated that she valued the physical aspects of a romantic love
relationship: “I looked forward to actually him being physically there”. Deon had a similar
experience to that of Latifa and Kirsty in that circumstances prevented him from meeting his
partner in person. The longing for his partner is implied in the following extract:
Well, we talked about making plans to see each other, even though we know it
wouldn't happen soon or even in a few years. We just kept talking about it, telling
dreams about it, making a utopia for us, when we meet in person, ja.
I am of the opinion that it was difficult for Butterfly to curb the longing for her partner.
She implied that she longed for her partner even when she was engaging in social events: “I
wanted to be with him all the time, even if I was out with family or friends. As long as my phone
was in my hand, I was happy.”
Sternberg (1986) refers to longing as a drive that is associated with romantic love. It is
argued that like all drives, longing is difficult to curb. As Fisher (2006, p. 93) explains: it is
harder to curb drives than emotions, for example, “it is harder to curb thirst, for example, than
anger”.
The following section focuses on the superordinate theme, Online Love.

Online Love
This superordinate theme highlights the participants’ intense and significant experiences
of online love. The subordinate themes include: It is love, The significance of the experience, My
partner influenced me, and The symbols of love.
It is love.
During the interviews all participants confirmed their experience of love online and in
fact used the word love to describe their experiences. The following extracts convey this:
and it wasn’t just infatuation either because we are both adults and we’re both
mature and we – we are both looking for something – looking for a very mature
relationship and so there was definitely a sense of love, you know, when we would
communicate with each other [Ellen].
It was interesting to – to get to a point where the words ‘like’ became

interchangeable with the word ‘love’ ….Both of us knew how we felt about it each
and it was such a major thing the day he disclosed and that was before even
meeting, that he is not only – he not only loves me but he is in love with me
[Butterfly].
Yes, before we met, we had a feeling of love before we actually saw each other
[Deon].
It was interesting that most participants suggested that the feelings of love which they
experienced online were mutual.
In reference to her experiences of love online, Kai touched on the power of online love:
“It was – it was very scary for me, especially because I have never been in love before. And I
have never been in love since”. Unicorn, on the other hand, described the transition from pure
sexual desire to falling in love with the person:

So what drew me in further was that: Oh, we could talk about all these things.
We could joke about all these things and he is funny and I love a sense of humour.
Because I am funny [Laughter]. And that was nice and then that was the thing
that made me, I think, fall in love. From lust to love. I think that’s where that
transition happened. Because it was more than just the hotness.
The extract above illustrates the significance of intimacy in the development of feelings of
romantic love. Kirsty described the love she experienced online as an unconditional type of
love:
There’s a lot of support all the time and unconditional love. It is not like a
conditional kind of thing. I don’t feel like I need to always have my hair perfect
or need to always say the right thing. I can be in a bad mood if I want to be in a
bad mood …… I don’t know how to explain it a hundred percent but he lets me be
me and finds me attractive and loves me anyway.
The above-mentioned extract may imply that Kirsty had experienced elements of agapic love
online, in that she perceived it as an unconditional type of love. Agapic lovers are usually not
very emotional and view love as a building block for overall support and tolerance towards
others (Galinha et al., 2013). Interestingly, Kirsty mentioned her partner’s supportive nature, but
during the interview she also commented on her partner’s lack of expression regarding his
feelings for her. The following section highlights the significance of the participants’ love
experiences online.
The significance of the experience.
People in general struggle to understand how online relationships can be regarded as
significant and real. In fact, some researchers describe online relationships as highly impersonal
and shallow due to the restricted nature of the medium (Wong AnKee & Yazdanifard, 2015).
However, the participants in the current research study reported that their online love experiences
were very real, significant, and even intense. I am of the opinion that many statements of the
participants reflected the significance of their online romantic love experiences. However, to
avoid repetition of extracts I will only highlight a few significant extracts. For example, Butterfly
and Kirsty expressed the significance of their relationships as follow:
Your soul is at ease. Your mind is at rest, where you feel you can almost do
anything because this person is with you and it is what you have been looking for,
for so long [Butterfly].
I have never experienced anything quite like it and – and right from then to now, I
still feel like: Sjoe, is this real? It’s like too good to be true kind of [Kirsty].
Ellen shared the sentiments of Butterfly and Kirsty and stated: “I haven't felt such a significant
sense of connection with someone so soon into the relationship….and even then, umm, you know,
it hasn’t been as intense as what I am actually still feeling”. On asking whether she would like to
add anything regarding her interactions online that made it meaningful she answered:
I think it is just primarily because of the fact that we were able to communicate
our emotions to one another and that we were able to tell each other how we felt
in a way that was understandable to one another and that the emotions were able
to sort of come through in the messages so that we knew exactly where we stood
with each other.
Deon illustrated the significance of his online romantic love relationship by making a
comparison to previous (offline) relationships:
Well, umm, it was different because I had to… I met the person before I actually
met the person. I saw her, her heart and her being and her soul basically before I
can actually see her and physically meet her and touch her and be with her. So it
was a longer connection of emotions before actually meeting the person.
Deon further elaborated on the significance of his relationship: “So it felt that we needed to talk
with each other to feel – can I say – complete in the day.” It reminded me of the cliché, you
complete me. However, I am of the opinion that this statement captures much of the significance
of Deon’s online love experience.
Butterfly reported that her online relationship became equally important to her as her face
to face relationships and stated: “we would rather be on the phone with each other every day
instead of doing things with family. So there was this genuine connection between the two of
us”. In a similar manner, Latifa described her experience:
I found when I was talking to him a lot when it began, I distanced myself a little
bit from my friends because all I wanted to do is get home and just be on my
phone. So he became like very important to me even though I had never met him
before… It was surprising to me that I would get these feelings for someone that I
have never met.
Although Unicorn’s feelings were not fully reciprocated, he illustrated the significance and
realness of his experience beautifully in the following extract:
But for me it is like when you – when you have feelings for someone, it’s intense
each time….Like I don’t… Like people say you know, you never forget your first
love. Like I don’t forget anyone I was in love with.... because I invest
completely….when you have feelings for someone, that is real whether it is in real
life or – or over text. It is there. It is real. It exists.
Kai expressed that some of her family members did not understand the realness of her online
love experience. She tried to explain her experience in the following manner:
You know how people differ, like people love differently and people allow
themselves to love differently. This (online love) can't be anything less than that.
Then if it is different but just because I say one plus zero is one and someone says
two minus one is one….It’s not something you understand and I don’t think it’s
something a lot of people can cross because it’s such a far-fetched idea, just like
technology is a far-fetched idea for many people….Yet it is real. So I think the
thing for people is, if you don’t know how it feels yourself, it is either you are
scared of – scared of admitting that it can be real or scared of letting go what you
feel is real already [Kai].
An important aspect of symbolic interactionism, namely the definition of the situation,
comes to mind when considering the participants’ extracts. As mentioned in chapter two the
definition of the situation states that when an individual defines a situation as real, it has real
consequences (Lauer & Handel, 1983). This was very evident in the account of experiences of all
participants. Their online experiences were considered real and very significant. Consequently,
most participants reported that their partners had a significant influence on them whilst
interacting online. This theme will be discussed in the following section.
My partner influenced me.
Kirsty reported that before meeting her partner, she would usually turn conversations
away from herself, and focus more on other people due to her low self-esteem. It is my
impression that Kirsty’s online interactions with her partner positively influenced her self-
esteem. More specifically, her partner’s attentive and caring nature made her feel more secure
and confident to be expressive. Following are extracts from the interview with Kirsty:
Umm, I didn’t feel uncomfortable with it (referring to him being attentive) when it
was online. It was a little bit refreshing. It was a little bit new and I think I would
rush into change the subject away from myself [Kirsty].
Mmm. Mmm [Tania].
Because that’s what I do. I focus on the other person. I even find within my
friendships, a lot of my friends talk and talk and talk and talk and never ask me
how I am. [Kirsty].
I hear you, ja. [Tania].
And I think before, also with my weight and all these kinds of things, I didn’t want
to talk about myself [Kirsty].
Aha? [Tania].
I have got this big fear that I am this boring person or whatever. So I would
always ask a lot of questions and they are not used to… I am the quieter friend
who listens really well and now that I have come out of my shell a bit, I am like:
“I also have stuff to say. How’s about asking?”, you know. [Kirsty].
But it sounds as if he has given you the space online to actually express more of
yourself…[Tania].
The words ‘secure base’ come to mind…. I have never experienced anything quite
like it and – and right from then to now, I still feel like: Sjoe, is this real? It’s
like too good to be true kind of [Kirsty].
Her newly found confidence was apparent. She explained that she felt more comfortable
in trying different things since she had a secure base. Similar to Kirsty’s experience, Butterfly
mentioned that her partner’s expression of his passionate love for her made her more confident:
Both of us knew how we felt about it each and it was such a major thing the day
he disclosed and that was before even meeting, that he is not only – he not only
loves me but he is in love with me and to hear something like that takes your
confidence as a person to a different level.
I asked Butterfly to elaborate on her statement and she added:
When you are in a relationship with someone who gets to know the you that you
want the world to know and because the relationship is not one where you are in
physical contact, you tend to be the you that you want the world to see. From that,
you confidence grows and because you end up feeling comfortable with your
place in the relationship and your feelings toward each other are solidified by
your interactions with one another, you strive to be the best you that you can be.
During the interview with Butterfly, I got the impression that Butterfly felt that people in general
did not know her real self (her perception of what she is like). However, it appears that the nature
of her online relationship allowed her to reveal much of her real self to her partner. In her being
allowed to be real and comfortable in her relational role, her confidence levels grew. As a result
of her newly found confidence she strove to become the image of who she wished to be.
Cooley’s (1922) concept of the looking-glass self captures the influence that significant
others have on one’s self-esteem. In short, it is argued that to some extent individuals see
themselves as they perceive others see them. Self-feelings, such as self-worth, are a consequence
of how one imagines others perceive and evaluate one. Therefore, the interaction with significant
others, such as a romantic partner, can influence the way in which one perceives oneself and thus
impacts upon one’s self-esteem. I am of the opinion that the above-mentioned principle is
applicable to the current research study. Specifically, it may be applicable to Kirsty and
Butterfly’s experiences.
Furthermore, according to symbolic interactionism, individuals are created through
interaction and therefore have the ability to influence each other (Charon, 2007). In line with this
premise of symbolic interactionism, Butterfly mentioned how the interaction between her and
her partner influenced, or more specifically, changed both of them. For example, she reported
that the fact that her partner took the time to understand her point of view calmed her down when
she got upset:
It takes a lot to, for me not to get angry and the fact that he could calm me down
and not shout, showed a lot that you need to listen here. He is taking the time to
want to understand where you are coming from.
Later during the interview, she reiterated the change in her:
It (getting upset very quickly) was always one of my – the things that always used
to rise to your anger and the mere fact that someone took time to listen to me. So
I would say that I became calmer…Umm, I am not one to get angry quickly but
when you trigger me, I tend to blow. But with him it was totally different. I
started being more understanding. I started listening better. I was happier.
In addition, Butterfly suggested that her partner motivated her in achieving her goals. Kai
had a similar experience to that of Butterfly and stated:
When I spoke about the things I wanted and it was reciprocated in a way as in I
am not crazy for thinking that. Or he has the same goals. It kind of made me
realise: But hey, I can do it too….But if it wasn’t for the fact that he kind of said:
“Hey but look here, you can” or: “Hey, but I know you as this kind of person.
Why are you letting this get you down?”. There was a lot of things that he did and
said that – that aided my ability to do a lot of things actually [Kai].
I am of the opinion that Kai’s love interest not only enhanced her self-esteem, but also
played a role in the pursuit of her goals. According to Fitzsimons (2009) relational partners can
significantly influence one another’s goal pursuit. In addition, it is suggested that if a romantic
partner helps encourage his/her partner to achieve a desired goal, it is likely to positively
influence one’s feelings about the partner. More specifically, it is suggested that individuals are
likely to feel closer to partners that motivate them to achieve their goals (Fitzsimons, 2009). I am
of the opinion that both Butterfly and Kai experienced this bidirectional influence.
Participants also indicated the perceived influence they had on their partners. For
example, as Butterfly put it:
… and you are giving him the opportunity to talk which is something that he
doesn’t… He never used to be much of a talker unless you were in his friendship
circle initially. But we had such an understanding when we first started talking
that he could speak about things and it made it easier because I didn’t know
about the people in his realm at the moment and it was easy for him to share and
for me to be objective about what was happening in his life and the same for me
about my life. Umm, so those were things that really stood out for me, that we
needed to see where this would go to from that because there was subtle but yet
important changes that were happening with each other, the both of us, and just
to find out whether or not – how far it would go.
Butterfly elaborated on how she motivated her partner to become socially more connected:
With him, he was never a social person but me being who I am and how I was,
would then push him to be like: “I think maybe you should spend more time with
your daughter”…Umm: “You know you work so much”. So we did contribute to
certain changes in each other’s lives, based on the fact that we could speak and
the reasoning behind what we did and it was beneficial for us ….He made a better
connection with his friends as well….The comments were always that: “We have
never seen him this happy before. He is actually laughing and smiling.”
In reference to the extract above, being happier and more content, likely influenced her partner’s
interactions positively. I am of the opinion that the extracts above illustrate, to some extent, the
reciprocally influenced behaviour on the part of Butterfly and her partner. As Lauer and Handel
put it (1983, p. 41): “when two people interact, each influences the other, and each directs one’s
own behaviour on the basis of the other’s behaviour towards one.”
In contrast to the experiences of the other participants, Unicorn expressed that some
interactions with his love interest influenced him negatively. He described the relationship as
intense and explained:
Intense is when, umm, my emotions became very, very closely linked to my

