Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Online Dating – A Meeting Point for the Modern Individual and Traditional Individualism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Structure of Digital Partner Choice

  • 643 Accesses

Abstract

In the public discourse, online dating is often seen as a unique phenomenon, distinctly different from traditional or ‘normal’ ways of finding one’s partner. Whereas many users worldwide embed online dating into their everyday lives quite naturally, the field of mass media in particular still treats it as a peculiar subject. In the following section, the online dating phenomenon will first be embedded within a historical context. In the context of different long-term societal developments, online dating may be well received as a logical consequence of modernity rather than as an anomaly or singularity. Subsequently, the basic principles of online dating and its societal prevalence will be discussed. In the next step, societal diagnoses of online dating, ranging from euphoric to dysphoric reactions, will be outlined. Finally, research will be reviewed that analyzes processes on online dating platforms, and it will be shown that models of individual (rational) choice play a dominant role in empirical research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    However, the (theoretical) challenge that online daters may be confronted with in their practices of using a dating site – the contradictions between romantic ideals and rational calculation – is not a unique feature of online dating, but has been diagnosed by Habermas as early as 1956 for modern mating in general.

  2. 2.

    The data used stems from the PAIRFAM survey. This survey is being coordinated by Bernhard Nauck, Johannes Huinink, Josef Brüderl, and Sabine Walper (see Huinink, Brüderl, Nauck, Walper, Castiglioni, and Feldhaus 2010). The panel is receiving long-term funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG).

  3. 3.

    One should note that the distinction between “online” and “offline” dating is only an analytical one and may become increasingly blurred due to the practice of actors using social networking sites. Users may encounter a potential mate offline and use a social network as an opportunity for a second contact, etc. Accordingly, one can assume that a certain number of respondents will interpret sites such as Facebook as a natural feature of their everyday friendship network.

  4. 4.

    Due to selective participation in online surveys, especially in this context (Zillmann et al. 2013), the estimate of 29 % should be seen more as an indicator for a maximum proportion, and less as a true population parameter, although other analyses also point towards an increase in couple formation via the internet.

References

  • Alterovitz, S. S. R., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (2013). Relationship goals of middle-aged, young-old, and old-old internet daters: An analysis of online personal ads. Journal of Aging Studies, 27(2), 159–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A., Goel, S., Huber, G., Malhotra, N., & Watts, D. J. (2014). Political ideology and racial preferences in online dating. Sociological Science, 1(1), 28–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ARD/ZDF-Onlinestudie. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.ard-zdf-onlinestudie.de/index.php?id=388.

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Theory, culture and society. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization. Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., Bonß, W., & Lau, C. (2004). Entgrenzung erzwingt Entscheidung: Was ist neu an der Theorie reflexiver Modernisierung? In U. Beck & C. Lau (Eds.), Entgrenzung und Entscheidung: Was ist neu an der Theorie reflexiver Modernisierung? (pp. 13–64). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zeʾēv, A. (2004). Love online: Emotions on the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/description/cam032/2003055129.html.

