Sabas, Alexandra Michaella R.

11 Stem 1 ( Hail Holy Queen )

Topic:

Effects of Online Dating to Strangers

Research Design:

Phenomenology

Central Question:

What is the lived experience of teenagers regards to effect of online dating?

Sub Question:

Why do teenagers resort to online dating?

How do teenagers feel about online dating?

What are your experiences in online dating?

Title of
study, Central + Sub Research Participants Data Analysis Findings Conclusion Recommendation Similarities
Differences
Author & Questions Design (sample size) (Agreement) (Disagreement)
Yr.
How female users
Ladies First: interact on mobile Case Study Bisexual, The Data were The findings show that the The purpose of this study The findings reveal The The difference in
The dating applications Homosexual analyzed using Bumble application was to investigate how the need for a similarities of this study was
influence of is particularly and Pansexual Thematic supports Intrapersonal Bumble, a counter- change of
heteronormative mobile
this are about undertaken to
Mobile interesting, espe- Analysis variables of Psychological perceptions and
Empowerment of female dating mobile shed light on
Dating cially since these ( n = 10 ) attitudes on the
users relative to Domain application, creates dating, The how the use of a
Application tools offer them psychologically part of some users
Specific Perceived Control study focused heteronormative
s on the the opportunity to Self – selection and Self-Efficacy, empowering conditions to create a safer
Psychologic Sampling and more on a mobile mobile dating
engage in activities Motivation to Control and for female users who wish
al which might to find a ro- considerate virtual dating application
Perceived Competence.
Empowerm otherwise not However, Domain Specific mantic partner or dating space, to application creates an
ent of be accessible to Perceived Control can also friendship. Psychological truly achieve which environment to
Female them through be negatively impacted due empowerment was psychological specifically promote
Users to self-doubt when female deemed particularly empowerment. challenges psychological
traditional means
users receive little to no interesting since it
of dating?
has not been studied
traditional empowerment
matches. Interactional
( Maureen enough, particularly in gender roles. among female
variables of psychological
Tanner, a.) What are the empowerment are also relation to women users within the
Pabie Q female users’ supported, as Bumble (Francina & Joseph, 2013). online dating
Tabo, motivations for allows female users to be Moreover, scene.
2018 ) use, uses, and critically aware of the need since Bumble is reputed
benefits of the to screen potential for being a mobile dating
Bumble app? partners, understand application that empowers
relevant causal agents, female by allowing
develop skills relative to them to “make the first
b.) What does a
initiating conversations and move,” the study sought
female user
mobilize resources. to investigate how this so-
encounters while called empowerment
However, Bumble is not
using the Bumble effective in supporting came about for female
app? behavioral variables of users
psychological
c.) What are the empowerment because of
development of limitations in the tool’s
the female users’ functionality and the
agency behavior of the people
interacting on the platform.
Title of study,
Author & Yr. Central + Sub Research Participants Data Findings Conclusion Recommenda Similarities
Differences
Questions Design (sample size) Analysis tion (Agreement) (Disagreement)

