Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Seeking Soulmate via Voice: Understanding Promises and Challenges of Online Synchronized Voice-Based Mobile Dating

Published 29 Feb 2024 in cs.HC, cs.CY, and cs.SI | (2402.19328v1)

Abstract: Online dating has become a popular way for individuals to connect with potential romantic partners. Many dating apps use personal profiles that include a headshot and self-description, allowing users to present themselves and search for compatible matches. However, this traditional model often has limitations. In this study, we explore a non-traditional voice-based dating app called "Soul". Unlike traditional platforms that rely heavily on profile information, Soul facilitates user interactions through voice-based communication. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 dedicated Soul users to investigate how they engage with the platform and perceive themselves and others in this unique dating environment. Our findings indicate that the role of voice as a moderator influences impression management and shapes perceptions between the sender and the receiver of the voice. Additionally, the synchronous voice-based and community-based dating model offers benefits to users in the Chinese cultural context. Our study contributes to understanding the affordances introduced by voice-based interactions in online dating in China.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (72)
  1. Hanging on the ‘wire: A Field Study of an Audio-Only Media Space. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 4, 1 (mar 1997), 39–66. https://doi.org/10.1145/244754.244756
  2. ” Against Marrying a Stranger” Marital Matchmaking Technologies in Saudi Arabia. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. 1013–1024.
  3. Traci L Anderson and Tara M Emmers-Sommer. 2006. Predictors of relationship satisfaction in online romantic relationships. Communication Studies 57, 2 (2006), 153–172.
  4. The hyperpersonal effect in online dating: Effects of text-based CMC vs. videoconferencing before meeting face-to-face. Media Psychology 23, 6 (2020), 820–839.
  5. Baidu Baike. 2021. Soul. Retrieved September 2021 from https://baike.baidu.com/item/soul/19832271?fr=aladdin#reference-[21]-20525405-wrap
  6. Susan B Barnes. 2006. A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday (2006).
  7. Sampson Lee Blair and Timothy J Madigan. 2016. Dating attitudes and expectations among young Chinese adults: An examination of gender differences. The Journal of Chinese Sociology 3, 1 (2016), 1–19.
  8. Sampson Lee Blair and Timothy J Madigan. 2019. Dating, marriage, and parental approval: An examination of young adults in China. Social Science Quarterly 100, 6 (2019), 2351–2368.
  9. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis. American Psychological Association.
  10. Ángel Castro and Juan Ramón Barrada. 2020. Dating apps and their sociodemographic and psychosocial correlates: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 18 (2020), 6500.
  11. Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2014. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications.
  12. Judith S Donath. 2007. Social Signals in Supernets. J. of Computer-Mediated Communication 13, 1 (2007).
  13. Kirk W Duthler. 2006. The politeness of requests made via email and voicemail: Support for the hyperpersonal model. Journal of computer-mediated communication 11, 2 (2006), 500–521.
  14. Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11, 2 (07 2017), 415–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article-pdf/11/2/415/22317530/jjcmcom0415.pdf
  15. Dean Esmay. 2004. Usenet Personals: Advice for Straights FAQ (1/3). Retrieved September, 2021 from 11.http://www.faqs.org/faqs/personals/straightfaq/part1
  16. Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public interest 13, 1 (2012), 3–66.
  17. Andrew T Fiore and Judith S Donath. 2004. Online personals: An overview. In CHI’04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. 1395–1398.
  18. Andrew T Fiore and Judith S Donath. 2005. Homophily in online dating: when do you like someone like yourself?. In CHI’05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. 1371–1374.
  19. People are experience goods: Improving online dating with virtual dates. Journal of Interactive Marketing 22, 1 (2008), 51–61.
  20. Ateret Gewirtz-Meydan and Liat Ayalon. 2018. Forever young: Visual representations of gender and age in online dating sites for older adults. Journal of women & aging 30, 6 (2018), 484–502.
  21. First comes love, then comes Google: An investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research 38, 1 (2011), 70–100.
  22. Ralph Gross and Alessandro Acquisti. 2005. Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society. 71–80.
  23. Jeffrey T Hancock and Philip J Dunham. 2001. Impression formation in computer-mediated communication revisited: An analysis of the breadth and intensity of impressions. Communication research 28, 3 (2001), 325–347.
  24. Jeffrey T Hancock and Catalina L Toma. 2009. Putting your best face forward: The accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication 59, 2 (2009), 367–386.
  25. Seeking Love and Companionship through Streaming: Unpacking Livestreamer-moderated Senior Matchmaking in China. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 274, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581195
  26. E-Ling Hsiao et al. 2012. Synchronous and asynchronous communication in an online environment: Faculty experiences and perceptions. Quarterly review of distance education 13, 1 (2012), 15.
  27. Looking for the right swipe: Gender differences in self-presentation on Tinder profiles. Annu. Rev. Cyberther. Telemed 149 (2019).
  28. Linda A Jackson and Jin-Liang Wang. 2013. Cultural differences in social networking site use: A comparative study of China and the United States. Computers in human behavior 29, 3 (2013), 910–921.
  29. The disclosure–intimacy link in computer-mediated communication: An attributional extension of the hyperpersonal model. Human communication research 37, 1 (2011), 58–77.
  30. From perception to behavior: Disclosure reciprocity and the intensification of intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 40, 1 (2013), 125–143.
  31. Let’s Talk @Clubhouse: Exploring Voice-Centered Social Media Platform and Its Opportunities, Challenges, and Design Guidelines. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI EA ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 450, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519774
  32. Ernest Kramer and Charles D Aronovitch. 1970. Voice expression and rated extraversion. Journal of projective techniques and personality assessment 34, 5 (1970), 426–427.
  33. Jeffrey H Kuznekoff and Lindsey M Rose. 2013. Communication in multiplayer gaming: Examining player responses to gender cues. New Media & Society 15, 4 (2013), 541–556.
