Category: Social Computing

2249

Investigating Internet Relationships

Monica T. Whitty
Queens University Belfast, UK

IntroductIon
The focus on Internet relationships has escalated in recent
times, with researchers investigating such areas as the development of online relationships (e.g., McCown, Fischer, Page,
& Homant, 2001; Parks & Roberts, 1998; Whitty & Gavin,
2001), the formation of friends online (Parks & Floyd, 1996),
representation (Bargh, McKenna, & Fitzsimons 2002), and
misrepresentation of self online (Whitty, 2002). Researchers
have also attempted to identify those addicted to accessing
online sexual material (Cooper, Putnam, Planchon, & Boies,
1999). Moreover, others have been interested in Internet
infidelity (Whitty, 2003a, 2005) and cybersex addiction
(Griffiths, 2001, Young, Griffin-Shelley, Cooper, OMara,
& Buchanan, 2000). Notwithstanding this continued growth
of research in this field, few researchers have considered the
new ethical implications of studying this topic area.
While it is acknowledged here that some of the discussions in this article might be equally applied to the study of
other Internet texts, such as religious or racial opinions, the
focus in this article is on the concomitant ethical concerns
of ongoing research into Internet relationships. Given that
the development and maintenance of online relationships
can be perceived as private and very personal (possibly
more personal than other sensitive areas), there are potential
ethical concerns that are unique to the study of such a topic
area (Whitty, 2004; Whitty & Carr, 2006). For a broader
discussion of virtual research ethics in general, refer to Ess
and Jones (2004) and Whitty and Carr (2006).

Background
Early research into this area has mostly focused on the similarities and differences between online and off-line relationships. Researchers have been divided over the importance
of available social cues in the creation and maintenance of
online relationships. Some have argued that online relationships are shallow and impersonal (e.g., Slouka, 1995). In
contrast, others contend that Internet relationships are just
as emotionally fulfilling as face-to-face relationships, and
that any lack of social cues can be overcome (Lea & Spears,
1995; Walther, 1996). In addition, researchers have purported
that the ideals that are important in traditional relationships, such as trust, honesty, and commitment, are equally
important online, but the cues that signify these ideals are

different (Whitty & Gavin, 2001). Current research is also

beginning to recognize that online relating is just another
form of communicating with friends and lovers, and that
we need to move away from considering these forms of
communication as totally separate and distinct entities (e.g.,
Wellman, 2004). Moreover, McKenna, Green, and Gleason
(2002) have found that when people convey their true self
online they develop strong Internet relationships and bring
these relationships into their real lives.
Internet friendships developed in chat rooms, newsgroups, and MUDs or MOOs have been examined by a
number of researchers. For example, Parks and Floyd (1996)
used e-mail surveys to investigate how common personal
relationships are in newsgroups. After finding that these relationships were regularly formed in newsgroups, Parks and
Roberts (1998) turned to examine relationships developed
in MOOs. These researchers found that most (93.6%) of
their participants had reported having formed some type of
personal relationship online, the most common type being
a close friendship.
Researchers have also been interested in how the playful
arena of the Internet impacts on the types of relationships
formed in these places (e.g., Whitty, 2003b; Whitty & Carr,
2003, 2006). Turkles (1995) well-known research on her
observations while interacting in MUDs found that the roleplaying aspect of MUDs actually creates opportunities for
individuals to reveal a deeper truth about themselves. Whitty
and Gavin (2001) have also contended that although people
do lie about themselves online, this paradoxically can open
up a space for a deeper level of engagement with others.
Importantly, some researchers are now starting to realize
that cyberspace is not a generic space that everyone experiences in the same way. New theories are currently being
developed to explain how individuals present themselves
in different spaces online. For instance, Whitty (in press)
devised the BAR theory to explain presentation of self on
online dating sites, which she believes is different to other
spaces within cyberspace. The BAR theory purports that most
online daters find the best strategy for developing a successful profile is to create a balance between an attractive self
and a real self. The online daters Whitty and her research
assistants interviewed (see Whitty, in press; Whitty & Carr,
2006) talked about the need to re-write their profiles if they
were attracting either people they did not desire, or if they
were attracting no one, or if their date appeared disappointed
with them when they met face-to-face (given that they did
not live out to their profile). Therefore, it would seem that

