Declarative Variables in Online Dating

Declarative variables of self-description have a long-standing tradition in matchmaking media. With the advent of online dating platforms and their brand positioning, the volume and semantics of variables vary greatly across apps. However, a variable landscape across multiple platforms, providing an in-depth understanding of the dating structure offered to users, has hitherto been absent in the literature. In this study, more than 300 declarative variables from 22 Anglophone and Francophone dating apps are examined. A mixed-method research design is used, combining hierarchical classification with an interview analysis of nine founders and developers in the industry. We present a new typology of variables in nine categories and a classification of dating apps, which highlights a double mimetic-distinctive mechanism in the variable definition and reflects the dating market. From the interviews, we extract three main factors concerning the economic and sociotechnical framework of coding practices, the actors' personal experience, and the development methodologies including user traces that influence this mechanism. This work, which to our knowledge is the most extensive thus far on dating app declarative variables, provides a new perspective on the analysis of the intersection between developers and users of online dating, which is mediated through variables, among other components.

[1]  Miguel Goulão,et al.  Requirements specification for developers in agile projects: Evaluation by two industrial case studies , 2020, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[2]  Florian Schulz,et al.  Indicating Mate Preferences by Mixing Survey and Process-generated Data. The Case of Attitudes and Behaviour in Online Mate Search , 2009 .

[3]  Yizhou Sun,et al.  Design of reciprocal recommendation systems for online dating , 2016, Social Network Analysis and Mining.

[4]  Elizabeth Bruch,et al.  Extracting multistage screening rules from online dating activity data , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Adam Burke Occluded algorithms , 2019, Big Data & Society.

[6]  Mo Yu,et al.  New to online dating? Learning from experienced users for a successful match , 2016, 2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM).

[7]  Eldad Davidov,et al.  Refining the theory of basic individual values. , 2012, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Marti A. Hearst,et al.  Assessing attractiveness in online dating profiles , 2008, CHI.

[9]  J. Goody,et al.  La raison graphique : la domestication de la pensée sauvage , 1979 .

[10]  H. Maas Letts Calculate: Moral Accounting in the Victorian Period , 2016 .

[11]  Dominique Boullier,et al.  Replications in quantitative and qualitative methods: a new era for commensurable digital social sciences , 2019, ArXiv.

[12]  Big data challenge for social sciences and market research : From society and opinion to replications , 2017 .

[13]  M. Akrich User Representations: Practices, Methods and Sociology , 1995 .

[14]  Églantine Schmitt Des humains dans la machine : la conception d’un algorithme de classification sémantique au prisme du concept d’objectivité , 2016 .

[15]  Helena Karasti,et al.  Studying Infrastructuring Ethnographically , 2018, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[16]  Sukeshini A. Grandhi,et al.  Impression Management Struggles in Online Dating , 2014, GROUP.

[17]  Hua Jiang,et al.  Predicting User Replying Behavior on a Large Online Dating Site , 2014, ICWSM.

[18]  Adam Arvidsson,et al.  ‘Quality singles’: internet dating and the work of fantasy , 2006, New Media Soc..

[19]  Gerhard Schwabe,et al.  Don’t be afraid! Persuasive Practices in the Wild , 2018, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[20]  Rebecca E. Grinter Workflow Systems: Occasions for Success and Failure , 2000, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[21]  Abbas Tashakkori,et al.  Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences , 2008 .

[22]  F. D. Singly Les manœuvres de séduction : une analyse des annonces matrimoniales , 1984 .

[23]  Sukeshini A. Grandhi,et al.  Enhancing Evaluation of Potential Dates Online Through Paired Collaborative Activities , 2015, CSCW.

[24]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  How (far) can rationality be naturalized? , 2012, Synthese.

[25]  Wei Xu,et al.  When Online Dating Meets Nash Social Welfare: Achieving Efficiency and Fairness , 2018, WWW.

[26]  Nicole B. Ellison,et al.  First Comes Love, Then Comes Google: An Investigation of Uncertainty Reduction Strategies and Self-Disclosure in Online Dating , 2011, Commun. Res..

[27]  Bruno Ribeiro,et al.  Online dating recommendations: matching markets and learning preferences , 2014, WWW.

[28]  Nicole B. Ellison,et al.  Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[29]  A. Schmitz Elective Affinities 2.0?. A Bourdieusian Approach to Couple Formation and the Methodology of E-Dating , 2012 .

[30]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  From Object-Oriented to Fluid Ontology: a Case Study of the Materiality of Design Work in Agile Software Development , 2018, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[31]  Christine T. Wolf,et al.  Making Sense of Enterprise Apps in Everyday Work Practices , 2019, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[32]  Victoria McArthur,et al.  The construction of gender in dating apps: an interface analysis of Tinder and Bumble , 2018, Feminist Media Studies.

