Chapter 11

The “Meet” Market

What’s a nice person like you doing in a place like this?

—Cheesy 1970s pickup line

A man approached a woman to request a dance, and was refused. He appeared chagrined and left quickly. After a few minutes, he approached a second woman with a similar request. But she did not hear him clearly at first since the music had started at the same moment, and hesitated. He took this hesitation as a second refusal and quickly left the dance entirely. By the time his request has sunk in, the second girl had risen to accept his request. As she stood, she saw him abruptly turn around and leave. Thus standing there embarrassedly, perhaps thinking he had left because he did not like what she looked like at closer range, she sat down again very quickly, red-faced. Another male approached her shortly, and very quickly, without even looking at him at all, she refused him the dance.1

The above excerpt is from a journal article published in the late 1970s. At the time, singles dances were a popular, although stigmatized, way to meet others in the dating scene. In his paper, Bernard Berk provides an analysis of the observation and interviews of singles at more than 70 dances. In a time before home computers, mass Internet consumption, or mobile devices, meeting others was largely relegated to physical venues—at work, school, or, in this case, the dreaded singles dance.

Dating. Cohabitation. Marriage. Whatever an individual’s end pursuit, there is a pervasive market of exchange that exists among millions of singles looking for a relationship. We prefer the term mating as the universal moniker to describe the process whereby an individual seeks a partner, although there are certainly more colorful names woven into the social fabric. For example, the term meat market is the culturally embedded colloquialism that captures the similarities of this sociological phenomenon to cold (pun intended), yet simple, economic principles. When one is looking for a mate, he is said to be “in the market.” If one has multiple options from which to choose, she is said to have solid “prospects.” One’s “competitors” are the other singles vying for the opportunity to nab the suitor’s target. These aren’t just interesting metaphors to describe experiences relatable to most of us. For decades, sociologists have compared the psychological aspects of mate selection with the economic principles found in free markets.

Social exchange theory is a sociological perspective that explains interactions as a series of negotiated exchanges between parties.2 Rooted in the concept are economic principles we have come to know as consumers in a free market. First, when we purchase a product, we weigh the perceived benefits against the costs. Similarly, relationships involve effort and (it is hoped) yield psychological rewards. It is not simply a matter of rewards exceeding costs that determines whether a relationship will survive. Rather, because we all have different expectations and definitions of satisfaction, our own perceptions determine our cost–benefit tolerance. Marketers understand this principle quite well. It is one of the reasons companies spend billions of dollars each year in advertising to project the appropriate image in the marketplace in an effort to attract the prospect they wish to woo. Finally, there is an element of dependence that factors into the dynamic of the relationship. In the free market, this comes down to opportunity costs (a concept we cover in more detail later). For now, let’s simply describe it as the investment that an individual must make to leave an unfulfilling relationship. If the individual already has multiple other options from which to choose (such as another admirer waiting in the wings), the decision to move on may be fairly straightforward. In contrast, if he has already established significant equity in the existing relationship through time or other investments, it may prove more difficult to walk away.

In a world dominated by face-to-face interaction, as in Berk’s singles dance observation above, the rules of social exchange are dictated by physical constraints. For the male suitor in the opening excerpt, the initial encounter resulted in a rebuff of the dance offer. Upon the second attempt, the perception of the same resulted in an abrupt about-face. The courter in this scenario likely felt an imbalance in the rewards attained to the costs associated with tangible embarrassment. Consider the powerful prose in the narrative as evidence. The reader can see in her mind’s eye the vivid imagery of red faces and averted gazes—typical social cues in a physical world to indicate the sting of embarrassment as one’s ego suffers an otherwise indiscernible blow. Indeed, back in the 1970s, one’s interactions were limited to physical signals in a world where faceless engagements propelled by the Internet had yet to enter the social landscape. In fact, the popular idiom “maintaining face” can be traced back to an article published in the late 1960s in which author Erving Goffman described “face-work” in social interaction and inspired the later writing of Berk in observing the principle in the dating market. In a physical world dominated by personal contact characterized by the dating scene before the turn of the century, one’s face becomes the tangible most closely associated when initiating a relationship or maintaining a delicate ego.

