Love and dating is always a hot topic, and with new dating applications constantly being introduced, I wanted to find out more about them. I started out looking for the benefits technology has had in finding love, but what I found was more intriguing. It was interesting that many people blame technology for ruining love and relationships, but the research I had found was most surprising. The problem with 21st century love and relationships did not lie within technology, but the people within the relationships. Regarding online dating, the user contains more control over their success in finding a good match than the computer. Another misconception is that the use of social media hindered relationships, but social media (specifically Facebook) helped reduce anxiety before meeting a new date and through the relationship itself, and also showed that communication within a relationship was causing more problems than social media did. Although people often place the blame on technology for their failed relationships, research shows that through each stage of a relationship-from first meeting to a committed relationship-technology is actually beneficial for love, and when things go awry, it is people and not technology at fault.

The ability to have control over decisions made in one’s own life is important, and being able to have control over one’s own love life is comforting, and contrary to popular belief, more control can be implemented into online dating than the websites allow. The user’s success in online dating is not up to the computer, but the user him/herself, by taking the initiative the user can ensure that their needs are met beyond the scope of what technology can provide.  Users may feel like the surveys that the websites offer do not cover the user’s most attractive traits and importance. In a TED talk by a researcher and online dating success story, Amy Webb, she explains her method to hacking online dating, and how she made the questionnaires work in her favor. Her hacking did not go as far as infiltrating the website, but instead created her own point system alongside the dating website’s matches (Webb). She first created a list of things that were important to her like being “Jew-ish,” and a list of  things that would be nice like “being 20lbs heavier” than her “at all times” (Webb). She then assigned points to these traits depending on their importance, and different point values granted different actions like, “900 points” made it okay to go on a date (Webb). Amy Webb’s experience shows that it’s important to make sure the user knows what they want in a relationship and in a partner, and to prioritize those needs. Like in any relationship, there are certain qualities each person in a relationship value and need, and that those needs have to be met by their partner, or the relationship won’t work. Amy Webb needed to be honest with herself about what she wanted and what she really valued, and although found a lot of failure at first with men, eventually she met her husband through this method. The website was able to introduce Webb to more men than her small town allowed, but her own work narrowed down the search to men that were going to satisfy her real needs, instead of a man that shared a common interest. Like in reality, there are hits and misses; not everyone a person likes, likes them back, and not every match may be a good fit, or will be attracted to the person.   Therefore, technology cannot be to blame for the failures in a user’s experience with online dating. 

The idea of online dating  is like a coworker that recommends another coworker to a friend because they share a common interest; it is the coworker who now has the ability to match their coworker with their billions of friends around the world that share an interest. According to researchers Aaron Smith and Maeve Duggan, of the Pew Research Center on online dating and relationships, “One in ten Americans have used an online dating site or a mobile dating app”(Linares). Of those one in ten Americans, Smith and Duggan “also found that 66 percent of those who have used an online dating site or application have actually gone on dates with those whom they met on the site or application. (Linares)” There are sites for all kinds of people, with all kinds of interests, and needs or attractions, like the website Single Parent Meet (Ulick & Wodtke 8). After picking a website, the user must sign up and usually take a survey. Different websites will ask different questions. These questions are looking for shared interests, similar backgrounds, shared ethnicity, commitment type, and a love for a common thing like movies (Ulick & Wodtke 8). Then the user creates a profile, with a few pictures of themselves and a quick “about me” (Ulick & Wodtke 13). The sites can then “match” the users based on their preferences or interests, and are also free to browse profiles on their own (Ulick & Wodtke 13-14). The main goal of the websites is to narrow down the search for a date by “matching,” the needs, wants, and likes of people. Once the search is narrowed, the user is free to pick the people they like the most; like the coworker example previously mentioned. Therefore, online dating is merely an introductory service, giving the user more opportunities to meet people than their small town may allow, but narrow down the search to people who share common interests. 