interactions with him. I was very, umm… How do I say it? Like he had a huge
influence on my mood. Yes, because like I liked him and I don’t think he liked
back. So that caused all those, those bad feelings. That’s when it got really
intense. Because when I actually had all these feelings and I knew it wasn’t going
to come back, and that was – that was intense.
The extract above illustrates the perils of unreciprocated love that Unicorn experienced. In
addition, Unicorn mentioned how his love interest’s mood influenced his own mood: “Because I
cared for him a lot. So, so when he is all depressed and sad, and then I feel sad. As I said, like
he influenced my feelings.”
In considering the participants’ extracts the concept of interpersonal power comes to
mind. Interpersonal power is defined as the ability to make another person feel, think or act in a
way that he or she would not have done spontaneously (Lauer & Lauer, 2000). It was evident
that online partners had the ability to affect the thoughts, feelings and behaviour of each other; in
other words, they experienced a two-way street of interpersonal power. It is especially interesting
that interpersonal power was evident in the context of online relationships. I am of the opinion
that this finding emphasises the significance and realness of online romantic love relationships.
The following section focuses on a symbolic interaction concept, namely, symbols. More
specifically, the section focuses on symbols of love, which were mentioned by the participants of
the current research study.
Symbols of love.
According to symbolic interactionism, symbols are stimuli with learned and shared
meanings and may refer to any form of social object that stands for or represents any social
concept. Therefore, symbols can include physical objects, gestures or words (Lauer & Handel,
1983; Williams, 2008).
According to Wildermuth and Vogl-Bauer (2007), in the virtual environment written text
resembles oral communication, and therefore becomes one of the most important symbols which
enhance the experience of romantic love. It is also argued that the use of language is especially
powerful in the virtual environment. As illustrated throughout this chapter, all participants
referred to the importance of written text in their experience of online love. However, I will
focus on Ellen’s experience since she specifically highlighted that her partner’s good writing
ability was a big “drawing card”. I am of the opinion that Ellen effectively demonstrated how
messages conveyed significant meaning, and how her interpretation of the messages made her
experience a sense of deeper connectedness with her partner. As Ellen put it:
We would just re-read one another’s messages and you know, we would find more
deeper kind of connection with one another just by finding different meanings in
what we had said to one another …. We re-read our message before we sent them
out because I saw, even without even communicating with him, that the messages
that we are sending are significant [Ellen].
Through written text, Ellen and her partner were able to bring across their feelings very
effectively through the words they chose. They carefully thought about how messages would be
interpreted, and what meaning could possibly be attributed to them. According to Cooper and
Sportolari (1997), certain characteristics of writing can heighten the experience of intimacy in
that writing offers time for reflection and revision, so that what is communicated may be
complete and intentional. It can also be argued that the inability to gauge non-verbal behaviour,
such as body language and facial expression, makes the used the above-mentioned symbols even
more significant in virtual space.
As mentioned previously, participants commented on the length of messages and the time
invested in their online interactions. The length of messages, and the investment of time in
writing messages become symbols in themselves. For example, partners perceived the time
investment as an investment in the relationship. In the same manner, long messages were
interpreted as a sign of interest or caring. This is consistent with other research findings that
suggest that language, style of writing, length of messages, timing, and speed of writing become
very important cues in the online context (Doring, 2002; Ellison et al., 2006; Mantovani, 2002).
Butterfly mentioned other meaningful symbols, and explained how the use of pictures,
emoticons and songs conveyed meaning during their online interactions:
Umm, where you would send pictures….You would take a picture of something
that was intriguing to the other person and just to share something like that….It
just made us connect more, grow more, fall for each other in a deeper way.
In imagining what her partner would appreciate, Butterfly engaged in role taking. In short, role
taking in symbolic interactionism is the cognitive ability to take the perspective of someone else
(Blumer, 1969). Butterfly imagined how her partner would interpret the action of her sending a
picture, as well as the feeling, such as, connectedness that the picture would possibly evoke.
Butterfly continued: “So… Ja, that’s how I think we would share and grow closer and just to
show affection also. To send a heart”. I am of the opinion that a heart might be one of the
symbols that individuals universally associate with love and affection. Therefore, it is very likely
that Butterfly’s partner interpreted the picture of a heart as a symbol of love and affection.
Butterfly elaborated: "I would send things to him that he would only have told me about. And
through that we would show how we felt for each other or about each other at that moment”.
Consistent with Butterfly’s experience, Latifa explained the usefulness of emoticons in
conveying her feelings:
Well, it helped with all those emoticons. The heart and the… Ja, it just… They
helped because we couldn't really… We couldn't even Skype or do anything like
that. Because we have never seen him before. We had never seen each other face
to face. So they sort of helped.(I used) the heart. Even now, I am still a heart
person and like the in love phase. Or that kissy one.
In addition, Butterfly reported that her partner demonstrated his feelings for her by
sending her songs or lyrics. She explained:
….or song lyrics….Which is something that he would constantly do because he

considers himself to be quite old-school. So he would find some song that my
parents might have. You know, I grew up with them having parties all the time
and to see the older couples dance together. He would send those lyrics to those
songs that brought back memories to me where love was something that was –
you weren't afraid to show it in the good old days and that is how we got to feel
the way that we did, to show that we were interested in each other. I would send
things to him that he would only have told me about. And through that we would
show how we felt for each other or about each other at that moment.
It is interesting how Butterfly, once again, used role-taking to interpret the actions of her partner.
The partners demonstrated their feelings for each other by sharing symbols which held personal
significance for them as a couple.
In reference to songs being powerful symbols, Kai mentioned how music clips from her
partner playing guitar, evoked strong feelings in her:
He sent me an audio clip of him playing guitar. And it would remind me of like
happy times. I used to visit my family up in the Northern Cape and my
grandfather used to play the guitar. But he played the electric guitar. But, umm,
there was this feeling of serenity around it. Like they have vast open spaces up
there. There’s almost no buildings. So it reminded me of a time when I was calm,
when I didn’t have to worry as much as I do now. And I know it seems like a lot of
emphasis took place on someone just playing guitar, but that’s kind of the feeling
I got from it.
I am of the opinion that Latifa might have associated the above-mentioned positive feelings with
her partner, which could have contributed towards her strong feelings she felt for him online.
In considering symbols, meanings also largely depend on the degree of consensus
between partners (Ponzetti, 2003). In participants’ reflections regarding partner responses, it
seemed that partner consensus was relatively high, in that they attached similar meaning to
symbols as their partners did. However, this was unlikely in the case of Unicorn and his partner,
where messages (symbols) were interpreted differently by them. As mentioned, Unicorn was
unsure about his love interest’s feelings for him. He indicated that the interactions with his love
interest sometimes created a sense of confusion since he did not know how to interpret them. The
following extract illustrates his confusion:
So this was a lot for me to take in (the constant interaction) and I thought: Joh,
this guy probably really likes me. And he would also like make these jokes and be
like: ‘Oh, umm…’ But it was also part of the ‘dissing’, where we like: ‘Oh, if you
were, umm, after whatever you should come and – and give me a massage’ or
whatever.
The comments of his love interest in the above extract could be interpreted as flirting or as
playful. In a similar manner the other comments of Unicorn’s love interest are open to
interpretation:
And thinks like he would tell me he wishes he could find someone like me,
someone he could connect with like me….But he would say all these things. And
then that’s what would make me think: Maybe he does like me and he can't see it,
and all these things.
In summary, participants viewed various aspects of written communication as significant
symbols of love in the online context. Other love symbols included, amongst others, emoticons,
pictures, and songs. The next section introduces the last superordinate theme, namely, Social
Exchange Online.
Social Exchange Online
In short, social exchange theory postulates that individuals calculate the overall worth of
a particular relationship by considering both its rewards (pleasurable and gratifying resources)
and the costs (resources that result in loss or punishment) that it provides. The worth of a
relationship influences the outcome and determines whether individuals will continue with the
relationship or terminate it (Dunbar, 2012; West & Turner, 2007). The assessment of the worth
of a relationship is highly subjective (Arriaga, 2013) and is likely to depend on personal needs
and values.
All the participants in the current research study decided to meet their partners face to
face which is likely to be indicative of satisfying and rewarding relationships. For example, in
reference to decision-making regarding meeting her partner offline, Butterfly stated:
In just understanding more about the two of you and not only just take a chance
and just rush into something, but to make a calculated assessment about where
you are going, knowing full-well where the person comes from and where you
want him in your life..
Due to the exploratory and inductive nature of the study, I did not ask the participants
directly to identify the rewards and costs of their online relationships. Therefore, it can be
assumed that participants might have valued other aspects of their relationships, which they may
not have mentioned during the interviews. In a similar manner, they might not have commented
on all the perceived costs of their online relationship.
The next section focuses on the rewards relating to their online love relationships as
perceived by the participants in the current research study.

Online rewards.
Generally, if individuals have satisfying online relationship they will be motived to meet
their partners face to face. All the participants in the current research study provided motivations
for meeting their partners offline. I am of the opinion that the reasons for wanting to meet each
other, reflects the significance of their online love experiences. More specifically, participants’
motivations to meet offline provided valuable insights into the perceived rewards of their online
relationships. It must be noted that participants did not use the term “rewards”, per se, but rather
that the findings are based my interpretations.
Ellen referred to the love connection between her and her partner, which made the
possibility of meeting her partner offline attractive:
It was only after that love connection had actually been established that we
actually met for the first time because then we thought: Okay, well look, this
could really turn into something. Maybe we should actually see each other and
meet each other now.
She suggested another possible reward in their relationship, namely, the sense of knowing her
partner:
I think when we sort of had been chatting for a few days and we had really gotten
to know each other, I just wanted to be with him, you know, and I think that he
also said he just wants to be with me as well, like you know. …“You know, we
really just want to be together now”, you know. We want to meet now to get, to
really kind of get to know each other and see one another as well, like in the flesh.
In Butterfly’s case, it appeared that the perceived commitment from her partner was especially
rewarding:
And it is finally yours and only yours and the mere fact that that gets not only told
to you but shown to you. It just sparks so much more and you want to – you have
that hunger to want to meet this person because you want to start your life with
this person.
Furthermore, she elaborated on the perceived genuine connection between her and her partner,
which motivated her to meet him:
And when it is something that you feel is genuine – when your gut says that this is
what you have been waiting for and there is no flag to say: “Caution”; your
stomach doesn’t turn; that feeling doesn’t come to you and you feel that you are
not even – you are not only in control of your own feelings but also your own
destiny, you tend to take that chance (in meeting him – she finished the statement
after my probing).
Kirsty stated that: “Both people have got to put effort into getting to that point of deciding: I
‘Okay we want to pursue a relationship”, after which I probed: “How did you come to the point
that you actually decided?” She explained further:
Well, we had similar interests and as I say, I had just come out of another
relationship. I think my age also plays a role. Most of my friends are married,
having children…So I don’t have single girlfriends to go and have lunch with on a
Saturday. ..And so I quite liked the idea of having another single friend to do
those kinds of things with and he – the names of the places he mentioned and the
types of food he was interested in….And the kinds of activities, I was like: “Oh, it
would be awesome to go and have someone to go and do those things with”
Throughout the interview, Kirsty referred to the significance of the perceived similarity between
herself and her partner. It could be interpreted that her partner’s perceived similarity was
especially rewarding for Kirsty. In addition, she perceived her partner as a potentially being
good companion.
Deon mentioned that his feelings for his partner was the driving force to meet her: “the
feelings inside, it just felt you need to know, you need to see, you need to meet, you need to
understand each other”. The above-mentioned positive emotions, experienced during their
interactions could be described as emotional rewards (Thibaut & Kelley, 1965). Due to the
nature of the online context, most of the participants experienced emotional rewards as opposed
to tangible rewards.
As discussed previously in the chapter, participants’ perceived emotional rewards also
included high levels of intimacy, more specifically, high levels of mutual self-disclosure,
feelings of closeness and connectedness, mutual trust, similarity, and familiarity (see the
superordinate theme, Online Intimacy). Berscheid (2006) mentions prevalent rewards in the
initial stages of romantic relationships as familiarty, similarity, being liked by the partner, and
physical attractiveness, which is fairly consitent with the findings of the current research study.
It was interesting that Kirsty stated that she felt she benefitted more from the online
relationship than her partner did, especially regarding her perceived physical appearance. She
explained as follows:
And I couldn't understand why. I was like: “What is he getting out of this
situation?... I feel like I am getting everything…..I suppose it says a lot about my
self-esteem. But I felt like: Why is he with me?, you know. I think physically he
is out of my league. I think he is physically more attractive if you were to scale
appearance. Umm, he is smaller than me, even though I have lost weight. He is
very athletic and he has got the little…. You know? So, so I was worried about
what that was going to be like and I look at him and I just… I am still in awe of
him. I still… I am like: Sjoe, how did I… I must have been very good in a past
life because… Ja, the scales still for me, feels tipped.
However, later in the relationship she realised that he possibly perceived companionship as a
reward. As she put it: “But I am starting to realise and understand: actually all he just wants is
someone there”. Her realisation illustrates how relational needs may differ from one person to
the next.
Despite Latifa’s need for physical contact, she continued to remain in the online
relationship with her love interest for about a year and a half, after which the relationship
“fizzled out”. She noted that she gained much from her online relationship:
Just his personality. He – he’s very loving. I love loving people.And he is very
caring always. Even when it started fizzling out, he would ask me: “How are you
doing? You are still good”. I – I enjoy that. I enjoyed the attention.
In comparison to the other participants’ online relationship experiences, Unicorn’s was
less satisfying (my interpretation). On reflecting on his online interactions he stated: “at the time,
I thought I got nothing out of it and I was upset about it…”. However, during the interview he
commented on many positive aspects of his online relationship, which included a sense of
closeness and connectedness, and the joy of being understood by his love interest. These aspects
might be perceived as relational benefits. Upon further reflection, Unicorn insightfully stated:
“Now, in hindsight, what I got out of it was so much because I have grown from that and I have
learnt from that”. The next section focuses on the costs of online relationships, as perceived by
the participants of the current research study.
Online costs.
Due to the nature of the online environment, the lack of physical proximity and contact
might be viewed as the most significant cost experienced in online romantic relationships. As
previously discussed, most participants expressed a longing for their partners, which also
contributed to their need to meet their partners offline. However, in contradiction to other
participants’ experiences, Kai mentioned that she felt fulfilled with her online love relationship
even without the physical presence of her love interest:
Even though there wasn’t the physical, it was kind of okay. Like it felt so real to
the point where it – it was nothing, the fact that I didn’t see him or the fact that we
didn’t make plans. Like it was so fulfilled.
She later alluded to the role that physical presence plays in relationship satisfaction: “..we should
have met sooner….there shouldn't have been such a long gap and I know that it was a failure on
my behalf ”.
Another possible cost, the inability to gauge the partner’s emotions, also relates to the
restriction of the online environment, namely the absence of non-verbal cues such as body
language and facial expressions. Both Kirsty and Deon implied that it was difficult to gauge their
partners’ emotions. Deon referred to making jokes online which was potentially hurtful to his
partner, since he could not gauge her reaction:
But being in person, telling this joke, you can see on the person’s face it actually
hurts them and when they say these words that they don’t like it, you feel – you
actually feel bad about it….it had its limitations, speaking online, like for body
language and facial expressions and the person’s emotions. You can't see their
emotions. You have to actually feel their emotions. It was more difficult to feel
emotion than to see emotion.
In a similar manner, Kirsty referred to her partner’s lack of expression regarding his feelings for
her, which made her cautious in disclosing her feelings for him online. She added: “I also was a
little bit scared at the same time because I was hoping that I wasn’t misreading him and likely to
be disappointed.” However, offline she could gauge his emotions through non-verbal cues such
as facial expression and body language, which enhanced the quality of their relationship.
As discussed previously, participants expressed that they invested a lot of time and effort
in their online relationship. It can therefore be argued that the investment of time could be
considered a cost. As Unicorn puts it: “Umm, so but that was a lot of investing my time and my
energy because like some of the stuff he would tell me would be, umm, a bit draining”. However,
the other participants agreed that spending long hours online and putting effort in the relationship
enhanced their relationship quality and made them feel connected sooner. Therefore, it could be
argued that time and energy spent on the relationship resulted in relational benefits.
In summary, it appears as if the relationship outcomes for most of the participants were
positive, in that the benefits of their relationships outweighed the costs, resulting in them wanting
to meet offline. The next section focuses on the comparisons participants made in order to
evaluate the quality of their online relationships.
Comparisons.
Most participants compared their relationships to their previous relationships. For
example, Kai compared her online love interest to previous partners: “Even physical
relationships, when I have seen someone, like someone that I haven't met online, he gave me
more than what they have given me in the sense of there was so much”. She continued by stating
that he was much more understanding regarding her sexual constraint than previous partners; an
aspect which she appreciated. She added that she perceived her love interest as more real than his
offline counterparts: “And he – he had a sense of like he would – he’s more himself than the guys
I dated. Like there was always things I felt like they were hiding from me.” This was especially
interesting since individuals, in general, are very concerned with how others might be untruthful
online (Donn & Sherman, 2002; Gibbs et al., 2006; Whitty & Carr, 2006).
Kirsty also mentioned how she compared her current partner to her previous partners:
“He is very similar to me in a lot of respects and I found that exceptionally attractive, especially
because my ex-boyfriend was the complete opposite.”
In a similar manner, Butterfly stated that her current partner was more intellectually
stimulating than previous partners, which she considered to be very rewarding. She expressed
her experience in this regards as follow: “the mere fact that this time around, it was with
someone who, I would say, had more than half a brain…. and what became more attractive to
me was his mind than anything else.”
Ellen also compared her current relationship to previous relationships and stated that she
never felt such a “significant sense of connection” with anyone before. According to Kelley and
Thibaut (1978), relationships involve the expectation of the kinds of outcomes an individual
expects to receive, and how these expectations compare to an individual’s past relationships and
current observations of the relationships of others (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Most participants in
the current research study agreed that they have experienced very satisfactory love relationships
online, and consequently did not seek out any other relationship, even with cyberspace allowing
for multiple and simultaneous relationships.
In summary, it appears that most participants in the current research study compared their
online love relationships to previous relationships in an attempt to evaluate the worth thereof.
The section to follow provides an overview of all the themes discussed in this chapter.
Executive Summary
On posing the question “What is your understanding of romantic love?” participants’
responses highlighted both the similarities and differences regarding their perceptions of the
elements perceived to constitute romantic love, which illustrates the complexity of
conceptualizing love. However, all participants’ conceptualization of romantic love related, to
differing degrees, to Sternberg’s (1983) definition of romantic love and included aspects of both
intimacy and passion. Participant all agreed on experiencing romantic love online. Interestingly,
two participants suggested that in addition to intimacy and passion they also experienced a sense
of commitment from their partners, which suggests that they experienced consummate love
online.
The current chapter discussed in detail the four superordinate themes that constituted the
findings of the study, namely, Online Intimacy, Online Romance and Passion, Online Love and,
Social Exchange Online. The first superordinate theme, Online Intimacy, describes how
participants experienced intimacy online. Subordinate themes under this superordinate theme
included Self-disclosure and Interpersonal connection.
The first subordinate theme, Self-disclosure, under this superordinate theme, highlighted
the significance of self-disclosure in the development of intimacy. Participants reported that
high levels of self-disclosure led to feelings of intimacy. It was deemed especially rewarding that
they could talk to each other about every aspect of their lives. Some participants implied that
self-disclosure led to feelings of affection for their partners. Consistent with previous research
findings, participants felt that high levels of self-disclosure during the exploration stages of their
relationship assisted in getting to know their partners which led to enhanced feelings of intimacy.
The disclosure of participants involved all three levels of self-disclosure as identified by
Altman and Taylor (1973), namely the peripheral, intermediate and core layers. In other words,
the disclosures of the participants also involved descriptive and evaluative disclosure. Evaluative
disclosure, or core level disclosure, was deemed very significant in the development of intimacy.
Furthermore, it was apparent that participants did experience mutuality in self-disclosure which
facilitated a sense of mutual understanding. The dyadic effect of self-disclosure was evident in
the current research study, where one partner’s disclosure encouraged the disclosure of the other
partner. For example, a partner’s willingness to explore his feelings, and disclose it to his partner
encouraged the partner to do the same. In a similar manner, where an individual was resistant in
disclosing feelings with his partner, it caused her to became less expressive as well. Consistent
with existing research findings, most participants suggested that the anonymity of the internet
encouraged them to share and disclose more to each other.
The subordinate theme, Self-disclosure, also highlighted a particular element of intimacy,
namely, the sense of knowing and understanding each other. Through frequent and in-depth self-
disclosure partners felt that they got to know each other well during their online relationships.
Participants mentioned that upon meeting each other in person it felt as if they already knew each
other well, which was mainly due to the long, and uninterrupted, online conversations.
The second subordinate theme, Interpersonal connection, described the perceived
connectedness participants experienced, which is regarded as an important component of
intimacy. All participants expressed the significance of understanding and knowing their partner
whilst being online. In addition to mutual and intense self-disclosure, participants mentioned
various other reasons for their sense of connectedness. For example, one participant (Kirsty)
reported that the sense of connectedness stemmed from her partner’s support, reassurance and
sense of commitment, while another participant (Deon) implied that the connection started due to
mutual interests, as well as the mutuality in wanting companionship.
The subtheme, Similarity, described the role of perceived similarity in the development of
closeness and connectedness. All participants mentioned that through everyday communication
with their partners they became aware of similarities they shared with them. Consistent with
previous research findings, participants reported that perceived similarities played an important
role in the initial stages of their relationships. However, similarity was not only regarded as
important in terms of initial interpersonal attraction, but was also regarded as important in the
development of intimacy. Participants especially valued similarities in terms of values and
beliefs. Other significant similarities that were mentioned included good writing skills, similar
interests, and, a similar sense of humour.
The subtheme, Trust, described the element of trust in the participants’ online
relationships. Most participants indicated that they trusted their partners online. Participants
reported that they were aware of people’s online misrepresentation of themselves, however they
stated that it did not apply to their partners. Interestingly, participants suggested that trust formed
in their relationship based on the mutual willingness of partners to disclose intimate details. It
also appeared that trust developed early in their relationships probably due to early intimate and
mutual self-disclosure.
The subtheme, Time and effort, highlighted, amongst others, the quick pace at which
online intimacy developed. Consistent with research findings, all participants, except one
(Deon), reported that their relationship developed very quickly online. Participants were in
agreement that a lot of time and effort was invested in their online relationships which resulted in
high levels of self-disclosure and intimacy in a short time span. In some instances, it appeared
that investment in online relationships was viewed as so significant that it replaced face to face
interactions, and became a number one priority. The findings also suggested that participants
valued their partners’ investment in their online relationships. Interestingly, one participant
(Deon) expressed communicating more with his partner online than presently in their offline
relationship. This phenomenon is consistent with some research findings that suggest that
intimacy is likely to decrease when relationships move offline.
The second superordinate theme, Online Romance and Passion, highlighted the
participants’ experiences relating to the other component of romantic love, namely, passion. The
first subordinate theme under this superordinate theme was Interpersonal attraction. Two
participants (Ellen and Kirsty) met their partners on dating sites and both reported that their
partners’ profiles, and specifically their profile pictures, played a significant role in initial
attraction. However, participants also acknowledged that other factors were deemed very
significant regarding interpersonal attraction. Consistent with previous research findings,
participants of the current research study regarded trust, mutual self-disclosure, and similarity as
important factors that contributed to interpersonal attraction. Other factors mentioned included
intelligence and good writing skills.
The second subordinate theme, Feelings of Being in Love, highlighted participants’
experiences of being in love. All participants reported on experiencing feelings associated with
being in love, especially the feeling of excitement. Words and phrases used to describe feelings
of being in love included: “butterflies”, “weak knees”, “jelly” and “the flame of love”. A finding
of the current research study suggests that in the online context excitement was mainly
associated with waiting for, receiving, and writing messages. Participants also mentioned that
perceived like-mindedness, and the pleasures of mutual self-disclosure and sharing brought about
feelings of excitement. Interestingly, one participant (Ellen) reported features of obsession and
compulsion which is often involved when a person is deeply in love; constantly thinking about
their partners, looking at their pictures obsessively and re-reading their messages over and over.
The third subordinate theme, Sexual chemistry and desire, focused on the experience and
expression of sexual desire online. Most participants reported significant feelings of sexual
desire for their partners online. These romantic feelings and sexual desire for partners evolved in
a matter of days. This once again emphasises the significance and meaning participants attached
to their online interaction. One participant (Butterfly) disclosed to resorting to cybersex as a
significant means of expressing sexual attraction and sexual desire. She reported that her
engagement in cybersex activities enhanced her experience of passion. Another participant