But how does this change in a virtual world where one’s face, or image, can be altered, concealed, or revealed in very different ways from those the physical world has allowed? Social exchange theory is not without its critics, including those who admonish its characterization of human intimacy as nothing more than a series of rational choices arising from economic tenets.3 However, it is a useful paradigm within which to explore how virtual relationships apply in this context. It’s no revelation that the Internet has had a profound impact on how consumers and businesses exchange goods and services each day. Applying the same economic principles to how consumers now interact with one another in a networked-community age reflects a vibrant picture of a new meet market.

The Laws of Supply and Demand—And Attraction

The laws of supply and demand are an invisible force in our daily lives. More suppliers for a particular good or service creates a more competitive market from which consumers may partake. In contrast, the higher the demand for an item and the fewer suppliers offering it yields the opposite case, with sellers deriving more negotiating power in the exchange. At the heart of this bedrock economic principle are the juxtaposing extremes of choice versus scarcity. The more choices available in the market, the greater is the competitive pressure among suppliers. In contrast, the more scarce a particular service (as is often the case for the hottest gizmo during the peak holiday season) or the suppliers offering it (as reflected in monopolistic or oligopolistic markets), the higher is the price consumers will often face. (Note that we are deliberately ignoring the complexity of markets facing regulation that can reverse the natural tendencies in the supply–demand equation.)

In mating, supply and demand are evident. At its most primal, mating is about reproduction. A species populates to continue its survival. Evolutionary psychology, a relatively new discipline, explores how the laws of attraction can be traced back to our primitive urge to reproduce. In addition, we can’t explore reproduction without also examining the biological differences that separate males from females.

Our ability to reproduce varies significantly between the sexes. Whereas males have a seemingly endless supply of sperm with which to impregnate females, females are confined to a rhythmic ovulation cycle, in which fertility is confined to specific days of the month. Furthermore, assuming a female is impregnated, she faces a gestation period of nine months, further preventing the option for additional pregnancies during that time. Also, whereas males can father children well into their latter years, a female’s abilities become more limited as the biological clock ticks on. In economic terms, the supply of sperm exceeds that of eggs. Because both an egg and sperm are required for reproduction, scarcity enters the mating scene. What results is a difference in how males are attracted to females and vice versa.

Evolutionary psychologists theorize that males tend to be attracted to females who appear more youthful precisely because of the law of supply and demand. In fact, evidence suggests that a male’s ability to sense when a woman is ovulating actually heightens this physical attraction and encourages riskier behavior on the part of the man. In one such study, a female student in cahoots with researchers interacted with male subjects. The female was instructed to keep track of her ovulation cycle. During the days of interaction with the male subjects, she was also directed not to wear perfume or makeup or otherwise alter her physical appearance. She was trained to act in a non-flirtatious and consistent manner with each male participant. Of course, none of the male subjects knew the female was part of the study; they were simply informed that she was another subject in the experiment.

The researchers then went to work observing the interesting game of sexual attraction. The female participated along with male respondents in constructing a structure of Lego building blocks. On days the female was ovulating, males tended to mimic her nonverbal cues, an indication of allure supported by other psychological studies that suggest we mirror the behaviors of others we seek to attract. After the exercise, the man was asked to play a computer game of Blackjack with the woman sitting behind him watching his choices. On the days the female was ovulating, the male was more likely to make riskier decisions during the Blackjack simulation.4

It comes as no surprise that men are attracted to beauty, but the subtext that this physical inclination is rooted in a more primal survival extinct of propagating a species takes on an interesting nuance. The importance of appearance is evident as a force of attraction for males and a source of deception for females. For thousands of years, females have used cosmetics to enhance physical features. Indeed, social experiments have shown makeup to be successful in attracting males.5 The virtual world’s makeup allows for more dramatic altering of one’s physical appearance with tools like Photoshop, as discussed in Chapter 10. Or, in more extreme cases, where attractiveness is a scarce resource, some go so far as to steal it. Consider one of the attractive females in our study, Jodi, a 20-something who reminisces on her earlier foreboding experiences with then social-networking pioneer MySpace:

I started finding other profiles of myself. People would take my pictures and pretend to be me. And there were multiple of them. I’d be different ages. I’d be living in Florida, I lived in Kansas, I lived in New Jersey—all over. They would take pictures of my friends and make profiles of my friends in order to make themselves look more real—more like me.

Jodi’s case is not that isolated, considering that nearly 30 percent of those in our study admit to proactively looking for fake social-networking pages set up in their name or using their likeness. Also, the behavior appears to be particularly pronounced among emerging adults, for whom one’s presentation becomes all the more important in inviting the right suitor, even if that presentation is a sham.