Effective communication is based on the foundation of honesty in any relationship, especially between couples, and good communication in a relationship starts at the initial introduction.  Ultimately, it is up to the user to present their idea of their best self, but their idea of their best may not be who they really are anymore. Dating is very intimidating, especially when a dater is uncomfortable in their own skin, but it is still crucial for online daters to present themselves accurately. When dating, and specifically online dating, honesty is “the most important thing” (Ulick & Wodtke 261). For example, when taking pictures for a profile, a user may be inclined to use picture from when they were a few pounds lighter, but that could give a prospective match the wrong idea. The users want to see who they saw in the picture that they matched with, not the person the person they used to be (Ulick & Wodtke 63). The user needs to show their real self as they are the moment ( or close to), they started online dating (63). It needs to be the truth, so the user and their date feel comfortable that they met the person they saw online, and that the user found a match who likes them for who they are (63). Even if the user is not comfortable with who he or she is, it is important that they are honest about who they are to themselves and their matches. It shows the user’s date that they are honest and are happy with who they are (263). If a date starts out with a lie, which is poor communication, it is difficult to expect honesty and good communication in serious relationship, online or not. It is clear that honesty is very important when online dating, and that is important not just online, but in any kind of relationship, in order to clearly communicate with each other. 

Social media has diminished some of the pre-first date jitters, by allowing people to see their various social media profiles, which gives the sense of knowing their first date before meeting them. Meeting someone for a first date whether it be through a mutual friend who set up a blind date or a couple who matched on a dating website are both equally intimidating.   Whether it be Facebook, Instagram or Twitter, anybody can view a person’s profile and get a sense of who they are through their posts, likes, friends, and photos. This preliminary research done before a date can be used to break the ice, for example, if a person saw that their date had a lot of travel photos, that person can ask where they have traveled or where they want to travel. In an academic journal by leading researchers at the Ohio State University, Jesse Fox and Courtney Anderegg, reported “Emerging adults report relying on Facebook to research potential romantic partners, employing passive strategies (e.g., reading the target’s profile), active strategies (e.g., identifying common friends through Facebook’s visible connections and asking them about the target), and interactive strategies (e.g., sending a friend request to the target.(686)” These behaviors reduce the uncertainty one may have before a date, or even a few dates into a new relationship. As a result of technology, dating is less intimidating when the individuals can get a first glance of their date through social media before actually meeting them in person. In summary, social media has given people a feeling of ease because people can see what they are getting into before they start dating.

Meeting someone for a first-date can create anxiety, but having the ability to use a phone or computer to get to know someone through their social media profiles has helped ease a lot of that anxiety. Just scratching the surface, this pre-dating research may be considered “stalking”, and should as a result be a societal taboo, but it's not. This preliminary research has become more socially accepted, and possibly expected of people in the dating world. In fact, the study by Courtney Anderegg and Jesse Fox further shows that this research is seen throughout a relationship, and that the certain types of research are more normal in different stages of a relationship.  Passive strategies, like going through the date’s Facebook photos or posts, were found to be more normal before the couples were dating than after a serious relationship had begun (Anderegg, Fox 688). Active strategies, trying to befriend their date’s friend or family member, were found to be the least normal before the couple met in person, and most acceptable when the couple became monogamous (688). Finally, interactive strategies, like posting on a date’s timeline, were most normal when the couple was monogamous (688-689). It is clear that a growing number of people have been incorporating technology into their love life in order to reduce their anxiety of meeting potential dates. 

Technology has introduced a new medium of communication much like mailing letters did many years ago, which do not change the words themselves just how people receive it. The 21st century way of communicating is through the internet, and it doesn’t stop at online dating. Even in established relationships, technology still plays a role; through the patterns of passive, active, and interactive uncertainty strategies, which follow the progression of a traditional relationship. Passive behaviors are more likely to occur when “potential partners do not know each other very well at first, and it may seem inappropriate to employ other strategies, such as directly asking the target, given the lack of familiarity between parties (Anderegg, Fox 688).” In addition, active strategies are more common in couples that are exclusive “considering that meeting the parents and other network members is often perceived as an indicator of commitment to the relationship and potential for longevity (Anderegg, Fox 689) .” Interactive behaviors follow the pattern for an exclusive and more serious relationship, which “typically aim to foster intimacy and togetherness, these types of behaviors can help to reach goals and can serve as a supplement to the intimacy experienced face-to-face.”(Anderegg, Fox 688-689) These interactive behaviors “serve as public displays of affection and communicate the state of the relationship to other individuals on Facebook”(Anderegg, Fox 689), and also “they reassure the individual of the partner’s investment or interest”(Anderegg Fox 689). Even though this communication is internet based, it is clear the traditional relationship and communication has not changed, but the medium through which people communicate has changed. Despite these strategies matching a traditional relationship, it is not technology that helps bring the couple through each stage, but these strategies show how technology plays a role in each strategy in the different stages of the relationship. Although these strategies were studied through one social media outlet, it is an indicator of change in communication as a whole, which shows the impact technology has had on communication, and specifically in the communication between a couples.

