up a meta-analysis of Zipf's law which accounts for technical as well as topical factors of var- can be reproduced on a dedicated online platform. eral, the terms “rank-size rule”, “Zipf's law” and “city size distribution” are used as synonyms). . DATE: the year to which the population of cities refer (which is. The current meta-analysis is the first to synthesize these isolated and Interpersonal synchrony has been examined in a variety of forms (e.g., tapping, However, no quantitative review to date has integrated the scattered it is not surprising that researchers have examined the adaptive benefits of MSIS. A recent meta-analysis of the link between internet use and political/civic engagement Joining the forum is not synonymous with becoming a high identifier; active . However, little to no work to date has addressed whether this is an effective .. With that said, we are not aware of any research that has directly compared.
Online Dating Vs. Offline Dating: Pros and Cons | HuffPost Life
According to SIP, the rate of information exchange is slower online but, given enough time, communication conducted through CMC can be just as per- sonal as FtF communication.
Some have argued that Internet users come to know one another more quickly and intimately than in FtF relationships be- cause the features of CMC may make self-disclosure easier online versus FtF.
Individuals in CMC often are anonymous and the psychological comfort that comes from such anonymity may lead them to reveal more information about themselves Wallace, Walther specifically argued that CMC is hyperpersonal because of sender, receiver, message, channel, and feedback effects.
Because most types of online interac- tions occur asynchronously, senders may have more opportunity to review and edit information about themselves. Receivers initially engage in stereotypically positive and idealized attributions of online partners. The channel facilitates goal-enhancing messages by allowing sources greater control over message con- struction. The process of feedback creates self-fulfilling prophecies among send- ers and receivers. In sum, there are different claims on whether online communication is more or less personal than FtF communication.
Thus, we conducted a meta- analysis, a quantitative method of summarizing the results from multiple stud- ies, of self-disclosure in online versus FtF settings to provide empirical evidence to support one of these claims. For each study, we calculated the effect size for Online Self-Disclosure available dimensions of self-disclosure. Particularly, we focused on the amount and the intimacy of self-disclosure. The average effect size across studies was cal- culated. The effect size d is statistic that indicates how large an effect is.
Cohen offered the guidelines for interpreting d: To examine whether an effect size varies more than would be expected by chance across the group of studies, homogeneity of effect sizes is tested.
The sample size in our study is small, only 11 studies involving 2, participants see Table 1thus any conclusions must be interpreted with caution. Subjects were asked to a make decision as to which five people in the world should be given place in shelter in event of nu- clear war. They were stopped after 45 minutes if they had not already made a decision. Coders rated conversations for self-disclosure.
Dyads in the CMC condition disclosed significantly more than dyads in the FtF condition using two measures of self-disclosure number of self-disclosures and proportion of words coded as self-disclosure. This study appears to be an outlier effect sizes were 1. This may be due to the nature of the task. Thus, one would not want to draw conclusions on the effect of CMC on self-disclosure based on this study.
The only other study that examined actual self-disclosure in FtF versus online conversations was conducted by Tidwell and Walther In this study, strangers met FtF versus online and were instructed to either get to know one another or work on a solution to a problem.
Different time periods were allotted for CMC up to 60 minutes versus FtF up to 15 minutes conversa- tions based on the argument that time in a FtF setting is not equal to time in an online setting typing alone takes longer in an online setting. Self-disclosure was measured as the proportion of comments that contained self-disclosure. The results indicated that FtF partners disclosed more peripheral and intermediate self-disclosure than CMC interactants. There were no significant differences in core intimate self-disclosure.
(PDF) Meta-analyses in mental health research: A practical guide
Unfortunately, a content analysis of these conversations was not con- ducted. Instead, participants provided self-report measure of how much they told their partner during the conversation on six topics, relationships, love, how you feel about your physical appearance, sex, secrets, and dating. Participants in both the text-based and visual-based CMC conditions reported that they dis- closed more than participants in the FtF condition and these were large effect sizes see Table 1.
The rest of the studies see Table 1 are similar to Schouten et al. Some are ratings of self-disclosure after con- versation has taken place. Others are more general perceptions of self-disclosure. There is a great variation in the effects sizes ranging from large negative effect sizes, to no differences, to large positive effect sizes. Eyeballing the data leads to no obvious differences in study design or measure of self-disclosure as the moderating variable. Nonetheless, there is very little evidence for hyperpersonal communication with only two of 11 studies finding online self-disclosure greater than FtF self-disclosure.
There is more evi- dence for SIP CMC self-disclosure is equal to FtF self-disclosure if given enough time to communicate in CMC given that the overall effect size is not signifi- cantly different from zero. But there is also evidence that online self-disclosure may be less than FtF self-disclosure given the percentage of studies that found FtF greater than online self-disclosure.
The Predictive Validity of Ideal Partner Preferences: A Review and Meta-Analysis
However, no definite conclusions can be drawn from this meta-analysis given the small number of studies, especially the small number of studies in which actual, rather than self-report, self-disclosure is examined. Future research needs to be conducted comparing FtF versus online self-disclosure using content analysis of self-disclosure in order to determine whether online self-disclosure is less personal, equally personal, or hyperper- sonal than FtF self-disclosure.
That is because in CMC, the anonymity of the Internet may permit users to step outside of constricting gender roles of communication. However, anonymity and CMC are not synonymous. Green tested whether there was a difference in the amount and intimacy of self-disclosure observed in dyads that communicated FtF versus through CMC, anonymously versus non-anonymously, and whether there is an interaction between the effects of technology and anonymity on self- disclosure.
