presentation dating site

Examples of How to Introduce Yourself on Online Dating Sites & Apps

Don't stress about introducing yourself. Use these dating site introduction examples to help you craft the perfect line to show your match the authentic you.

Michele is a writer who has been published both locally and internationally.

Learn about our Editorial Policy .

So you've created a dating profile and found a few people with potential. Great! But now what? It's time to let your personality shine through with a winning first message. If you're not sure how to introduce yourself on a dating site or app, try out these fun options.

Basic First Message Examples

Just as you would introduce yourself to someone in real life, start with a form of "hello" and the short version of why you're reaching out.

• Hey there, stranger, wanna become acquaintances?
• Bonjour/Ciao/Hola, I see you're free to travel the world, but are you free to chat?
• Hello, it's nice to virtually meet you! (Insert handshake or high-five emoji.)
• Hi, are you up for the challenge of communicating awkwardly through text?
• What's up? If you're interested in chatting, message back with the answer to this question. (Include a simple question that requires them to read your profile such as "What's my favorite color?")
• 14 "About Me" Dating Site Examples to Help You Find the One
• 25 Best Opening Lines for Online Dating
• How to Cancel a Date Without Being Rude

Related: Insider Tips to Write the Perfect Dating Profile

Messages That Emphasize Similarities

Your similarities are the things you can bond over from the start of any type of relationship. Find a creative way to incorporate something you both like into your first message to show you've paid attention to who they are.

• Looks like we're the only two people in the world with a passion for narwhal conservation, maybe we should team up and talk strategy?
• Hello, fellow Dodgers fan. Did you catch that play last night?
• I just finished reading The President Is Missing too! Did you see that ending coming?
• I can't believe I found another person who's been to Chincoteague Island! What was your favorite place to explore?
• Is it creepy or cool that we're wearing the same T-shirt in our profile pictures?
• I see we're both dog lovers! Tell me about that cutie in your profile picture. First your dog, then you. (Insert winky face emoji.) 
• I've always wanted to get into (insert hobby they enjoy here). Do you have any tips or advice for beginners like me? 

Related :   25 Best Opening Lines for Online Dating

Lead With a Question to Get Their Interest

Start the conversation off with an active request that includes a general interest question . Look for topics the other person is interested in on their profile, then come up with a fun question to break the ice .

• After reading your profile, I'm dying to know — who is your favorite Spiderman? Tobey, Tom, or Andrew? 
• I'm new to online dating, any tips on how to start up a conversation?
• Sending this message is the most spontaneous thing I've ever done. What's the most spontaneous thing you've ever done?
• They say a picture's worth a thousand words. What would your profile picture say if it could talk?
• Laughter is supposed to be the best medicine. What's the funniest thing that's happened to you recently? 
• I noticed you're a book lover. What was your last five-star read? 

Try a Flirty Message to Introduce Yourself 

It's okay to lead with a little flirtation , just be careful not to come on too strong or sound like all you're after is a physical relationship.

• Can I call you Q.T., or do you prefer Jeff?
• Whoever makes the first move wins this round. That's one point for me.
• I'm interested, what are you gonna do about it?
• There's only one way my day could get better — a message from you.
• I need to update my profile, I forgot to add one of my likes — you.
• Do you believe in love at first swipe, or should we unmatch and swipe again? 
• This might be too  cheesy but you look really gouda in your profile picture. 

Related :   How to Reply to Online Dating Messages the Right Way

Introduce Yourself With an Intro Inspired by Pop Culture 

Use your favorite movies, television shows, songs, and other pop culture references for a casual intro that speaks to your interests and personality.

• Joey's classic pickup line from Friends: "How you doin'?"
• Fonzie's catchphrase from Happy Days: "Aaay!"
• Use the Breaking Bad line: "I am the one who knocks." Follow this with:"Are you the one who answers?"
• Ask: "Do you want to get to know each other better?" followed by the line from How I Met Your Mother: "It's gonna be legen - wait for it - dary."
• From Friday Night Lights: "Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose."
• The classic alien line from sci-fi movies: "I come in peace."
• Use a play on the iconic Stranger Things character: "On a scale from 1 to 10 you're definitely Eleven." 
• From the Barbie movie: "Hi Barbie!" 

Put Your Best Message Forward

Getting started in online dating is all about taking the leap to send that first message, and these introduction lines for dating sites will help you open a conversation. Keep the message short and to the point, but include some of your own personality or interests to give it a personalized feel. You can never go wrong by being yourself! 

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• The Virtues and Downsides of Online Dating

30% of U.S. adults say they have used a dating site or app. A majority of online daters say their overall experience was positive, but many users – particularly younger women – report being harassed or sent explicit messages on these platforms

Table of contents.

• 1. Americans’ personal experiences with online dating
• 2. Users of online dating platforms experience both positive – and negative – aspects of courtship on the web
• 3. Americans’ opinions about the online dating environment
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

How we did this

Pew Research Center has long studied the changing nature of romantic relationships and the role of digital technology in how people meet potential partners and navigate web-based dating platforms. This particular report focuses on the patterns, experiences and attitudes related to online dating in America. These findings are based on a survey conducted Oct. 16 to 28, 2019, among 4,860 U.S. adults. This includes those who took part as members of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses, as well as respondents from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel who indicated that they identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB). The margin of sampling error for the full sample is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

Recruiting ATP panelists by phone or mail ensures that nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. This gives us confidence that any sample can represent the whole U.S. adult population (see our Methods 101 explainer on random sampling). To further ensure that each ATP survey reflects a balanced cross-section of the nation, the data are weighted to match the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories.

For more, see the report’s methodology about the project. You can also find the questions asked, and the answers the public provided in this topline .

From personal ads that began appearing in publications around the 1700s to videocassette dating services that sprang up decades ago, the platforms people use to seek out romantic partners have evolved throughout history. This evolution has continued with the rise of online dating sites and mobile apps.

Today, three-in-ten U.S. adults say they have ever used an online dating site or app – including 11% who have done so in the past year, according to a new Pew Research Center survey conducted Oct. 16 to 28, 2019. For some Americans, these platforms have been instrumental in forging meaningful connections: 12% say they have married or been in a committed relationship with someone they first met through a dating site or app. All in all, about a quarter of Americans (23%) say they have ever gone on a date with someone they first met through a dating site or app.

Previous Pew Research Center studies about online dating indicate that the share of Americans who have used these platforms – as well as the share who have found a spouse or partner through them – has risen over time. In 2013, 11% of U.S. adults said they had ever used a dating site or app, while just 3% reported that they had entered into a long-term relationship or marriage with someone they first met through online dating. It is important to note that there are some changes in question wording between the Center’s 2013 and 2019 surveys, as well as differences in how these surveys were fielded. 1 Even so, it is clear that websites and mobile apps are playing a larger role in the dating environment than in previous years. 2

The current survey finds that online dating is especially popular among certain groups – particularly younger adults and those who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB). Roughly half or more of 18- to 29-year-olds (48%) and LGB adults (55%) say they have ever used a dating site or app, while about 20% in each group say they have married or been in a committed relationship with someone they first met through these platforms. Americans who have used online dating offer a mixed look at their time on these platforms.

On a broad level, online dating users are more likely to describe their overall experience using these platforms in positive rather than negative terms. Additionally, majorities of online daters say it was at least somewhat easy for them to find others that they found physically attractive, shared common interests with, or who seemed like someone they would want to meet in person. But users also share some of the downsides to online dating. Roughly seven-in-ten online daters believe it is very common for those who use these platforms to lie to try to appear more desirable. And by a wide margin, Americans who have used a dating site or app in the past year say the experience left them feeling more frustrated (45%) than hopeful (28%).

Other incidents highlight how dating sites or apps can become a venue for bothersome or harassing behavior – especially for women under the age of 35. For example, 60% of female users ages 18 to 34 say someone on a dating site or app continued to contact them after they said they were not interested, while a similar share (57%) report being sent a sexually explicit message or image they didn’t ask for.

Online dating has not only disrupted more traditional ways of meeting romantic partners, its rise also comes at a time when norms and behaviors around marriage and cohabitation also are changing as more people delay marriage or choose to remain single.

These shifting realities have sparked a broader debate about the impact of online dating on romantic relationships in America. On one side, some highlight the ease and efficiency of using these platforms to search for dates, as well as the sites’ ability to expand users’ dating options beyond their traditional social circles. Others offer a less flattering narrative about online dating – ranging from concerns about scams or harassment to the belief that these platforms facilitate superficial relationships rather than meaningful ones. This survey finds that the public is somewhat ambivalent about the overall impact of online dating. Half of Americans believe dating sites and apps have had neither a positive nor negative effect on dating and relationships, while smaller shares think its effect has either been mostly positive (22%) or mostly negative (26%).

Terminology

Throughout this report, “online dating users” and “online daters” are used interchangeably to refer to the 30% of respondents in this survey who answered yes to the following question: “Have you ever used an online dating site or dating app?”

These findings come from a nationally representative survey of 4,860 U.S. adults conducted online Oct. 16 to 28, 2019, using Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel. The following are among the major findings.

Younger adults – as well as those who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual – are especially likely to use online dating sites or apps

Some 30% of Americans say they have ever used an online dating site or app. Out of those who have used these platforms, 18% say they are currently using them, while an additional 17% say they are not currently doing so but have used them in the past year.

Experience with online dating varies substantially by age. While 48% of 18- to 29-year-olds say they have ever used a dating site or app, that share is 38% among 30- to 49-year-olds, and it is even smaller among those ages 50 and older. Still, online dating is not completely foreign to those in their 50s or early 60s: 19% of adults ages 50 to 64 say they have used a dating site or app.

Beyond age, there also are striking differences by sexual orientation. 3 LGB adults are about twice as likely as straight adults to say they have used a dating site or app (55% vs. 28%). 4 And in a pattern consistent with previous Pew Research Center surveys , college graduates and those with some college experience are more likely than those with a high school education or less to say they’ve ever online dated.

There are only modest differences between men and women in their use of dating sites or apps, while white, black or Hispanic adults all are equally likely to say they have ever used these platforms.

At the same time, a small share of U.S. adults report that they found a significant other through online dating platforms. Some 12% of adults say they have married or entered into a committed relationship with someone they first met through a dating site or app. This too follows a pattern similar to that seen in overall use, with adults under the age of 50, those who are LGB or who have higher levels of educational attainment more likely to report finding a spouse or committed partner through these platforms.

A majority of online daters say they found it at least somewhat easy to come across others on dating sites or apps that they were physically attracted to or shared their interests

Online dating users are more likely to describe their overall experience with using dating sites or apps in positive, rather than negative, terms. Some 57% of Americans who have ever used a dating site or app say their own personal experiences with these platforms have been very or somewhat positive. Still, about four-in-ten online daters (42%) describe their personal experience with dating sites or apps as at least somewhat negative.

For the most part, different demographic groups tend to view their online dating experiences similarly. But there are some notable exceptions. College-educated online daters, for example, are far more likely than those with a high school diploma or less to say that their own personal experience with dating sites or apps is very or somewhat positive (63% vs. 47%).

At the same time, 71% of online daters report that it was at least somewhat easy to find people on dating sites or apps that they found physically attractive, while about two-thirds say it was easy to find people who shared their hobbies or interests or seemed like someone they would want to meet in person.

While majorities across various demographic groups are more likely to describe their searches as easy, rather than difficult, there are some differences by gender. Among online daters, women are more likely than men to say it was at least somewhat difficult to find people they were physically attracted to (36% vs. 21%), while men were more likely than women to express that it was difficult to find others who shared their hobbies and interests (41% vs. 30%).

Men who have online dated in the past five years are more likely than women to feel as if they did not get enough messages from other users

When asked if they received too many, not enough or just about the right amount of messages on dating sites or apps, 43% of Americans who online dated in the past five years say they did not receive enough messages, while 17% say they received too many messages. Another 40% think the amount of messages they received was just about right.

There are substantial gender differences in the amount of attention online daters say they received on dating sites or apps. Men who have online dated in the past five years are far more likely than women to feel as if they did not get enough messages (57% vs. 24%). On the other hand, women who have online dated in this time period are five times as likely as men to think they were sent too many messages (30% vs. 6%).

The survey also asked online daters about their experiences with getting messages from people they were interested in. In a similar pattern, these users are more likely to report receiving too few rather than too many of these messages (54% vs. 13%). And while gender differences remain, they are far less pronounced. For example, 61% of men who have online dated in the past five years say they did not receive enough messages from people they were interested in, compared with 44% of women who say this.

Roughly seven-in-ten online daters think people lying to appear more desirable is a very common occurrence on online dating platforms

Online daters widely believe that dishonesty is a pervasive issue on these platforms. A clear majority of online daters (71%) say it is very common for people on these platforms to lie about themselves to appear more desirable, while another 25% think it is somewhat common. Only 3% of online daters think this is not a common occurrence on dating platforms.

Smaller, but still substantial shares, of online daters believe people setting up fake accounts in order to scam others (50%) or people receiving sexually explicit messages or images they did not ask for (48%) are very common on dating sites and apps. By contrast, online daters are less likely to think harassment or bullying, and privacy violations, such as data breaches or identify theft, are very common occurrences on these platforms.

Some users – especially younger women – report being the target of rude or harassing behavior while on these platforms

Some experts contend that the open nature of online dating — that is, the fact that many users are strangers to one another — has created a less civil dating environment and therefore makes it difficult to hold people accountable for their behavior. This survey finds that a notable share of online daters have been subjected to some form of harassment measured in this survey.

Roughly three-in-ten or more online dating users say someone through a dating site or app continued to contact them after they said they were not interested (37%), sent them a sexually explicit message or image they didn’t ask for (35%) or called them an offensive name (28%). Fewer online daters say someone via a dating site or app has threatened to physically harm them.

Younger women are particularly likely to encounter each of these behaviors. Six-in-ten female online dating users ages 18 to 34 say someone via a dating site or app continued to contact them after they said they were not interested, while 57% report that another user has sent them a sexually explicit message or image they didn’t ask for. Other negative interactions are more violent in nature: 19% of younger female users say someone on a dating site or app has threatened to physically harm them – roughly twice the rate of men in the same age range who say this.

The likelihood of encountering these kinds of behaviors on dating platforms also varies by sexual orientation. Fully 56% of LGB users say someone on a dating site or app has sent them a sexually explicit message or image they didn’t ask for, compared with about one-third of straight users (32%). LGB users are also more likely than straight users to say someone on a dating site or app continued to contact them after they told them they were not interested, called them an offensive name or threatened to physically harm them.

Online dating is not universally seen as a safe way to meet someone

The creators of online dating sites and apps have at times struggled with the perception that these sites could facilitate troubling – or even dangerous – encounters. And although there is some evidence that much of the stigma surrounding these sites has diminished over time, close to half of Americans still find the prospect of meeting someone through a dating site unsafe.

Some 53% of Americans overall (including those who have and have not online dated) agree that dating sites and apps are a very or somewhat safe way to meet people, while a somewhat smaller share (46%) believe these platforms are a not too or not at all safe way of meeting people.

Americans who have never used a dating site or app are particularly skeptical about the safety of online dating. Roughly half of adults who have never used a dating or app (52%) believe that these platforms are a not too or not at all safe way to meet others, compared with 29% of those who have online dated.

There are some groups who are particularly wary of the idea of meeting someone through dating platforms. Women are more inclined than men to believe that dating sites and apps are not a safe way to meet someone (53% vs. 39%).

Age and education are also linked to differing attitudes about the topic. For example, 59% of Americans ages 65 and older say meeting someone this way is not safe, compared with 51% of those ages 50 to 64 and 39% among adults under the age of 50. Those who have a high school education or less are especially likely to say that dating sites and apps are not a safe way to meet people, compared with those who have some college experience or who have at bachelor’s or advanced degree. These patterns are consistent regardless of each group’s own personal experience with using dating sites or apps.

Pluralities think online dating has neither helped nor harmed dating and relationships and that relationships that start online are just as successful as those that begin offline

Americans – regardless of whether they have personally used online dating services or not – also weighed in on the virtues and pitfalls of online dating. Some 22% of Americans say online dating sites and apps have had a mostly positive effect on dating and relationships, while a similar proportion (26%) believe their effect has been mostly negative. Still, the largest share of adults – 50% – say online dating has had neither a positive nor negative effect on dating and relationships.

Respondents who say online dating’s effect has been mostly positive or mostly negative were asked to explain in their own words why they felt this way. Some of the most common reasons provided by those who believe online dating has had a positive effect focus on its ability to expand people’s dating pools and to allow people to evaluate someone before agreeing to meet in person. These users also believe dating sites and apps generally make the process of dating easier. On the other hand, people who said online dating has had a mostly negative effect most commonly cite dishonesty and the idea that users misrepresent themselves.

Pluralities also believe that whether a couple met online or in person has little effect on the success of their relationship. Just over half of Americans (54%) say that relationships where couples meet through a dating site or app are just as successful as those that begin in person, 38% believe these relationships are less successful, while 5% deem them more successful.

Public attitudes about the impact or success of online dating differ between those who have used dating platforms and those who have not. While 29% of online dating users say dating sites and apps have had a mostly positive effect on dating and relationships, that share is 21% among non-users. People who have ever used a dating site or app also have a more positive assessment of relationships forged online. Some 62% of online daters believe relationships where people first met through a dating site or app are just as successful as those that began in person, compared with 52% of those who never online dated.

• Pew Research Center’s 2013 survey about online dating was conducted via telephone, while the 2019 survey was fielded online through the Center’s American Trends Panel . In addition, there were some changes in question wording between these surveys. Please read the Methodology section for full details on how the 2019 survey was conducted. ↩
• Other studies show that online dating is playing a larger role in how romantic partners meet. See Rosenfeld, Michael J., Reuben J. Thomas, and Sonia Hausen. 2019. “ Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting .” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. ↩
• This survey includes an oversample of lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) adults. For more details, see the Methodology section of the report. ↩
• Other research suggests that online dating is an especially important way for populations with a small pool of potential partners – such as those who identify as gay or lesbian – to identify and meet partners. See Rosenfeld, Michael J., and Thomas, Reuben J. 2012. “ Searching for a Mate: The Rise of the Internet as a Social Intermediary .” American Sociological Review. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Gender & Tech
• LGBTQ Attitudes & Experiences
• Online Dating
• Online Harassment & Bullying
• Online Privacy & Security
• Privacy Rights
• Romance & Dating
• Sexual Misconduct & Harassment
• Social Media

U.S. women more concerned than men about some AI developments, especially driverless cars

Young women often face sexual harassment online – including on dating sites and apps, how social media users have discussed sexual harassment since #metoo went viral, there’s a large gender gap in congressional facebook posts about sexual misconduct, facts on foreign students in the u.s., most popular, report materials.

• Shareable facts about Americans’ experiences with online dating
• American Trends Panel Wave 56

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Researched by Consultants from Top-Tier Management Companies

Powerpoint Templates

Icon Bundle

Kpi Dashboard

Professional

Business Plans

Swot Analysis

Gantt Chart

Business Proposal

Marketing Plan

Project Management

Business Case

Business Model

Cyber Security

Business PPT

Digital Marketing

Digital Transformation

Human Resources

Product Management

Artificial Intelligence

Company Profile

Acknowledgement PPT

PPT Presentation

Reports Brochures

One Page Pitch

Interview PPT

All Categories

14 Key Slides to Draft a Pitch Deck for Dating App Like Bumble!

Deepali Khatri

We live in a world where smartphone Apps have made our lives easier.

If mobile apps can help find us the right cabs, food, and salon services, then what’s wrong with getting an app that helps us find our love?

And, a big thanks to the dating apps like Bumble and Tinder that help us find the right match. 

Seeing the increasing potential of the dating apps like Bumble, most entrepreneurs are now planning to invest in one such dating app. If you are interested in investing in dating app development, this blog is all you need.

Before knowing the actual cost of developing an app like Bumble, let’s know more about this platform. 

Whitney Wolfe Herd,   CEO of Bumble dating App,   became the youngest woman billionaire in the world. This app is enjoying the spotlight these days.

What is Bumble App?

Bumble is a dating app. It was launched in 2014, and it has been growing exponentially ever since. From 1M users in 2015 to 23.5M in 2017, Bumble decided to diversify its services and came out with a new app called "Bumble BFF."

Bumble is a popular platform for people to connect and not just for those looking for their honey on Date mode.

Bumble BFF is a friendship-based app. It allows people to find friends in their area, make new friends, and meet up with them when they are in the same place.

Like Bumble, it is also growing exponentially. In 2017 , there were 1M users on the App, and in 2018, there are already 7M.

They succeeded in making people adopt their friendship app just like how they adopted Bumble.

Bumble BFF and Bumble Bizz

When Bumble was still a dating app, it had certain problems. Men would exploit the system to talk to as many women as possible, and women would also pretend to be men and other gimmicks. These problems affected the dating experience of honest users, who had fewer chances of making a connection.

With Bumble BFF , this problem is no longer present as users can also connect to build friendship with other people.

The prominent feature in this dating app is that it empowers women to take control of their matches and conversations, allowing them to make the first move.

It also opens the door for those seeking to make a new business connection on Bumble Bizz .

It introduced the signature women-first swiping right experience to the professional world.

There are many ways by which you can showcase your professional qualifications in the same app.

All of these changes were made to improve the user experience. They ensured that their users would get the best out of Bumble, and they succeeded.

This platform encourages interaction in love, friendship, and now business.

How It Works?

In this app, once the match is established, a woman is given 24 hours to make the decision, and if she fails to make the first move, the connection expires.

In the case of same-gender matches, both the person gets equal power to make the first move.

There are some interesting features that allow you to extend the time on a match or rematch with an expired connection if you are really interested in making the connection with the other person.

Bumble’s Success Story

When Bumble first started, the founders had no idea how well their App would fare. Fast forward to today, and after several significant updates, Bumble has grown to be one of the top dating apps on the market.

People find Bumble a refreshing change from Tinder, which has become a bit of a joke in the dating world. Bumble is similar to Tinder except for two key differences: women make the first move, and men can't initiate a conversation with a woman.

Bumble was launched by Whitney Wolfe Herd , who also founded Tinder. Many of her employees from Tinder moved on to join her, which has undoubtedly provided Bumble with the know-how it needs to succeed.

In addition to the BFF feature, popular updates have included a paid subscription option and the ability to swipe back on people you accidentally swiped left on.

People flock to Bumble because women make the first move, a stark contrast from the Tinder experience. Bumble also allows women to message men first, which many women find appealing.

Though the usage rate for dating apps has declined in recent years, Bumble has been able to buck the trend and reach a record high in membership.

Bumble has seen membership numbers quadruple in less than six months since being launched in the United Kingdom.

With 500 million profiles to swipe through and the ability to match with people all over the world, it's no surprise that Bumble is growing in popularity.

Bumble has positioned itself at the top of the dating app market by doubling its commitment to empowering women. They've also been a leader in the dating app industry by innovating and introducing new features.

Why is it Beneficial to Develop a Dating App Like Bumble?

As per the stats, the revenue of dating apps like Bumble is expected to reach US $2322 and is expected to grow at 9.3 %.

In order to gain a share in the profitable market, it would be the wise and right time to invest in one such dating app that is riding a growth wave.

Bumble's Original Pitch Deck Template

Bumble is a dating app that has taken the world by storm. Since its inception in 2014, it has seen rapid growth and now boasts more than 15 million users. It's no surprise then that entrepreneurs are looking to replicate this success for their ventures - but how do you go about creating a compelling pitch deck? We've compiled 14 essential slides from our original Bumble Pitch Deck into one handy guide so you can start crafting your perfect pitch today.

This article will take you through each slide step-by-step to help make sure yours is up to scratch too. Ready? Let's get started...

Click Here to explore world's largest collection of Pitch Decks 

The cover slide.

Meeting new people and building strong connections has now become easy, thanks to this amazing Bumble Investor Funding Elevator pitch deck.

The added advantage of this dating app is that it is not just for those looking to date. But, the idea is to arm all those seeking to make new friends, business relations, etc.

Depicted here is the cover slide of this amazing Bumble pitch deck showcasing business graphs—a great tool for people looking for business mentors, and friends.

Download this PowerPoint Template Now

The Problem Slide

Next, we present our problem slide that highlights the issues faced by people all over the dating applications. It talks about the unmonitored space given to people on social media dominated by abused user experience.

In addition, this template talks about other problems like harassment and sexual misconduct , and lesser digital satisfaction that are faced by people using other dating apps.

Bumble Overview

If you are thinking of investing in one such app, it is vital to be aware of its overview, which is where this bumble overview template comes in handy.

It provides a glimpse of its launch date, headquarter, business type and management details.

Along with these, other areas covered in the slides are the number of employees, industry type, etc.

Share some key insights with your audience by grabbing this editable bumble overview template.

Need of Bumble Dating App

Bumble is different from other dating apps. Unlike others, it has solved the problem of bullying and abuse.

The given slide elucidates the need for this dating app and lists out the point that surpasses other such applications.

It focuses on eliminating bullying and abusive user experience .

Nevertheless, it also talks about working on antiquated dating norms and changing global view for women.

Bumble Business Model

Bumble has a lot more to offer which is clearly depicted in the given bumble business model PowerPoint template. It gives a glimpse of various business model offerings such as Bumble honey used for dating purpose , Bumble BFF for making new friends, and Bumble BIZZ for people looking to connect for business purpose.

Bumble Digital Marketing Model

The given slide walks you through the Digital marketing strategies namely content marketing, social media marketing, experiential marketing and micro influencer marketing .

The idea behind introducing this slide is to gauge the attention of people towards the platform.

It is good for those seeking to invest in an application with different interests. All this and more can be easily done with this well framed pitch deck offering bumble bizz, dating, and bff under a single platform.

Bumble Campaigns

To shed some light over the importance of Bumble campaigns we have introduced this Bumble campaigns PowerPoint slide.

It showcases different campaigns offered by this platform that intrigues your audience.  Some of the campaigns depicted in the given templates are dating just got equal and equal not loose.

The main purpose of coming up with such kind of campaigns is to perform better in terms of marketing and beat the high-level competition.

Bumble User Funnel

If you are keen to convert your prospective investors into your clients you must be able to present different steps of bumble user funnel in a succinct way. This is where our user funnel comes in handy.

Incorporating different steps such as on board, feed, match, and engage ; this slide itself showcases a sequence to be followed by the users. We have also covered some points keeping in mind the COVID restrictions.

Considering such restrictions, the deck introduces you to the added advantage of video calling and meeting in person by exchanging contact details.

Bumble User Behavior and Pain Points

A company’s strength is in solving their customer’s problems and this can be done if it is well aware of the issue that the user is facing with their application.

Our user behavior and pain points PowerPoint template gives a glimpse for the same in the diagram depicted in the given template.

Bumble has accomplished goals and resolve their users concerns by focusing on the pain points depicted using the table. It also talks about the chat drops and exits along with the digital satisfaction.

Bumble Website Ranking Success

To survive in the cut throat competition, every company must be aware of its current performance for which it needs a performance metrics.

This website ranking success PowerPoint template is a well-researched slide that is specially designed to entice the investors about the significance of measuring the website performance.

The given template showcases different parameters that should be looked into and provides a glimpse about the website traffic, and user’s engagement . It also incorporates a table depicting site’s traffic based on different countries. By having knowledge of the kind of traffic you are dealing with, you can better utilize it.

Bumble Competitors

Having a great knowledge of who your competitors are and what do they offer, can help you make your product stand out of the crowd.

This is where this bumble competitors template comes to serve the purpose.

This thoughtful template talks about the app store, google play and overall downloads, which can further arm you in devising such marketing strategies that take advantage from your competitors’ weakness.

Bumble Revenues

To win the fundraising round, you must provide your investors, the exact stats of your company’s revenue.

This is where we have brought you this R evenue PowerPoint template that shares a glimpse of bumble revenue in different years.

Additionally, it can be used to display the net profit, loss, average revenue per user and active users.

Bumble Funding Round Investment

The slide talks about  funding investment round that showcases investment timeline taking the assistance of the line graph.

It incorporates a table that gives a clear picture of investor’s name, lead investor, funding and partners.

Downloading upon this template you can get a succinct idea of the transactions held on the particular dates.

Bumble Organization Structure

Before actually setting up a business, you must have a great idea in place, for which, there is a need to decide the organizational structure of your organization.

Grab this slide to provide a glimpse of the organizational structure. Showcase the faces that are the driving forces behind your organization’s success.

The template gives you enough space to jot down the names of board members and advisors.

Also, you can collectively present your current team members with their designation utilizing this given bumble pitch deck template.

Wrapping Up

If you are planning to create one such dating app, then you are just one click away from your dream plan.

There’s nothing much you need to do to bag this lucrative set of templates for your start-up presentation.

Just sign up for SlideTeam membership and get ready to exercise the liberty of customizing these thoughtful templates as per your start-up plan.

Contact us to book a FREE Demo.

Related posts:

• 14 Schlüsselfolien zum Entwerfen eines Pitch Decks für Dating-Apps wie Bumble

Top 12 Slides on “How to Raise Funds for a Platform Like Spotify”

Drafting a pitch deck taking inspiration from tinder’s legendary investor presentation.

• A Guide to Seed Funding – 21 Best PowerPoint Templates Included!

Liked this blog? Please recommend us

IT Services Pricing Model Templates for Acquiring More Clients!

A Guide to Seed Funding - 21 Best PowerPoint Templates Included!

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA - the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Digital revolution powerpoint presentation slides

Sales funnel results presentation layouts

3d men joinning circular jigsaw puzzles ppt graphics icons

Business Strategic Planning Template For Organizations Powerpoint Presentation Slides

Future plan powerpoint template slide

Project Management Team Powerpoint Presentation Slides

Brand marketing powerpoint presentation slides

Launching a new service powerpoint presentation with slides go to market

Agenda powerpoint slide show

Four key metrics donut chart with percentage

Engineering and technology ppt inspiration example introduction continuous process improvement

Meet our team representing in circular format

Tips for Safer Online Dating and Dating App Use

Online dating and dating apps are powerful connectors in the American dating landscape. In 2023, 30% of Americans used online dating services or apps according to Pew Research Center. As is the case when meeting someone new, whether online or offline, it’s wise to keep a few precautions in mind for safer interactions. Very few dating apps conduct criminal background checks on users, so it’s up to each user to determine if they are comfortable meeting up with someone. And remember that if you do experience sexual violence while dating online or using an app, it is not your fault.

Below are some steps you can take to for safer interaction with others through online dating apps and services—whether you are interacting virtually or in person. We say “safer” because no sexual violence “safety” tip is ever a promise of safety, and the only one responsible for sexual assault is a perpetrator. Full stop.

When Connecting Online

Use different photos for your dating profile. It’s easy to do a reverse image search with Google. If your dating profile has a photo that also shows up on your Instagram or Facebook account, it will be easier for someone to find you on social media.

Avoid sharing live or motion photos. Photos taken in “live” mode include geolocation information that can be passed on along with the photo. Exercise caution when sharing these images with matches and potential dates.

Avoid connecting with suspicious profiles. If the person you matched with has no bio, linked social media accounts, and has only posted one picture, it may be a fake account. It’s important to use caution if you choose to connect with someone you have so little information about.

Check out your potential date on social media. If you know your match’s name or handles on social media—or better yet if you have mutual friends online—look them up and make sure they aren’t “catfishing” you by using a fake social media account to create their dating profile.

Block and report suspicious users. You can block and report another user if you feel their profile is suspicious or if they have acted inappropriately toward you. This can often be done anonymously before or after you’ve matched. As with any personal interaction, it is always possible for people to misrepresent themselves. Trust your instincts about whether you feel someone is representing themself truthfully or not.

The list below offers a few examples of some common stories or suspicious behaviors scammers may use to build trust and sympathy so they can manipulate another user in an unhealthy way.

• Asks for financial assistance in any way, often because of a sudden personal crisis
• Claims to be from the United States but is currently living, working, or traveling abroad
• Claims to be recently widowed with children
• Disappears suddenly from the site then reappears under a different name
• Gives vague answers to specific questions
• Overly complimentary and romantic too early in your communication
• Pressures you to provide your phone number or talk outside the dating app or site
• Requests your home or work address under the guise of sending flowers or gifts
• Tells inconsistent or grandiose stories
• Uses disjointed language and grammar, but has a high level of education

Examples of user behavior you may want to report can include:

• Requests financial assistance
• Requests photographs
• Sends harassing or offensive messages
• Attempts to threaten or intimidate you in any way
• Seems to have created a fake profile
• Tries to sell you products or services

Wait to Share Personal Information. Never give someone you haven’t met with in person your personal information, including your: social security number, credit card details, bank information, or work or home address. Dating apps and websites will never send you an email asking for your username and password information, so if you receive a request for your login information, delete it and consider reporting.

Don’t Respond to Requests for Financial Help. No matter how convincing and compelling someone’s reason may seem, never respond to a request to send money, especially overseas or via wire transfer. If you do get such a request, report it to the app or site you’re using immediately. For more information, check out the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's tips on avoiding online dating scams .