  34. Adeline Y Lee and Amy S Bruckman. 2007. Judging you by the company you keep: dating on social networking sites. In Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work. 371–378.
  35. Soohyung Lee and Muriel Niederle. 2015. Propose with a rose? Signaling in internet dating markets. Experimental Economics 18, 4 (December 2015), 731–755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-014-9425-9
  36. “I feel it is my responsibility to stream”: Streaming and Engaging with Intangible Cultural Heritage through Livestreaming. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland UK) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300459
  37. Vicariously Experiencing it all Without Going Outside: A Study of Outdoor Livestreaming in China. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 25 (nov 2019), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359127
  38. You Watch, You Give, and You Engage: A Study of Live Streaming Practices in China. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174040
  39. Christina Masden and W. Keith Edwards. 2015. Understanding the Role of Community in Online Dating. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702417
  40. Julia Naftulin. 2019. Dating apps are turning to message-free meetups and text-only profiles to battle online dating fatigue. Retrieved September, 2021 from https://www.insider.com/dating-apps-the-league-bounce-old-school-methods-2019-12
  41. Voice Based Dating Application. In 2020 19th RoEduNet Conference: Networking in Education and Research (RoEduNet). IEEE, 1–6.
  42. Does Online Dating Promotion Vary Across Cultures? A Cross-cultural Analysis of Homepage Advertisements of Online Dating Services in 51 Countries. Journal of Creative Communications 17, 2 (2022), 179–198.
  43. Altman Yuzhu Peng. 2021. Gender and the privacy paradox in Chinese college students’ locative dating communication. Global Media and China 6, 2 (2021), 225–240.
  44. When online dating partners meet offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication between online daters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20, 1 (2015), 99–114.
  45. The impact of emotionality and self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional dating. Computers in Human Behavior 24, 5 (2008), 2124–2157.
  46. Exploring the hook-up app: Low sexual disgust and high sociosexuality predict motivation to use Tinder for casual sex. Personality and Individual Differences 133 (2018), 17–20.
  47. The Labor of Fun: Understanding the Social Relationships between Gamers and Paid Gaming Teammates in China. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 140, 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445550
  48. Elizabeth Sillence and Chris Baber. 2004. Integrated digital communities: combining web-based interaction with text messaging to develop a system for encouraging group communication and competition. Interacting with computers 16, 1 (2004), 93–113.
  49. Aaron Whitman Smith and Maeve Duggan. 2013. Online dating & relationship. Pew Research Center Washington, DC.
  50. Gavin Smith. 2013. Dating Services in the US Industry Market Research Report from IBISWorld Has Been Updated. Retrieved September, 2021 from http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/3/prweb10537905.htm
  51. Randy Jay C Solis and Ka Yee J Wong. 2019. To meet or not to meet? Measuring motivations and risks as predictors of outcomes in the use of mobile dating applications in China. Chinese Journal of Communication 12, 2 (2019), 204–223.
  52. Is your accent right for the job? A meta-analysis on accent bias in hiring decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (2022), 01461672221130595.
  53. Michael Spence. 2002. Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American Economic Review 92, 3 (2002), 434–459.
  54. Brian H Spitzberg and Gregory Hoobler. 2002. Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New media & society 4, 1 (2002), 71–92.
  55. Susan Sprecher. 2014. Initial interactions online-text, online-audio, online-video, or face-to-face: Effects of modality on liking, closeness, and other interpersonal outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior 31 (2014), 190–197.
  56. Susan Sprecher and Pamela C Regan. 2002. Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 19, 4 (2002), 463–481.
  57. Dare to Dream, Dare to Livestream: How E-Commerce Livestreaming Empowers Chinese Rural Women. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 297, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517634
  58. Catalina Toma. 2006. An Examination of Deceptive Self-Presentation in Online Dating Profiles. (2006).
  59. Catalina L Toma. 2010. Perceptions of trustworthiness online: the role of visual and textual information. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 13–22.
  60. Suvi Uski and Airi Lampinen. 2016. Social norms and self-presentation on social network sites: Profile work in action. New media & society 18, 3 (2016), 447–464.
  61. Joseph B Walther. 1996. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication research 23, 1 (1996), 3–43.
  62. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Photographic images in long-term and short-term computer-mediated communication. Communication research 28, 1 (2001), 105–134.
  63. Gay Dating on Non-dating Platforms: The Case of Online Dating Activities of Gay Men on a Q&A Platform. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW2, Article 298 (nov 2022), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555189
  64. Janelle Ward. 2017. What are you doing on Tinder? Impression management on a matchmaking mobile app. Information, Communication & Society 20, 11 (2017), 1644–1659.
  65. Barry Wellman. 1999. Net-surfers don’t ride alone: Virtual communities as communities. Networks in the global village (1999).
  66. Martin King Whyte. 1997. The fate of filial obligations in urban China. The China Journal 38 (1997), 1–31.
  67. Impression of voice in relation to stereotyped occupational categories. The Japanese Journal of Psychonomic Science 20, 1 (2001), 1–12.
  68. Introverted elves & conscientious gnomes: the expression of personality in world of warcraft. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 753–762.
  69. Yimuliaoran2018. 2018. Soul Experience Analysis Report (in Chinese). Retrieved September 2021 from https://www.jianshu.com/p/b312209d899b
  70. Social Media through Voice: Synthesized Voice Qualities and Self-presentation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–21.
  71. The vocal attractiveness stereotype: Replication and elaboration. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 14, 2 (1990), 97–112.
  72. Computer-Mediated Consent to Sex: The Context of Tinder. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–26.
Citations (3)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