Continuing with our evolutionary psychology discussion, if males are attracted to the physical, females are attracted to status. The stakes of bearing a child are biologically higher for a female. As such, these costs are powerful inputs to the risk-versus-reward balancing act so important in social exchange theory. For the female, choosing a partner carefully based on long-term potential increases the odds of finding a dad as opposed to a cad (a playful characterization adopted by scientists to explain the female mating choice).

Regarding the impact of ovulation in attracting a male, it turns out that ovulation has been shown to encourage riskier behavior among females as well. British anthropologists seeking to understand how the birth control pill affects the rules of attraction made an interesting discovery. During a woman’s ovulation cycle, the researchers found females to be more attracted to men with masculine characteristics and to those with an immune system genetically different from their own (which some scientists suspect could make for healthier offspring). In contrast, when women were not ovulating, they tended to gravitate toward photos of men with a more feminine look—a subliminal appeal toward men not as susceptible to testosterone and more likely to stick around for the long haul.6 At a minimum, the study reflects differences in female attraction, depending on if she is ovulating. During times when she is not, she is more likely to be attracted to a man with a perceived ability to provide resources (emotional or otherwise) to sustain the relationship.

In a physical world, status is commanded by material possessions. For example, much to the dismay of everyday working Joes, there is scientific evidence to support the theory that women find men in expensive cars to be more attractive, all else being equal (the same is not the case for men).7 However, as we discussed in Chapter 9, the virtual world has an entirely different set of status symbols to signify one’s success. Among them is how popular one is in attracting attractive mates himself, perhaps explaining the never-ending battle to have the most friends online among singles seeking status. According to Jack, our 20-something single male respondent:

Jack: I have quite a few friends [on Facebook]. I keep a watch on how many friends I have.

Interviewer: Because more Facebook friends means?

Jack: I’m popular. The first week I started Facebook, I had like five friends. I was nervous.

The notion of popularity is not a new concept and certainly not unique to a virtual world. In Berk’s paper on singles dances in the 1970s, he noted one of the defense mechanisms used by singles in that social scene:

“Coming with a friend,” in addition to projecting an image of respectability, can help establish a front of popularity or desirability. The public display of friendship staves off aspersions of unpopularity and attests to the likability of the individual.8

Hence, fronting one’s posse as a testament to his likeability is not new. However, in a virtual world where counting friends becomes possible, if not easier, this new measure of status can help separate the attractive from the unattractive in a market thick with choices.

Thus, online individuals have a new scene within which to participate—one in which males can troll for attractive females based on enhanced Photoshop pics and females can count status points like friends more easily. But this sounds like a very depraved depiction (and not entirely fair characterization) of an online dating market that is booming and cultivating happy relationships each day. It is not our intention to pass judgment on how the initial spark of attraction is ignited or how it manifests itself online. Rather, we argue that the virtual world has a dramatic impact on these physical laws. But, for the extreme case of how the laws of supply and demand can apply literally in an online mating environment, consider whatsyourprice.com as the latest social-networking dating site to enter the ring. On whatsyourprice.com, members scan the market for individuals who fit their type. But, rather than go through the normal exchange typical in a virtual world (read: “actually engaging to establish mutual interests before meeting offline”), the site features an online auction of sorts, where suitors and targets can actively negotiate the highest price to secure a date. If you’re an Average Joe looking for the Above Average Josephine, send her an offer—say $20, $50, $100, or more—to agree to meet you. If she accepts, you get the date, and whatever happens from there is of no consequence to the site that connected you. If nothing else, whatsyourprice.com will prove to be an interesting sociological experiment. Referring back to social exchange theory, it removes the uncertainty (albeit in a questionable way) of financial costs versus rewards for each party. Of course, social exchange theorists and their critics alike are likely reeling from a site that takes the economic principles of supply and demand in the mating game to an entirely new level.

Endless Opportunities—And Opportunity Costs

In economic theory, an opportunity cost is what one gives up to pursue something else. Let’s demonstrate with an example. Suppose Amanda has $100 to spend and she is contemplating the choice between a new jacket or pair of shoes. If she selects the shoes, her opportunity cost is the jacket. Depending on how much she really deliberated her decision (in other words, how close the jacket was in contention for her scarce financial resource), the opportunity cost of forgoing the jacket is relatively high. The principle has been used in economics to measure the relationship between scarcity and choice.9

In a relevant market confined by physical constraints, one’s choices (and therefore opportunity costs) are finite. For example, when considering where to fill up one’s gas tank, one likely considers gas stations along an established route or within a specific geographic radius. If I am a New York resident envious of the lower gas prices available in Texas, it would be impossible for me to frequent stations in the Lone Star state. Therefore, although I may desire to save money with cheaper fuel, these Texas stations are not an opportunity cost for me because they were never part of my relevant market in the first place.