  • Bertilsonn, M. (1986). Love’s labour lost? A sociological view. Theory, Culture & Society, 3(2), 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life (9th ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blossfeld, H.-P. (2009). Educational assortative marriage in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 513–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blossfeld, H.-P., & Timm, A. (Eds.). (2003). Who marries whom? Educational systems as marriage markets in modern societies. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1983). Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital. In R. Kreckel (Ed.), Soziale Welt Sonderband: Vol. 2. Soziale Ungleichheiten (pp. 183–198). Göttingen: Schwartz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozon, M., & Heran, F. (1989). Finding a spouse: A survey of how French couples meet. Population. An English Selection, 44(1), 91–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bühler-Illieva, E. (2006). Einen Mausklick von mir entfernt. Auf der Suche nach Liebesbeziehungen im Internet. Marburg: Tectum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, S. E. (2003). Preference for online social interaction: A theory of problematic internet use and psychosocial well-being. Communication Research, 30(6), 625–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caspi, A., & Gorsky, P. (2006). Online deception: Prevalence, motivation, and emotion. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 9(1), 54–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, D. (2013). Social media and personal relationships. Online intimacies and networked friendship. Hampshire: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A., & Sportolaria, L. (1997). Romance in Cyberspace: Understanding online attraction. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22(1), Special Issue: Sexuality and the Internet, 7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corijn, M. (2003). Who marries whom in Flamish Belgium? In H.-P. Blossfeld & A. Timm (Eds.), Who marries whom? Educational systems as marriage markets in modern societies (pp. 37–55). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Degele, N. (2002). Einführung in die Techniksoziologie. München: Fink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donath, J. S. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 29–59). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dröge, K., & Voirol, O. (2011). Online-dating: zwischen romantischer Liebe und ökonomischer Rationalität. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 23(3), 337–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E. (1973). Emile Durkheim on morality and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E. (1992). Professional ethics and civic morals. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, N. (1997). Über den Prozess der Zivilisation. Soziogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen: Erster Band: Wandlungen des Verhaltens in den weltlichen Oberschichten des Abendlandes (Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft 159, 20th ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 415–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Steinfield, C. (2009). Social network sites and society: Current trends and future possibilities. Interactions, 16(1), 6–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Statistical Office of Germany. (2014). Pressemitteilung Nr. 185 vom 28.05.2014 https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2014/05/PD14_185_122.html.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiore, A. (2004). Romantic regressions: An analysis of behavior in online dating systems. Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Technology, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiore, A. T., & Donath, J. S. (2005). Homophily in online dating: When do you like someone like yourself? In G. van der Veer (Ed.), CHI ‘05. Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1371–1374). New York: ACM.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fiore, A., Taylor, L. S., Mendelsohn, G. A., & Hearst, M. (2008). Assessing attractiveness in online dating profiles. In Association for Computing Machinery (Ed.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 797–806). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality volume I. An introduction [La Volonté de savoir]. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. B. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. R., & Harknett, K. (2006). Parenting across racial and class lines: Assortative mating patterns of new parents who are married, cohabiting, dating or no longer romantically involved. Social Forces, 85(1), 121–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakim, C. (2011). Erotic capital: The power of attraction in the bedroom and the boardroom. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakim, C. (2013). The new rules of marriage: Internet, playfairs, and erotic power. London: Gibson Square.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, J. T., Thoma, C., & Ellison, N. (2007). The truth about lying in online dating profiles. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 449–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertog, E. (2012). Hedged bets: Preferences for future marriage partners’ earning power in contemporary Japan. Unpublished working paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2005). What makes you click: An empirical analysis of online dating. Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/assa/2006/0106_0800_0502.pdf.

  • Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). What makes you click?—Mate preferences in online dating. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 8(4), 393–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, B., Li, N., & Dutton, W. H. (2011). A global shift in the social relationships of networked individuals: Meeting and dating online comes of age. Paper of the “Me, My Spouse and the Internet” project. Retrieved from http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/couples/.

  • Huber, G., & Malhotra, N. (2013). Dimensions of Political Homophily: Isolating Choice Homophily along Political Characteristics. Working paper. Retrieved from http://huber.research.yale.edu/materials/38_paper.pd.

