Skip to main content

Dating deception: Gender, online dating, and exaggerated self-presentation

Rosanna E. Guadagno ; Bradley M. Okdie ; Sara A. Kruse (2011) — Computers in Human Behavior

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.010 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   United States
Tags:   Anticipated Interaction, Attractiveness, Deceptive Self Presentation, Email Communication, Gender Differences, Online Dating, Personality
What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

Citation tools
Download RIS Download BibTeX 


              
              

            

          

        


      

      

    

        
Transparency

        
Evidence and review status

        
This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

    


    

                    

                
Source basis

                

                    Downloaded PDF
                

            

                    

                
Source updates

                

                    No notice found at last check
                

            

                    

                
AI-generated page content

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Automated checks

                

                    Passed
                

            

                    

                
Administrative approval

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Human content review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

                    

                
Subject-matter-expert review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

            


    

        
            How this was prepared
        
        

                            

                    
Source basis

                    

                    
RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    PDF added to RSRC:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Source updates

                    

                    
No incoming update notice was found in the dated Crossref response. Coverage is incomplete, particularly for corrections and expressions of concern; this is not a guarantee that the source is valid or unchanged.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Last source-status attempt:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
AI-generated page content

                    

                    
AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Document analysis recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Synopsis generation recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Page record updated:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Automated checks

                    

                    
The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Checks completed:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                            

                            
                                View passed checks (3)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                                    
  • English-source lexical grounding check
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
Administrative approval

                    

                    
An authenticated administrator approved the bibliographic record for public Library display. This is not a review of every research claim.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Approved for public display:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Human content review

                    

                    
No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Subject-matter-expert review

                    

                    
RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.


                    
                                        

                

                    

    


    

        Review-state definitions

        Found a possible error?
        Request a correction.
    



    



              

        
                  

            
Synopsis

            
This study aimed to understand how expectations about meeting a potential date shape deceptive self-presentation in online dating contexts. The researchers exposed heterosexual participants to four meeting contexts—face-to-face, email, no meeting, and a questionnaire control—and measured changes in self-reported personality (Big 5) and self-rated attractiveness across two time points. In addition, participants created online dating profiles, and independent judges evaluated their attractiveness from photographs. The goal was to see whether the mode of communication and the anticipation of a future date influence how people present themselves. Across time, men showed greater changes in self-presentation than women, particularly when a date was anticipated via email or face-to-face. Men in the online-email condition and in the face-to-face condition reported increased agreeableness at posttest, and men in these conditions also reported lower neuroticism. Women did not show significant changes in agreeableness in any condition. In terms of self-rated attractiveness, men in the email condition reported higher posttest attractiveness than men in other conditions, a pattern that held when controlling for objective attractiveness provided by blind raters. Independent judge ratings of attractiveness did not differ by condition. Overall, the pattern suggests that men are more likely than women to exaggerate favorable traits and perceived attractiveness when online dating is involved, with the degree of deception influenced by the communication channel used to connect with a prospective date. The authors note that the findings align with self-presentation theory and with broader online dating literature, while acknowledging limitations such as the heterosexual sample and the specific online dating contexts studied, which may limit generalizability to other relationship-seeking settings.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The study addresses a gap in prior dating research by measuring changes in self-reported personality and attractiveness when people believe they are completing a dating profile rather than a general personality questionnaire. The authors note a need to account for baseline self-presentation before manipulating dating context.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
A two-phase mixed factorial experiment involved 148 introductory psychology students at a southeastern U.S. university. Participants completed personality and attractiveness measures, then eligible single heterosexual participants were randomly assigned to anticipated email, face-to-face, no-meeting, or non-dating questionnaire conditions. They repeated measures after about one month. Independent female raters, blind to condition, rated participant photographs for attractiveness.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The authors explicitly caution that findings from heterosexual courtship are unlikely to generalize to people seeking other forms of romantic relationships. More cautiously, the sample was limited to introductory psychology students at one southeastern U.S. university, and the study measured short-term self-reported changes under an anticipated-meeting cover story rather than deception in actual dating-platform behavior.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Future research should examine deceptive self-presentation while controlling for baseline measures before manipulating interaction context. It should also consider people's goals for online social interaction and investigate whether findings extend beyond heterosexual courtship.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

            See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.