(Kirsty) reported feelings of passion towards her partner, but did not mention sexual desire, per
se. Interestingly, she stated that the lack of sexual expression from her partner led to her being
more attracted him. She interpreted the absence of sexual conversation as him having respect for
her, which made him more appealing to her. In a similar manner, another participant (Kai)
expressed appreciation that her love interest was more understanding regarding her sexual
constraint than previous partners.
The fourth subordinate theme, Passion in relation to intimacy, highlighted the
interconnectedness of these two components of romantic love. The experiences of participants in
the current research study suggested that the drive of passion stemmed from intimate and close
connections with their partners. More specifically, it appears that most participants were in
agreement that long and intimate conversations and disclosures aided in the development of
passion.
Longing, another element of passion was briefly highlighted in the fifth subordinate
theme. Longing for the loved-one is a characteristic of the passion component of romantic love
which was experienced by all the participants. Characteristic of drives, longing was difficult to
curb, and consequently the intense longing also contributed to participants’ desire to meet their
partners offline.
The third superordinate theme summarised the experience of online love by briefly
highlighting its realness (first subordinate theme: It is love), and significance (second subordinate
theme: The Significance of the Experience) and consequently the mutual relational influences of
partners (third superordinate theme: My partner influenced me). During the interviews, all
participants confirmed their experience of love online and used the word ‘love’ to describe their
feelings. From the accounts of the participants their online love experiences were very real and
significant, and in some cases even more intense than some face to face relationships.
Furthermore, the findings of the current research study suggested that online love relationships
had a significant impact upon participants. It was reported that the interaction with their romantic
partners influenced the way participants viewed themselves and it consequently impacted on
their self-esteem. For example, one participant (Kirsty) reported that her partner’s attentive and
caring nature led her to feel more secure and confident to be more expressive. In a similar
manner, another participant (Butterfly) mentioned that being allowed to be real and comfortable
in her relational role enhanced her confidence levels. Positive changes within their partners were
also reported. The findings are in line with the basic premise of symbolic interactionism which
states that individuals are created through interaction and therefore have the ability to influence
each other (Blumer, 1969).
The fourth subordinate theme, Symbols of Love, focused on the assigning of meaning to
the symbols used during online interactions. The findings indicate that online text messages
became one of the most important symbols which enhanced the participants’ experience of
romantic love. All participants highlighted the importance of written text in their online love
experience. Some participants reported that they were able to bring across their feelings very
effectively through the words they chose. Participants commented on, amongst others, the length
of messages and the time invested in online communication which became significant symbols in
themselves. Other symbols included pictures, emoticons, and songs. Is short, partners
demonstrated their feelings for each other by sharing symbols which held personal significance
for them as a couple. The inability to gauge non-verbal cues made the use the above-mentioned
symbols even more significant in the virtual space.
The fourth superordinate theme, Social Exchange Online, highlighted important aspects
of social exchange which were evident in the online romantic relationship. The following
subthemes were identified: Benefits, Cost, and Comparisons. In reference to social exchange
theory, it appears that the outcomes of online interactions were positive for most participants in
that the benefits of their relationships outweighed the costs. Consequently, all participants met
their partners face to face. Benefits, amongst others, included high levels of self-disclosure, trust,
feelings of closeness, and connectedness. Perceived costs included the investment of time and
energy, as well as the physical absence of their partners. The research findings suggested that
participants compared their relationships to previous relationships in order to make the decision
to remain in their online relationships, and ultimately to make the decision to meet their partners
face to face.
Closing Remarks
During the research process it became evident that participants’ experiences and
perceptions of romantic love stemmed from the significant online interactions of the partners
online. Despite the barriers associated with online communication, the participants’ interactions
were deemed meaningful in that they gave rise to the experience of romantic love. I hope that the
discussion of the identified research themes provided the reader with insights into the world of
the participants and their experiences of romantic love online. Online love was experienced as
very significant, influential, and real. As Kai put it:
I feel like just because something isn't real or doesn't seem like ‘real life’ to
someone else doesn't make it less true. We could go through our whole life
experiencing things that seem far-fetched to other people, but I feel like that is
part of evolving as people, understanding that not everyone views love or
relationships the same way, and it's only inevitable that because everything else is
so rapidly changing in our world and the environments we encounter as people,
that feelings, love, and meeting new people would transcend the same way. And
we would think that because as people we've evolved to the possibility that people
and experiences aren't just black and white. Life is always grey [Kai].
The chapter to follow provides a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the current
study along with recommendations for future research, and my personal reflections.
CHAPTER 6
Strengths, Limitations and Future Recommendations

Chapter Overview
Chapter six concludes the current research study by highlighting the strengths and
limitations of the study. Strengths are discussed in order to give an overview of the positive
aspects that emerged from the present study. However, certain shortcomings that were faced
during the study are discussed under the limitations section. Thereafter, implications of the
findings of the present study reveal possible avenues for future research, which are discussed as
recommendations for future research. Finally, my personal reflections upon the research process
conclude the study.
Strengths
The aim of the research study was to explore young adults’ experiences of romantic love
in virtual space. This study is one of the first to explore the phenomenon of romantic love in this
context, and as such can be regarded as pioneer research. More specifically, the study explored
both the experience of intimacy and passion as components of romantic love in virtual space. In
contrast to most other studies in this field, the positive aspects of online romantic love
relationships were highlighted and discussed.
This study provides new insights and an enhanced understanding of romantic love
relationships in virtual space. Participants agreed that they experienced romantic love online and
reported that these relationships were very significant and real to them and impacted on their
psychological well-being. Therefore, the findings of the study are highly relevant to mental
health care practitioners who deal with relationship concerns.
The qualitative methodology employed by the current study, specifically IPA, is
considered to be a significant strength. In utilizing individual in-depth interviews, the

