Abstract

Websites and applications that match and connect individuals for marriage purposes are commonly used in the Western world; the use of internet-mediated services itself becomes a verified means undertaking the mainstream one. The idea of arranged marriage is subject to various pressures; for example, the diminishing of social networks and high aggregate complexity in the choice of a marital partner. Due to the dramatic increase of internet usage, there has been a various propagation of online dating application that allow people to meet and date in a cyber world, which is a new finding of life agreement services that are increasingly replacing and penetrating other commercial matchmaking media. This socialization method has been viewed to be either a bless or a curse depending on individuals’ opinions and experiences, due to, first, the tribulations that happens due to online dating and, second, the increase level of divorce rate among Egyptians. However, there have not been many previous investigations focusing on Egyptians and their usage of these applications. Cultural constraints, family and friends’ perspectives are obstacles encountering using of such applications. Some stereotypes are undermining the usage of such applications as well. This study aims to discover the perception of online dating in the Egyptian society; it will employ descriptive statistics using quantitative research methodology which involves the use of questionnaires as the research instrument. This paper aims to report the methods and findings of a survey that will administer to a sample of 122 Egyptian adults, with same demographics and backgrounds. In addition, the paper will provide quantitatively generated insights into the major themes reported by our participants related to the common approaches to cyber marriage, the current role of media, and social perception regarding cyber matchmaking and inclusion in this cultural context.

References

1. Alonzo, M. & Aiken, M. (2004), Flaming in electronic communication. Decision Support Systems, 36-205-213.
2. Blackwell, C., Birnholtz, J., & Abbott, C. (2014). Seeing and being seen: Co-situation and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 7 February 2014. doi:10.1177/1461444814521595.
3. Brooks, S., & Longstreet, P. (2015). Social networking’s peril: Cognitive absorption, social networking usage, and depression. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9(4).
4. Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn, E. L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2013). Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(25), 10135–10140. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222447110
5. Cohen, S., Janicki-Deverts, D., & Miller, G. E. (2007). Psychological stress and disease. Jama, 298(14), 1685-1687.
6. Dhir, A., Kaur, P., & Rajala, R. (2018). Why do young people tag photos on social networking sites? Explaining user intentions. International Journal of Information Management, 38(1), 117-127.
7. Ellison, N. Heino, R. Gibbs,J. (2006). Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11( 2), pp. 415–441, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x
8. Ellison, N., & Boyd, D. M. (2013). Sociality through social network sites.
9. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public interest, 13(1), 3-66.
10. Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication research, 33(2), 152-177.
11. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
12. Huang, S. A., Hancock, J., & Tong, S. T. (2022). Folk theories of online dating: Exploring people’s beliefs about the online dating process and online dating algorithms. Social Media+ Society, 8(2), 20563051221089561.
13. Joinson, A.N. (2008), Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people? Motives and uses of Facebook. In Proc. SIGCHI 2008, ACM Press 1027-1036.
14. Katz, E., Blumler, J.G., & Gurevitch, M. Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37 (1973), 509-523.
15. Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the Internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523-547.
16. Ruggiero, T.E. Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 1 (2000), 3-37.
17. Smock, A.D., Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D.Y. (2011), Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratifications approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 62322-2329
18. Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 34(8), 1023-1036.
19. Ward, J. (2017) .What are you doing on Tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app,Information, Communication & Society, 20:11, 1644-1659, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1252412
20. Wiele, C.V., & Tong, S.T. (2014). Breaking boundaries: the uses & gratifications of grindr. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing.