In online dating, the self-authored profile serves as the primary way for daters to introduce themselves to others and to learn more about potential partners. However, few studies have examined the extent to which daters’ self-authored profile content is consistent with the impressions that others actually form. This study applied the Brunswikian lens model (1956) to examine self-presentation and impression formation in the text-based “about me” portion of the online dating profile. Using the meaning extraction method, we analyzed 190 profiles. Consistent with the lexical approach to personality, daters were able to encode aspects of themselves through linguistic self-description (cue validity), and observers were able to decode profile information to form impressions (cue utilization). However, there were few significant associations between a dater’s self-presentation and observers’ judgments (functional achievement). Findings are interpreted in line with previous work examining self-presentation and impressions in online dating profiles.
AllportGWOdbertHS (1936) Trait-names: a psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs47(1): i–171.
2.
AshtonMCLeeK (2005) A defence of the lexical approach to the study of personality structure. European Journal of Personality19(1): 5–24.
3.
BackMDSchmukleSCEgloffB (2008) How extraverted is honey.bunny77@hotmail.de? Inferring personality from e-mail addresses. Journal of Research in Personality42(4): 1116–1122.
4.
BackMDStopferJMVazireS, et al. (2010) Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science : A Journal of the American Psychological Society21(3): 372–374.
5.
BestKDelmegeS (2012) The filtered encounter: online dating and the problem of filtering through excessive information. Social Semiotics22(3): 237–258.
6.
BisharaAJHittnerJB (2012) Testing the significance of a correlation with nonnormal data: comparison of Pearson, Spearman, transformation, and resampling approaches. Psychological Methods17(3): 399–417.
7.
BisharaAJHittnerJB (2015) Reducing bias and error in the correlation coefficient due to nonnormality. Educational and Psychological Measurement75(5): 785–804.
8.
BorkenauPLieblerA (1992) Trait inferences: sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology62(4): 645–657.
9.
BoydRLPennebakerJW (2015) A way with words: using language for psychological science in the modern era. In: DimofteCVHaugtvedtCPYalchRF (eds) Consumer Psychology in a Social Media World. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis, pp. 222–236.
10.
BoydRLPennebakerJW (2017) Language-based personality: a new approach to personality in a digital world. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences18: 63–68.
11.
BoydRL (n.d.) Meaning extraction helper: A and program to help with text analysis topic modeling language exploration. Available at: https://meh.ryanb.cc/
12.
BrunswikE (1956) Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
13.
ChungCKPennebakerJW (2008) Revealing dimensions of thinking in open-ended self-descriptions: an automated meaning extraction method for natural language. Journal of Research in Personality42: 96–132.
14.
De WinterJCGoslingSDPotterJ (2016) Comparing the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients across distributions and sample sizes: a tutorial using simulations and empirical data. Psychological Methods21(3): 273–290.
15.
DeAndreaDC (2014) Advancing warranting theory. Communication Theory24: 186–204.
16.
DeAndreaDCTongSTLiangYJ, et al. (2012) When do people misrepresent themselves to others? The effects of social desirability, ground truth, and accountability on deceptive self-presentations. Journal of Communication62(3): 400–417.
17.
DeGrootTGootyJ (2009) Can nonverbal cues be used to make meaningful personality attributions in employment interviews?Journal of Business and Psychology24(2): 179–192.
EllisonNHeinoRGibbsJ (2006) Managing impressions online: self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication11(2): 415–441.
20.
FaulFErdfelderEBuchnerA, et al. (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods41: 1149–1160.
21.
GibbsJLEllisonNBHeinoRD (2006) Self-presentation in online personals. Communication Research33: 152–177.
22.
GibbsJLEllisonNBLaiCH (2010) First comes love, then comes Google: an investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self- disclosure in online dating. Communication Research38: 70–100.
23.
GiffordR (1994) A lens-mapping framework for understanding the encoding and decoding of interpersonal dispositions in nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology66(2): 398–412.
24.
GiffordRHineDW (1994) The role of verbal behavior in the encoding and decoding of interpersonal dispositions. Journal of Research in Personality28: 115–132.
25.
GoffmanE (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor.
26.
GoslingSDAugustineAAVazireS, et al. (2011) Manifestations of personality in online social networks: self-reported facebook-related behaviors and observable profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking14(9): 483–488.
27.
GoslingSDGaddisSVazireS (2007) Personality impressions based on Facebook profiles. In: ICWSM 2007- International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Available at: http://www.icwsm.org/papers/3–Gosling-Gaddis-Vazire.pdf
28.
GoslingSDKoSJMannarelliT, et al. (2002) A room with a cue: personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology82(3): 379–398.
29.
GoslingSDRentfrowPJSwannWB, et al. (2003) A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality37: 504–528.
30.
GrahamLTGoslingSD (2012) Impressions of World of Warcraft players’ personalities based on their usernames: interobserver consensus but no accuracy. Journal of Research in Personality46(5): 599–603.
