Deception is a common strategy for securing a first date with someone from an online dating site. But does the possibility of a second date still exist if deception was used to get the first one? To address this question, we investigated the effects of online dating deception on people’s subsequent offline interactions. Online daters (N = 94) were surveyed before and after their first date with a prospective partner. Their emails through the online dating site were also analyzed for linguistic markers of deception. Juxtaposing the self-report and observational email data revealed a positive association between participants’ deception and negative emotion words. Further results indicated that participants’ perceptions of their partner’s deception—but not their own—negatively predicted first date success.
BaymN (2015) Personal Connections in the Digital Age. 2nd ed.Malden, MA: Polity Press.
2.
BenjaminiYHochbergY (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological)57: 289–300.
3.
BondGDLeeAY (2005) Language of lies in prison: linguistic classification of prisoners’ truthful and deceptive natural language. Applied Cognitive Psychology19: 313–329.
4.
CartonSTHoranSM (2014) A diary examination of romantic and sexual partners withholding affectionate messages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships31: 221–246.
5.
ChungCPennebakerJ (2007) The psychological functions of function words. In: FielderK (ed) Social Communication. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 343–359.
6.
ColeT (2001) Lying to the one you love: the use of deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships18: 107–129.
7.
DrouinMMillerDWehleSMJet al. (2016) Why do people lie online? “Because everyone lies on the Internet.” Computers in Human Behavior64: 134–142.
8.
EllisonNHeinoRGibbsJ (2006) Managing impressions online: self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication11: 415–441.
9.
EllisonNBHancockJTTomaCL (2011) Profile as promise: a framework for conceptualizing veracity in online dating self-presentations. New Media & Society14: 45–62.
10.
GibbsJLEllisonNBHeinoRD (2006) Self-presentation in online personals: the role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research33: 152–177.
11.
GillathOSeskoAKShaverPRet al. (2010) Attachment, authenticity, and honesty: dispositional and experimentally induced security can reduce self- and other-deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology98: 841–855.
12.
GuadagnoREOkdieBMKruseSA (2012) Dating deception: gender, online dating, and exaggerated self-presentation. Computers in Human Behavior28: 642–647.
13.
GuthrieJKunkelA (2013) Tell me sweet (and not-so-sweet) little lies: deception in romantic relationships. Communication Studies64: 141–157.
14.
HallJAParkNSongHet al. (2010) Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: the effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships27: 117–135.
15.
HancockJTCurryLEGoorhaSet al. (2008) On lying and being lied to: a linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes45: 1–23.
16.
HaseltonMGBussDMOubaidVet al. (2005) Sex, lies, and strategic interference: the psychology of deception between the sexes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin31: 3–23.
17.
HauchVBlandón-GitlinIMasipJet al. (2014) Are computers effective lie detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review19: 307–342.
18.
HoranSMBooth-ButterfieldM (2011) Is it worth lying for? Physiological and emotional implications of recalling deceptive affection. Human Communication Research37: 78–106.
19.
KnappMLComadenME (1979) Telling it like it isn’t: a review of theory and research on deceptive communication. Human Communication Research5: 270–285.
20.
LevineTR (2014) Truth-Default Theory (TDT): a theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology33: 378–392.
21.
LoSKHsiehAYChiuYP (2013) Contradictory deceptive behavior in online dating. Computers in Human Behavior29: 1755–1762.
22.
McCornackSALevineTR (1990) When lies are uncovered: emotional and relational outcomes of discovered deception. Communication Monographs57: 119–138.
23.
McCroskeyJCMcCainTA (1974) The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs41: 261–266.
24.
MongeauPAJacobsenJDonnersteinC (2007) Defining dates and first date goals: generalizing from undergraduates to single adults. Communication Research34: 526–547.
25.
NewmanMLPennebakerJWBerryDSet al. (2003) Lying words: predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin29: 665–675.
26.
PaulhusDLJohnOP (1998) Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: the interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality66: 1025–1060.
27.
PennebakerJWBoothRJFrancisME (2007a) Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2007 [LIWC operator’s manual]. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
28.
PennebakerJWChungCKIrelandMet al. (2007b) The Development and Psychometric Properites of LIWC2007 [LIWC manual]. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
29.
PennebakerJWMehlMRNiederhofferKG (2003) Psychological aspects of natural language use: our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology54: 547–577.
30.
PetersonH (2013) “Catfishing”: the phenomenon of internet scammers who fabricate online identities and entire social circles to trick people into romantic relationships. Daily Mail, 17January. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/
31.
ProninEGilovichTRossL (2004) Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review111: 781–799.
32.
RamirezAJrWangZ (2008) When online meets offline: an expectancy violations theory perspective on modality switching. Journal of Communication58: 20–39.
33.
RamirezAJrZhangS (2007) When online meets offline: the effect of modality switching on relational communication. Communication Monographs74: 287–310.
34.
RosenfeldMJThomasRJ (2012) Searching for a mate: the rise of the Internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review77: 523–547.
35.
RowattWCCunninghamMRDruenPB (1998) Deception to get a date. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin24: 1228–1242.
36.
SharabiLLCaughlinJP (2017) What predicts first date success? A longitudinal study of modality switching in online dating. Personal Relationships24: 370–391.
37.
TausczikYR andPennebakerJW (2010) The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology29: 24–54.
TomaCLHancockJT (2011) A new twist on love’s labor: self-presentation in online dating profiles. In: WrightKBWebbLM (eds) Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 41–55.
40.
TomaCLHancockJT (2012) What lies beneath: the linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication62: 78–97.
41.
TomaCLHancockJTEllisonNB (2008) Separating fact from fiction: an examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin34: 1023–1036.
42.
TomaCLJiangLCHancockJT (2018) Lies in the eye of the beholder: asymmetric beliefs about one’s own and others’ deceptiveness in mediated and face-to-face communication. Communication Research45(8): 1167–1192.
43.
TookeWCamireL (1991) Patterns of deception in intersexual and intrasexual mating strategies. Ethology and Sociobiology12: 345–364.
44.
UtzS (2005) Types of deception and underlying motivation: what people think. Social Science Computer Review23: 49–56.
45.
Van SwolLMBraunMTKolbMR (2013) Deception, detection, demeanor, and truth bias in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research42: 1116–1142.
46.
WhittyMT (2008) Revealing the “real” me, searching for the “actual” you: presentation of self on an Internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior24: 1707–1723.
47.
WhittyMTJoinsonA (2009) Truth, Lies and Trust on the Internet. New York: Routledge.
48.
ZhouLBurgoonJKNunamakerJFJret al. (2004) Automating linguistics-based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Group Decision and Negotiation13: 81–106.