When Meeting in Person

Video chat before you meet up in person. Once you have matched with a potential date and chatted, consider scheduling a video chat with them before meeting up in-person for the first time. This can be a good way to help ensure your match is who they claim to be in their profile. If they strongly resist a video call, that could be a sign of suspicious activity.

Tell a friend where you’re going. Take a screenshot of your date’s profile and send it to a friend. Let at least one friend know where and when you plan to go on your date. If you continue your date in another place you hadn’t planned on, text a friend to let them know your new location. It may also be helpful to arrange to text or call a friend partway through the date or when you get home to check in.

Meet in a public place. For your first date, avoid meeting someone you don’t know well yet in your home, apartment, or workplace. It may make both you and your date feel more comfortable to meet in a coffee shop, restaurant, or bar with plenty of other people around. Avoid meeting in public parks and other isolated locations for first dates.

Don’t rely on your date for transportation. It's important that you are in control of your own transportation to and from the date so that you can leave whenever you want and do not have to rely on your date in case you start feeling uncomfortable. Even if the person you're meeting volunteers to pick you up, avoid getting into a vehicle with someone you don’t know and trust, especially if it’s the first meeting.

Have a few ride share apps downloaded on your phone so in case one is not working when you need it, you’ll have a backup. Make sure you have data on your phone and it’s fully charged, or consider bringing your charger or a portable battery with you.

Stick to what you’re most comfortable with. There’s nothing wrong with having a few drinks on a date. Try to keep your limits in mind and do not feel pressured to drink just because your date is drinking. It can also be a good idea to avoid taking drugs before or during a first date with someone new because drugs could alter your perception of reality or have unexpected interactions with alcohol.

Enlist the help of a bartender or waiter. If you feel uncomfortable in a situation, it can help to find an advocate nearby. You can enlist the help of a waiter or bartender to help you create a distraction, call the police, or get a safe ride home.

Trust your instincts. If you feel uncomfortable, trust your instincts and feel free to leave a date or cut off communication with whoever is making you feel unsafe. Do not worry about feeling rude—your safety is most important, and your date should understand that.

If you felt uncomfortable or unsafe during the date, remember you can always unmatch, block, or report your match after meeting up in person which will keep them from being able to access your profile in the future.

Sexual assault and harassment are never acceptable and are never the victim’s fault no matter what you were wearing, drinking, or whom you were with. The National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE and online.rainn.org ) is here to listen and provide resources, and is anonymous, free, and available 24/7.

Eight out of 10 sexual assaults are committed by someone who knows the victim.

Your next birthday can help survivors of sexual violence..

Got any suggestions?

We want to hear from you! Send us a message and help improve Slidesgo

Top searches

Trending searches

17 templates

9 templates

tropical rainforest

29 templates

summer vacation

19 templates

islamic history

36 templates

american history

70 templates

Dating Wrapped Trend in Social Media

Dating wrapped trend in social media presentation, free google slides theme, powerpoint template, and canva presentation template.

Are you a fan of dating? It can be in restaurants, cinemas, parks, night clubs or any other place, there’s always a fun activity to do when meeting someone new! But what’s even better is speaking all about it afterwards! If you have some funny stories from dating experiences and want to tell the world, try creating a fun dating wrapped to share on your social media! Where did you meet these people? How did it end up? What are your preferences? What do you get out of all this? Write everything down in this romantic template with many hearts and narrate your dating life!

Features of this template

• 100% editable and easy to modify
• 25 different slides to impress your audience
• Contains easy-to-edit graphics such as graphs, maps, tables, timelines and mockups
• Includes 500+ icons and Flaticon’s extension for customizing your slides
• Designed to be used in Google Slides, Canva, and Microsoft PowerPoint
• 16:9 widescreen format suitable for all types of screens
• Includes information about fonts, colors, and credits of the resources used

How can I use the template?

Am I free to use the templates?

How to attribute?

Attribution required If you are a free user, you must attribute Slidesgo by keeping the slide where the credits appear. How to attribute?

Related posts on our blog.

How to Add, Duplicate, Move, Delete or Hide Slides in Google Slides

How to Change Layouts in PowerPoint

How to Change the Slide Size in Google Slides

Related presentations.

Premium template

Unlock this template and gain unlimited access

Register for free and start editing online

• Search Menu
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Submit?
• About Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
• About International Communication Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, literature review, acknowledgments, about the authors.

• < Previous

Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Nicole Ellison, Rebecca Heino, Jennifer Gibbs, Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , Volume 11, Issue 2, 1 January 2006, Pages 415–441, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This study investigates self-presentation strategies among online dating participants, exploring how participants manage their online presentation of self in order to accomplish the goal of finding a romantic partner. Thirty-four individuals active on a large online dating site participated in telephone interviews about their online dating experiences and perceptions. Qualitative data analysis suggests that participants attended to small cues online, mediated the tension between impression management pressures and the desire to present an authentic sense of self through tactics such as creating a profile that reflected their “ideal self,” and attempted to establish the veracity of their identity claims. This study provides empirical support for Social Information Processing theory in a naturalistic context while offering insight into the complicated way in which “honesty” is enacted online.

The online dating arena represents an opportunity to document changing cultural norms surrounding technology-mediated relationship formation and to gain insight into important aspects of online behavior, such as impression formation and self-presentation strategies. Mixed-mode relationships, wherein people first meet online and then move offline, challenge established theories that focus on exclusively online relationships and provide opportunities for new theory development ( Walther & Parks, 2002 ). Although previous research has explored relationship development and self-presentation online ( Bargh, McKenna, & Fitzsimons, 2002; McLaughlin, Osbourne, & Ellison, 1997; Parks & Floyd, 1996; Roberts & Parks, 1999; Utz, 2000 ), the online dating forum is qualitatively different from many other online settings due to the anticipation of face-to-face interaction inherent in this context ( Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006 ) and the fact that social practices are still nascent.

In recent years, the use of online dating or online personals services has evolved from a marginal to a mainstream social practice. In 2003, at least 29 million Americans (two out of five singles) used an online dating service ( Gershberg, 2004 ); in 2004, on average, there were 40 million unique visitors to online dating sites each month in the U.S. ( CBC News, 2004 ). In fact, the online personals category is one of the most lucrative forms of paid content on the web in the United States ( Egan, 2003 ) and the online dating market is expected to reach $642 million in 2008 ( Greenspan, 2003 ). Ubiquitous access to the Internet, the diminished social stigma associated with online dating, and the affordable cost of Internet matchmaking services contribute to the increasingly common perception that online dating is a viable, efficient way to meet dating or long-term relationship partners ( St. John, 2002 ). Mediated matchmaking is certainly not a new phenomenon: Newspaper personal advertisements have existed since the mid-19th century ( Schaefer, 2003 ) and video dating was popular in the 1980s ( Woll & Cosby, 1987; Woll & Young, 1989 ). Although scholars working in a variety of academic disciplines have studied these earlier forms of mediated matchmaking (e.g., Ahuvia & Adelman, 1992; Lynn & Bolig, 1985; Woll, 1986; Woll & Cosby, 1987 ), current Internet dating services are substantively different from these incarnations due to their larger user base and more sophisticated self-presentation options.

Contemporary theoretical perspectives allow us to advance our understanding of how the age-old process of mate-finding is transformed through online strategies and behaviors. For instance, Social Information Processing (SIP) theory and other frameworks help illuminate computer-mediated communication (CMC), interpersonal communication, and impression management processes. This article focuses on the ways in which CMC interactants manage their online self-presentation and contributes to our knowledge of these processes by examining these issues in the naturalistic context of online dating, using qualitative data gathered from in-depth interviews with online dating participants.

In contrast to a technologically deterministic perspective that focuses on the characteristics of the technologies themselves, or a socially deterministic approach that privileges user behavior, this article reflects a social shaping perspective. Social shaping of technology approaches ( Dutton, 1996; MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1985; Woolgar, 1996 ) acknowledge the ways in which information and communication technologies (ICTs) both shape and are shaped by social practices. As Dutton points out, “technologies can open, close, and otherwise shape social choices, although not always in the ways expected on the basis of rationally extrapolating from the perceived properties of technology” (1996, p. 9). One specific framework that reflects this approach is Howard’s (2004) embedded media perspective, which acknowledges both the capacities and the constraints of ICTs. Capacities are those aspects of technology that enhance our ability to connect with one another, enact change, and so forth; constraints are those aspects of technology that hinder our ability to achieve these goals. An important aspect of technology use, which is mentioned but not explicitly highlighted in Howard’s framework, is the notion of circumvention , which describes the specific strategies employed by individuals to exploit the capacities and minimize the constraints associated with their use of ICTs. Although the notion of circumvention is certainly not new to CMC researchers, this article seeks to highlight the importance of circumvention practices when studying the social aspects of technology use. 1

Self-Presentation and Self-Disclosure in Online and Offline Contexts

Self-presentation and self-disclosure processes are important aspects of relational development in offline settings ( Taylor & Altman, 1987 ), especially in early stages. Goffman’s work on self-presentation explicates the ways in which an individual may engage in strategic activities “to convey an impression to others which it is in his interests to convey” (1959, p. 4). These impression-management behaviors consist of expressions given (communication in the traditional sense, e.g., spoken communication) and expressions given off (presumably unintentional communication, such as nonverbal communication cues). Self-presentation strategies are especially important during relationship initiation, as others will use this information to decide whether to pursue a relationship ( Derlega, Winstead, Wong, & Greenspan, 1987 ). Research suggests that when individuals expect to meet a potential dating partner for the first time, they will alter their self-presentational behavior in accordance with the values desired by the prospective date ( Rowatt, Cunningham, & Druen, 1998 ). Even when interacting with strangers, individuals tend to engage in self-enhancement ( Schlenker & Pontari, 2000 ).

However, research suggests that pressures to highlight one’s positive attributes are experienced in tandem with the need to present one’s true (or authentic) self to others, especially in significant relationships. Intimacy in relationships is linked to feeling understood by one’s partner ( Reis & Shaver, 1988 ) and develops “through a dynamic process whereby an individual discloses personal information, thoughts, and feelings to a partner; receives a response from the partner; and interprets that response as understanding, validating, and caring” ( Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998 , p. 1238). Therefore, if participants aspire to an intimate relationship, their desire to feel understood by their interaction partners will motivate self-disclosures that are open and honest as opposed to deceptive. This tension between authenticity and impression management is inherent in many aspects of self-disclosure. In making decisions about what and when to self-disclose, individuals often struggle to reconcile opposing needs such as openness and autonomy ( Greene, Derlega, & Mathews, 2006 ).

Interactants in online environments experience these same pressures and desires, but the greater control over self-presentational behavior in CMC allows individuals to manage their online interactions more strategically. Due to the asynchronous nature of CMC, and the fact that CMC emphasizes verbal and linguistic cues over less controllable nonverbal communication cues, online self-presentation is more malleable and subject to self-censorship than face-to-face self-presentation ( Walther, 1996 ). In Goffman’s (1959) terms, more expressions of self are “given” rather than “given off.” This greater control over self-presentation does not necessarily lead to misrepresentation online. Due to the “passing stranger” effect ( Rubin, 1975 ) and the visual anonymity present in CMC ( Joinson, 2001 ), under certain conditions the online medium may enable participants to express themselves more openly and honestly than in face-to-face contexts.