Many couples choose to make their lives public through social media by establishing their relationship status on social media, but technology can’t be to blame for the failed success or commitment in a relationship. Becoming “Facebook official” (FBO) has become very important in 21st century relationships. This act occurs when a couple releases to their Facebook friends that they are in a relationship.  As in any relationship, establishing the commitment and seriousness of a relationship is very important, but the definition of the relationship differs between the sexes. Women felt more actively that FBO determined “exclusivity and seriousness”(Fox , Warber 6), and were also “more likely than men to believe that FBO status yielded attention from their social network both online and offline”(Fox , Warber 6). FBO can be important to a person in a relationship, and is perceived as the couple being exclusive and committed to each other. Going FBO is like telling a person’s family they are in a relationship. Having friends and family know about the relationship shows an obligation for the people involved. In this study, the discrepancy about the importance of FBO was more about the miscommunication between the couple about the seriousness of the relationship than the act of FBO itself. The problem lied on “placing a label on the relationship that means different things to each partner may cause turmoil.”(Fox, Warber 6) When posting this status, “women may take this as a sign of commitment and exclusivity that men do not intend to convey to their partner.”(Fox, Warber 6) Furthermore, men may use being FBO to “secure the fidelity of one woman while continuing to pursue other relationships simultaneously because they do not view FBO as seriously as their partner does.”(Fox, Warber 6) 

Miscommunication about the status of a relationship is a problem daters face with or without technology, and therefore technology cannot be to blame for this issue. Written interactions have been going on between admirers for centuries, and online dating and social media have become the new love letters. Take the topic of sex for example, many people have been using “media to talk about sex for a long time” (Hasinoff). “Love letters, phone sex, racy polaroids,” no matter the medium in which people used to communicate about sex, the communication and actions still occurred (Hassinoff). Paper or mail could not be to blame for the words shared between two people in a letter, yet the modern letter, technology, is being held accountable.  Cyberspace is “supported by sophisticated technology, but it is not defined by this technology; it is defined by the various physiological interactions occurring in it” ( Ben Ze’ev 2). Cyberspace is what the users make of it, which applies to using technology in dating. The outcome of a relationship does not depend on the technology itself, the computer or smartphone is not typing the message for the user, it is the user’s responsibility to say what they want to say and make the most of their opportunity.

The popular misconception is that technology has ruined relationships because of the public relying on interpersonal communication instead of intrapersonal communication. According to a study done on the impact of technology on relationships, most social media users reported a minor impact from technology on their relationship (Suh 2014).   These studies demonstrate that the problem is not the technology, but the couple itself. As mentioned earlier, technology has introduced a new medium of communication, but it has not changed communication. Technology cannot be to blame for the couple’s lack of communication with each other, which could lead to an unsuccessful relationship. 

Although technology has changed the world, it is not responsible for problems in dating and relationships. People are in control of what technology does and how much they allow technology to impact their personal lives; including, how they use technology and what they say through technology. Through the research presented in this paper, it is clear that the user is to blame for their lack of face-to –face communication with their partners, and the miscommunication in their relationships. In fact, technology has brought many benefits to love and relationships; including, reducing uncertainty in new partners and matching people through the internet who share a common interest, but wouldn’t otherwise meet. Technology is only growing, and even in favor of long distance relationships. In 2013, a bracelet that uses Bluetooth and a smartphone app to send Morse code vibrating messages to a partner through the bracelet to let them know their partner is thinking of them (Zamon 2013). There are so many possibilities and benefits that arise from technology and it is exciting what will be invented next. In conclusion, technology cannot be to blame for human error, and as technology gets more advanced, more human error can arise if these relationship and communication problems do not get addressed. 