Copyright 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Investigating Internet Relationships

a successful profile has to appear attractive enough to stand

out and be chosen, but also one that individuals could live
up to in their first face-to-face date (which often took place
within a couple of weeks of meeting online).
Cybersex addiction and the available treatment for these
cybersex addicts and their partners has been an area of research and concern for psychologists (e.g., Schneider, 2000;
Young, Pistner, OMara, & Buchanan, 1999). Research has
also focused on what online acts might be considered as an
act of infidelity. For example, Whitty (2003a) found that
acts such as cybersex and hot-chatting were perceived as
almost as threatening to the off-line relationship as sexual
intercourse. In addition to these concerns, Cooper et al.
(1999) identified three categories of individuals who access
Internet erotic material, including recreational users, sexual
compulsive users (these individuals are addicted to sex per
se, and the Internet is but one mode where they can access
sexual material), and at-risk users (these individuals would
never have developed a sexual addiction if it were not for
the Internet).

ethIcal ISSueS pertInent to the

Study oF Internet relatIonShIpS
Much of the research, to date, on Internet relationships
and sexuality has been conducted onlineeither through
interviews, surveys, or by carrying out analysis on text
that is readily available online. There are many advantages
to conducting research online as well as collecting text or
data available online for analysis in ones research (see
Table 1).
In spite of the numerous advantages to conducting
research online, investigators also need to be aware of the
disadvantages (see Table 2).
What all studies that research Internet relationships have
in common is that they are researching a sensitive topic, which
requires individuals to reveal personal and often very private
aspects of themselves and their lives. Given the sensitive
nature of this topic area, it is crucial that researchers give
some serious thought to whether they are truly conducting
research in an ethical manner.
Table 1. Practical benefits of conducting research online

2250

Easy access to a population of individuals who form relationships online and who access sexual material
Internet provides researchers with a population that is sometimes
difficult to research (e.g., people with disabilities, agoraphobia)
Contact people in locations that have closed or limited access
(e.g., prisons, hospitals)
Requires relatively limited resources
Ease of implementation

Photographs, video, sound bites, and text produced by

individuals online are sometimes examined by researchers.
The text can be produced in a number of different forums,
including chat rooms, MUDs, newsgroups, MySpace, Bebo,
and online dating sites. One way researchers collect data
is by lurking in these different spaces in cyberspace. The
development of online relationships (both friendships and
romantic) and engaging in online sexual activities, such as
cybersex, could easily be perceived by those engaging in such
activities as a private discourse. Given the nature of these
interactions, social researchers need to seriously consider
if they have the right to lurk in online settings in order to
learn more about these activitiesdespite the benefits of
obtaining this knowledge.
There are fuzzy boundaries between what constitutes
public and private spaces online, and researchers need to
acknowledge that there are different places within cyberspace.
For example, a chat room might be deemed a more public
space than e-mail. It is contended here that lurking in some
spaces online might be ethically questionable. We must, as
researchers, debate how intrusive a method lurking potentially
is. As Ferri (1999, cited in Mann & Stewart, 2000) contends,
who is the intended audience of an electronic communicationand does it include you as a researcher? (p. 46).
Researchers also need to consider how the participant
perceives the various online spaces. As Ferri suggests, private
interactions can and do indeed occur in public places. It has
been theorized that the Internet can give an individual a sense
of privacy and anonymity (e.g., Rice & Love, 1987; Whitty
& Carr, 2006). The social presence theory contends that
social presence is the feeling one has that other persons
are involved in a communication exchange (Rice & Love,
1987). Since computer-mediated-relating (CMR) involves
less non-verbal cues (such as facial expression, posture,
and dress) and auditory cues in comparison to face-to-face
communication, it is said to be extremely low in social
presence. Hence, while many others might occupy the
space online, it is not necessarily perceived in that way. As
researchers we need to ask some questions: Can researchers ethically take advantage of these peoples false sense
of privacy and security? Is it ethically justifiable to lurk in
these sites and download material without the knowledge or
consent of the individuals who inhabit these sites? This is
especially relevant to questions of relationship development
and sexuality, which are generally understood to be private

