Filtered Out

In this work, we sought to understand the experiences and disability disclosure preferences of adults with and without disabilities who have dated online. Our 91 survey respondents expressed varying opinions about the need for potential partners to disclose disability status when online dating depending on the nature or perceived severity, with "visible" disabilities carrying a higher expectation of upfront disclosure than "invisible" disabilities. Many disabled respondents also described proactively disclosing as a technique to filter potential connections. Our findings suggest that individuals with disabilities must perform additional labor and navigate complex group norms in pursuit of personal connection. We advocate that the social computing research community consider how these processes are driven by both societal expectation and the constraints of online dating platforms. We then offer design considerations and open questions as a means to extend social computing study at the intersection of online dating and disability studies.

[1]  Lawrence R. Wheeless,et al.  Conceptualization and Measurement of Reported Self-Disclosure. , 1976 .

[2]  S. Rubin,et al.  Assessing Changes in Life Skills and Quality of Life Resulting from Rehabilitation Services. (Assessing Rehabilitation Outcomes) , 2003 .

[3]  Juliet M. Corbin,et al.  Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory , 2008 .

[4]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  What Lies Beneath: The Linguistic Traces of Deception in Online Dating Profiles , 2012 .

[5]  Gregory D. Abowd,et al.  SocialMirror: motivating young adults with autism to practice life skills in a social world , 2012, CSCW.

[6]  Rodney H. Jones.  ‘You show me yours, I’ll show you mine’: the negotiation of shifts from textual to visual modes in computer-mediated interaction among gay men , 2005 .

[7]  Richard E. Ladner,et al.  Design for user empowerment , 2014, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[8]  E. Goffman.  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , 1959 .

[9]  W. Keith Edwards,et al.  Intersectional HCI: Engaging Identity through Gender, Race, and Class , 2017, CHI.

[10]  Jacob O. Wobbrock,et al.  Self-Conscious or Self-Confident? A Diary Study Conceptualizing the Social Accessibility of Assistive Technology , 2016, ACM Trans. Access. Comput..

[11]  T. Siebers.  Disability as Masquerade , 2004, Literature and medicine.

[12]  Peter Kulchyski.  and , 2015 .

[13]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  The truth about lying in online dating profiles , 2007, CHI.

[14]  Gillian R. Hayes,et al.  Disability studies as a source of critical inquiry for the field of assistive technology , 2010, ASSETS '10.

[15]  Natilene Bowker,et al.  Disability Discourses for Online Identities , 2002 .

[16]  Richard E. Ladner,et al.  Design for user empowerment , 2015, Interactions.

[17]  Bill Hughes,et al.  Disability Studies and Phenomenology: The carnal politics of everyday life , 1999 .

[18]  Aaron Smith,et al.  Online Dating & Relationships , 2014 .

[19]  Master Textbook,et al.  Behavioral Health Trends in the United States: Results from the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health , 2017 .

[20]  Jeffrey A. Brune,et al.  Disability and Passing: Blurring the Lines of Identity , 2013 .

[21]  Krzysztof Z. Gajos,et al.  Ability-Based Design: Concept, Principles and Examples , 2011, TACC.

[22]  Erin Brady,et al.  Visual challenges in the everyday lives of blind people , 2013, CHI.

[23]  Jennifer L. Gibbs,et al.  The Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self-Disclosure, and Perceived Success in Internet Dating , 2006 .

[24]  Colin Fitzpatrick,et al.  Social and Personal Disclosure in a Location-Based Real Time Dating App , 2015, 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[25]  M. Harding.  Invisible disability' , 1990, British Dental Journal.

[26]  Colin Fitzpatrick,et al.  “I Shut the Door”: Interactions, tensions, and negotiations from a location-based social app , 2018, New Media Soc..

[27]  Russell Shuttleworth,et al.  What's so ‘critical’ about critical disability studies? , 2009 .

[28]  Ellen Samuels,et al.  My Body, My Closet: Invisible Disability and the Limits of Coming-Out Discourse , 2003 .

[29]  Irina Shklovski,et al.  Disclosure, ambiguity and risk reduction in real-time dating sites , 2012, GROUP.

[30]  Monica T. Whitty,et al.  Revealing the 'real' me, searching for the 'actual' you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[31]  Gillian R. Hayes,et al.  Would You Be Mine: Appropriating Minecraft as an Assistive Technology for Youth with Autism , 2016, ASSETS.

[32]  N. Yip,et al.  To Tell or Not to Tell; Disability Disclosure and Job Application Outcomes , 2003 .

[33]  K. M. Kacmar,et al.  A Cybernetic Model of Impression Management Processes in Organizations , 1997 .

[34]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Looks and Lies: The Role of Physical Attractiveness in Online Dating Self-Presentation and Deception , 2010, Commun. Res..

[35]  Helene M. Lawson,et al.  Dynamics of Internet Dating , 2006 .

[36]  D. Lupton,et al.  Holding the line online: exploring wired relationships for people with disabilities , 2004 .

[37]  Larry D. Rosen,et al.  The impact of emotionality and self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional dating , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[38]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Separating Fact From Fiction: An Examination of Deceptive Self-Presentation in Online Dating Profiles , 2008, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[39]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Putting Your Best Face Forward: The Accuracy of Online Dating Photographs , 2009 .

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

[41]  Jeremy P. Birnholtz,et al.  Seeing and being seen: Co-situation and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app , 2015, New Media Soc..

[42]  Nicole B. Ellison,et al.  Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating , 2010 .

[43]  Meredith Ringel Morris,et al.  Investigating the appropriateness of social network question asking as a resource for blind users , 2013, CSCW.

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

[45]  Shaowen Bardzell,et al.  Imagining Intersectional Futures: Feminist approaches in CSCW , 2017, CSCW Companion.

[46]  K. Crenshaw.  Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics , 1989 .

[47]  Colin Fitzpatrick,et al.  Identity, identification and identifiability: the language of self-presentation on a location-based mobile dating app , 2014, MobileHCI '14.

[48]  Michael Sunnafrank.  Predicted Outcome Value During Initial Interactions A Reformulation of Uncertainty Reduction Theory , 1986 .

[49]  Alison Kafer,et al.  Feminist, Queer, Crip , 2013 .

[50]  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..

[51]  S. Bruyere,et al.  Perspectives on Disability Disclosure: The Importance of Employer Practices and Workplace Climate , 2014 .

[52]  Natasha Saltes.  Disability, identity and disclosure in the online dating environment , 2013 .

[53]  Sukeshini A. Grandhi,et al.  Impression management through communication in online dating , 2014, CSCW Companion '14.

[54]  M. Shildrick.  Critical Disability Studies : rethinking the conventions for the age of postmodernity , 2012 .

[55]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  What Are Emotion Expressions For ? , 2011 .

[56]  D. Leder.  The Absent Body , 1990 .

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

[58]  Simeon Keates,et al.  Inclusive Design: Design for the Whole Population , 2003 .