Relating this principle back to mating, consider the dating scene before the dawn of the Internet. Finding a potential mate involved a physical meeting of some sort. In the study of attraction, it’s referred to as the propinquity effect, and it has several attributes.

First, there’s the element of availability. Just as a New Yorker can’t patronize a Texas gas station, singles back in the day were largely confined to physical constraints in meeting someone new. Also, the more frequently the person was encountered, the more likely we were to develop a relationship—whether platonic or romantic. In the dating scene of days gone by, the prospective dater’s relevant market was confined to those individuals physically in her life on a regular basis.

Next, there’s the notion of interaction. The more regular my encounters with a particular individual, the more likely it is that I can anticipate the social interaction that follows. In fact, one begins preparing for these interactions over time. Also, the more preparation that is put forth, the more likely it is that a meaningful relationship will ensue.

Finally, there’s the exposure effect. Studies suggest that the more we encounter something, the more likely we are to like it. The mere exposure engenders attraction. In Chapter 1, on presentation, we spoke of Lacan’s mirror image theory. Recall that the image we see in a mirror is not how others actually see us, but how we perceive ourselves to be. It is also the image that we have grown comfortable seeing every day on a regular basis. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that when offering someone a choice between his mirror image and a photograph taken of him, he is likely to choose the mirror image as the more attractive of the two. The exposure effect would suggest that this has much to do with the familiarity of seeing the mirror image on a regular basis as opposed to an isolated photograph.10

What does all this have to do with mating in a virtual world? First, the notion of availability becomes less relevant in a world unconfined by physical boundaries. Second, interaction shifts as the sequence of communication no longer is bound by physical time constraints (consider the popularity of texting as just one example of asynchronous communication not requiring real-time discourse between two parties). Finally, exposure becomes even more interesting in that it is no longer confined to the physical but also may be enhanced based on how one projects her online persona.

This confluence of factors has one more interesting, and critical, outcome—opportunities for mate selection increase, and, as such, so do the opportunity costs. Psychologist Barry Schwartz forewarns how this tyranny of abundance can negatively affect one’s relationship success:

People walk starry-eyed looking not into the eyes of their romantic partner but over their romantic partner’s shoulder, in case there might be somebody better walking by. This is not the road to successful long-term relationships.11

Perhaps this abundance of choice helps explain the prevalence of Facebook in more and more U.S. divorce proceedings. An innocent exchange between two online friends can quickly progress to a full-fledged emotional affair. In a physical world, the spark would be ignited by a physical encounter—perhaps among coworkers in the same office, where the risks of a tawdry affair being discovered are high among watchful eyes in a work environment. But, with physical boundaries shattered and met by the colliding forces of interaction and exposure in a new networked-community age, Facebook can fuel relationships otherwise impossible to maintain. As Schwartz explains, the proliferation of choice breeds within us the illusion that perfection, or an ideal, exists somewhere in the world, if only we could find it.

If we can’t find it, we can always create it. A new site, cloudgirlfriend.com, allows members to design their ideal mate in cyberspace. The fantasy creation then interacts with its creator, even to the extent of posting items on the latter’s Facebook wall, as though coming from an actual mate. These are not the interactions designed by faceless bots in the sky. Instead, the site uses real people to engage in fake relationships with those looking to increase their coolness quotient in an attempt to attract others. It’s a bit of life imitating art—Weird Science meets cyberspace reality—and, as we all know from the popular John Hughes film, the nerdy guys nabbed the beautiful girls in the end simply with the illusion of popularity through their perfectly constructed Glamazon creation.

