Looks and Lies: The Role of Physical Attractiveness in Online Dating Self-Presentation and Deception

This study examines the role of online daters’ physical attractiveness in their profile self-presentation and, in particular, their use of deception. Sixty-nine online daters identified the deceptions in their online dating profiles and had their photograph taken in the lab. Independent judges rated the online daters’ physical attractiveness. Results show that the lower online daters’ attractiveness, the more likely they were to enhance their profile photographs and lie about their physical descriptors (height, weight, age). The association between attractiveness and deception did not extend to profile elements unrelated to their physical appearance (e.g., income, occupation), suggesting that their deceptions were limited and strategic. Results are discussed in terms of (a) evolutionary theories about the importance of physical attractiveness in the dating realm and (b) the technological affordances that allow online daters to engage in selective self-presentation.

[1]  N. Barber.  The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology , 1995 .

[2]  D. Smith.  (On) Self-Presentation , 1989 .

[3]  R. Thornhill,et al.  Human sexual selection and developmental stability. , 1997 .

[4]  Susan Sprecher,et al.  The importance to males and females of physical attractiveness, earning potential, and expressiveness in initial attraction , 1989 .

[5]  Devendra Singh,et al.  Mating strategies of young women: Role of physical attractiveness , 2004, Journal of sex research.

[6]  M. Daly,et al.  Discriminative parental solicitude and the relevance of evolutionary models to the analysis of motivational systems , 1995 .

[7]  R. Baumeister.  A SELF-PRESENTATIONAL VIEW OF SOCIAL PHENOMENA , 1982 .

[8]  R. Thornhill,et al.  The evolution of human sexuality. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[9]  Michael Lynn,et al.  Personal Advertisements: Sources of Data about Relationships , 1985 .

[10]  Katelyn Y. A. McKenna,et al.  Plan 9 From Cyberspace: The Implications of the Internet for Personality and Social Psychology , 2000 .

[11]  Mara B. Adelman,et al.  Formal Intermediaries in the Marriage Market: A Typology and Review. , 1992 .

[12]  E. Jagger.  Marketing Molly and Melville: Dating in a Postmodern, Consumer Society , 2001 .

[13]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  People as Products: Analysis of a Complex Marketing Exchange , 1987 .

[14]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Interpersonal Deception Theory , 1996 .

[15]  A. Feingold,et al.  Gender differences in mate selection preferences: a test of the parental investment model. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  D. Buss.  The evolution of human intrasexual competition: tactics of mate attraction. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[17]  Robin M. Kowalski,et al.  Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. , 1990 .

[18]  Nicole B. Ellison,et al.  Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[19]  S. Gangestad,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS , 2005 .

[20]  S. Turkle.  Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet , 1997 .

[21]  R. Thornhill,et al.  Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[22]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Separating Fact From Fiction: An Examination of Deceptive Self-Presentation in Online Dating Profiles , 2008, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[23]  Andrew T. Fiore,et al.  Romantic regressions : an analysis of behavior in online dating systems , 2004 .

[24]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Putting Your Best Face Forward: The Accuracy of Online Dating Photographs , 2009 .

[25]  Kathy Kellermann.  Communication: Inherently strategic and primarily automatic , 1992 .

[26]  N. Burley,et al.  Social Evolution, Robert Trivers. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, Calfornia (1985), xvii, +462, Price £19.95 in U.K., $18.95 in U.S.A. (paperback) , 1986 .

[27]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  How Do Communication and Technology Researchers Study the Internet , 2005 .

[28]  R. Riggio,et al.  Beauty is More Than Skin Deep: Components of Attractiveness , 1991 .

[29]  E. Goffman.  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , 1959 .

[30]  J. Langlois,et al.  Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. , 2000, Psychological bulletin.

[31]  Malcolm R. Parks,et al.  Cues Filtered Out, Cues Filtered In: Computer-Mediated Communication and Relationships , 2002 .

[32]  Randy Thornhill,et al.  Human facial beauty , 1993, Human nature.

[33]  D. Buss,et al.  Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. , 1993, Psychological review.

[34]  Joseph B. Walther,et al.  Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[35]  When self-presentation is constrained by the target's knowledge: Consistency and compensation. , 1978 .

[36]  Monica T. Whitty.  Love letters: the development of romantic relationships throughout the ages , 2007 .

[37]  Ned Kock,et al.  The Psychobiological Model: Towards a New Theory of Computer-Mediated Communication Based on Darwinian Evolution , 2004, Organ. Sci..