participants in the study were given the opportunity to describe their experiences fully, providing
rich and detailed descriptions of their online romantic love experiences. This data gathering
method allowed for a degree of flexibility in that participants could freely volunteer information
which they deemed significant. One other specific strength of the study is that the participants
were viewed as experts in the field under study, and the sample size was limited in order to gain
a more in-depth understanding of online romantic love relationships.
Although the study has several strengths, it is important to mention the limitations of the
study which will be discussed in the next section.
Limitations
The limitations of the study relating to the chosen research methodology, namely IPA
will be discussed first. Although IPA was considered highly suitable in order to attain the aim of
the study, several limitations were considered. As highlighted in chapter four, the major
limitations of IPA are as follow: Firstly, IPA is dependent on the extent to which language
illustrates what the participants aim to describe. Some of the research participants involved in the
present study were not first language English speakers, but were fluent in English. However, it
can be expected that individuals will be more expressive in their first language.
Secondly, since IPA is concerned with the rich description of phenomenon it is argued
that participants might be unable to communicate their experiences adequately. However, I am of
the opinion that in allowing ample time for reflection and relevant probing, all participants were
able to communicate with ease and were considered to have adequate insight into their own love
experiences.
Thirdly, IPA is able to generate rich descriptive accounts of personal experiences in
particular contexts, however, it does not offer reasons for why or how certain events unfold.
Finally, IPA studies are conducted on small sample sizes using a case by case analysis and offer
findings that are only relevant to the sample under investigation and therefore, the findings are
not generalizable to a population. However, as mentioned in chapter four, it is likely that findings
of the study can be transferred to similar individuals who are currently in a virtual romantic love
relationship (or who have previously experienced one).
In addition to the limitations of the current research study relating to the use of IPA, other
possible limitations were noted. For example, I restricted the inclusion criteria by focusing on
young adults, therefore other possibly significant age groups were not considered. In addition,
the inclusion criteria allowed for any form of CMC media and therefore the impact of specific
media on participants’ romantic love experiences were not explored. In a similar manner, the
study did not explore gender and cultural differences regarding participants’ online romantic love
experiences.
Another possible limitation is that only one relational partner participated in the study.
Therefore, perceptions and experiences from both partners were not explored. Furthermore, the
study focused on the experience of romantic love online and did not explore the transition of the
romantic love relationships to the face to face environment.
Recommendations
Some of the recommendations for future studies stem from the limitations of the current
research study. Firstly, it is recommended that future research should focus on the experiences of
both partners involved in online romantic love relationship. Since the other relational partner
might have differing perceptions of the online romantic love relationship, it may provide a more
comprehensive understanding of relational dynamics and the experiences of romantic love.
Secondly, it is suggested that the transitional process from online to offline romantic love
relationships should be explored. Exploring the transition process could yield a greater
understanding of the contextual differences (online versus offline) which are likely to influence
the experiences of romantic love.
Since the current study was not comparative in nature, it might be interesting to
investigate the possible role that gender and culture play in the experiences of online romantic
love. Although research has been conducted on the role of culture and gender in relation to the
experience of romantic love, these finding could possible vary in the context of online
relationships.
Other areas for suggested future research relate to both the fields of cyber psychology and
relationship psychology, more specifically, the psychology of love. The current research study
provided some understanding of important aspects related to the experiences of online romantic
love. However, I believe that future studies could focus on more specific research questions such
as: ‘How does your understanding of love influence your experience of online relationships?’
and ‘What does it mean when people claim to find more significant relations online than face to
face?’.
Personal Reflections
The phenomenon of romantic love has always been fascinating to me. Throughout my
lifetime, I have experienced and witnessed both the joy and pain that love brings. During the past
few years in my capacity as a practicing counselling psychologist, and in my personal life, I have
encountered individuals claiming that they have found love online. It was evident that their
online romantic love experiences influenced their psychological wellbeing. I was puzzled with
the reality thereof and wondered how one could develop such strong feelings for another without
having met the person face to face. Therefore, my personal interest in romantic love and
specifically the online experience thereof motivated me to choose this topic for my doctoral
study.
My research journey was characterized by excitement and personal investment in the
topic. I found the process to be satisfying and rewarding, surprisingly so, since I anticipated
various challenges. These challenges mostly related to the juggling of work related
responsibilities and time management.
In considering all aspects of the research process, the interview process specifically
meant a great deal to me. I felt especially honoured and humbled by the participants’ willingness
to share their personal and often very intimate accounts of their online love experiences with me.
It was a privilege being allowed to have a glimpse into the inner worlds of the participants. It
was also especially rewarding to me that participants acknowledged that the summary of the
interviews which I emailed to them reflected an accurate account of their experiences. More so,
it was pleasing to me that some participants revealed that they experienced the interview process
positively for different reasons.
To me the research findings were both anticipated and yet unpredictable at the same time.
For example, I was immersed in relevant existing literature prior to my interviews with the
participants, and I had previous encounters with individuals who were involved in online
relationships, and therefore I had some pre-conceived ideas. From these experiences, I expected
that mutual intimate self-disclosure played a significant role in online love relationship
development. In a similar manner, I was not surprised that participants reported that their online
relationships developed at a rapid pace. However, the research findings also provided me with
some surprising insights. For example, the intensity, significance and realness of the participants’
accounts of their online love experiences were unforeseen. Furthermore, I underestimated the
extent to which their online relationships had influenced their psychological well-being, as well
as the perceived time and effort they invested in their online relationships. While the research
field remains contested regarding the realness of online romantic relationships, the findings of
the study attests to the pureness and authenticity that can be achieved in online romantic love
relationships.
REFERENCES
Ahern, T. C., Peck, K., & Laycock, M. (1992). The effects of teacher discourse in computer-
mediated discussion. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(3), 291-309.
Ahmetoglu, G., Swami, V., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2010). The relationship between
dimensions of love, personality, and relationship length. Journal of Arch Behaviour,
39(1), 1181-1190. doi: 10.1007/s10508-009-9515-5.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. New York: NY. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Anderson, T. L. (2005). Relationships among internet attitudes, internet use, romantic beliefs,
and perceptions of online romantic relationships. Cyberpsychology & Behaviour, 8, 521-
531.
Anderson, T.L., & Emmers-Sommer, T.M. (2006). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in
online romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 57(2), 153-172.
Antheunis, M. L., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2007). Computer-mediated communication an
interpersonal attraction: an experimental test of two explanatory hypotheses.
Cyberpsychology & Behaviour. 10, 831-836.
Aron, A., Norman, C.C., Aron, E.N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples’ shared
participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 273-284.
Arriaga, X. (2013). An interdependence theory analysis of close relationships. In Simpson & L.
Campbell, The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 39-65). London, England:
Sage.
Ayres, L. (2008). Grounded theory. In L.M. Given (Ed.), The sage encyclopaedia of qualitative
research methods volumes 1 & 2 (pp. 373-374). London, England: Sage.

Babbie, E., & Mouton, J. (2010). The practice of social research. (5th ed.). Cape Town, South
Africa: Oxford University Press.
Bailey. C. M. (2010). Recent trends: Online dating. Retrieved from
http://cp.match.com/cppp/media/CMB_Study.pdf.
Baker, A. (2002). What makes an online relationship successful? Clues from couples who met in
cyberspace. Cyberpsychology & Behaviour, 5(4), 363-375.
Baker, N. M., & Hastings, S.O. (2013). Teaching self-disclosure through an activity exploring
disclosure research and online dating sites. Communication Teacher, 27, 132-136.
Bareket-Bojmel, L., & Shahar, G. (2011). Emotional and interpersonal consequences of self-
disclosure in a lived, online interaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 30(7),
732-759.
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation
and expression of the "true self" on the internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 33-48.
Baumeister, R. F., & Bratslavsky, E. (1999). Passion, intimacy, and time: Passionate love as a
function of change in intimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 49–67.
Bazarova, N. N. (2012). Public intimacy: Disclosure interpretation and social judgments on
Facebook. Journal of Communication, 62, 815–832.
Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York, NY: Fee Press.
Ben-Ze'ev, A. (2004). Love online: Emotions on the internet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Benzies, K.M., & Allen, M. N. (2001). Symbolic interaction as a theoretical perspective for
multiple method research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(4), 541-547.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond:
Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human
Communications Research, 1, 99-112.
Berscheid, E. (2006). Searching for the meaning of “love”. In R. J. Sternberg, & K. Weis (Eds.),
The new psychology of love (pp. 171-183). New York, NY: Vail Ballou Press.
Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic interactionism; Perspective and method. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bonebrake, K. (2002). College students’ internet use, relationship formation and personality
correlates. Cyber Psychology & Behaviour, 5(6), 551-557.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds. London, England:
Tavistock.
Branden, N. (1988). A vision of romantic love. In M. H. Barnes, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds), The
psychology of love (pp. 218-231). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Braxton-Davis, P. (2010). The social psychology of love and attraction. McNair Scholars
Journal, 14(1), 4-12.
Brehm. S. (1992). Intimate relationships. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bruss, O., & Hill, J. (2010). Tell me more: Online versus face-to-face communication and self-
disclosure. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 15(1),3-6.
Buss, D.M. (2006). The evolution of love. In R. J. Sternberg, & K. Weis (Eds). The New
Psychology of Love (pp. 65-86). New York, NY: Vail Ballou Press.
Campbell, E.C., & Murray, C.E. (2015). Measuring the impact of technology on couple
relationships: The development of the technology and intimate relationship assessment.
Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 14(3), 254-276.doi:
10.1080/15332691.2014.953657.
Chak, K., & Leung, L. (2004). Shyness and locus of control as predictors of Internet
addiction and Internet use. Cyberpsychology & Behaviour, 7(5), 559–570.
Chapman, G. (2007). The five love languages. Nashville: LifeWay Press.
Charon, J. M. (2007). Symbolic Interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an
integration (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2009). Information disclosure and control on
Facebook: Are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes?
CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 12, 341–345. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0226.
Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist, 59, 676–684.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
Coleman, L. H., Paternite, C. E., Sherman, R. C. (1999). A reexamination of deindividuation in
synchronous computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behaviour, 15,
51-65. doi:10.1016/s0747-5632(98)00032-6.
Collect, J. (2010). Integrating theory, enhancing understanding: The potential contributions of
recent experimental research in social exchange for studying intimate relationships.
Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4(2), 280-298.
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A Meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457-475.

Compton, W.C., & Hoffman, E. (2013). Positive Psychology: The Science of happiness and
flourishing. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Constantino, T.E. (2008). Constructivism. In L.M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopaedia of
qualitative research methods volumes 1 & 2 (pp. 116-119). London, England: Sage.
Cook. K.E. (2008). In-depth interview. In L.M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopaedia of
qualitative research methods volumes 1 & 2 (p. 422). London, England: Sage.
Cook, K. S., & Whitmeyer, J. M. (1992). Two approaches to social structure: Exchange
theory and network analysis. Annual Review of Sociology, (18),109–127.
doi:10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.000545. JSTOR 2083448.
Cooley, C. H. (1922). Human Nature and the Social Order. New York, NY: Scribners.
Cooper, A., McLoughlin, I.P., & Campbell, K.M. (2000) Sexuality in cyberspace: Update for the
21st Century. Cyberpsychology & Behaviour, 3(4), 521-536.
Cooper, A., Morahan-Martin, J., Mathy, J., & Maheu, M. (2002). Toward an increased
understanding of user demographics in online sexual activities. Journal of Sex and
Marital Therapy, 28, 105–129.
Cooper, A., & Sportolari, L. (1997) Romance in cyberspace: Understanding online attraction.
Journal of Sex Education Therapy. 22, 7–14.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2010). NEO Inventories for the NEO Personality Inventory-3
(NEO PI-3), NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3) and NEO Personality
Inventory-revised (NEO PI-R): Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Couch, D., Liamputtong, P., & Pitts, M. (2012). What are the real and perceived risks and
dangers of online dating? Perspectives from online daters. Health, Risk & Society, 14(7-
8), 697-714.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
David, D., Crowley, J., & Mitchell, D. (1994). Communication theory today. Redwood City, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2003). Introduction: The discipline and practise of qualitative
research. In N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interoperating
qualitative research materials. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Derlega, V. J.,Winstead, B. A., & Greene, K. (2008). Self-disclosure and starting a close
relationship. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship
initiation (pp. 153-174). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
De Vos, A. S., Strydom, H., Fouche, C. B., & Delport, C. S. L. (2011). Research at
grassroots: For the social science and human service professions (4th ed.).
Pretoria, RSA: Van Schaik.
Diamond, L.M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orientate? A biobehavioural model
distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological review, 110, 173-192.
Diamond, L.M. (2004). Emerging perspectives on distinctions between romantic love and sexual
desire. Current directions in Psychological Sciences, 15(3), 327-337.