A commonly accepted understanding of identity presumes that there are multiple aspects of the self which are expressed or made salient in different contexts. Higgins (1987) argues there are three domains of the self: the actual self (attributes an individual possesses), the ideal self (attributes an individual would ideally possess), and the ought self (attributes an individual ought to possess); discrepancies between one’s actual and ideal self are linked to feelings of dejection. Klohnen and Mendelsohn (1998) determined that individuals’ descriptions of their “ideal self” influenced perceptions of their romantic partners in the direction of their ideal self-conceptions. Bargh et al. (2002) found that in comparison to face-to-face interactions, Internet interactions allowed individuals to better express aspects of their true selves—aspects of themselves that they wanted to express but felt unable to. The relative anonymity of online interactions and the lack of a shared social network online may allow individuals to reveal potentially negative aspects of the self online ( Bargh et al., 2002 ).

Although self-presentation in personal web sites has been examined ( Dominick, 1999; Schau & Gilly, 2003 ), the realm of online dating has not been studied as extensively (for exceptions, see Baker, 2002; Fiore & Donath, 2004 ), and this constitutes a gap in the current research on online self-presentation and disclosure. The online dating realm differs from other CMC environments in crucial ways that may affect self-presentational strategies. For instance, the anticipated future face-to-face interaction inherent in most online dating interactions may diminish participants’ sense of visual anonymity, an important variable in many online self-disclosure studies. An empirical study of online dating participants found that those who anticipated greater face-to-face interaction did feel that they were more open in their disclosures, and did not suppress negative aspects of the self ( Gibbs et al., 2006 ). In addition, because the goal of many online dating participants is an intimate relationship, these individuals may be more motivated to engage in authentic self-disclosures.

Credibility Assessment and Demonstration in Online Self-Presentation

Misrepresentation in online environments.

As discussed, online environments offer individuals an increased ability to control their self-presentation, and therefore greater opportunities to engage in misrepresentation ( Cornwell & Lundgren, 2001 ). Concerns about the prospect of online deception are common ( Bowker & Tuffin, 2003; Donath, 1999; Donn & Sherman, 2002 ), and narratives about identity deception have been reproduced in both academic and popular outlets ( Joinson & Dietz-Uhler, 2002; Stone, 1996; Van Gelder, 1996 ). Some theorists argue that CMC gives participants more freedom to explore playful, fantastical online personae that differ from their “real life” identities ( Stone, 1996 ; Turkle, 1995 ). In certain online settings, such as online role-playing games, a schism between one’s online representation and one’s offline identity are inconsequential, even expected. For instance, MacKinnon (1995) notes that among Usenet participants it is common practice to “forget” about the relationship between actual identities and online personae.

The online dating environment is different, however, because participants are typically seeking an intimate relationship and therefore desire agreement between others’ online identity claims and offline identities. Online dating participants report that deception is the “main perceived disadvantage of online dating” ( Brym & Lenton, 2001 , p. 3) and see it as commonplace: A survey of one online dating site’s participants found that 86% felt others misrepresented their physical appearance ( Gibbs et al., 2006 ). A 2001 research study found that over a quarter of online dating participants reported misrepresenting some aspect of their identity, most commonly age (14%), marital status (10%), and appearance (10%) ( Brym & Lenton, 2001 ). Perceptions that others are lying may encourage reciprocal deception, because users will exaggerate to the extent that they feel others are exaggerating or deceiving ( Fiore & Donath, 2004 ). Concerns about deception in this setting have spawned related services that help online daters uncover inaccuracies in others’ representations and run background checks on would-be suitors ( Baertlein, 2004 ; Fernandez, 2005 ). One site, True.com , conducts background checks on their users and has worked to introduce legislation that would force other online dating sites to either conduct background checks on their users or display a disclaimer ( Lee, 2004 ).

The majority of online dating participants claim they are truthful ( Gibbs et al., 2006; Brym & Lenton, 2001 ), and research suggests that some of the technical and social aspects of online dating may discourage deceptive communication. For instance, anticipation of face-to-face communication influences self-representation choices ( Walther, 1994 ) and self-disclosures because individuals will more closely monitor their disclosures as the perceived probability of future face-to-face interaction increases ( Berger, 1979 ) and will engage in more intentional or deliberate self-disclosure ( Gibbs et al., 2006 ). Additionally, Hancock, Thom-Santelli, and Ritchie (2004) note that the design features of a medium may affect lying behaviors, and that the use of recorded media (in which messages are archived in some fashion, such as an online dating profile) will discourage lying. Also, online dating participants are typically seeking a romantic partner, which may lower their motivation for misrepresentation compared to other online relationships. Further, Cornwell and Lundgren (2001) found that individuals involved in online romantic relationships were more likely to engage in misrepresentation than those involved in face-to-face romantic relationships, but that this was directly related to the level of involvement. That is, respondents were less involved in their cyberspace relationships and therefore more likely to engage in misrepresentation. This lack of involvement is less likely in relationships started in an online dating forum, especially sites that promote marriage as a goal.

Public perceptions about the higher incidence of deception online are also contradicted by research that suggests that lying is a typical occurrence in everyday offline life ( DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996 ), including situations in which people are trying to impress prospective dates ( Rowatt et al., 1998 ). Additionally, empirical data about the true extent of misrepresentation in this context is lacking. The current literature relies on self-reported data, and therefore offers only limited insight into the extent to which misrepresentation may be occurring. Hitsch, Hortacsu, and Ariely (2004) use creative techniques to address this issue, such as comparing participants’ self-reported characteristics to patterns found in national survey data, but no research to date has attempted to validate participants’ self-reported assessments of the honesty of their self-descriptions.

Assessing and Demonstrating Credibility in CMC

The potential for misrepresentation online, combined with the time and effort invested in face-to-face dates, make assessment strategies critical for online daters. These assessment strategies may then influence participants’ self-presentational strategies as they seek to prove their trustworthiness while simultaneously assessing the credibility of others.

Online dating participants operate in an environment in which assessing the identity of others is a complex and evolving process of reading signals and deconstructing cues, using both active and passive strategies ( Berger, 1979; Ramirez, Walther, Burgoon, & Sunnafrank, 2002; Tidwell & Walther, 2002 ). SIP considers how Internet users develop impressions of others, even with the limited cues available online, and suggests that interactants will adapt to the remaining cues in order to make decisions about others ( Walther, 1992; Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994 ). Online users look to small cues in order to develop impressions of others, such as a poster’s email address ( Donath, 1999 ), the links on a person’s homepage ( Kibby, 1997 ), even the timing of email messages ( Walther & Tidwell, 1995 ). In expressing affinity, CMC users are adept at using language ( Walther, Loh, & Granka, 2005 ) and CMC-specific conventions, especially as they become more experienced online ( Utz, 2000 ). In short, online users become cognitive misers, forming impressions of others while conserving mental energy ( Wallace, 1999 ).

Walther and Parks (2002) propose the concept of “warranting” as a useful conceptual tool for understanding how users validate others’ online identity cues (see also Stone, 1996 ). The connection, or warrant, between one’s self-reported online persona and one’s offline aspects of self is less certain and more mutable than in face-to-face settings ( Walther & Parks, 2002 ). In online settings, users will look for signals that are difficult to mimic or govern in order to assess others’ identity claims ( Donath, 1999 ). For instance, individuals might use search engines to locate newsgroup postings by the person under scrutiny, knowing that this searching is covert and that the newsgroup postings most likely were authored without the realization that they would be archived ( Ramirez et al., 2002 ). In the context of online dating, because of the perceptions of deception that characterize this sphere and the self-reported nature of individuals’ profiles, participants may adopt specific presentation strategies geared towards providing warrants for their identity claims.

In light of the above, our research question is thus:

RQ: How do online dating participants manage their online presentation of self in order to accomplish the goal of finding a romantic partner?

In order to gain insight into this question, we interviewed online dating participants about their experiences, thoughts, and behaviors. The qualitative data reported in this article were collected as part of a larger research project which surveyed a national random sample of users of a large online dating site (N = 349) about relational goals, honesty and self-disclosure, and perceived success in online dating. The survey findings are reported in Gibbs et al. (2006) .

Research Site

Our study addresses contemporary CMC theory using naturalistic observations. Participants were members of a large online dating service, “ Connect.com ” (a pseudonym). Connect.com currently has 15 million active members in more than 200 countries around the world and shares structural characteristics with many other online dating services, offering users the ability to create profiles, search others’ profiles, and communicate via a manufactured email address. In their profiles, participants may include one or more photographs and a written (open-ended) description of themselves and their desired mate. They also answer a battery of closed-ended questions, with preset category-based answers, about descriptors such as income, body type, religion, marital status, and alcohol usage. Users can conduct database searches that generate a list of profiles that match their desired parameters (usually gender, sexual orientation, age, and location). Initial communication occurs through a double-blind email system, in which both email addresses are masked, and participants usually move from this medium to others as the relationship progresses.

Data Collection

Given the relative lack of prior research on the phenomenon of online dating, we used qualitative methods to explore the diverse ways in which participants understood and made sense of their experience ( Berger & Luckman, 1980 ) through their own rich descriptions and explanations ( Miles & Huberman, 1994 ). We took an inductive approach based on general research questions informed by literature on online self-presentation and relationship formation rather than preset hypotheses. In addition to asking about participants’ backgrounds, the interview protocol included open-ended questions about their online dating history and goals, profile construction, honesty and self-disclosure online, criteria used to assess others online, and relationship development. Interviews were semistructured to ensure that all participants were asked certain questions and to encourage participants to raise other issues they felt were relevant to the research. The protocol included questions such as: “How did you decide what to say about yourself in your profile? Are you trying to convey a certain impression of yourself with your profile? If you showed your profile to one of your close friends, what do you think their response would be? Are there any personal characteristics that you avoided mentioning or tried to deemphasize?” (The full protocol is available from the authors.)

As recommended for qualitative research ( Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ), we employed theoretical sampling rather than random sampling. In theoretical sampling, cases are chosen based on theoretical (developed a priori) categories to provide examples of polar types, rather than for statistical generalizability to a larger population ( Eisenhardt, 1989 ). The Director of Market Research at Connect.com initially contacted a subsample of members in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay areas, inviting them to participate in an interview and offering them a free one-month subscription to Connect.com in return. Those members who did not respond within a week received a reminder email. Of those contacted, 76 people volunteered to participate in an interview. Out of these 76 volunteers, we selected and scheduled interviews with 36 (although two were unable to participate due to scheduling issues). We chose interview participants to ensure a good mix on each of our theoretical categories: gender, age, urban/rural, income, and ethnicity. We focused exclusively on those seeking relationships with the opposite sex, as this group constitutes the majority of Connect.com users. We also confirmed that they were active participants in the site by ensuring that their last login date was within the past week and checking that each had a profile.