  • Illouz, E. (1997). Consuming the romantic utopia: Love and the cultural contradictions of capitalism. Berkeley: Univ of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illouz, E. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism (1st ed.). Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illouz, E. (2012). Why love hurts. A sociological explanation. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illouz, E., & Finkelmann, S. (2009). An odd and inseparable couple: Emotion and rationality in partner selection. Theory and Society, 38(4), 401–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J., Halberstadt, J., Jong, J., & Felman, H. (2015). Perceived openness to experience accounts for religious homogamy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 630–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joas, H. (2007). Lehrbuch der Soziologie. Campus: Frankfurt am Main.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joinson, A. N. (2004). Self-esteem, interpersonal risk, and preference for e-mail to face-to-face communication. Cyberpsychology & Behaviour, 7(4), 472–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalmijn, M. (1994). Assortative mating by cultural and economic occupational status. American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 422–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karch, I., Schaefer, K., Pflitsch, D., & Wiechers, H. (2013). Vom Dating zum Traualtar. Wie viele der Hochzeitspaare haben sich im Internet kennen gelernt? Retrieved from http://www.singleboersen-vergleich.de/presse/studie-2013-vom-onlinedating-zum-traualtar.pdf.

  • Kauffmann, J. C. (2011). Sex@amour: Wie das Internet unser Liebesleben verändert. Konstanz: UVK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kling, R. (1996). Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices (2nd ed.). Boston: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, H. M., & Leck, K. (2006). Dynamics of internet dating. Social Science Computer Review, 24(2), 189–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. (2008). Preferences and choice constraints in marital sorting: Evidence from Korea. Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. (2015). Effect of online dating on assortative mating: Evidence from South Korea. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 30(7) (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, K.-H., & Lundquist, J. (2013). Mate selection in cyberspace: The intersection of race, gender, and education. American Journal of Sociology, 119(1), 183–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1973). Zweckbegriff und Systemrationalität. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1987). Love as passion. The codification of intimacy (J. Gaines, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mare, R. D. (1991). Five decades of educational assortative mating. American Sociological Review, 56(1), 15–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). Manifesto of the communist party. In K. Marx, & F. Engels (1969, 1. ed.), Selected works (pp. 98–137). Moscow: Progress Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1976). Collected works – Volume Six. New York: International Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moucha, P., Pflitsch, D., & Wiechers, H. (2012). Der Online Dating Markt 2011–2012. Retrieved from http://www.singleboersen-vergleich.de/presse/online-dating-markt-2011-2012-de.pdf.