Donn, J. E., & Sherman, R. C. (2002). Attitudes and practices regarding the formation of
romantic relationships on the Internet. Cyberpsychology & Behaviour, 5(2), 107-123.
Doring, N. (2002). Studying online-love and cyber-romance. In B. Batinic, U. –D. Reips & M.
Bosnjak (Eds.), Online Social Sciences (pp. 333-356). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber
Publishers.
Dunbar, R. (2012). The Science of Love and Betrayel. London, England: Faber and Faber Ltd.
Ellison, N.B., 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital
implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society,
13(6), 873–892. doi:10.1177/1461444810385389.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.
doi:10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003.
Engelberg, E., & Sjöberg, L. (2004). Internet use, social skills, and adjustment. Cyberpsychology
& Behaviour, 7(1), 41–47. doi:10.1089/109493104322820101.
Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identify, youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton Press.
Evans, S. (2012). Virtual selves, real relationships: An exploration of the context and role of
social interactions in the emergence of self. Integrative Psychological and Behavioural
Science, 46, 512-528.doi:10.1007/s12124-012-9215-x.
Farquhar, M.C., Ewing, G., & Booth, S. (2011).Using mixed methods to develop and
evaluate complex intervention in palliative care research. Palliative Medicine,
25(8),748–757.
Fine, G.A. (1993). The sad demise, mysterious disappearance, and the glorious triumph of
symbolic interactions. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 61-87.
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating:
A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychology Science in
the Public Interest, 13(1), 3-66.
Finlay, L. (2006). Mapping Methodology. In L. Finlay & C. Ballinger (Eds.),
Qualitative Research for Allied Health Professionals: Challenging Choices (pp. 9-29).
West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Fisher, H. E. (2004). Why we love: The nature and chemistry of romantic love. New York, NY:
Henry Holt.
Fisher, H.E. (2006). The drive to love. In R. J. Sternberg, & K. Weis (Eds). The New Psychology
of Love (pp. 87-107). New York, NY: Vail Ballou Press.
Fisher, H.E., Brown, L.L., Aron, A., Strong, G., & Mashek, D. (2010). Reward, addiction, and
emotion regulation systems associated with rejection in love. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 104(1), 51-60. doi:10.1152/jn.00784.2009.
Fitzsimons, G, M. (2009). Goal pursuit and relationship influences. In H. T. Reis & S. Sprecher
(Eds.), The encyclopaedia of human relationships (pp. 760-762). London,
England, Sage.
Fleck, J., & Johnson-Migalski, L. (2015). The impact of social media on personal and
professional lives: An Adlerian perspective. The Journal of Individual Psychology,
71(2), 136-142.
Fox, J., & Warber, K.M. (2013). Romantic Relationship development in the age of Facebook: An
exploratory study of emerging adults’ perceptions, motives, and behaviours.
Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, And Social Networking, 16(1), 3-7.
Franzoi, S. L. (1996). Social psychology. California, CA: Brown & Benchmark.
Freeman, M. (2008). Hermeneutics in qualitative research. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage
encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods volumes 1 & 2. (p. 388). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Froneman, C. (2016). Dating in the dark: A phenomenological study of the lived experience of
online relationships. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Nelson Mandela Metropolitan
University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
Gaines,S.O., & Sedikides,C. (2009). Rewards and costs in relationships. In H. T. Reis & S.
Sprecher (Ed). The encyclopaedia of human relationships (pp. 1379-1382). London,
England, Sage.
Galinha, I.C., Oishi, S., Pereira, C.R., Wirtz, D., & Esteves, F. (2013). Adult attachment, love
styles, relationship experiences and subjective well-being: Cross-cultural and gender
comparison between American, Portuguesa, and Mozambicans. Social Indicators
Research, 119(1), 823-852. doi: 10.1007/s11205-013-0512-7.
Gavin, H. (2008). Understanding research methods and statistics in psychology.
London, England: Sage.
Gecas, V. (2009). Symbolic interactionism theories. In H. T. Reis & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The
encyclopedia of human relationships (pp. 1615-1618). London, England: Sage.
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, 152-177.
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.
Giorgi, A., & Giorgi, B. (2003). Phenomenology. In J.A. Smith (Ed.). Qualitative
psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 25-50). London, UK: Sage.
Given, L. M., & Saumure, K. (2008). Trustworthiness. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage
encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods volumes 1 & 2. (pp. 895-896). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Goffman, E. (1990). Presentation of self in everyday Life. London, England: Peguin.
Golden, J., Conroy, R., & Lawlor, B. (2009). Social support network structure in older
people: Underlying dimensions and association with psychological and
physical health. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 14, 280–290.
Gonyea. J. (2004). Internet sexuality: Clinical implications for couples. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 32, 375-390.
Grbich, C. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Internet sex addiction: A review of empirical research. Addiction
Research and Theory, 20(210), 111-124.
Guadagno, R., & Sagarin, B. (2010). Sex differences in jealousy: An evolutionary perspective on
online infidelity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(10), 2636-2655.
Hamon, R.R., & Hollinger, M.A. (2009.) Cross cultural differnces in courtship and dating. In H.
T. Reis & S. Sprecher (Ed), The encyclopaedia of human relationships (pp. 360-363).

Hardie, E., & Buzwell, S. (2006). Finding love online: The nature and frequency of Australian
adults' internet relationships. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 4(2),
1-14.
Harris, H. (1995). Rethinking heterosexual relationships in Polynesia: A case study of Mangaia,
Cook Island. In W. Jankowiak (Ed.), Romantic passion: A universal experience? New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal
of Adolescence ,9 ,383-410.
Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA). (2008). Guidelines for good practice:
general ethical guidelines for health researches: Booklet 6. South Africa, Pretoria.
Helgeson, V. (2003). Social support and quality of life. Quality of Life Research: An
International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care & Rehabilitation, 12
(Supplement 1), 25–31.
Hendrick, C.H, & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50 (2), 392-402.
Hendrick, C.H., & Hendrick, S.S. (2006). Styles of romantic love. In R. J. Sternberg, & K. Weis
(Eds.) The new psychology of love (pp. 149-170). New York, NY: Vail Ballou Press.
Hendrick, S. S. (2004). Understanding close relationships. Boston: Pearson Education.
Hollenbaugh, E. E., & Ferris, A. L. (2014). Facebook self-disclosure: Examining the role of
traits, social cohesion, and motives. Computers in Human Behaviour, 30, 50–58.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.055.
Hollenbaugh, E. E., & Ferris, A. L. (2015). Predictors of honesty, intent, and valence of
Facebook self-disclosure. Computers in Human Behaviour, 50, 456–464.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.030.
Huels, D. (2011). Beginning romantic relationships online: A phenomenological
examination of internet couples. (unpublished doctoral thesis). Capella University,
Minneapolis, MN.
Hum, N. J., Chamberlin, P. E., Hambright, B. L., Portwood, A. C., Schat, A.C., & Bevan, J. L.
(2011). A picture is worth a thousand words: A content analysis of Facebook profile
photographs. Computers in Human Behaviour, 27, 1828–1833.
Husserl, E. (1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental
Phenomenology. Translated by D. Carr. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Husserl, E. (1982). Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a
Phenomenological Philosophy. Translated by F. Kersten. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
International Telecommunications Union (ITU, 2015). ICT Facts and Figures - The World in
2015 . Retrieved from http:// D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2015.
Impett, E.A., & Gordon, A.M. (2009). Sexual attraction. In H. T. Reis & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The
encyclopaedia of human relationships (pp. 134-137). London, England: Sage.
Jamieson, L. (1998). Intimacy: Personal relationships in modern societies. Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press.
Janz, P., Pepping, C.A., & Halford, W.K. (2015). Individual differences in dispositional
mindfulness and initial romantic attraction: A speed dating experiment. Personality and
Individual Differences, 82, 14-19.
Jensen (2008). Transferability. In L.M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopaedia of qualitative
research methods volumes 1 & 2 (pp. 138-139; 886). London, England: Sage.
Joinson, A. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-
awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177-192.
Joinson, A. N., Paine, C. B., Buchanan, T., & Reips, U-D. (2008). Measuring self-disclosure
online: Blurring and non-response to sensitive items in web-based surveys. Computers in
Human Behaviour.24(5), 2158-2171.
Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., & Morris, J. (2011). The relationship between Facebook and the well-
being of undergraduate college students. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, and Social
Networking, 14(4), 183–189. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0061.
Kang, T., & Hoffman, L. H. (2011). Why would you decide to use an online dating site? Factors
that lead to online dating. Communication Research Reports, 28(3), 205-213.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Klein, M. C. (2013). Love in the time of Facebook: How technology now shapes romantic
attachments in college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 27(2), 149-
158.
Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2009). Interpersonal communication and human
relationships (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Larkin, M., Eatough, V., & Osborn, M. (2011). Interpretative phenomenological analysis and
embodied, active, situated cognition. Theory & Psychology, 21(3), 318–337.
doi:10.1177/0959354310377544.
Larkin, M., Watts, S., & Clifton, E. (2006). Giving voice and making sense in
phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 102-120.
Lauer, R. H., & Handel, W. H. (1983). Social psychology: The theory and application
of symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall.
Lauer, R.H., & Lauer, J.C. (2000). Marriage and family: The quest for intimacy (4th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Laurenceau, J. P., Feldman-Barrett, L., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as
an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and
perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 1238-1251.
Lee, D. Y. (2013). The role of attachment style in building social capital from a social
networking site: The interplay of anxiety and avoidance. Computers in Human
Behaviour, 29(4), 1499–1509. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.012.
Levine , T. R., Aune, K. S., & Park, H. S. (2006). Love styles and communication in
relationships: Partner preferences, initiation, and intensification. Communication
Quarterly, 54(4), 465-486.
Lewis, S., Pea, R., & Rosen, J. (2010). Beyond participation to co-creation of meaning:
Mobile social media in generative learning communities. Social Science Information,
49(3), 351–369. doi:10.1177/0539018410370726.
Liebowitz. M.R. (1983). The chemistry of love. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. A. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: CA: Sage.
Ling Huang, C., & Ching Yang, S. (2013). A study of online misrepresentation, self-disclosure,
cyber-relationship motives, and loneliness among teenagers in Taiwan. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 48, 1-18.

Long-Crowell, E. (2014). The attachment theory of love: Definition, examples and predictions
Retrieved from http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/the-attachment-theory-of-
love-definition-examples-predictions.html#lesson.
Louw, D.P., & Louw, A. (2011). Adult development and ageing. Bloemfontein, South Africa:
Psychology Publications.
Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and
informal learning at university: “It is more for socialising and talking to friends about
work than for actually doing work.” Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 141–
155. doi:10.1080/17439880902923606.
Mantovani, F. (2002). Cyber-attention: The emergence of computer-mediated communication in
the development of interpersonal relationships. Emerging Communication, 3, 229-246.
Marazziti, D., & Canale, D. (2004). Hormonal changes when falling in love.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29(1), 931-939.
Marriott, T. C., & Buchanan, T. (2014). The true self online: Personality correlates of preference
for self-expression online, and observer ratings of personality online and offline.
Computers in Human Behaviour, 32, 171–177. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.014.
Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context
collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, x(xx),1–20. doi:
10.1177/1461444810365313
Mason. J. (2007). Re-using qualitative data: on the merits of an investigative
epistemology. Sociological Research Online, 12, 3.
May, A., & Tenzek, K.E. (2011). Seeking Mrs. Right: Uncertainty Reduction in Online
Surrogacy Ads. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 12 (1), 27-33.

McCown, J. A., Fischer, D., Page, R., & Homant, M. (2001). Internet relationships: People wh0
meet people. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 4, 593-596.
McInnes Miller, M., & Bermudez, J.M. (2004). Intersecting gender and social exchange theory
in family therapy. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 16(2), 25-41.
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Causes and consequences of social interaction on the
Internet: A conceptual framework. Media Psychology, 1(3), 249-269.
McKenna, K. Y., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. (2002). Relationship formation on
the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9
-31.doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.00246
McLeod, J. (2001). Qualitative research in counselling and psychotherapy. London, England:
Sage.
Merkle, E., & Richardson, R. (2000). Digital dating and virtual relating:
Conceptualizing computer mediated romantic relationships. Family Relations, 49, 187-
203.
Michikyan, M., Dennis, J., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2014). Can you guess who I am? Real,
ideal, and false self-presentation on facebook among emerging adults. Emerging
Adulthood, 3(1), 55–64. doi:10.1177/216769681453244.
Miles, M.B, & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). California: Sage.
Miller, K. (2005). Communications Theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Morrow, G.D. (2009). Exchange processes. In H. T. Reis & S. Sprecher (Ed), The
encyclopaedia of human relationships (pp. 551-554). London, England: Sage.