Fifty percent of our participants were female and 50% were male, with 76% from an urban location in Los Angeles and 24% from a more rural area surrounding the town of Modesto in the central valley of California. Participants’ ages ranged from 25 to 70, with most being in their 30s and 40s. Their online dating experience varied from 1 month to 5 years. Although our goal was to sample a mix of participants who varied on key demographic criteria rather than generalizing to a larger population, our sample is in fact reflective of the demographic characteristics of the larger population of Connect.com ’s subscribers. Thirty-four interviews were conducted in June and July 2003. Interviews were conducted by telephone, averaging 45 minutes and ranging from 30 to 90 minutes in length. The interview database consisted of 551 pages, including 223,001 words, with an average of 6559 words per interview.

Data Analysis

All of the phone interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and checked for accuracy by the researcher who conducted the interview. Atlas.ti, a software program used for qualitative content analysis, was used to analyze interview transcripts. Data analysis was conducted in an iterative process, in which data from one informant were confirmed or contradicted by data from others in order to refine theoretical categories, propositions, and conclusions as they emerged from the data ( Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ). We used microanalysis of the text ( Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ) to look for common themes among participants. The data analysis process consisted of systematic line-by-line coding of each transcript by the first two authors. Following grounded theory ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ), we used an iterative process of coding. Coding consisted of both factual codes (e.g., “age,”“female,”“Los Angeles”) and referential codes (e.g., “filter,”“rejection,”“honesty”) and served both to simplify and reduce data as well as to complicate data by expanding, transforming, and reconceptualizing concepts ( Coffey & Atkinson, 1996 ). New codes were added throughout the process, and then earlier transcripts were recoded to include these new conceptual categories. All of the data were coded twice to ensure thoroughness and accuracy of codes. The researchers had frequent discussions in which they compared and refined coding categories and schemes to ensure consistency. During the coding process, some codes were collapsed or removed when they appeared to be conceptually identical, while others were broken out into separate codes when further nuances among them became apparent.

A total of 98 codes were generated by the first two authors as they coded the interviews. Unitization was flexible in order to capture complete thought units. Codes were allowed to overlap ( Krippendorff, 1980 ); this method of assigning multiple codes to the same thought unit facilitated the process of identifying relationships between codes. See Appendixes A and B for more information on codes.

These interview data offer insight into the self-presentation strategies utilized by participants in order to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of online dating. Many of these strategies revolved around the profile, which is a crucial self-presentation tool because it is the first and primary means of expressing one’s self during the early stages of a correspondence and can therefore foreclose or create relationship opportunities. These strategies are intimately connected to the specific characteristics of the online dating context: fewer cues, an increased ability to manage self-presentation, and the need to establish credibility.

The Importance of Small Cues

When discussing their self-presentational strategies, many participants directly or indirectly referred to the fact that they carefully attended to subtle, almost minute cues in others’ presentational messages, and often seemed to take the same degree of care when crafting their own messages. As suggested by SIP ( Walther, 1992 ), subtle cues such as misspellings in the online environment are important clues to identity for CMC interactants. For instance, one participant said she looked for profiles that were well-written, because “I just think if they can’t spell or … formulate sentences, I would imagine that they’re not that educated.” Because writing ability was perceived to be a cue that was “given off” or not as controllable, participants noticed misspelled words in profiles, interpreting them as evidence of lack of interest or education. As one female participant put it, “If I am getting email from someone that obviously can’t spell or put a full sentence together, I’m thinking what other parts of his life suffer from the same lack of attentiveness?” These individuals often created their own profiles with these concerns in mind. For instance, one participant who found spelling errors “unattractive” composed his emails in a word processing program to check spelling and grammar.

Many of the individuals we interviewed explicitly considered how others might interpret their profiles and carefully assessed the signals each small action or comment might send:

I really analyzed the way I was going to present myself. I’m not one of these [people who write] all cutesy type things, but I wanted to be cute enough, smart enough, funny enough, and not sexual at all, because I didn’t want to invite someone who thought I was going to go to bed with them [as soon as] I shook their hand. (PaliToWW, Los Angeles Female) 2

In this case, the participant “really analyzed” her self-presentation cues and avoided any mention of sexuality, which she felt might indicate promiscuity in the exaggerated context of the profile. This same understanding of the signals “sexual” references would send was reflected in the profile of another participant, who purposefully included sexually explicit terminology in his profile to “weed out” poor matches based on his past experience:

The reason I put [the language] in there is because I had some experiences where I got together [with someone], we both really liked each other, and then it turned out that I was somebody who really liked sex and she was somebody that could take it or leave it. So I put that in there to sort of weed those people out. (imdannyboy, Los Angeles Male)

Participants spoke of the ways in which they incorporated feedback from others in order to shape their self-presentational messages. In some cases, they seemed genuinely surprised by the ways in which the digital medium allowed information to leak out. For instance, one male participant who typically wrote emails late at night discussed his reaction to a message that said, “Wow, it’s 1:18 in the morning, what are you doing writing me?” This email helped him realize how much of a “night owl” he was, and “how not attractive that may be for women I’m writing because it’s very clear the time I send the email.” Over time, he also realized that the length of his emails was shaping impressions of him, and he therefore regulated their length. He said:

In the course of [corresponding with others on the site] I became aware of how I had to present myself. Also, I became quite aware that I had to be very brief. … More often than not when I would write a long response, I wouldn’t get a response. … I think it implied. … that I was too desperate for conversation, [that] I was a hermit. (joet8, Los Angeles Male)

The site displayed the last time a user was active on the site, and this small cue was interpreted as a reliable indicator of availability. As one male participant said, “I’m not going to email somebody who hasn’t been on there for at least a week max. If it’s been two weeks since she’s logged on, forget her, she’s either dating or there’s a problem.”

Overall, the mediated nature of these initial interactions meant that fewer cues were available, therefore amplifying the importance of those that remained. Participants carefully attended to small cues, such as spelling ability or last login date, in others’ profiles in order to form impressions. In a self-reflexive fashion, they applied these techniques to their own presentational messages, carefully scrutinizing both cues given (such as photograph) and, when possible, those perceived to be given off (such as grammar).

Balancing Accuracy and Desirability in Self-Presentation

Almost all of our participants reported that they attempted to represent themselves accurately in their profiles and interactions. Many expressed incomprehension as to why others with a shared goal of an offline romantic relationship would intentionally misrepresent themselves. As one participant explained, “They polish it up some, like we all probably do a little bit, but for the most part I would say people are fairly straightforward.” However, as suggested by previous research on self-disclosure and relationship development, participants reported competing desires. At times, their need to portray a truthful, accurate self-representation was in tension with their natural inclination to project a version of self that was attractive, successful, and desirable. Speaking about this tendency towards impression management, one participant noted that she could see why “people would be dishonest at some point because they are still trying to be attractive … in the sense they would want this other person to like them.”

One way in which participants reconciled their conflicting needs for positive self-presentation and accuracy was to create profiles that described a potential, future version of self. In some cases, participants described how they or others created profiles that reflected an ideal as opposed to actual self: “Many people describe themselves the way they want [to be] … their ideal themselves.” For example, individuals might identify themselves as active in various activities (e.g., hiking, surfing) in which they rarely participated, prompting one participant to proclaim sarcastically, “I’ve never known so many incredibly athletic women in my life!” One participant explained,

For instance, I am also an avid hiker and [scuba diver] and sometimes I have communicated with someone that has presented themselves the same way, but then it turns out they like scuba diving but they haven’t done it for 10 years, they like hiking but they do it once every second year … I think they may not have tried to lie; they just have perceived themselves differently because they write about the person they want to be … In their profile they write about their dreams as if they are reality. (Christo1, Los Angeles Male)

In two cases, individuals admitted to representing themselves as less heavy than they actually were. This thinner persona represented a (desired) future state for these individuals: “The only thing I kind of feel bad about is that the picture I have of myself is a very good picture from maybe five years ago. I’ve gained a little bit of weight and I feel kind of bad about that. I’m going to, you know, lose it again.” In another case, a woman who misrepresented her weight online used an upcoming meeting as incentive to minimize the discrepancy between her actual self and the ideal self articulated in her profile:

I’ve lost 44 pounds since I’ve started [online dating], and I mean, that’s one of the reasons I lost the weight so I can thank online dating for that. [Because] the first guy that hit on me, I checked my profile and I had lied a little bit about the pounds, so I thought I had better start losing some weight so that it would be more honest. That was in December, and I’ve lost every week since then. (MaryMoon, Los Angeles Female)

In this case, a later physical change neutralized the initial discursive deception. For another participant, the profile served as an opportunity to envision and ideate a version of self that was future-focused and goal-oriented:

I sort of thought about what is my ideal self. Because when you date, you present your best foot forward. I thought about all the qualities that I have, you know, even if I sometimes make mistakes and stuff. … And also got together the best picture I had, and kind of came up with what I thought my goals were at the time, because I thought that was an important thing to stress. (Marty7, Los Angeles Male)

Overall, participants did not see this as engaging in deceptive communication per se, but rather as presenting an idealized self or portraying personal qualities they intended to develop or enhance.

Circumventing Constraints

In addition to impression management pressures, participants’ expressed desires for accurate representation were stymied by various constraints, including the technical interface of the website. In order to activate an online profile, participants had to complete a questionnaire with many closed-ended responses for descriptors such as age, body type, zip code, and income. These answers became very important because they were the variables that others used to construct searches in order to narrow the vast pool of profiles. In fact, the front page of Connect.com includes a “quick” search on those descriptors believed to be most important: age, geographical location, inclusion of photograph, and gender/sexual orientation.

The structure of the search parameters encouraged some to alter information to fit into a wider range of search parameters, a circumvention behavior that guaranteed a wider audience for their profile. For example, participants tended to misrepresent their age for fear of being “filtered out.” It was not unusual for users who were one or two years older than a natural breakpoint (i.e., 35 or 50) to adjust their age so they would still show up in search results. This behavior, especially if one’s actual age was revealed during subsequent email or telephone exchanges, seemed to be socially acceptable. Many of our participants recounted cases in which others freely and without embarrassment admitted that they had slightly misrepresented something in their profile, typically very early in the correspondence:

They don’t seem to be embarrassed about [misrepresenting their age] … in their first reply they say, “oh by the way, I am not so many years, I am that many years.” And then if I ask them, they say, well, they tend to be attracted to a little bit younger crowd and they are afraid that guys may surf for a certain age group of women, because you use those filters. I mean, I may choose to list only those that are between X and Y years old and they don’t want to be filtered away. … They are trying to be sort of clever so that people they tend to be attracted to will actually find them. (Christo1, Los Angeles Male)

If lying about one’s age was perceived to be the norm, those who didn’t engage in this practice felt themselves to be at a disadvantage (see Fiore & Donath, 2004 ). For instance, one participant who misrepresented his age on his profile noted:

I’m such an honest guy, why should I have to lie about my age? On the other hand, if I put X number of years, that is unattractive to certain people. They’re never going to search that group and they’re never going to have an opportunity to meet me, because they have a number in their mind just like I do. … Everybody lies about their age or a lot of people do. … So I have to cheat too in order to be on the same page as everybody else that cheats. If I don’t cheat that makes me seem twice as old. So if I say I am 44, people think that I am 48. It blows. (RealSweetheart, Bay Area Male)

In the above cases, users engaged in misrepresentation triggered by the social norms of the environment and the structure of the search filters. The technical constraints of the site may have initiated a more subtle form of misrepresentation when participants were required to choose among a limited set of options, none of which described them sufficiently. For instance, when creating their profiles, participants had to designate their “perfect date” by selecting one from a dozen or so generic descriptions, which was frustrating for those who did not see any that were particularly appealing. In another case, one participant complained that there was not an option to check “plastic surgery” as one of his “turn-offs” and thus he felt forced to try to discern this from the photos; yet another participant expressed his desire for a “shaved” option under the description of hair type (“I resent having to check ‘bald’”).

