From conveying intimacy (“I like you”) to irritation (“stop messaging me!”) and dissatisfaction (“I don’t think we’ll work out”), language use plays a fundamental yet often overlooked role in the initiation of relationships. In online dating, daters exchange messages to determine how interested they are in a partner and whether they would like to go on a first date with them. In two studies, we examined whether linguistic features present in online dating messages can predict whether a first date took place. In Study 1, we identified five interpersonal processes related to first date outcomes: investment, interdependence, emotional dynamics, decision-making, and coordination. In Study 2, we tested our hypotheses generated from Study 1 on a new dataset. Our results suggest that certain linguistic features within online dating messages can be used to predict above chance the likelihood of going on a first date.
AgnewC. R.Van LangeP. A.RusbultC. E.LangstonC. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 939–954. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939
2.
AntheunisM. L.ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2010). Getting acquainted through social network sites: Testing a model of online uncertainty reduction and social attraction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.07.005
3.
BarakA.Gluck-OfriO. (2007). Degree and reciprocity of self-disclosure in online forums. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(3), 407–417. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9938
4.
BaxterL.BraithwaiteD. (2010). Relational dialectics theory, applied. In SmithS. W.WilsonS. R. (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research (pp. 48–66). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483349619.n3
5.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
BowenJ. D.WinczewskiL. A.CollinsN. L. (2017). Language style matching in romantic partners’ conflict and support interactions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(3), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X16666308
8.
BradacJ. J. (1983). The language of lovers, flovers, and friends: Communicating in social and personal relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2(2-3–4), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8300200205
9.
BruchE. E.NewmanM. E. J. (2018). Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets. Science Advances, 4(8), eaap9815. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aap9815
10.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J.EaglyA. H. (2011). When and why do ideal partner preferences affect the process of initiating and maintaining romantic relationships?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 1012–1032. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024062
11.
EastwickP. W.KeneskiE.MorganT. A.McDonaldM. A.HuangS. A. (2018). What do short-term and long-term relationships look like? Building the relationship coordination and strategic timing (ReCAST) model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(5), 747–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000428
12.
EllisonN.HeinoR.GibbsJ. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x
13.
FinkelE. J.EastwickP. W.KarneyB. R.ReisH. T.SprecherS. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436522
14.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
15.
GibbsJ. L.EllisonN. B.LaiC.-H. (2011). First comes love, then comes Google: An investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research, 38(1), 70–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210377091
16.
GonzalesA. L.HancockJ. T.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). Language style matching as a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Communication Research, 37(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209351468
HancockJ. T.LandriganC.SilverC. (2007). Expressing emotion in text-based communication. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 929–932. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240764.
19.
HitschG. J.HortaçsuA.ArielyD. (2010). Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economic Review, 100(1), 130–163. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.1.130
20.
HuangS. A.LedgerwoodA.EastwickP. W. (2020). How do ideal friend preferences and interaction context affect friendship formation? Evidence for a domain-general relationship initiation process. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(2), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619845925
21.
IlievR.DehghaniM.SagiE. (2015). Automated text analysis in psychology: Methods, applications, and future developments. Language and Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language and Cognitive Science, 7(2), 265–290. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.30
22.
IrelandM. E.SlatcherR. B.EastwickP. W.ScissorsL. E.FinkelE. J.PennebakerJ. W. (2011). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22(1), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610392928
23.
JoelS.EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2017). Is romantic desire predictable? Machine learning applied to initial romantic attraction. Psychological Science, 28(10), 1478–1489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617714580
24.
JoelS.MacDonaldG.PlaksJ. E. (2013). Romantic relationships conceptualized as a judgment and decision-making domain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(6), 461–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413498892
25.
KaranA.RosenthalR.RobbinsM. L. (2019). Meta-analytic evidence that we-talk predicts relationship and personal functioning in romantic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(9), 2624–2651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518795336
26.
KnappM. L.VangelistiA. (2005). Relationship stages: A communication perspective. In: Interpersonal communication and human relationships (5th ed., pp. 36–49). Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
27.