Caveat Emptor (Let the Buyer Beware)

Carole Markin, a successful entertainment executive active on Match.com (a popular online dating site), found nothing unusual about agreeing to a second date from a potential suitor in May of 2010. After all, she had used Match.com several times before successfully to meet men who fit her needs and already had one date with the man, so why should this be any different? Sure, as Markin acknowledges, people deceive in the online dating world: “People lie about their age or they lie about their weight, but they usually don’t lie about having gone to jail.” Sadly, for Markin, that’s precisely the case that landed her in a dangerous situation with fellow Match.com member—and former sex offender—Alan Paul Wurtzel. Markin alleges that Wurtzel followed her home after dinner and sexually assaulted her.12

Of course, the perils of dating are not unique to the online world. But, as we have discussed in other chapters, they are a bit exacerbated when one’s natural protection mechanisms are rendered powerless in a market where people are not always as they seem. Markin’s lawsuit against the website that matched her with Wurtzel has inspired changes to Match.com’s policies, including plans to screen users’ names against a sexual predator database. Although certainly noble in its cause, critics are quick to point out the challenges in such an approach. Users may circumvent the system with phony names or other attempts, and well-meaning members may find themselves in a case of mistaken identity if they suffer a common name.

Still, the need for protection is apparent. Beyond the obvious danger of criminals lurking in the online shadows, the temptation to embellish, if not deliberately misrepresent, one’s image can present itself in less nefarious, although still concerning, ways. For Julie, the 30-something single soccer mom referenced in Chapter 2 (on protection), there is clearly a need for more sophisticated authentication capabilities to avoid a case of mistaken identity or deliberate fraud. Technology continues to progress at an alarming rate, meaning that we might be able to rely on more unique characteristics about a person in the near future—such as one’s voiceprint or fingerprint—to augment today’s alternatives of simple name recognition. Remember Julie’s comments from earlier to punctuate the need:

You know when it’s a fake driver’s license, right? So, you can’t fake this certain person is this age—you know—this information on them. That would be good. Or, even for women—it would say, “Hey, it shows on here that he’s married, he hasn’t gotten a divorce.” All that information needs to come out. And it would be their identity—their real identity.

Julie’s point is even more understood when one considers how skeptical people are of others’ intentions online. In our study of more than 5,000 connected U.S. respondents, 77 percent agreed with the statement that others say and do things online that they wouldn’t do in the real world, compared with only 21 percent who attributed the statement to themselves. Thus, the gap between perception and reality is magnified in an online world, requiring more sophisticated tools to ameliorate its effects. If Match.com’s proposed attempt is convoluted, given the complexities in simply verifying one’s name, a more rigorous and foolproof approach using biometric authentication may be the answer. Not surprisingly, this feature is among the top tested in our study.

As in most areas of our lives, the role of technology cannot be overestimated in one of the most important life-changing decisions most of us make—the choice of a mate. Whether we attempt to project the best image of ourselves possible (a presentation attribute), are inundated with limitless choices that can be filtered to our needs (a preference attribute), or aim to avoid precarious situations with unsavory characters (a protection attribute), the role of identity as facilitated by technology becomes more challenging to manage. Still, 17 percent of married couples in the last three years met on an online dating site, and, in the last year, more than twice as many marriages resulted from online dating than from meeting in bars, clubs, and social events combined.13 Thus, one could argue that the dating scene propelled by a networked-community age may be a bit more complex, but is certainly more effective than the chance meetings at the corner bar or neighborhood hotspot.

Technology is not a substitute for meaningful social interactions, but it certainly can contribute to the same. Consider the exchange between Christine and James, a married couple in their thirties, well past the challenges of the dating scene, but an exchange reflective of the role of technology in projecting our ideal sense of identity all the same:

James: I’m at an odd in-between place. My first thing would be to protect my image but I think of that as being mid-twenties, late-twenties, early-thirties—still out there, kind of reckless, whereas now I’m moving into more stable, long-term thinking. So I would say my identity would be more important to me now. But I think my initial reaction would be image but as I think about it, it would be identity. I don’t know how to phrase it but if technology could have a sense of restraint or propriety.

Christine: Like protocol or etiquette? Like Technology with a capital “T,” like a Being or something? [Laughter]. In a way that it is not manipulated by you but in a way that exists in a certain way?

Interviewer: Can you give me an example?

James [laughing]: Nobody knows. I take it back. What I’m thinking about can’t be learned or acquired by technology but only by people using it.

James is right. Technology can’t stop someone from making poor decisions, particularly in a social scene as complex as dating. However, the opportunity for providers and for daters seeking their ideal match now rests in technology enhancements yet to come. Until then, aspiring daters the world over can at least take solace in being spared the red-faced embarrassment accompanied by rejected advances at those stigmatized singles dances from another era.