Table 2. Disadvantages of conducting research online

Security issues
Possible duplication of participants completing surveys
Difficult to ascertain how the topic area examined impacts
on the participant
Restricted to a certain sample

Investigating Internet Relationships

matters. Therefore, good ethical practice needs to consider

the psychology of cyberspace and the false sense of security
the Internet affords.
It is suggested here that researchers need to maintain
personal integrity as well as be aware of how their online
investigations can impact the Internet relationships they
study. For example, given researchers knowledge of online
relationships, interacting on online dating sites, chat rooms,
and so forth could potentially alter the dynamics of these
communities.
While it might be unclear as to how ethical it is for lurkers to collect data on the Internet, there is less doubt as to
whether it is acceptable to deceive others online in order to
conduct social research, especially with respect to online
relationships and sexuality. Ethical guidelines generally
state that deception is unethical because the participant is
unable to give free and fully informed consent. For example,
according to the Australian National Health and Medical
Research Council (NHMRC), which set the ethical guidelines
for Australian research:
As a general principle, deception of, concealment of the
purposes of a study from, or covert observation of, identifiable participants are not considered ethical because they
are contrary to the principle of respect for persons in that
free and fully informed consent cannot be given. (NHMRC,
1999)
Generally, ethical guidelines will point out that only
under certain unusual circumstances deception is unavoidable when there is no alternative method to conduct ones
research. However, in these circumstances individuals must
be given the opportunity to withdraw data obtained from
them during the research that they did not originally give
consent to.

Future trendS
As with any other research conducted within the social sciences, some important ethical practices need to be adhered
to when we conduct research on Internet relationships and
sexuality (see Table 3).
Informed consent requires researchers to be up front
from the beginning about the aims of their research and
how they are going to be utilizing the data they collect. In
Table 3. Ethical practices

Informed consent
Withdrawal of consent
Confidentiality
Psychological safeguards

off-line research individuals often sign a form to give their

consent; however, this is not always achievable online. One
way around this is to direct participants to a Web site that
contains information about the project. This Web site could
inform the participants about the purpose of the study, what
the study entails, as well as contact details of the researcher,
and the university Human Ethics Committee.
In some cases, spaces on the Web are moderated. In
these instances, it is probably also appropriate to contact
the moderators of the site prior to contacting the participants. This is analogous to contacting an organization prior
to targeting individuals within that organization. Wysocki
(1998), for instance, asked permission from the moderator of
a sadomasochist bulletin board called the pleasure pit.
Researchers also need to be aware that some European
countries require written consent. If written consent is required, then the participant could download a form and sign
it off-line and then return it by fax or postal mail (Mann &
Stewart, 2000).
In research about relationships and sexuality, in particular,
there is the risk that the interview or survey will stress the
participant too much for them to continue with the study. As
with off-line research, researchers need to consider up until
what point a participant can withdraw consent. The end point
of withdrawal of consent might be, for instance, after the
submitting of the survey, or at the conclusion of the interview
the interviewer might find confirmation that the participant
is happy to allow the researcher to include the transcript in
the study. Social scientists should also be aware that the lack
of social cues available online makes it more difficult for
them to ascertain if the participant is uncomfortable. Thus
one should tread carefully and possibly make an effort to
check at different points in the interview if the individual is
still comfortable with proceeding.
There are other issues unique to Internet research in
respect to withdrawal of consent. For example, the computer
could crash mid-way through an interview or survey. Mechanisms need to be put into place to allow that participant to
re-join the research if desired, and consent should not be
assumed (Buchanan & Smith, 1999). In circumstances such
as the computer or server crashing, we might need to have
a system to enable debriefing, especially if the research is
asking questions of a personal nature. Nosek, Banaji, and
Greenwald (2002) suggest that debriefing can be made available by providing a contact e-mail address at the beginning
of the study. They also suggest providing a leave the study
button, made available on every study page, [which] would
allow participants to leave the study early and still direct
them to a debriefing page (p. 163). In addition, they state
that participants be given a list of FAQs, since they argue
that there is less opportunity to ask the sorts of questions
participants typically ask in face-to-face interviews.
There are various ways we might deal with the issue of
confidentiality. As with off-line research we could elect to
2251