KnoblochL. K.MillerL. E.CarpenterK. E. (2007). Using the relational turbulence model to understand negative emotion within courtship. Personal Relationships, 14(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00143.x
28.
LingR.LaiC.-H. (2016). Microcoordination 2.0: Social coordination in the age of smartphones and messaging apps: Social coordination in the age of smartphones and messaging apps. Journal of Communication, 66(5), 834–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12251
29.
MarkowitzD. M.HancockJ. T.TongS. T. (2019). Interpersonal dynamics in online dating: profiles, matching, and discovery. In PapacharissiZ. (Ed.), A networked self: Love (pp. 50–61). Routledge.
30.
McFarlandD. A.JurafskyD.RawlingsC. (2013). Making the connection: Social bonding in courtship situations. American Journal of Sociology, 118(6), 1596–1649. https://doi.org/10.1086/670240
31.
MehlM. R.RobbinsM. L.HolleranS. E. (2012). How taking a word for a word can be problematic: Context-dependent linguistic markers of extraversion and neuroticism. Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 3(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.2458/v3i2.16477
32.
PeduzziP.ConcatoJ.KemperE.HolfordT. R.FeinsteinA. R. (1996). A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(12), 1373–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00236-3
33.
PennebakerJ. W.BoydR. L.JordanK.BlackburnK. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. University of Texas at Austin.
34.
RamirezA.Bryant SumnerE. M.FleurietC.ColeM. (2015). When online dating partners meet offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication between online daters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(1), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12101
35.
RosenL. D.CheeverN. A.CummingsC.FeltJ. (2008). The impact of emotionality and self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional dating. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2124–2157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.10.003
36.
RosenfeldM. J.ThomasR. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412448050
37.
SchoendienstV.Dang-XuanL. (2011, July). The role of linguistic properties in online dating communication – A large-scale study of contact initiation messages. PACIS 2011 Proceedings. 169. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2011/169.
38.
SeiderB. H.HirschbergerG.NelsonK. L.LevensonR. W. (2009). We can work it out: Age differences in relational pronouns, physiology, and behavior in marital conflict. Psychology and Aging, 24(3), 604–613. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016950
39.
SillarsA.ShellenW.McIntoshA.PomegranateM. (1997). Relational characteristics of language: Elaboration and differentiation in marital conversations. Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports), 61(4), 403–422.
40.
SimmonsR. A.GordonP. C.ChamblessD. L. (2005). Pronouns in marital interaction: What do “you” and “I” say about marital health?Psychological Science, 16(12), 932–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01639.x
41.
SlatcherR. B.VazireS.PennebakerJ. W. (2008). Am “I” more important than “We"? Couples’ word use in instant messages. Personal Relationships, 15(4), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00207.x
42.
SolomonD. H.RoloffM. E. (2018). Relationship initiation and growth. In VangelistiA. L.PerlmanD. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 79–89). Cambridge University Press.
43.
TehP. L.RaysonP.PakI.PiaoS. (2015). Sentiment analysis tools should take account of the number of exclamation marks!!! Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-Based Applications & Services, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/2837185.2837216.
44.
TomaC. L.HancockJ. T. (2010). Reading between the lines: Linguistic cues to deception in online dating profiles. Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ‘10, 5. https://doi.org/10.1145/1718918.1718921.
45.
ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2007). Who visits online dating sites? Exploring some characteristics of online daters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 849–852. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9941
46.
van der ZandenT.SchoutenA. P.MosM.van der LeeC.KrahmerE. (2019). Effects of relationship goal on linguistic behavior in online dating profiles: A multi-method approach. Frontiers in Communication, 4, 22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00022
47.
Van LangeP.RusbultC. (2012). Interdependence theory. In Van LangeP. A.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 251–272). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n39
48.
Williams-BaucomK. J.AtkinsD. C.SevierM.EldridgeK. A.ChristensenA. (2010). “You” and “I” need to talk about “us”: Linguistic patterns in marital interactions. Personal Relationships, 17(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01251.x
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.