Foggy Mirror

In addition to the cases in which misrepresentation was triggered by technical constraints or the tendency to present an idealized self, participants described a third branch of unintentional misrepresentation triggered by the limits of self-knowledge. We call this phenomenon “foggy mirror” based on this participant’s explanation:

People like to write about themselves. Sometimes it’s not truthful, but it’s how they see themselves and that gives you a different slant on an individual. This is how they really see themselves. Sometimes you will see a person who weighs 900 pounds and—this is just an exaggeration—and they will have on spandex, you’ll think, “God, I wish I had their mirror, because obviously their mirror tells them they look great.” It’s the same thing with online. (KarieK, Bay Area Female)

This user acknowledges that sometimes others weren’t lying per se, but the fact that their self-image differed from others’ perceptions meant that their textual self-descriptions would diverge from a third party’s description. In explaining this phenomenon, KarieK used the metaphor of a mirror to emphasize the self-reflexive nature of the profile. She also refers to the importance of subtle cues when she notes that a user’s self-presentation choices give one a “different slant on an individual.” The term “foggy mirror” thus describes the gap between self-perceptions and the assessments made by others. The difference might be overly positive (which was typically the case) or negative, as the below example illustrates. A male participant explained:

There was one gal who said that she had an “average” body shape. … When I met her she was thin, and she said she was “average,” but I think she has a different concept of what “average” is. So I then widened my scope [in terms of search parameters] and would go off the photographs. What a woman thinks is an “average” body and what I think is an “average” body are two different things. (joet8, Los Angeles Male)

In this case, the participant acknowledged the semantic problems that accompany textual self-descriptions and adopted a strategy of relying on photographs as visual, objective evidence, instead of subjective, ambiguous terms like “average.” To counter the “foggy mirror” syndrome in their own profiles, some individuals asked friends or family members to read their profiles in order to validate them.

In regards to self-presentation, the most significant tension experienced by participants was one not unique to the online medium: mediating between the pressures to present an enhanced or desired self ( Goffman, 1959 ) and the need to present one’s true self to a partner in order to achieve intimacy ( Reis & Shaver, 1988 ). In their profiles and online interactions, they attempted to present a vision of self that was attractive, engaging, and worthy of pursuit, but realistic and honest enough that subsequent face-to-face meetings were not unpleasant or surprising. Constructing a profile that reflected one’s “ideal self” ( Higgins, 1987 ) was one tactic by which participants reconciled these pressures. In general, although all of our participants claimed they attempted to be honest in their self-presentation, misrepresentations occurred when participants felt pressure to fudge in order to circumvent the search filters, felt the closed-ended options provided by the site didn’t describe them accurately, or were limited by their self-knowledge.

Establishing Credibility

The increased ability to engage in selective self-presentation, and the absence of visual cues in the online environment, meant that accuracy of self-presentation was a salient issue for our interviewees. The twin concerns that resulted from these factors—the challenge of establishing the credibility of one’s own self-descriptions while assessing the credibility of others’ identity claims—affected one another in a recursive fashion. In an environment in which there were limited outside confirmatory resources to draw upon, participants developed a set of rules for assessing others while incorporating these codes into their own self-presentational messages. For example, one participant made sure that her profile photograph showed her standing up because she felt that sitting or leaning poses were a camouflage technique used by heavier people. This illustrates the recursive way in which participants developed rules for assessing others (e.g., avoid people in sitting poses) while also applying these rubrics to their own self-presentational messages (e.g., don’t show self in sitting pose).

Participants adopted specific tactics in order to compensate for the fact that traditional methods of information seeking were limited and that self-reported descriptions were subject to intentional or unintentional misrepresentation when others took advantage of the “selective self-presentation” ( Walther & Burgoon, 1992 ) available in CMC. As one participant noted, “You’re just kind of blind, you don’t know if what they’re saying in their profile online is true.” Acknowledging the potential for misrepresentation, participants also sought to “show” aspects of their personality in their profiles versus just “telling” others about themselves. They created their profiles with an eye towards stories or content that confirmed specific personality traits rather than including a ‘laundry list’ of attributes. As one Los Angeles male participant explained, “I attempted to have stories in my profile somewhat to attempt to demonstrate my character, as opposed to, you know, [just writing] ‘I’m trustworthy,’ and all that bit.” This emphasis on demonstration as opposed to description was a tactic designed to circumvent the lack of a shared social context that would have warranted identity claims and hedged against blatant deception.

Another aspect of “showing” included the use of photographs, which served to warrant or support claims made in textual descriptions. Profile photographs communicated not only what people looked like (or claimed to look like), but also indicated the qualities they felt were important. For instance, one man with a doctorate included one photo of himself standing against a wall displaying his diplomas and another of him shirtless. When asked about his choice of photos, he explained that he selected the shirtless photo because he was proud of being in shape and wanted to show it off. He picked the combination of the two photos because “one is sort of [my] intellectual side and one is sort of the athletic side.” In this case, the photos functioned on multiple levels: To communicate physical characteristics, but also self-concept (the aspects of self he was most proud of), and as an attempt to provide evidence for his discursive claims (his profile listed an advanced degree and an athletic physique).

To summarize, our data suggest that participants were cognizant of the online setting and its association with deceptive communication practices, and therefore worked to present themselves as credible. In doing so, they drew upon the rules they had developed for assessing others and turned these practices into guidelines for their own self-presentational messages.

The primary goal of the online dating participants interviewed for this study was to find someone with whom they could establish a dating relationship (although desired commitment level and type of relationship varied across participants). Given this, they attempted to achieve their goals while contending with the unique characteristics of the online environment, engaging in strategies designed to circumvent the constraints of the online dating environment while exploiting its capacities. One constraint—the lack of nonverbal cues—meant that the task of interpreting the remaining cues became paramount in regards to both assessment of others and presentation of self. Since the goal of most online dating participants was to identify and interact with potential romantic partners, individuals strove to highlight their positive attributes and capitalize on the greater perceived control over self-presentation inherent in the medium. However, the future face-to-face interaction they anticipated meant that individuals had to balance their desire for self-promotion with their need for accurate self-presentation. In response to the risk of misrepresentation online, made possible by the selective self-presentation affordances of CMC, participants adopted various strategies to demonstrate the credibility of their identity claims, recursively applying the same techniques they employed to uncover representational ruses in others. Our findings suggest that participants consistently engaged in creative workarounds (circumvention strategies) as they went through the process of posting a profile, selecting individuals to contact, and communicating with potential romantic partners. Our data also highlight the recursive process by which some participants constructed rules of thumb for assessing others (e.g., an inactive account indicates a lack of availability or interest) while simultaneously incorporating these rules in their own messages (e.g., frequently making slight adjustments to the profile).

Theoretical Implications

As individuals make initial decisions about potential partners, they form impressions that help reduce uncertainty about the other ( Berger & Calabrese, 1975 ). For this to happen in the context of CMC, SIP argues, individuals will adapt their behaviors to the cues that are available ( Tidwell & Walther, 2002; Walther, 1992 ) to convey information to one another. While empirical support for SIP has been demonstrated (see Walther & Parks, 2002 for a review), this article is among the few to provide evidence for SIP in a naturalistic setting. Our data show that in the initial interactions of online dating participants, stylistic aspects of messages such as timing, length, and grammar appear equally as important as the content of the message itself; this is consistent with SIP’s formulation that when nonverbal cues are decreased, the remaining cues become more salient to users. Previous laboratory studies of SIP have tended to focus on the manipulation of a subset of cues. A unique contribution of this study’s extension of SIP is its demonstration of the organic interplay of these alternative sources of social information online.

Although much of the public debate about online dating has centered on the medium’s inability to ensure participants’ truthful self-descriptions, our interview data suggest that the notion that people frequently, explicitly, and intentionally “lie” online is simplistic and inaccurate. Exploring the question of whether participants created a playful or fantastical identity online ( Stone, 1996 ; Turkle, 1995 ) or were more open and honest ( Rubin, 1975 ), we found that the online dating participants we spoke with claimed that they attempted to present an accurate self-representation online, a finding echoed in our survey data ( Gibbs et al., 2006 ). This study highlights the fact that creating an accurate online representation of self in this context is a complex and evolving process in which participants attempt to attract desirable partners while contending with constraints such as those posed by technological design and the limits of self-knowledge.

In some cases, the technical constraints of the site may have unintentionally enabled acts of misrepresentation, for instance when participants slightly altered information in situations in which they felt an arbitrary data point (in age, for example) would significantly harm their chances of being discovered by a potential mate. Additionally, self-reported descriptions that use subjective terms (e.g., “pretty” or “average”) could also result in unintentional misrepresentation due to different interpretations of these terms. Additionally, as Shah and Kesan point out, “Defaults have a legitimating effect, because they carry information about what most people are expected to do” (2003, p. 7). In the case of online dating, it may be that the default settings in the search field (i.e., an age range, whether searches are limited to profiles with photographs) influence user perceptions of the desirability or appropriateness of certain responses.

Additionally, our interview data suggest that online representations of one’s ideal self—when combined with the increased accountability engendered by an anticipated face-to-face interaction—may serve as a tool to enable individuals to minimize the discrepancy between their actual and their ideal selves. The ideal self refers to qualities or achievements one strives to possess in the future ( Bargh et al., 2002 ). In the realm of online dating, it is interesting that participants reported using the profile to ideate a version of self they desired to experience in the future. For some, the act of constructing an online profile may begin a process of self-growth as they strive to close the gap between actual and ideal self, such as the woman who misrepresented her weight but then was able to achieve her goal of weight loss over time. Future research is needed to assess the extent to which this phenomenon exists and its long-term consequences for processes of self-growth.

More research is also needed to understand fully whether strategies designed to circumvent constraints (technical or other) are perceived to be deceptive by users and, if so, which norms govern their use. The literature on deception explores a wide range of deceptive acts, ranging from the more mundane “diversionary responses” to outright “lies” ( Buller & Burgoon, 1994 ). Future research could work to develop a taxonomy of online deception and acceptability, which takes into account the nuances of social norms and the fact that some misrepresentation may be unintentional or socially accepted. For instance, if a profile includes incorrect information that is rectified immediately over email, is it a “lie?” More importantly, is it acceptable? Also, more research is needed to understand more clearly the extent and substance of participants’ actual concerns regarding online dating (i.e., misrepresentation, effectiveness, safety) and how they overlap with the often sensationalized discourse about online deception as represented in media accounts and social narratives.

Practical Implications

Given that deceptive practices are a concern for online dating participants, future research should explore the ways in which online dating sites could implement design features aimed at addressing these issues. For instance, they could acknowledge and incorporate aspects of a shared social context, similar to social networking sites like Friendster ( Donath & boyd, 2004 ), through the use of testimonials or social network visualizations. Online dating sites could adopt some of the design features used in e-commerce sites, such as testimonials, user rating systems, or social network visualizations, where participants also must operate in an uncertain environment in which warranting is difficult and deception can be costly ( Resnick & Zeckhauser, 2002 ).