[33]  C. Bath Searching for methodology: Feminist technology design in computer science , 2009 .

[34]  Gerald Schermann Continuous experimentation for software developers , 2017, Middleware 2017.

[35]  D. Boullier Prises et emprises dans les systèmes d’aides homme-machine : pour une anthropologie de l’appropriation , 2006 .

[36]  Christian Licoppe,et al.  Grindr casual hook-ups as interactional achievements , 2016, New Media Soc..

[37]  Sukeshini A. Grandhi,et al.  The Coaches Said...What?: Analysis of Online Dating Strategies Recommended by Dating Coaches , 2016, GROUP.

[38]  L’agencement chronologique des plateformes/marques : ni territoires, ni conversations, mais réplications , 2018, Questions de communication.

[39]  Irina Shklovski,et al.  Let's Talk About Sex (Apps), CSCW , 2015, CSCW Companion.

[40]  D. Boullier Archéologie des messageries , 1989 .

[41]  Eva Illouz Réseaux amoureux sur Internet , 2006 .

[42]  M. Jacomy,et al.  Le web matrimonial des migrants , 2010 .

[43]  David F. Redmiles,et al.  On The Roles of APIs in the Coordination of Collaborative Software Development , 2009, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[44]  Tawanna Dillahunt,et al.  People-Nearby Applications: How Newcomers Move Their Relationships Offline and Develop Social and Cultural Capital , 2017, CSCW.

[45]  Elizabeth F. Churchill,et al.  (In)visible partners: people, algorithms, and business models in online dating , 2008 .

[46]  Jeremy P. Birnholtz,et al.  Online Dating as Pandora's Box: Methodological Issues for the CSCW Community , 2015, CSCW Companion.

[47]  Pernille Bjørn,et al.  Accountability in Brazilian Governmental Software Project: How Chat Technology Enables Social Translucence in Bug Report Activities , 2018, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[48]  Thomas Zimmermann,et al.  Information needs in bug reports: improving cooperation between developers and users , 2010, CSCW '10.

[49]  Ben Light,et al.  Data cultures of mobile dating and hook-up apps: Emerging issues for critical social science research , 2017, Big Data Soc..

[50]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Friendster and publicly articulated social networking , 2004, CHI EA '04.

[51]  P. Bourdieu La distinctíon: Critique sociale du jugement , 1980 .

[52]  Marcelle Stienstra,et al.  How diversity gets lost: Age and gender in design practices of information and communication technologies , 2016, Journal of women & aging.

[53]  P. Jaccard Distribution de la flore alpine dans le bassin des Dranses et dans quelques régions voisines , 1901 .

[54]  N. Oudshoorn,et al.  Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies , 2004 .

[55]  Joseph Bonneau,et al.  Cognitive disconnect: understanding facebook connect login permissions , 2014, COSN '14.

[56]  Laura Vandenbosch,et al.  Dating gone mobile: Demographic and personality-based correlates of using smartphone-based dating applications among emerging adults , 2018, New Media Soc..

[57]  Kevin J. Boudreau,et al.  Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom? An Early Look at Large Numbers of Software 'Apps' Developers and Patterns of Innovation , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[58]  Mara B. Adelman,et al.  Formal Intermediaries in the Marriage Market: A Typology and Review. , 1992 .

[59]  Judy Kay,et al.  Explicit and Implicit User Preferences in Online Dating , 2011, PAKDD Workshops.

[60]  Janine Mossuz-lavau Les nouvelles lois de l'amour , 2019 .

[61]  Eran Toch,et al.  Locality and privacy in people-nearby applications , 2013, UbiComp.

[62]  Marie Bergström La toile des sites de rencontres en France , 2011 .

[63]  Roderic N. Crooks,et al.  Determining the Extractive Casting Mold of Intimate Platforms through Document Theory , 2020, CHI.

[64]  D. Vinck Pratiques d'ingénierie , 2014 .

[65]  Judy Kay,et al.  RECON: a reciprocal recommender for online dating , 2010, RecSys '10.

[66]  A. Huberman,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook , 1994 .

[67]  Richard B. Slatcher,et al.  Online dating system design and relational decision making: Choice, algorithms, and control , 2016 .

[68]  Johann Chaulet La construcción equipada del vínculo amoroso. Las webs de encuentros y sus «caminos de confianza» , 2009 .

[69]  Judith S. Donath,et al.  Online personals: an overview , 2004, CHI EA '04.