Mortari, L. (2008). The ethic of delicacy in phenomenological research. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 3, 3-17.
Nguyen, M., Bin, Y., & Campbell, A. (2012). Comparing online and offline self-
disclosure: A systematic review. Cyber Psychology, Behaviour, and Social
Networking, 15, 103-111.
Norman, D. (1993). Computers as theatre, In B. Laurel (Ed.), Reading, (p. xii - xiv). MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Nosko, A., Wood, E., & Molema, S. (2010 ). All about me: Disclosure in online social
networking profiles: The case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behaviour 26, 406–
418.
Orr., E., Sisic., M., Ross., Simmering., M. G., Arseneault., J. M., & Orr, R. (2009). The influence
of shyness on the use of Facebook in an undergraduate sample. Cyber Psychology &
Behaviour, 12(3), 337-340.
Paat, Y. F. (2013). Relationship dynamics and healthy exchange across the family life cycle:
implications and practise. Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social Environment, 23,
938-953. doi: 10.1080/10911359.2013.777008
Park, N., Jin, B., & Jin, S. A. (2011). Effects of self-disclosure on relational intimacy in
Facebook. Computers in Human Behaviour, 27, 1974–1983.
Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students' social networking
experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 227–238.
Peter, J., Valkenburg, P., & Schouten, A. P. (2005). Developing a model of
adolescent friendship formation on the Internet. Cyberpsychology & Behaviour,
8(5), 423–430.
Pietkiewicz, I., & Smith, J.A. (2014). A practical guide to using interpretative
phenomenological analysis in qualitative research psychology. Psychological Journal,
20, 7-14. doi: 10.14691/CPPJ.20.1.7.
Ponzetti, J.J. (2003). International encyclopedia of marriage and family. New York, NY:
MacMillan Reference / Gale.
Preissle. J. (2008). Ethical issues in qualitative research. In L. Given (Ed.), The
Sage encyclopaedia of qualitative research volumes 1 & 2 (pp.276-277). London,
England: Sage.
Qiu, L., Lin, H., Leung, A. K., & Tov, W. (2012). Putting their best foot forward: Emotional
disclosure on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, and Social Networking, 15(10),
569-572. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0200.
Ramirez, Jr. A., & Zhang, S. (2007). The effects of the occurrence and timing of
modality switching on relationship development. Communication Monographs, 74(3),
287-310.
Regan, P.C (2009). Love, companionate and passionate. In H. T. Reis & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The
encyclopedia of human relationships (pp.1007-1011). London, England: Sage.
Reid, K., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2005). Exploring lived experience. The Psychologist, 18(1),
20-23.
Reis, H. T., & Aron, A. (2008). Love: What is it, why does it matter, and how does it operate?
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 80-86.
Reis, H. T., & Rusbult, C. E. (2004). Close relationships. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck
(Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships. (pp. 367-389). New York, NY: Wiley.
Reis, H.T., & Sprecher, S. (2009). The encyclopaedia of human relationships. London,
England: Sage.
Rietchard, C. (2007). Online dating in a South African context: A psychological
study of the persona profile. (Unpublished master’s thesis). The University of Pretoria,
South Africa.
Robinson, L. (2007). The cyberself: the self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction in the
digital age. New Media & Society, 9(1), 93–110. doi:10.1177/1461444807072216.
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social
psychology. New York: NY. McGraw-Hill.
Ross, M. W. (2005). Typing, doing, and being: Sexuality and the Internet. Journal of Sex
Research, 42(4), 342-352.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
16(2), 265-273.
Rui, J. R., & Stefanone, M. (2013). Strategic Image Management Online. Information,
Communication & Society, 16(8), 1286–1305. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.763834.
Ruppel, E. K. (2014). Use of communication technologies in romantic relationships: Self-
disclosure and the role of relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 1–20. doi: 10.1177/0265407514541075.
Rusbult, C.E., & Van Lange, P. (2003). Interdependence, interaction and relationships. Annual
Review of Psychology, 75-351.
Sabatelli, R.M.(2009). Satisfaction in relationships. In H. T. Reis & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The
encyclopedia of human relationships (pp.1398-1402). London, England: Sage
Schaefer, K.M. (2011). Online romantic relationships transitioning offline: Impact

of intimacy and relationship uncertainty on relational characteristic. (Doctoral thesis).
Available: https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2011-08-
3925/SCHAEFER-DISSERTATION.pdf;sequence=1
Schensul, J.J. (2008). Methods. In L. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopaedia of qualitative
research methods volumes 1 & 2 (pp.516-521). London, England: Sage.
Schouten, A. P., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Precursors and underlying processes of
adolescents' online self-disclosure: developing and testing an “Internet-attribute-
perception” model. Media Psychology, 10(2), 292-315.
doi:10.1080/15213260701375686.
Seeman, T., Lusignolo, T., Albert, M., & Berkman, L. (2001). Social relationships,
social support, and patterns of cognitive aging in healthy, high-functioning older adults:
MacArthur studies of successful Aging. Health Psychology, 20, 243–255.
Shaver, P.R., & Hazan, C.H. (1988). Love styles, relationship experience, and sensation seeking:
A test of validity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 473 – 501.
Shaver, P.R., & Mikulincer, M. (2006). A behavioural systems approach to romantic love
relationships: Attachment, caregiving and sex. In R. J. Sternberg, & K. Weis (Eds.), The
new psychology of love (pp. 35-64). New York, NY: Vail Ballou Press.
Shaw, R. (2010). Interpretive phenomenological analysis. In M. A. Forrester (Ed.), Doing
qualitative research in psychology: A practical guide (pp. 177-201). London,
England: Sage.
Shaw, L. H., & Gant, L. M. (2002). In defense of the Internet: The relationship between Internet
communication and depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social support.

Cyberpsychology & Behaviour : The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality
on Behaviour and Society, 5(2), 157–171. doi:10.1089/109493102753770552.
Shenton, A.K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22, 63–75. doi:10.1111/j.1744-618X.2000.tb00391.x.
Shezi, L. (2016). SA’s 26.8 million internet users spend almost three hours a day on social
media. Retrieved from http://www.htxt.co.za/2016/04/29/the-stuff-south-africa-26-8-mil-
internet-users-spend-most-their-time-doing-online/
Shinebourne (2011). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In N. Frost (Ed.) Qualitative
research methods psychology: Combining core approaches (pp. 44-65). Maidenhead,
Berkshire: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education
Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data: A guide to the principles of qualitative
Research (4th ed.). London, England: Sage.
Simpson, J. A., Fletcher, G.J.O., & Campbell, L. (2011). The structure and function of
ideal standards in close relationships. In G.J. O. Fletcher & M.S. Clark (Eds.),
Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 86-106).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Smith, J. A. (2003). Qualitative psychology: A Practical guide to research methods.
Smith, J. A. (2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological
analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 1(1), 39–54. doi:10.1191/1478088704qp004o.
Smith, J.A. (2011). Evaluating the contributions of interpretative phenomenological analysis.
Health Psychology Review, 5(1), 9-27.

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: Theory,
method, and research. London, England: Sage.
Smith, J.A., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J.A.
Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 51-80).
Sprecher, S. (2010). Social exchange theories and sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research. 35,
32-43. doi: 10.1080/00224499809551915.
Sprecher, S., & Hendrick, S. S. (2004). Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: Associations
with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 23(6), 857-877.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 27, 313-335
Taylor, S., Peplau, L. A., & Sears, D. O. (2006). Social Psychology (12th ed.).
New Jersey, NJ: Pearson.
Terre Blanche, M., Durrehim, K., & Painter, D. (2006). Research in practice: Applied methods
for the social sciences. Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town Press.
The Belmont Report. (1979). Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human
subjects of research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Biomedical and Behavioural Research.
Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1965). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley &
Sons. Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication:
Social interaction and the internet. London, England: Sage.

Tracy, S.J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.
Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each
other. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Turner, J. (2006). The handbook of sociological theory. Berlin: Springer Science & Business
Media.
Valkenburg, P., Peter, J., & Schouten, A. P. (2006). Friend networking sites and their
relationship to adolescents well-being and social self-esteem. Cyberpsychology &
Behaviour, 9(5), 584–590.
Van Staden, P. (2010). Exploring self-concept and social identity in the context of
online intimate relationships. (Unpublished master’s treatise). Nelson
Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
Verderber, R. F., & Verderber, K. S. (2008). Communicate!. California, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Walther, J.B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A
relational perspective. Communication Research 19, 52–90.
Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal,
and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
Walther, J. B., & D’Addario, K. P. (2001). The impact of emoticons on message
interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer
Review, 19, 323-345.
Walther., J. B., Liang., Y, DeAndrea, D. C., Tong, S. T., Carr., C. T., Spottswood, E. L., &
Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2011). The effect of feedback on identity shift in computer

mediated communication. Media Psychology, 14(1), 1-26.
Wang, C., & Chang, Y. (2010). Cyber relationship motives: scale development and
validation. Social behaviour and personality, 38(3), 289-300.
Waskul, D., & Douglass, M. (1997). Cyberself: The Emergence of Self in On-Line Chat.
The Information Society. 13, 375-397.
Weis, K. (2006a). Conclusion: The Nature and interrelation of theories of love. In R. J.
Sternberg, & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 313-325). New York, NY:
Vail Ballou Press.
Weis, K. (2006b). Introduction. In R. J. Sternberg, & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love
(pp. 313-325). New York, NY: Vail Ballou Press
West, R., & Turner, L. (2007). Introducing Communication Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Whitty, M.T. (2003). Cyber-flirting: playing at love on the Internet. Theory and Psychology, 13,
339–357.
Whitty, M. T. (2004). Cyber-flirting: An examination of men's and women's flirting behaviour
both offline and on the Internet. Journal of Behaviour Change, 21(2), 115-126.
Whitty, M.T. (2008a). Liberating or debilitating? An examination of romantic
relationships, sexual relationships and friendships on the net. Computers in
Human Behaviour, 24, 1837-1850.
Whitty, M.T. (2008b). Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: Presentation of
self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24, 1707-1723.
Whitty, M. T., & Carr, A. N. (2006). Taking the good with the bad: Applying Klein’s work to
further our understandings of cyber-cheating. Journal of Couple and Relationship

Therapy, 4(2/3), 103-115.
Whitty, M. T., & Gavin, J. (2001). Age/sex/location: Uncovering the social cues in the
development of online relationships. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 4, 623-
630.
Wildermuth, S.M., & Vogl-Bauer, S. (2007). We met on the net: Exploring the perceptions of
online romantic relationship participants. Southern Communication Journal, 72(3),
211-227.
Williams, J.P. (2008). Symbolic interactionism. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage
encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods volumes 1 & 2 (pp.848-853). London,
England: Sage.
Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (3rded.). Berkshire,England:
Open University Press.
Wilson, R. E., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, L. T. (2012). A review of Facebook research in the
social sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 203.
Wong AnKee, A., & Yazdanifard, R. (2015). The review of the ugly truth and negative aspects
of online dating. Global Journal of Management and Business Research: E Marketing,
15(4), 31-36.
Wysocki, D. K. (1998). Let your fingers do the talking sex on an adult chat-line.
Sexualities, 1, 425–452.
Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology & Health, 15(2),
215-228.
Yardley, L. (2008). Demonstrating quality in qualitative psychology. In J. A. Smith (Ed.),
Qualitative psychology. A practical guide to research methods (pp. 235-251). London,

England: Sage.
Young, M. E., & Long, L. L. (1998). Counseling and therapy for couples. California. CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Zaczek, D., & Bonn, M. (2006). Online friendships: Their prevalence and quality.
New Voices in Psychology, 2(1), 83-107.
Zafirovski, M. (2005). Social exchange theory under scrutiny: A positive critique of its economic
-behaviourist formulations. Electronic Journal of Sociology, 1-39.
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin. J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital
empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24, 1816–
1836.
Appendix A: Participant Information Letter
SOUTH CAMPUS
FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES / DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
Tel . +27 (0)41 504-2354 Fax. +27 (0)41 504-2101
psychology@nmmu.ac.za
Participant Information Letter
RESEARCH DISSERTATION ON YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMANTIC
LOVE RELATIONSHIPS IN VIRTUAL SPACE
My name is Tania Lambert. I am a Doctoral candidate in Psychology at the Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan University (NMMU). I am conducting research on young adults’ experiences of
online romantic love relationships. The letter below will give you more information:
Title of Study: Young adults’ experiences of romantic love relationships in virtual space.
Aims: The aim of the study is to explore/understand young adults’ experiences of romantic love
relationships in virtual space. This understanding will be obtained through the description of
participants’ subjective, lived experiences of their online romantic love relationships.
What will happen to the findings: The findings of the research will be published in a
dissertation which will be available from the NMMU library. The research will also be presented
in an article which will be submitted to accredited scientific journals. Should the opportunity
arise the findings will also be presented at scientific conferences.