As mentioned earlier, This research offers insight

MOBILE Are users Inter People with 18- Interdiscip age was not analyzed into how and why people The The similarity in The difference
DATING IN THE shaping the disciplinary 24 age range at linary with the Chi-square use mobile dating researcher this study in this study, by
DIGITAL AGE: design of new Research a university analysis test applications and the also suggests explores how comparing use
COMPUTER- Design because an differences that exist investigating and why across age and
media
MEDIATED (n=38) overwhelming between genders. It also what impact people use gender, this
applications? If
number of examines possible
COMMUNICATI so, how does mobile dating Tinder, the research found
participants were in gratifications of new
ON AND this influence Random applications popular mobile key differences
the 18-24 age range, media technologies in
RELATIONSHIP self-selection Sample preventing any real relation to design and user could have on dating between men
BUILDING ON mobile comparisons with behaviors. While the application. and women
TINDER dating older respondents. little research has objectification Like the other and their
applications Research questions explored if basic design of Tinder study it is also perceptions of
Jessica L. that are that did not evaluate principles do impact the users, both about mobile mobile dating it
James, B.S. intended for age and gender (i.e. use and application male and dating also focusing on
(2015) romantic RQ1, RQ2, RQ3) were of social mobile female. By application. what
measured using applications, this study filtering characteristics
pairings?
response averages provides a novice analysis through user men and
from the for the possible existence
a.) Why do profiles that women find
questionnaire. This of such factors.
people use include appealing
was done in an Furthermore, as
Tinder?
attempt to illustrate smartphones and mobile
limited textual might produce
how the general applications information, interesting
b.) How do focusing on findings.
population uses continue to play an
users evaluate what
Tinder. The increasing role in our daily
profiles when
researcher lives, investigating the characteristics
looking for
aggregated implications of new media men and
matches?
Likert scale data into contexts will add to the women find
subcategories that growing body of literature appealing
c.) How does
reflected individual dedicated to human and might
design influence
research questions computer interaction produce
the way people
for RQ1, RQ2, and
use Tinder? interesting
RQ3.
findings.
Title of study,
Author & Yr. Central + Research Participants Data Findings Conclusion Recommendation Similarities
Differences
Sub Design (sample size) Analysis (Agreement) (Disagreement)
Questions
How can The starting point of As a growing $2 billion
An Analysis of startups Exploratory 4 Dating sites Industry In the this paper was to industry in the US The similarity The difference
the Online enter and study Analysis identification and discover and analyze alone, the online of this study is this paper
Dating Industry compete initial analysis of existing dating sites to dating industry is an provides an discovered
reveal if any particular attractive market. several
and with dating sites, it analysis,
successful strategy The market is similarities of
How Startups established was found that evaluation and
could be developed however subject to
Can Compete, companies most of the older recommendatio successful
for startups to adopt. winner-takes-all
Copenhagen in the dating sites have ns for startups startups. Most
First, the industry was dynamics and thereby
online subscription analyzed and five difficult to enter. The seeking to notably the
(Business dating revenue models. dating sites were thesis investigated the enter most recent
School, 2015) industry? The revenue selected for an in- opportunities and andcompete launched had a
model for most depth case analysis. challenges for the online new strategy to
new dating sites The theory and startups to enter and dating industry. deal with
What are are analysis was applied in compete with Like what the creating and
the freemium or a the discussion to incumbent firms. other study maintaining
Network compare, contrast and Entrepreneurs looking their users.
combination of has.
reason out key to compete in the They also
effects? free access and
knowledge. Finally, online dating industry focused on
transactions. This seven have a huge challenge
What are is most likely due unique
recommendations ahead of them it is
the to the nature of were contributed possible to enter a
concepts as
classificatio two-sided based on that market with network well as a niche
n of a dating markets and the knowledge. The effects as a latecomer. market focus.
app? need to build up recommendations Based on this thesis,
a user base and increase a startup’s we have formulated
What are reach a critical chance of successfully the identified
the generic mass of users entering and opportunities as
and unique before being able competing in the recommendations for
dating sites? online dating industry. startups in online
to charge them.
dating.
Title of
study, Central + Sub Research Participants Data Analysis Findings Conclusion Recommendation Similarities
Differences
Author & Yr. Questions Design (sample size) (Agreement) (Disagreement)

In the survey, From the results Based on the

A STUDY OF How the Quantitative - Adult 40 - 65, Multiple questions were between gender questionnaire results, The similarity The difference
USERS’ influence factors Research divorced or Corres- available for all and influencing dating websites should is they only
improve their customer
is this study
PERCEPTION such as emotional Design separate, pondence participants in factors we concentrates study the user's
service, safety, and
OF ONLINE motivation, employed, and Analysis both Thai and found that users perception of
membership fees. The on the
DATING behavior, bachelor English speakers are influenced by company needs to online dating
online dating
with different emotional maintain quality control
WEBSITES environment, degree. websites, websites and it
backgrounds. motivation, and also match users
age, location, and - Typically influencing tell here that
From the analysis behavior, based on what
( Phaksornka convenience can female retire of 200 responses environment, and they want in daily life such factors, the users on
n lead people to 65+, widowed, collected from the location. On the as hobbies or interests. advantages dating
Vipobtanase join the online retired with convenience other hand, users Dating and websites can be
th1 and dating websites? master or sample, the data are differently websites should reduce disadvantage divided into
Bahaudin G. higher degree. their prices to make it two main
shows a great influenced by s, and
affordable to
Mujtaba2 , a.) Online dating - Teenager - 21 variance of gender, aging, convenience,
more users. Perhaps, strategies for groups as a self-
2017 ) is a good way to with typical age, employment and schedule paying websites can allow future disclosure and
meet people? single, student, status, education, factors. People people to try self-
direction
and below high relationship and make a decision to dating website for free for presentation
along with
interest. join online dating a period of 15 to 30 days.
b.) Online dating school. implications
Furthermore the websites Another
allows people to - Typical men important point is safety for corporate
distribution of for finding a
find a better with young gender is atan mate/partner or improvement, especially a social
match? adult 23 - 39, acceptable friend because user’s responsibility
married, and information that are (CSR) like the
balance of 62% their location,
c.) people who unemployed provided on the profiles.
being female and environment,
Encryption is
other study.
use Online dating with high 38% being male. emotional another way to protect
are desperate? school degree. Furthermore the motivation, and personal information with
( n = 27 ) Cronbach’s Alpha is behavior. a key
d.) online dating measured at a generated by using a key
keeps people Survey value of protocol. When dating
0.839, which shows websites have
from settling strengthened data
that the data is
down? protection, dating
reliable.
websites will gain more
new customers.
Title of study,
Author & Yr. Central + Sub Research Participants Data Analysis Findings Conclusion Recommendati Similarities
Differences
Questions Design (sample size) on (Agreement) (Disagreement)

