How do anonymous sperm donors signal credibility through their self-presentations?

Abstract

Sperm donor profiles in catalogues exhibited in commercial sperm bank websites provide health information about each donor, both explicitly and implicitly. Donors' anonymity poses a great challenge to signalling credibility. Inspired by both Spence's signalling theory and Walther and Park's warranting theory, the study explores the way sperm donors add credibility to their self-presentations. Profiles of 135 donors from nine sperm banks in Europe and North America were content analysed; 36 of these donors' baby photos were visually analysed. Donors compensated for the paucity of usable warrants by adding intensified emotional context to the profile and inviting potential recipients to join a fantasy family. The article concludes with some practical recommendations aimed at facilitating the process of donor selection for the benefit of donor insemination users, as well as fertility practitioners, and sperm donors.

A SWOT analysis of unregulated sperm donation

“…Extended donor profiles look almost identical to dating profiles but then with medical information (Bokek-Cohen, 2016). The possibility of a face-toface encounter in the future may reign in the freedom of donors to present themselves in a deceptive way (Bokek-Cohen, 2015). In clinics, the direct contact with the personnel may have a similar effect at least as far as self-description of phenotype is concerned.…”

“…In clinics, the direct contact with the personnel may have a similar effect at least as far as self-description of phenotype is concerned. However, the personnel does not know all the points that a donor puts in an extended profile (Bokek-Cohen, 2015). Still, donor profiles are not verified in official sperm banks and clinics.…”

Restrict, clean and protect: signaling consumer safety during the pandemic and beyond

“…Thus, our research question is: What types of signals have service providers used to reduce consumer perceptions of physical risk in a COVID-19 era? This is important, as the different types of signals can convey diverse messages (Bokek-Cohen, 2015) and have varied effects and relevance for the different types of consumer perceived risks (Biswas and Biswas, 2004).…”

Measuring the Construct of Warranting Value and Testing Warranting Theory

“…Although warranting theory is relatively new and still evolving (see DeAndrea, 2014; Walther, 2011), researchers have applied it as an explanatory mechanism across a variety of settings. For instance, it has been applied to understand how people evaluate information on smart phones (Carr & Stefaniak, 2012), personal social networking sites (e.g., Antheunis & Schouten, 2011; Fox, Warber, & Makstaller, 2013), online dating sites (e.g., Gibbs, Ellison, & Lai, 2011), product rating sites (e.g., Flanagin & Metzger, 2013; Willemsen, Neijens, & Bronner, 2012), e-commerce sites (e.g., Johnson, Vang, & Van Der Heide, 2015), corporate social media sites (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014), and commercial sperm bank sites (Bokek-Cohen, 2015). These studies, and many others (e.g., Hall, Pennington, & Lueders, 2014; Hong, Tandoc, Kim, Kim, & Wise, 2012; Pennington & Hall, 2014; Utz, 2010; Van Der Heide, Johnson, & Vang, 2013; Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman, & Tong, 2008), help demonstrate the explanatory range and predictive scope of warranting theory, and make important contributions to our understanding of how people evaluate information online.…”