This study examines factors (including gender, self-monitoring, the big five personality traits, and demographic characteristics) that influence online dating service users’ strategic misrepresentation (i.e., the conscious and intentional misrepresentation of personal characteristics). Using data from a survey of online dating service users (N = 5,020), seven categories of misrepresentation — personal assets, relationship goals, personal interests, personal attributes, past relationships, weight, and age — were examined. The study found that men are more likely to misrepresent personal assets, relationship goals, personal interests, and personal attributes, whereas women are more likely to misrepresent weight. The study further discovered that self-monitoring (specifically other-directedness) was the strongest and most consistent predictor of misrepresentation in online dating. Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness also showed consistent relationships with misrepresentation.
Barbuto, J.E., & Moss, J.A. ( 2006). Dispositional effects in intra-organizational influence tactics: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12, 30-52.
2.
Barelds, D.P.H., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Love at first sight or friends first? Ties among partner personality trait similarity, relationship onset, relationship quality, and love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 479-496.
3.
Berger, C.R., & Bell, R.A. ( 1988). Plan and the initiation of social relationships. Human Communication Research, 15, 217-235.
4.
Briggs, S.R., Cheek, J.M., & Buss, A.H. ( 1980). An analysis of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 679-686.
5.
Burgoon, J.K., & Walther, J. ( 1990). Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations. Human Communication Research, 17, 232-265.
6.
Buss, D.M., & Schmidt, D.P. ( 1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
7.
Cornwell, B., & Lundgren, D.C. (2001). Love on the internet: Involvement and misrepresentation in romantic relationships in cyberspace vs. realspace . Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 197-211.
8.
de Backer, C., Braeckman, J., & Farinpour, L. ( 2008). Mating intelligence in personal ads. In G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 77-101). New York: LEA.
9.
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). Retrieved February 20, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html
10.
Evans, K., & Brase, G.L. ( 2007). Assessing sex differences and similarities in mate preferences: Above and beyond demand characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 781-791.
11.
Gaines, S.O. ( 2007). Personality and personal relationships: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 24, 475-478.
12.
Gangestad, S.W., & Snyder, M. ( 2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530-555.
13.
Geher, G., Miller, G., & Murphy, J. ( 2008). Mating intelligence: Toward an evolutionarily informed construct. In G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 3-34). New York: LEA.
14.
Gibbs, J.L., Ellison, N.B., & Heino, R.D. ( 2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in internet dating . Communication Research, 33, 1-26.
15.
Goffman, E. ( 1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.
16.
Grammer, K., Kruck, K., Juette, A., & Fink, B. ( 2000). Non-verbal behavior as courtship signals: The role of control and choice in selecting partners. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 371-390.
17.
Hancock, J.T., & Dunham, P.J. ( 2001). Impression formation in computer-mediated communication revisited. Communication Research, 28, 325-347.
18.
Hancock, J.T., Thom-Santelli, J., & Ritchie, T. ( 2004). Deception and design: The impact of communication technology on lying behavior. In E. Dykstra-Erickson & M. Tscheligi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 129-134). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
19.
Hancock, J.T., & Toma, C. ( 2009). Putting your best face forward: The accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication, 59, 367-386.
20.
Haselton, M.G., Buss, D.M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A. (2005). Sex, lies, and strategic interference: The psychology of deception between the sexes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 3-23.
21.
John, O.P., Naumann, L.P., & Soto, C.J. ( 2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114-158). New York: Guilford Press.
22.
Kenrick, D.T., Groth, G.E., Trost, M.R., & Sadalla, E.K. ( 1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951-969.
23.
Kenrick, D.T., & Keefe, R.C. ( 1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75-133.
24.
Kenrick, D.T., Keefe, R.C., Gabrielidis, C., & Cornelius, J.S. (1996). Adolescents’ age preferences for dating partners: Support for an evolutionary model of life-history strategies. Child Development, 67, 1499-1511.
25.
Kunkel, A.D., Wilson, S.R., Olufowote, J., & Robson, S. ( 2003). Identifying implications of influence goals: Initiating, intensifying, and ending romantic relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 382-412.
26.
Lawson, H.M., & Leck, K. ( 2006). Dynamics of internet dating. Social Science Computer Review, 24, 189-208.
27.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. ( 1991). Computer-mediated communication, deindividuation, and group decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283-301.
28.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. ( 1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321-341.
29.
Leary, M.R. ( 2001). The self we know the self we show: Self-esteem, self-presentation, and the maintenance of interpersonal relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 457-477). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
30.
Nettle, D. ( 2005). An evolutionary approach to the extraversion continuum . Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 363-373.
31.
Nettle, D., & Clegg, H. ( 2008). Personality, mating strategies, and mating intelligence . In G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 121-134). New York: Erlbaum.
32.
O’Sullivan, M. ( 2008). Deception and self-deception as strategies in short- and long-term mating. In G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 135-157). New York: Erlbaum.
33.
O’Sullivan, P. ( 2000). What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Impression management functions of communication channels in relationships. Human Communication Research, 25, 689-715.
34.
Pawlowski, B., & Koziel, S. ( 2002). The impact of traits offered in personal advertisements . Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 139-149.
35.
Regan, P.C., & Dreyer, C.S. ( 1999). Lust? Love? Status? Young adults’ motives for engaging in casual sex. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality , 11, 1-18.
36.
Rowatt, W.C., Cunningham, M.R., & Druen, P.R. ( 1998). Deception to get a date. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1228-1242.
37.
Schmitt, D.P. ( 2004). The big five related to risky sexual behavior across 10 world regions: Differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity. European Journal of Personality , 18, 301-319.
38.
Schmitt, D.P. ( 2005). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The evolutionary psychology handbook (pp. 258-291). New York: Wiley .
39.
Simpson, J.A., & Gangestad, S.W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870-883.
40.
Snyder, M. ( 1987). Public appearances, private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman .
41.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. ( 1992). Social influence and the influence of the "social" in computer-mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 30-65). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
42.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. ( 1994). Panacea or panopticon: The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459.
43.
Sprecher, S., Schwartz, P., Harvey, J., & Hatfield, E. ( 2008). TheBusinessofLove.com: Relationship initiation at internet matchmaking services. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 249-268). New York: Psychology Press Taylor and Francis Group .
44.
Toma, C., Hancock, J., & Ellison, N. ( 2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1023-1036.
45.
Walther, J.B. ( 1993). Impression development in computer-mediated interaction . Western Journal of Communication, 57, 381-398.
46.
Walther, J.B. ( 1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
47.
Walther, J.B. ( 1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23, 342-369.
48.
Walther, J.B., & Burgoon, J.K. ( 1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction . Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