Confidentiality/ Anonymity: The identities of all participants will be confidential; your name
will not appear in any published material. You will be required to fill in your details on a
standard NMMU consent form for legal purposes; however this form will be kept separate from
any data collection material. Your contact information will only be available to the primary
researcher and will only be used to contact you to notify you about the research project (i.e. time
of data collection, availability of findings.)
What do participants need to do:
 Once you have been identified as a potential candidate by another participant, you will
receive a short registration form. This form will be emailed/handed to you.
 You will fill in the registration form where after I will contact you for a meeting should
you meet the research requirements.
 Once contacted you might be required to take part in a +- 1 hour interview with myself
where information will be collected regarding the aims of the research.
 You will be required to sign a legal consent form, this form will state that you are
voluntarily taking part in the study and understand what the study is about.
 After all the data has been collected it will be analysed by the researcher, you will not be
required to do anything else.
 Once findings have been evaluated you will be emailed a brief summary of the findings.
 You are welcome to contact me at any time if you have any questions or concerns, before
or after data collection.
Participation Requirements:
To participate in the study:

5. You must be involved in an online romantic love relationship
OR
You were involved in an online romantic love relationship which has progressed to a face
relationship.
6. You must between the ages of 18 and 35.
7. You must be fluent in English.
8. You must reside in the Port Elizabeth Area.
Thank you for taking time to read this information letter. Your involvement in this research
project will provide invaluable data. If you know of anyone who would be interested in this
study please forward their details to me, if you have any questions please don’t hesitate to
contact me.
Tania Lambert
Tania.lambert@.nmmu.ac.za
083 4696486
Supervisor: Prof. G. Howcroft
Co-Supervisor: Prof. C. Hoelson
HOD Psychology: Prof. D. Elkonin

Appendix B: Biographical Questionnaire
Age: ..........
Gender: ………………..
Email address: …………………………………….
Home Language: (Please circle the appropriate answer)
Afrikaans
English
Xhosa
Other: ……………..
Are you fluent in English? (Please circle the appropriate answer)

Yes
No
Do you live in the Port Elizabeth area? (Please circle the appropriate answer)
Yes
No
Are you currently involved in an online romantic love relationship? (Please circle the appropriate
answer)
Yes
No
OR
Were you involved in an online romantic love relationship which has progressed to a face
relationship? (Please circle the appropriate answer)
Yes
No
Which social networking sites do you use/did you use to interact with your romantic partner?
(Please tick the appropriate answer(s)
Facebook □
Twitter □
Instagram □
Gmail+ □
MySpace □
Pinterest □
Other □ Please specify………………………………………………………….
What is/was the average duration of your online relationship?...............

Appendix C: Consent Form
SOUTH CAMPUS
FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES / DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
Tel . +27 (0)41 504-2354 Fax. +27 (0)41 504-2101
psychology@nmmu.ac.za
NELSON MANDELA METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
RESEARCHER’S DETAILS
Title of the research project Young adults’ experiences of romantic love relationships in virtual space.
Reference number
Principal
Tania Lambert
investigator
Address 204 Hunter Park, Park Drive, Port Elizabeth
Postal Code 6030
Contact telephone number

083 469 6486
(private numbers not advisable)
Initial
A. DECLARATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF PARTICIPANT
I, the participant and the
undersigned (full names)
ID number
A.1 I HEREBY CONFIRM AS FOLLOWS: Initial
I, the participant, was invited to participate in the above-mentioned research project
that is being undertaken by Tania Lambert
From Psychology Department
of the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.
THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED TO ME, THE PARTICIPANT: Initial
The aim of the research is to explore young adults’ experiences of

2.1 Aim:
romantic love relationships in virtual space.
The information will be A research treatise that will be published as well as a research article
used to/for: that will be submitted to research journals
2.2 Procedures: I understand that I will be required to take part in an interview
I realise that the interview will cost me time and that it will include
2.3 Risks: information regarding my personal experiences regarding my online
romantic love relationship
As a result of my participation in this study knowledge will be

2.4 Possible benefits: generated about young adults’ experiences of online romantic love
relationships
My identity will not be revealed in any discussion, description or

2.5 Confidentiality:
scientific publications by the researcher.
Any new information or benefit that develops during the course of the
study will be shared as follows: Feedback of the findings will be
2.6 Access to findings:
emailed to me after the research had been finalised as well as be
available in the NMMU library.
My participation is voluntary YES NO

Voluntary participation /
2.6 My decision whether or not to participate
refusal / discontinuation:
will in no way affect my present or future TRUE FALSE
care / employment / lifestyle
No pressure was exerted on me to consent to participation and I understand that I may withdraw
3.
at any stage without penalisation.
4. Participation in this study will not result in any additional cost to myself.
A.2 I HEREBY VOLUNTARILY CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PROJECT:
Signed/confirmed at On 20
Full name of witness:
B. STATEMENT BY OR ON BEHALF OF INVESTIGATOR(S)
I, Tania Lambert, declare that:
I have explained the information given in this document to

1.
and / or his / her representative
2. He / she was encouraged and given ample time to ask me any questions;
This conversation was conducted in Afrikaans English Xhosa Other
3. And no translator was used OR this conversation was translated into
(language) By (name of translator)
4. I have detached Section D and handed it to the participant YES NO

O
Signed/confirmed at 20
n
Signature of witness:
Signature of interviewer Full name of witness:

IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO PATIENT/REPRESENTATIVE OF

PARTICIPANT
Dear participant/representative of the participant
Thank you for your/the participant’s participation in this study. Should, at any time during the study:
- an emergency arise as a result of the research, or

- you require any further information with regard to the study, or
- the following occur
(indicate any circumstances which should be reported to the investigator)
Kindly contact Tania Lambert (Tania.lambert@nmmu.ac.za)
at telephone number 083 469 6486

Appendix D: Newspaper Advertisement

The wording of the newspaper article as it appeared in the Herald (27 April 2016) was as follows:
NNMU researcher launches hunt for cyber-age lovebirds
If it’s online, can it really be love? That is just one of the questions an NMMU researcher is
hoping to find out from Port Elizabeth lovebirds who have had a “virtual” romance.
“I am conducting research on young adults’ experiences of online romantic love relationships,”

says Tania Lambert, a doctoral candidate in psychology at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan
University (NMMU).
Specifically, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU) doctoral candidate Tania

Lambert is asking for an hour or so of the time of people between 18 and 35 who live in Port
Elizabeth.
“You must be involved in an online romantic love relationship or were involved in one which
progressed to a face relationship.”
“The arena for finding an intimate partner has changed significantly in the 21st Century and
online relationships are becoming more prevalent, especially in South Africa.
“However, research studies focusing on online romantic love relationships seem to be lacking.
Limited research has been done on exploring the experiences of those who are or were involved
in online romantic love relationships.”
This is why Lambert would like to study young adults’ experiences of “romantic love
relationships in virtual space”. Under the supervision of study leaders Prof Greg Howcroft and
Prof Chris Hoelson, she will be conducting in-depth interviews with volunteers, asking them for
their “subjective, lived experiences” of online romance, and estimates this will take around one
hour. Those findings then will go into her dissertation, which will go into NMMU’s library, and
an article to be submitted to accredited scientific journals. The findings may also be presented at
scientific conferences.
She reassures potential candidates they may remain anonymous, with their contact information
only available to her.
“The identities of all participants will be confidential; your name will not appear in any
published material. You will be required to fill in your details on a standard NMMU consent
form for legal purposes; however this form will be kept separate from any data collection
material.
“Once you have been identified as a potential candidate, you will receive a short registration
form and I will contact you for a meeting should you meet the research requirements. “
After that, Lambert will interview you, and only after signing a consent form will the data be
collected and analysed.
“Once findings have been evaluated you will be e-mailed a brief summary of the findings. You
are welcome to contact me at any time if you have any questions or concerns, before or after data
collection.”
*Further information from Lambert, Tania.lambert@nmmu.ac.za

Appendix E1: Original Interview Schedule
1. How do/did you experience intimacy online?
2. Tell me about your interactions with your partner that led to intimacy.
3. How do/did you and your partner demonstrate your intimate feelings to each other
online?
4. How do/did you experience passion online?
5. What type of interactions led to these feelings?
6. How do/did you and your partner demonstrate these feelings to each other online?
Note: The words passion and intimacy were replaced by the participants’ own words describing
the elements of passion and intimacy (based on their prior conceptualisation of romantic love).
Appendix E2: Modified Interview Schedule
1. Please tell me about your experience of intimacy online/ How did you experience
intimacy online?
Example of possible prompts:
 What were the type of interactions with your partner that led to intimacy?
 How do/did you and your partner demonstrate your intimate feelings to each
other online?
2. Please tell me how did you experience passion online/ How did you experience passion
online?
Example of possible prompts:
 What type of interactions led to these feelings?
 How do/did you and your partner demonstrate these feelings to each other
online?
3. How was this online relationship different to other (offline) relationships?
4. Would you like to add anything?
Note: The words passion and intimacy were replaced by the participants’ own words describing
elements of passion and intimacy (based on their prior conceptualisation of romantic love).

Young Adults Experiences of Romantic Love Relationships in Vitual Space

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Young Adults Experiences of Romantic Love Relationships in Vitual Space

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMATIC LOVE

RELATIONSHIPS IN VIRTUAL SPACE

YOUNG ADULTS’ EXPERIENCES OF ROMANTIC LOVE RELATIONSHIPS IN

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Philosophy: Psychology

School of Behavioural Sciences

Faculty of Health Sciences

Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

Supervisor: Prof. J. G. Howcroft

Co-supervisor: Prof. C. N. Hoelson

submitted for assessment or completion of any postgraduate qualification to another

University or for another qualification.

In accordance with Rule G5.6.3,

5.6.3 A treatise/dissertation/thesis must be accompanied by a written declaration on the part

submitted for assessment to another University or for another qualification. However,

material from publications by the candidate may be embodied in a treatise/dissertation/thesis.

This study is dedicated to my parents for their everlasting love.

I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to:

positivity you brought to my research journey.

motivation and encouragement.

relationships. Furthermore, research conducted on online love romantic relationships

young adults’ experiences of romantic love relationships in virtual space. More

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Four superordinate themes were

Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... vi

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

Offline/face to face (FTF) relationships. ........................................................................... 13

Revisiting the research question. ........................................................................................... 96

Ellen. .................................................................................................................................... 122

Social Exchange Online .......................................................................................................... 189

Figure 1: Sternberg’s Love Triangle ..............................................................................................10

Lastly, the outline of chapters included in the study is provided.

Context of the Research

Interpersonal relationships form an integral part of one’s development as an optimum

human being” (p. 324).

Traditionally, individuals seeking romantic love connections meet potential partners

many individuals. It has allowed millions of individuals to connect, to communicate immediately

that synchronous media technologies are supplementing or replacing face-to-face (FTF)

interaction in relationship development for a growing number of individuals.

The popularity of this medium as a way of seeking intimate relationships could be

abovementioned features becoming less apparent (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004). Another important

characteristic of this medium is that individuals involved in online relationships remain to a

increase in global usage of the internet. According to the International Telecommunications

just under 5 hours per day online (Shezi, 2016).

relational turbulence model, romantic partners encounter relational turbulence as a by-product of

conducted a phenomenological study that investigated the transition of relationships from an

differences impact on the experience of romantic relationships.

Metropolitan University’s (NMMU) multidisciplinary research theme of cyber-citizenship. More

specifically, the current study falls within the subtheme of cyber-relationships.

The Central Research Question and Sub-questions

questions of the current research study included:

1) How do young adults experience intimacy in virtual space?

2) How do young adults experience passion in virtual space?

study were recruited using a purposive, convenient (non-probability) sampling method. I

relationships in the context of virtual space?.

be applied to a multiplicity of relationships. It is argued that an individual’s experience of love

current research study it is important to define each of these above-mentioned components.

Sternberg (1986) broadly defined intimacy as people’s perceptions of connectedness,

(psychological) closeness and bondedness within a relationship. Intimacy is often defined as a

interdependence, mutuality, trust and commitment. The above-mentioned variables of intimacy

defined intimacy as an interpersonal process encompassing partner responsiveness and self-

individuals. High self-disclosure is almost a necessary prerequisite to effective relationships

(Franzoi, 1996; Verderber & Verderber, 2008).

satisfaction) (Impett & Gordon, 2009).