Investigating Internet Relationships

use pseudonyms to represent our participants or even request

preferred pseudonyms from them. However, a unique aspect
of the Internet is that people typically inhabit the Web using
a screen name, rather than a real name. Can we use a screen
name given that these are not real names? While they may
not be peoples off-line identities, individuals could still be
identified by their screen names if we publish themeven
if it is only recognition by other online inhabitants.
As mentioned earlier in this article, research into the areas
of relationships and sexuality is likely to cause psychological
distress for some. It is perhaps much more difficult to deal
with psychological distress online and with individuals in
other countries. Nevertheless, it is imperative that we ensure
that the participant does have counseling available to them
if the research has caused them distresswhich sometimes
might be delayed distress. This could mean that there are limits
to the kinds of topics about which we interview participants
online or that we restrict our sample to a particular country
or region where we know of psychological services that can
be available to our participants if required.
Given that research into Internet relationships and
sexuality is a relatively new area, future research might also
focus on how to improve ethical practices. For instance,
future studies might interview potential participants about
how they would prefer social scientists to conduct research.
Moreover, gaining a greater understanding of how individuals
perceive private and public space could also influence how
we conduct future studies in this topic area.

concluSIonS
In concluding, while this article has provided examples of
ways forward in our thinking about virtual ethics in respect to
the study of online relationships, it is by no means prescriptive or exhaustive. Rather, it is suggested here that debate
over such issues should be encouraged, and we should avoid
setting standards for how we conduct our Internet research
without also considering the ethical implications of our work.
The way forward is to not restrict the debate amongst social
scientists, but to also consult the individuals we would like
to and are privileged to study.

reFerenceS
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. M.
(2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression
of the true self on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues,
58(1), 33-48.
Buchanan, T., & Smith, J. L. (1999). Using the Internet for
psychological research: Personality testing on the WorldWide Web. British Journal of Psychology, 90(1), 125-144.
2252

Cooper, A., Putnam, D. E., Planchon, L. A., & Boies, S. C.

(1999). Online sexual compulsivity: Getting tangled in the
net. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 6(2), 79-104.
Ess, C., & Jones, S. (2004). Ethical decision-making and
Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics
Working Committee. In E. Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in
virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 27-44).
Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Griffiths, M. (2001). Sex on the Internet: Observations
and implications for Internet sex addiction. Journal of Sex
Research, 38(4), 333-342.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building
personal relationships over computer networks. In J. T. Wood
& S. W. Duck (Eds.), Understudied relationships: Off the
beaten track (pp. 197-233). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mann, C., & Stewart, F. (2000). Internet communication and
qualitative research: A handbook for researching online.
London: Sage Publications.
McCown, J. A., Fischer, D., Page, R., & Homant, M. (2001).
Internet relationships: People who meet people. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 4(5), 593-596.
McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002).
Relationship formation on the Internet: Whats the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9-31.
NHMRC. (1999). National statement on ethical conduct
in research involving humans. Retrieved September 25,
2002, from http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publications/
humans/part17.htm
Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002).
E-research: Ethics, security, design, and control in psychological research on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues,
58(1), 161-176.
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46(1), 80-97.
Parks, M. R., & Roberts, L. D. (1998). Making MOOsic:
The development of personal relationships online and a
comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 15(4), 517-537.
Rice, R. E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer mediated communication
network. Communication Research, 14(1), 85-108.
Schneider, J. P. (2000). Effects of cybersex addiction on the
family: Results of a survey. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 7, 31-58.
Slouka, M. (1995). War of the worlds: Cyberspace and the
high-tech assault on reality. New York: Basic Books.

