Contradictory deceptive behavior in online dating

Deceptive behavior is common in online dating because personal profiles can be easily manipulated. This study conducts two experiments to examine contradictory deceptive behavior in online dating. The results of Experiment 1 showed that users have lower perceptions of authenticity evaluations of daters’ self-provided photographs with strong physical attractiveness than for those with low physical attractiveness, and the authenticity perceptions of daters’ self-provided photographs have a positive relationship with the authenticity evaluation of online daters’ text-based self-presentations. Although users are suspicious of the authenticity of beautiful or handsome daters’ photographs, the results of Experiment 2 showed that people still employ higher levels of deception in self-presentations toward daters with highly attractive photographs to increase their possibilities of securing a date with those daters. The results also show that women employ higher levels of deception in self-presentation than men in online dating environments.

[1]  J. Walther.  Computer-Mediated Communication , 1996 .

[2]  N. Anderson.  Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  Jennifer L. Gibbs,et al.  Perceived Success in Internet Dating Self-Presentation in Online Personals: The Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self-Disclosure, and , 2009 .

[4]  Rebecca J. Brand,et al.  What is beautiful is good, even online: Correlations between photo attractiveness and text attractiveness in men's online dating profiles , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[5]  P. Wong,et al.  Self-disclosure and relationship development: An attributional analysis. , 1987 .

[6]  L. Tidwell,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting to Know One Another a Bit at a Time , 2002 .

[7]  Ted L. Huston,et al.  Social Perception of Middle-Aged Persons Varying in Physical Attractiveness. , 1975 .

[8]  Jeffrey A. Hall,et al.  Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: The effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits , 2010 .

[9]  J. Bailenson,et al.  The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-Representation on Behavior , 2007 .

[10]  Ting Lie,et al.  Selection of communication technologies—A perspective based on information richness theory and trust , 2008 .

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

[12]  Kathy Kellermann.  The negativity effect and its implications for initial interaction , 1984 .

[13]  Michael R. Cunningham,et al.  Lying to Get a Date: The Effect of Facial Physical Attractiveness on the Willingness to Deceive Prospective Dating Partners , 1999 .

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

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

[16]  D. Moskowitz,et al.  Situational influences on gender differences in agency and communion. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[17]  E. Berscheid,et al.  Physical Attractiveness and Peer Perception Among Children , 1974 .

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

[19]  R. Bagozzi.  The role of arousal in the creation and control of the halo effect in attitude models , 1996 .

[20]  Nicole B. Ellison,et al.  Self-Presentation in Online Personals , 2006, Commun. Res..

[21]  David D. V. Fisher,et al.  A Conceptual Analysis of Self‐Disclosure , 1984 .

[22]  G. William Walster,et al.  Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis☆ , 1971 .

[23]  J. Townsend,et al.  Effects of potential partners' physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection , 1990, Archives of sexual behavior.

[24]  Paul A. M. Van Lange,et al.  Bulletin Personality and Social Psychology What People Look for in Others: Influences of the Perceiver and the Perceived on Information Selection on Behalf Of: Society for Personality and Social Psychology , 2022 .

[25]  Mark H. Davis,et al.  Stability and change in adolescent self-consciousness and empathy , 1991 .

[26]  Jennifer A. Epstein,et al.  Sex differences in lying: How women and men deal with the dilemma of deceit. , 1993 .

[27]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for Information Systems , 1987, MIS Q..

[28]  Nicole B. Ellison,et al.  Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating , 2010 .

[29]  S. Dollinger,et al.  Physical Attractiveness, Social Connectedness, and Individuality: An Autophotographic Study , 2002, The Journal of social psychology.

[30]  Martin A. Johnson.  Variables associated with friendship in an adult population , 1989 .

[31]  E. Thorndike.  A constant error in psychological ratings. , 1920 .

[32]  R. Feldman,et al.  Truth, Lies, and Self-Presentation: How Gender and Anticipated Future Interaction Relate to Deceptive Behavior1 , 2004 .

[33]  G. Peeters,et al.  Positive-Negative Asymmetry in Evaluations: The Distinction Between Affective and Informational Negativity Effects , 1990 .

[34]  A. Feingold.  Good-looking people are not what we think. , 1992 .

[35]  Thomas Hugh Feeley,et al.  Comment on Halo Effects in Rating and Evaluation Research , 2002 .

[36]  C. Berger,et al.  Social Cognition and Communication , 1982 .

[37]  E. Walster,et al.  Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[38]  Susan T. Fiske,et al.  Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. , 1980 .

[39]  M. Clark,et al.  What Is Beautiful Is Good Because What Is Beautiful Is Desired: Physical Attractiveness Stereotyping as Projection of Interpersonal Goals , 2010, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[40]  Peter K. Jonason,et al.  The Value of Physical Attractiveness in Romantic Partners: Modeling Biological and Social Variables , 2009, The Journal of social psychology.

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

[42]  Ted L. Huston,et al.  Ambiguity of acceptance, social desirability, and dating choice , 1973 .

[43]  Nicole B. Ellison,et al.  First Comes Love, Then Comes Google: An Investigation of Uncertainty Reduction Strategies and Self-Disclosure in Online Dating , 2011, Commun. Res..

[44]  Deborah A. Kashy,et al.  Everyday lies in close and casual relationships , 1998 .

[45]  Howard Rheingold,et al.  The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier , 2000 .

[46]  Gary D. Levy,et al.  Effects of Potential Partners' Costume and Physical Attractiveness on Sexuality and Partner Selection , 1990 .

[47]  Brandon Van Der Heide,et al.  Self-Generated Versus Other-Generated Statements and Impressions in Computer-Mediated Communication , 2009, Commun. Res..

[48]  Karen Korabik.  Changes in Physical Attractiveness and Interpersonal Attraction , 1981 .

[49]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Looks and Lies: The Role of Physical Attractiveness in Online Dating Self-Presentation and Deception , 2010, Commun. Res..

[50]  Monica T. Whitty,et al.  Revealing the 'real' me, searching for the 'actual' you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[51]  Tara S. Behrend,et al.  The effects of avatar appearance on interviewer ratings in virtual employment interviews , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[52]  R. Vonk,et al.  The Negativity Effect in Trait Ratings and in Open-Ended Descriptions of Persons , 1993 .

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

[54]  Kathy Kellermann,et al.  The Negativity Effect in Interaction It's All in Your Point of View , 1989 .

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

[56]  Shao-kang Lo,et al.  The impact of online game character's outward attractiveness and social status on interpersonal attraction , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[57]  Donal E. Carlston,et al.  Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. , 1989 .