One hundred and thirty-one participants completed a demographic questionnaire. For the non-anonymous conditions, the demographic question- naire was exchanged with the conversational partner prior to interaction; the demographic questionnaire was not exchanged with the conversational partner prior to interaction in the anonymous conditions.
Subjects who interacted in the FtF condition met in a room with their conversational partner. Subjects in the CMC condition worked with their partner who was located in a different room over an instant messaging system.
All subjects were given a social dilemma to solve and were told that they needed to reach agreement on the dilemma. Subjects in the FtF conditions were given 10 minutes to reach consensus; subjects in the CMC conditions were given 20 minutes to reach consensus. The results of the study were that individuals who communicated FtF had a significantly greater number of self-disclosures than those who communicated via CMC.
There was no significant difference for the main effect of anonymity or the interaction effect of technology and anonymity on the amount of self-disclosure.
There were no significant differences for intimacy of self-disclosure. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution especially with respect to anonymity.
Meta-analyses in mental health research: A practical guide
The manipulation of anonymity is weak; in the non-anonymous con- dition subjects viewed demographic information about their partner; in the anonymous condition subjects received no information about their partner. How- ever, the result is that anonymity and technology are not synonymous. A person can interact anonymously FtF and non-anonymously online.
Nonetheless, to determine whether sex differences in self-disclosure are less pronounced online than FtF, a search of the scholarly literature was conducted. Only one study could be located that compared sex differences FtF versus online. Wang and Andersen conducted a self-report survey of FtF versus online self-disclosure with a long-distance friend and indicated that women disclosed more than men in both FtF and CMC contexts.
A number of studies have examined sex differences in self-disclosure exclusively in online environments. We conducted a meta-analysis of sex differences in self- disclosure in CMC settings.
Fourteen studies of sex differences in self-disclosure were included in the meta-analysis one study includes two independent samples see Table 2.Pros and Cons of Meta Analysis in Overwatch
The results were not homogenous and an analysis of moderator variables indicated that sex differ- ences in self-disclosure in close relationships friend, romantic partner, family member, etc. Two exceptions are Schouten et al. Overall, there is no evidence that sex differences in self-disclosure are muted online in comparison to FtF, but that may be because sex differences in FtF self-disclosure are small to begin with. Culture is a factor that affects self-disclosure.
Culture regulates the way people communicate by defining what is appropriate and what is not. Some cross-cultural studies have investigated cultural differences in self-disclosure and found that people from the West tend to disclose more than people from the East. Cultural values influence the breadth and the depth of the information that people disclose in FtF contexts.
Since there are not enough studies to conduct a meta-analysis five studieswe provide a brief summary of cross-cultural CMC studies on self-disclosure see Table 3.
Kim and Papacharissi analyzed and compared the contents of 98 Korean and U. This core tenet of interdependence theory has both an intuitive appeal and a pervasive reach. This meta-analysis would have been impossible without the generosity of the many scholars who were willing to correspond with us and share their data.
To them, we offer our sincerest thanks: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paul W. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The interesting grist for psycholog- ical study is not simply that people have preferences for particular attributes in a romantic partner, but rather that these preferences differ across people: One person might place a high value on physical attractiveness, whereas another person might value intel- ligence. This research on individual differences and sex differences in the content and structure of ideal partner preferences has stretched from the mid- 20th century e.
Hill, to the present day. In the last 10 —15 years, scholars have devoted increased efforts to studying the functional, interpersonal implications of ideal part- ner preferences e. The simplest hypothesis within this perspective is that people should negatively evaluate romantic partners who do not match their ideals and positively evaluate those who do. Al- though this hypothesis may seem self-evidently true, this emerging literature suggests that the effect of ideal partner preferences on romantic evaluations is not so straightforward and requires diverse explanatory perspectives beyond interde- pendence theory alone.
Indeed, the recent work in this domain extends beyond standards, carrying implications for the exam- ination of evolutionary hypotheses, the way that people per- ceive traits in others, and the merits of common methodological and statistical conventions in psychology. This article reviews research that addresses how ideal partner preferences intersect with the process of initiating and maintaining a romantic relationship.
The first is awareness; in this stage, two individuals e. The second is surface contact;in this stage, two individuals have interacted and have shared some information with each other at a minimum.
The third is mutuality; in this stage, two individuals are in a mutually recognized rela- tionship and have achieved some level of closeness.
In fact, nearly every study discussed in this review fits cleanly into one of these three categories, and in light of this framework, the literature achieves a pleasing coherence. This article is organized into three major sections: Within each section, we review predic- tive validity evidence deriving from studies that correspond to all three of the Levinger and Snoek stages.
To address this controversy, we present a new meta-analysis that documents, across both attraction surface contact and relationship mutuality paradigms, the lack of a sex difference in the association of physical attractiveness and earning prospects with romantic evaluations.
In the second major section, we review research that has exam- ined the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences using an idiographic approach.
Although this individual differences literature is smaller than the sex differences literature, it addresses with greater precision the theoretical rationale for why ideals affect romantic evaluations in some contexts but not in others. This section also highlights how the predictive validity of ideal partner preferences may improve when researchers use alternative methods of assess- Figure 1.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Specifically, this model considers current evolutionary perspectives on ideal partner preferences i. Finally, we conclude with a discus- sion of the myriad implications of this work that extend beyond sex and mating.
A brief note on terminology: In this article, we adopt the term ideal partner preferences to refer to the traits and attributes that people desire in their ideal romantic partner. We use the terms trait and attribute interchangeably to refer to any quality of a romantic partner that exhibits interpersonal variability i. Although people surely vary in their ideals for other, more dyadic aspects of romantic relationships e.