Investigating Internet Relationships

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of

the Internet. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication:
Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction.
Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.
Wellman, B. (2004). Connecting communities: On and off
line. Contexts, 3(4), 22-28.
Whitty, M. T. (2002). Liar, liar! An examination of how open,
supportive and honest people are in Chat Rooms. Computers
in Human Behavior, 18(4), 343-352.
Whitty, M. T. (2003a). Pushing the wrong buttons: Mens
and womens attitudes towards online and offline infidelity.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6(6), 569-579.
Whitty, M. T. (2003b). Cyber-flirting: Playing at love on the
Internet. Theory and Psychology, 13(3), 339-357.
Whitty, M. T. (2004). Peering into online bedroom windows:
Considering the ethical implications of investigating Internet
relationships and sexuality. In E. Buchanan (Ed.), Readings
in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies (pp. 203218). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.
Whitty, M. T. (2005). The realness of cyber-cheating: Men
and womens representations of unfaithful Internet relationships. Social Science Computer Review, 23(1), 57-67.
Whitty, M. T. (in press). The art of selling ones self on an
online dating site: The BAR approach. In M. T. Whitty,
A. J. Baker, & J. A. Inman (Eds.), Online matchmaking.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Whitty, M. T., & Carr, A. N. (2003). Cyberspace as potential
space: Considering the Web as a playground to cyber-flirt.
Human Relations, 56(7), 861-891.

Young, K. S., Pistner, M., OMara, J., & Buchanan, J. (1999).

Cyber disorders: The mental health concern for the new millennium. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2(5), 475-479.

key termS
Bebo: A social networking site where members can
communicate with school and university friends, connect
with friends, share photos, comment on others sites and
photos, and write a blog.
Blog: Online diaries on a Web page, where the blogger
updates entries, typically fairly regularly, in reverse chronological sequence.
Chat Room: A Web site, or part of a Web site, that allows individuals to communicate in real time.
Cybersex: Two or more individuals using the Internet
as a medium to engage in discourses about sexual fantasies.
The dialogue is typically accompanied by sexual selfstimulation.
Hot-Chatting: Two or more individuals engaging in
discourses that move beyond light-hearted flirting.
Lurker: A participant in a chat room or a subscriber to
a discussion group, listserv, or mailing list who passively
observes. These individuals typically do not actively partake
in the discussions that befall in these forums.
MUDs and MOOs: Multiple-user dungeons, or more
commonly understood these days to mean multi-user dimension or domains. These were originally a space where
interactive role-playing games could be played, very similar
to Dungeons and Dragons.

Whitty, M. T., & Carr, A. N. (2006). Cyberspace romance:

The psychology of online relationships. Hampshire, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.

MySpace: A social networking site where members can

communicate with school and university friends, connect
with friends, share photos, comment on others sites and
photos, and write a blog.

Whitty, M., & Gavin, J. (2001). Age/sex/location: Uncovering

the social cues in the development of online relationships.
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 4(5), 623-630.

Online Sexual Activity: Using the Internet for any

sexual activity (e.g., recreation, entertainment, exploitation,
education).

Wysocki, D. K. (1998). Let your fingers to do the talking:

Sex on an adult chat-line. Sexualities, 1(4), 425-452.

Screen Name: A screen name can be an individuals real

name, a variation of an individuals name, or a totally madeup pseudonym. Screen names are especially required on the
Internet for applications such as instant messaging.

Young, K. S., Griffin-Shelley, E., Cooper, A., OMara, J.,

& Buchanan, J. (2000). Online infidelity: A new dimension
in couple relationships with implications for evaluation and
treatment. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 7(5), 59-74.

2253