  • The paper presents empirical insights on how real-time voice interactions influence dating dynamics in China through interviews with 18 users.
  • It demonstrates that vocal communication shifts emphasis from visual cues to emotional expression, enhancing both authenticity and privacy.
  • The study highlights cultural and design implications for refining mobile dating platforms in contexts that value communal relationships.

Exploring the Dynamics of Voice-based Mobile Dating in a Chinese Cultural Context

Introduction to Voice-based Online Dating

The landscape of online dating has evolved significantly with the advent of Mobile Dating Applications (MDAs), fundamentally altering how individuals seek out potential romantic partners. Amidst this transformation, a non-traditional approach to dating has emerged through voice-based platforms, such as the "Soul" app. This study explores Soul, highlighting its divergence from traditional dating apps by emphasizing voice interactions over textual or visual profiles. Our investigation, driven by interviews with 18 dedicated users, aims to unravel how this voice-centric model influences user behavior, impression formation, and the overall dating experience within the unique sociocultural framework of China.

The Mechanics and Appeal of Voice-based Interactions

A distinctive feature of Soul is its synchronous voice-based interaction, enabling users to engage in one-on-one or group conversations without the preliminary judgments often associated with visual profiles. This mechanism fosters a dating environment where physical appearances take a backseat to vocal communication, thus offering:

  • A Shift from Visual to Vocal Attributes: By focusing on voice, users are encouraged to form impressions based on emotional resonance and verbal communication rather than physical attractiveness.
  • Enhanced Privacy: Users can navigate the dating scene without the risk of being visually recognized, which is particularly appealing in contexts where online dating may carry a stigma.
  • Emotional Connectivity: The immediacy and authenticity of voice communication allow users to better gauge each other's emotional states, making interactions feel more natural and intimate.

User Motivations and Dynamics

The motivations behind using Soul vary, from seeking deeper connections to valuing the privacy it offers. The voice-based model of Soul introduces new affordances for self-presentation and impression management. It enables users to:

  • Craft and control the narrative of first impressions through voice, with some modifying their vocal attributes to align with perceived ideals.
  • Engage in richer, more emotionally nuanced interactions, as voice carries intonations and subtleties absent in textual exchanges.
  • Experience a unique form of community-building in group voice chat rooms, where discussions can range from light-hearted topics to shared personal experiences.

Cultural Considerations and Implications

The study's findings suggest that voice-based dating platforms like Soul might be particularly suited to the Chinese cultural context, where collective values emphasize communal activities and relationships. The anonymous yet personal nature of voice interactions aligns well with societal norms that prize both group-oriented socialization and individual privacy. Moreover, the format of voice-based dating challenges traditional perceptions and practices around dating, potentially offering a new avenue for relationship formation that is less reliant on physical appearances and more focused on emotional and intellectual compatibility.

Future Directions in the Realm of Online Dating

The insights gleaned from Soul users underscore the potential benefits and challenges of voice-based dating. For platform designers and researchers alike, these findings invite further exploration into:

  • The role of voice in enhancing the authenticity and depth of online relationships.
  • Design strategies to mitigate potential biases or stereotypes associated with vocal characteristics.
  • The broader applicability of voice-based interactions across different cultural settings and age demographics.

In conclusion, Soul's voice-based approach offers a fresh perspective on online dating, prioritizing vocal interactions over visual cues. This focus on voice not only champions a more inclusive and privacy-conscious dating experience but also resonates with users seeking genuine emotional connections. As voice-based platforms continue to evolve, they hold the promise of enriching the social fabric of online dating by foregrounding the power of voice in forging meaningful relationships.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now

Authors (4)

  1. Chenxinran Shen 
  2. Yan Xu 
  3. Ray LC 
  4. Zhicong Lu 

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 3 tweets with 12 likes about this paper.

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up for Free