  • Münch, R. (1991). Dialektik der Kommunikationsgesellschaft. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books, Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potarca, G., & Mills, M. (2013). Racial Homophily and exclusion in online dating preferences: A cross-national comparison. Unpublished working paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, L., & Halle, D. (2002). Digitization, the internet, and the arts: eBay, Napster, SAG, and e-books. Qualitative Sociology, 25(3), 359–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, M. J. (2010). Meeting online: The rise of the internet as a social intermediary. draft. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_How_Couples_Meet_PAA_updated.pdf.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sautter, J. M., Tippett, R. M., & Morgan, S. P. (2010). The social demography of internet dating in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 91(2), 554–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharlott, B. W., & Christ, W. G. (1995). Overcoming relationship-initiation barriers: The impact of a computer-dating system on sex role, shyness, and appearance inhibitions. Computers in Human Behavior, 11(2), 191–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, A. (2009). Virtuelle Zwischengeschlechtlichkeit im Kontext relationaler Methodologie. Überlegungen zu einer Soziologie der digitalen Partnerwahl. In H.-G. Soeffner (Ed.), Unsichere Zeiten. Herausforderungen gesellschaftlicher Transformationen; Verhandlungen des 34. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Jena 2008. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, A. (2012). Elective affinities 2.0? A bourdieusian approach to couple formation and the methodology of E-dating. Social Science Research on the Internet (RESET), 1(1), 175–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, A. (2014). The online dating market: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Economic Sociology The European Electronic Newsletter, 16(1), 11–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, A., & Zillmann, D. (2016). Online Dating as a social sciences research tool. In F. X. Olleros, & M. Zhegu (Eds.), Research handbook of digital transformations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, A., Sachse-Thürer, S., Zillmann, D., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2011). Myths and facts about online mate choice. Contemporary beliefs and empirical findings. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 23(3), 358–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, F. (2009). Bildungshomophilie im Onlinedating. In Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie (Ed.), Konferenzband der DGS zum Soziologentag in Jena. DGS Tagung 2009, Jena.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, F. (2010). Verbundene Lebensläufe: Partnerwahl und Arbeitsteilung zwischen neuen Ressourcenverhältnissen und traditionellen Geschlechterrollen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, F., Skopek, J., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2010). Partnerwahl als konsensuelle Entscheidung. Das Antwortverhalten bei Erstkontakten im Online-Dating. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 62(3), 485–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, C. R. (2013). Trends and variation in assortative mating: Causes and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. (1890). On social differentiation. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. (1985). Schriften Zur Philosophie und Soziologie der Geschlechter. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. (2008). Gesamtausgabe. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skopek, J. (2011). Partnerwahl im Internet: Eine quantitative Analyse von Strukturen und Prozessen der Online-Partnersuche. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skopek, J., Schmitz, A., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2011a). The gendered dynamics of age preferences – Empirical evidence from online dating. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 23(3), 267–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skopek, J., Schulz, F., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2011b). Who contacts whom? Educational homophily in online mate selection. European Sociological Review, 27(2), 180–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sritharan, R., Heilpern, K., Wilbur, C. J., & Gawronski, B. (2010). I think I like you: Spontaneous and deliberate evaluations of potential romantic partners in an online dating context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 1062–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2007). Marriage and divorce: Changes and their driving forces. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 27–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1023–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Who looks for casual dates on the internet? A test of the compensation and the recreation hypotheses. New Media & Society, 9(3), 455–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, J., & Hacker, K. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19(4), 315–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., & Lu, X. (2007). Cyberdating: Misinformation and (Dis)trust in online interaction. Informing Science Journal, 10, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. New York: Bedminster Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (2003). General economic history. Mineola: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel, D. (2012). Ich hab ihn…? Poststrukturalistische Zugänge zu Emotionen/Affekten bei der Online-Partnerwahl. In Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie (Ed.), Konferenzband der DGS zum Soziologentag in Jena. DGS Tagung 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitty, M. T. (2007). The art of selling one’s self on an online dating site: The BAR approach. In M. T. Whitty, A. J. Baker, & J. A. Inman (Eds.), Online matchmaking (pp. 57–69). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Whitty, M. T. (2008). Liberating or debilitating? An examination of romantic relationships, sexual relationships and friendships on the Net. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1837–1850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yancey, G., & Emerson, M. O. (2014). Does height matter? An examination of height preferences in romantic coupling. Journal of Family Issues, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoder, S. (2014). How Online Dating Became a $2 Billion Industry. Fiscal Times, Retrieved from http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/02/14/Valentines-Day-2014-How-Online-Dating-Became-2-Billion-Industry.

  • Yurchisin, J., Watchravesringkan, K., & McCabe, D. B. (2005). An exploration of identity re-creation in the context of internet dating. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 33(8), 735–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Žakelj, T., Kocon, D., Švab, A., & Kuhar, R. (2015). Internet dating as a project: The commodification and rationalisation of online dating. Journal Družboslovne razprave, 78, 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zillmann, D. (2016). Von kleinen Lügen und kurzen Beinen. Selbstdarstellung bei der Partnersuche im Internet [About little lies and small legs. Self-Presentation in Online Dating]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zillmann, D., Schmitz, A., Skopek, J., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2013). Survey topic and unit nonresponse. Evidence from an online survey on mating. Quality and Quantity, 48(4), 2069–2088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, S. (2010). Time of the Monsters. A call to radicalness. Le Monde diplomatique 12.10.2010.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sociology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Andreas Schmitz

Authors
  1. Andreas Schmitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schmitz, A. (2017). Online Dating – A Meeting Point for the Modern Individual and Traditional Individualism. In: The Structure of Digital Partner Choice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43530-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43530-5_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43529-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43530-5

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation