Skip to main content

“I Wanted Them to Think That I Wrote That”: AI-Generated Self-Presentation on Dating Apps and Implications of Non-Disclosure on Informed Consent

Meryem Barkallah ; Douglas Zytko (2026) — Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26)

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
Unavailable
Average per calendar year
Citation count unavailable

Counts reflect Google Scholar’s coverage and do not measure research quality. Source, calculation and limitations

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1145/3772318.3791593 (opens in a new tab)

Country:   Global
Tags:   AI Disclosure, AI Mediated Communication, Dating App Deception, Generative AI, Informed Consent, Online Dating, Qualitative Survey, Self Presentation
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 paper examines how generative AI is used to shape self-presentation on online dating platforms and how nondisclosure of AI use may affect informed consent in interpersonal interactions. The authors pose questions about how AI-generated content is incorporated into profiles and messages, how daters decide whether to disclose AI use, and what those disclosure decisions imply for consent when meeting face-to-face. They address a gap in empirical understanding by focusing on interpersonal consent decisions rather than technology design alone. The study deploys a qualitative, open-ended survey of 113 online daters from 15 countries who had used AI-generated content in their dating profiles or messages, with most participants meeting at least one partner in person who had seen the AI-generated material. The researchers identify four AI-generated self-presentation strategies: AI as a fabricated generally attractive personality for profile bios and messages; AI for a personalized ideal dating partner tailored to a specific match; AI for enhancement of profile pictures or overall appeal; and AI for authenticity, used to edit or clarify information about non-physical traits. A common theme is nondisclosure to in-person partners, driven by fear of rejection or stigma and the belief that AI-generated content would be poorly received. The authors discuss implications for consent to interpersonal behavior, highlighting concerns that AI-generated self-presentation can misinform potential partners about a person’s true attributes, potentially creating situations of misinformed or under-informed consent. The paper notes limitations such as language and recruitment biases, reliance on self-report, and the absence of recipients’ perspectives, and calls for further research and design interventions to address disclosure norms and safety in AI-mediated dating contexts.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies limited empirical evidence on how generative AI is used in dating-app self-presentation and whether use is disclosed to people whose later interaction decisions may rely on that content. It notes that research on AI disclosure remains formative and that much consent-relevant evidence is speculative or experimentally controlled. The study also found no safety-oriented AI self-presentation strategies, potentially reflecting access barriers, unknown avoidance motivations, or underrepresentation of groups most likely to benefit.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
IRB-approved qualitative open-ended English-language survey of 113 adult dating-app users from 15 countries who had used generative AI to create, modify, or enhance dating content. Participants described AI-use processes, motivations, disclosure decisions, and disclosure norms. Two researchers conducted reflexive thematic analysis, combining inductive coding of responses with a deductive orientation informed by consent, AI-mediated communication, and self-presentation scholarship.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
English-only administration may have self-selected English speakers and limited representation from South America and Asia. Recruitment framed the study around generative AI, potentially attracting people comfortable discussing it and excluding those for whom it was less salient. The sample may underrepresent marginalized people using safety-oriented self-presentation. Self-reports could not be independently verified. The study examined producers, not recipients, so it cannot establish whether partners viewed their consent as misinformed.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Quantitatively assess the prevalence of identified AI self-presentation strategies and variation across user groups and dating apps. Study people who discover or suspect a partner's AI use after sex, clarify when undisclosed AI use misinforms consent, and develop prescriptive disclosure rules. Elicit stakeholder views on when AI use should be automatically disclosed. Conduct dedicated research with marginalized users and people who use AI for safety-oriented self-presentation.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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