31.
HallJAPenningtonN (2013) Self-monitoring, honesty, and cue use on Facebook: the relationship with user extraversion and conscientiousness. Computers in Human Behavior29(4): 1556–1564.
32.
HallJAPenningtonNLuedersA (2014) Impression management and formation on Facebook: a lens model approach. New Media & Society16: 958–982.
33.
HancockJTTomaCEllisonN (2007) The truth about lying in online dating profiles. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI ’07, San Jose, CA, 28 April–3 May, pp. 449–452. New York: ACM.
34.
HiltonJLDarleyJM (1991) The effects of interaction goals on person perception. In: ZannaMP (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 24. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 236–267.
JohnOPDonahueEMKentleRL (1991) The Big Five Inventory-Versions 4A and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
37.
KashimaYKashimaESKimU, et al. (2006) Describing the social world: how is a person, a group, and a relationship described in the East and the West?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology42(3): 388–396.
38.
KüfnerACPBackMDNestlerS, et al. (2010) Tell me a story and I will tell you who you are! Lens model analyses of personality and creative writing. Journal of Research in Personality44(4): 427–435.
MarcusBMachilekFSchützA (2006) Personality in cyberspace: personal web sites as media for personality expressions and impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology90(6): 1014–1031.
41.
MarkeyPMWellsSM (2002) Interpersonal perception in Internet chat rooms. Journal of Research in Personality36(2): 134–146.
42.
MarkowitzDMHancockJTTongST (2019) Interpersonal dynamics in online dating: profiles, matching, and discovery. In: PapacharissiZ (ed.) A Networked Self: Love. New York: Routledge, pp. 50–61.
43.
MasdenCEdwardsKW (2015) Understanding the role of community in online dating. In: SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15), Seoul, Korea, 18–23 April 2015, pp. 535–544. New York: ACM Press.
44.
NaumannLPVazireSRentfrowPJ, et al. (2009) Personality judgments based on physical appearance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin35(12): 1661–1671.
45.
PennebakerJWBoothRJBoydRL, et al. (2015) Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2015 [Computer software]. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates.
46.
PenningtonNHallJA (2014) An analysis of humor orientation on Facebook: a lens model approach. Humor27(1): 1–21.
47.
ProyerRTBrauerK (2018) Exploring adult playfulness: examining the accuracy of personality judgments at zero-acquaintance and an LIWC analysis of textual information. Journal of Research in Personality73: 12–20.
48.
QiuLLinHRamsayJ, et al. (2012) You are what you tweet: personality expression and perception on Twitter. Journal of Research in Personality46(6): 710–718.
49.
RafaeliSSudweeksF (1997) Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication2(4): JCMC243.
50.
RentfrowPJGoslingSD (2006) Message in a ballad: the role of music preferences in interpersonal perception. Psychological Science17(3): 236–242.
51.
RouseSVHaasHA (2003) Exploring the accuracies and inaccuracies of personality perception following internet-mediated communication. Journal of Research in Personality37(5): 446–467.
52.
SandeGNGoethalsGRRadloffCE (1988) Perceiving one’s own traits and others’: the multifaceted self. Jounrla of Personality and Social Psychology54: 13–20.
53.
SandyCJ (2013) Predicting accuracy in first impressions based on language use in computer-mediated communication environments. PhD dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. Available at: http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/21658
54.
SaucierGGoldbergLR (1996) Evidence for the Big Five in analyses of familiar English personality adjectives. European Journal of Personality10(1): 61–77.
55.
SchlenkerB (1980) Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
SrivastavaSGuglielmoSBeerJS (2010) Perceiving others’ personalities: examining the dimensionality, assumed similarity to the self, and stability of perceiver effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology983(3): 520534.
59.
StopferJMEgloffBNestlerS, et al. (2014) Personality expression and impression formation in online social networks: an integrative approach to understanding the processes of accuracy, impression management and meta-accuracy. European Journal of Personality28: 73–94.
60.
SwannWB (1984) Quest for accuracy in person perception: a matter of pragmatics. Psychological Review914(4): 45–477.
61.
TidwellNDEastwickPWFinkelEJ (2013) Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: evidence from the speed-dating paradigm. Personal Relationships20: 199–215.
62.
TskhayKORuleNO (2014) Perceptions of personality in text-based media and OSN: a meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality49(1): 25–30.
63.
VazireSGoslingSD (2004) e-Perceptions: personality impressions based on personal websites. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology87(1): 123–132.
64.
WaltherJBParksMR (2002) Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: computer-mediated communication and relationships. In: KnappMLDalyJA (eds) Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 529–563.
65.
WhittyM (2008) Revealing the “real” me, searching for the “actual” you: presentations of self on an Internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior24: 1707–1723.
66.
YarkoniT (2010) Personality in 100,000 words: a large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers. Journal of Research in Personality44(3): 363–373.
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.