431 The results The present study The current

Dating Life How Correlational participants Survey also indicated points to how certain research provides The similarities The difference
study Analysis individuals may a solid base for are like the is the present
Experiences: An personality and (256 females, some gender experience more or conducting future
Exploratory online dating 175 males) differences in less benefits research on the
other study, it study explores
Study of tool use from Canada, both from these tools topic of is about online the
the interact to the United motivation depending on online dating and dating and it interrelationshi
Interrelationshi influence States, Great and motivation, perceived its effects on also talks about ps between
success, and subjective well- the dating life personality,
ps between subjective well- Britain, subjective personality traits. The being. Future
Personality, being? Australia, and well-being. present research into this
experiences online dating,
Online New Zealand Men were results add to our topic could look motivations for
Dating and How were recruited found to be understanding of how at why some of use, and
Subjective personality through more likely to online dating may the present subjective well-
impact subjective well- findings occurred. being.
Well-Being traits relate to Amazon be motivated being, as well Millions of people
individual Mechanical to use these as adds to our are using online
( Diana motives for use Turk and tools for understanding of how dating tools, but
Pernokis, completed an casual sex different modes of only those who
2018 ) How these online survey (as well as dating may impact an perceive
individual’s themselves
motives relate through excitement, subjective well-being as successful may
to one’s Qualtrics. boredom, differently (e.g. be reaping the
subjective well- Participants travelling). meeting online verses positive benefits.
being were required This finding is meeting offline). Future research
to answer a consistent However, there are could delve more
certain limitations to deeply into
How the number of with past our study that should the factors that
overall use of screening research on be noted. The sample determine success
online dating questions that motivations for and how or why an
tools correlates involved for Tinder use the present study was individual
to one’s following (Sumter et al., collected on a perceives
voluntary basis themselves as
subjective well- simple 2017; through Amazon successful using
being instructions to Timmermans, Mechanical Turk, and these tools (e.g. is
ensure quality E., & De therefore is it based on the
data collection. Caluwé, E. unrepresentative of length of time
A total of 2017). as the whole populations they’ve been using
85 participants well as in the countries being these tools?
failed the findings by sampled. The fact Number of dates?
that almost 20% of the Dating partners?
elementary Roese, original sample has to Or relationships
screening Pennington, be excluded due to they’ve been in
questions and Coleman, failing simple tests of since using the
were there Janicki, Li & attention tools?).
excluded from Kenrick (2006) and following
instructions illustrates
analyses. that men had potential problems
The final more regrets regarding the
sample of sexual individuals who
consisted of inaction with complete
346 perceived lost online surveys of this
nature. There was also
participants opportunities a gender disparity
(213 females for casual sex. within the sample
and 133 males). It is possible population.
Participants that The sample had an
were 18 that the unequal distribution of
females (213) to males
years of age greater (133), and a more
and older, tendency of equal
ranging from regrets of lost distribution would
19-66 (Mage= sexual have been ideal for
37.50, SD opportunities having greater
confidence in the
=11.87). may have a generalizability of the
Individuals greater findings. There were
voluntarily influence in also virtually no
participated by the way men seniors in the sample,
responding to utilize online limiting our ability to
draw
an ad and were dating tools. conclusions on the
compensated relationship between
$0.50 in aging and our
Amazon credit variables of interest
for taking
part in the
study.
References

1. https://doi.org/10.28945/4137

2. https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/5529

3. Copenhagen Business School 2015

MSc in Business Administration and Information Systems https://studenttheses.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10417/5413/martin_wendel_og_emil_maltesen_frandsen.pdf?
sequence=1

4. http://www.journalijcst.com

5. Pernokis, Diana, "Dating Life Experiences: An Exploratory Study of the Interrelationships between Personality, Online Dating and Subjective Well-Being" (2018).
UndergraduateHonors Theses. 73.
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/psychK_uht/73