A second design consideration is the possibility that the technical characteristics of some online dating sites may privilege objective characteristics (such as demographic features) and de-emphasize the process of seeing others as individuals rather than as amalgams of various traits. The benefit, or capacity, of online dating is that participants can use specific search parameters to cull a subset of profiles from a larger database. Participants acknowledged that the online dating environment placed more emphasis on certain kinds of information—information that might not be very important in a face-to-face setting when chemistry was already established. To compensate for or to circumvent these constraints, participants tried to create profiles that stood out or evidenced aspects of self that they were particularly proud of rather than a laundry list of features. They struggled to present themselves as unique individuals within the constraints of a technical system that encouraged homogeneity, negotiating a desire to stand out with the need to blend in. Future research might examine the potential for developing self-presentation tools that allow individuals more nuanced ways of expressing themselves in the online environment, such as video presentations, more sophisticated communication tools, or triangulated information from others on the site. Online dating sites may need to reconsider the ways in which profiles are structured and the characteristics they include; as Fiore and Donath argue, “the features of a person that Match.com presents as salient to romance will begin to have some psychological and cultural influences if 40 million Americans view them every month” (2004, p. 1395). If we accept this claim, then it stands to reason that participants’ visions of self may be impacted by their online self-presentations, especially if these presentations are constrained.

Limitations

We chose to conduct interviews with online dating participants in order to gain insight into how they perceived their experiences and the processes through which they learned to avoid the pitfalls and exploit the possibilities of online dating. However, there are several limitations that should be acknowledged in our method and sample. Limitations of this study include the sampling of only participants located on the West Coast. While Connect.com members are worldwide, we cannot assess if regional or national differences affect the online dating experience. A major limitation is the potential for self-selection bias, as participants volunteered for the study. While demographically diverse, those that chose to volunteer might be biased toward a more positive outlook on online dating or potentially more honest in their online dating practices.

In addition, the self-reported nature of the data may have resulted in a social desirability bias, making participants less likely to admit to intentional misrepresentation. Finally, many of our findings may be specific to Connect.com ’s model of online dating, in which participants post profiles and select with whom they want to communicate. Other online dating sites, such as eHarmony, utilize a very different model, acting as online matchmakers where individuals who are found to be compatible are paired based on personality tests developed by “expert” psychologists. Future research could assess whether variables like self-efficacy predict which model users choose to utilize. Although our observations in this article were based on the sample as a whole, we acknowledge that there may be differences (for instance, along gender lines) which are beyond the scope of this article but which could be explored in future research.

Although self-presentation and relationship formation have been studied in other online contexts, tracing how these processes take place in the online dating realm offers researchers unique insights into the crucial role of circumvention techniques, the complicated nature of “honesty” in online environments, and the social and psychological implications of the design and structure of these sites. From a historical perspective, the goals of online dating participants are not that different from those described by poets throughout the ages. What is different is the tools in their repertoire and the constraints and opportunities they present. As O’Sullivan writes, “From a functional perspective, it appears new technologies may be providing nothing terribly new— just new ways of doing things that people have been doing throughout the history of social interaction” (2000, p. 428). This study has attempted to elucidate and explain some of these social practices as a window into the ways in which new communication technologies are shaping us—and we are shaping them—in the ongoing pursuit of romantic relationships.

The authors thank Karen Aroian, Ulla Bunz, Annika Hylmo, Edythe Hough, Patrick O’Sullivan, Charles Steinfield, Joe Walther, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions regarding this manuscript.

Similar to the concept of “workaround” employed by designers and software engineers, users engage in circumvention strategies to neutralize constraints—or turn them into capabilities. Prior CMC research has identified similar processes in interpersonal contexts. For instance, O’Sullivan (2000) found that users chose mediated channels over face-to-face communication in situations where a preferred impression was expected to be violated in order to capitalize on the face-saving capabilities of mediated interaction. Similarly, CMC researchers working in other contexts have noted the process by which individuals adapt their behavior to compensate for the limitations imposed by the medium in order to pursue their communication goals ( Walther, Loh, & Granka, 2005 ).

All identifying information about our participants has been changed to protect their confidentiality, although we have attempted to use pseudonyms that reflect the tone and spirit of their chosen screen names. Additionally, at the request of our research site, we have used a pseudonym in place of the site’s actual name.

Ahuvia , A. C. , & Adelman , M. B . ( 1992 ). Formal intermediaries in the marriage market: A typology and review . Journal of Marriage & the Family , 54 ( 2 ), 452 – 463 .

Google Scholar

Baertlein , L . ( 2004 ). Demand for advice to online lovelorn is booming . BizReport . Retrieved August 14, 2004, from http://www.bizreport.com/news/6516/

Baker , A . ( 2002 ). What makes an online relationship successful? Clues from couples who met in cyberspace . CyberPsychology & Behavior , 5 ( 4 ), 363 – 375 .

Bargh , J. A. , McKenna , K. Y. , & Fitzsimons , G. M . ( 2002 ). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet . Journal of Social Issues , 58 ( 1 ), 33 – 48 .

Berger , C. R . ( 1979 ). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding and development of interpersonal relationships . In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and Social Psychology (pp. 122 – 144 ). Baltimore: University Park Press .

Google Preview

Berger , C. , & Calabrese , R . ( 1975 ). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication . Human Communication Research , 1 ( 2 ), 99 – 112 .

Berger , P. L. , & Luckman , T . ( 1980 ). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge . New York: Irvington Publishers .

Bowker , N. , & Tuffin , K . ( 2003 ). Dicing with deception: People with disabilities’ strategies for managing safety and identity online . Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 8 ( 2 ). Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue2/bowker.html

Brym , R. J. , & Lenton , R. L . ( 2001 ). Love Online: A Report on Digital Dating in Canada . Retrieved July 2, 2003, from http://www.nelson.com/nelson/harcourt/sociology/newsociety3e/loveonline.pdf

Buller , D. B. , & Burgoon , J. K . ( 1994 ). Deception: Strategic and nonstrategic communication . In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic Interpersonal Communication (pp. 191 – 223 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .

CBC News . ( 2004 ). Online Dating Facts and Figures . Retrieved November 17, 2005, from http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/services/onlinedating/facts.html

Coffey , A. , & Atkinson , P . ( 1996 ). Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research Strategies . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Cornwell , B. , & Lundgren , D. C . ( 2001 ). Love on the Internet: Involvement and misrepresentation in romantic relationships in cyberspace vs. realspace . Computers in Human Behavior , 17 ( 2 ), 197 – 211 .

DePaulo , B. , Kashy , D. , Kirkendol , S. , Wyer , M. , & Epstein , J . ( 1996 ). Lying in everyday life . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 ( 5 ), 979 – 995 .

Derlega , V. , Winstead , B. , Wong , P. , & Greenspan , M . ( 1987 ). Self-disclosure and relationship development: An attributional analysis . In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research (pp. 172 – 187 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Dominick , J. R . ( 1999 ). Who do you think you are? Personal home pages and self-presentation on the World Wide Web . Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly , 76 ( 4 ), 646 – 658 .

Donath , J. S . ( 1999 ). Identity and deception in the virtual community . In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29 – 59 ). New York: Routledge .

Donath , J. , & Boyd , D . ( 2004 ). Public displays of connection . BT Technology Journal , 22 ( 4 ), 71 – 82 .

Donn , J. , & Sherman , R . ( 2002 ). Attitudes and practices regarding the formation of romantic relationships on the Internet . CyberPsychology & Behavior , 5 ( 2 ), 107 – 123 .

Dutton , W. E . ( 1996 ). Information and Communication Technologies: Visions and Realities . Oxford: Oxford University Press .

Egan , J . ( 2003, November 23 ). Love in the time of no time . The New York Times . Retrieved November 25, 2003, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/magazine/23ONLINE.html?ex=1070719885&ei=1&en=fcd72235b67ffb79

Eisenhardt , K. M . ( 1989 ). Building theories from case study research . Academy of Management Review , 14 ( 4 ), 532 – 550 .

Fernandez , S . ( 2005, May 30 ). Getting to know you: Tell-all sites put online dater profiles to truth test . The Washington Post . Retrieved June 5, 2005, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/29/AR2005052901071_pf.html

Fiore , A. T. , & Donath , J . ( 2004 ). Online Personals: An Overview . Paper presented at the meeting of ACM Computer-Human Interaction 2004, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved October, 1, 2004, from http://smg.media.mit.edu/papers/atf/chi2004_personals_short.pdf

Gershberg , M . ( 2004, June 10 ). Funny odds of online dating . BizReport . Retrieved October 28, 2004, from http://www.bizreport.com/news/7383/

Gibbs , J. L. , Ellison , N. B. , & Heino , R. D . ( 2006 ). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating . Communication Research , 33 ( 2 ), 1 – 26 .

Glaser , B. G. , & Strauss , A. L . ( 1967 ). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research . Chicago: Aldine Publishing .

Goffman , E . ( 1959 ). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life . New York: Anchor .

Greene , K. , Derlega , V. L. , & Mathews , A . ( 2006 ). Self-disclosure in personal relationships . In A. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

Greenspan , R . ( 2003 ). Socializing surfers shop for friends, dates . Clickz . Retrieved April 3, 2004, from http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3114251

Hancock , J. , Thom-Santelli , J. , & Ritchie , T . ( 2004 ). Deception and design: The impact of communication technology on lying behavior . In E. Dykstra-Erickson & M. Tscheligi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 129 – 134 ). New York: ACM .

Higgins , E. T . ( 1987 ). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect . Psychological Review , 94 ( 3 ), 319 – 340 .

Hitsch , G. J. , Hortacsu , A. , & Ariely , D . ( 2004 ). What makes you click: An empirical analysis of online dating (Working Paper) . Retrieved June 22, 2005, from http://rover.cs.northwestern.edu/~surana/blog/extras/online_dating.pdf

Howard , P. N . ( 2004 ). Embedded media: Who we know, what we know and society online . In P. N. Howard & S. Jones (Eds.), Society Online: The Internet in Context (pp. 1 – 28 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Joinson , A. N . ( 2001 ). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity . European Journal of Social Psychology , 31 ( 2 ), 177 – 192 .

Joinson , A. N. , & Dietz-Uhler , B . ( 2002 ). Explanations for the perpetration of and reactions to deception in a virtual community . Social Science Computer Review , 20 ( 3 ), 275 – 289 .

Kibby , M . ( 1997 ). Babes on the Web: Sex, identity and the home page . Media International Australia , 84 , 39 – 45 .

Krippendorff , K . ( 1980 ). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .

Klohnen , E. C. , & Mendelsohn , G. A . ( 1998 ). Partner selection for personality characteristics: A couple-centered approach . Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 24 ( 3 ), 268 .

Laurenceau , J. P. , Barrett , L. F. , & Pietromonaco , P. R . ( 1998 ). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74 ( 5 ), 1238 – 1251 .

Lee , A . ( 2004, November 1 ). Online love may come with safety warning . Detroit News , pp. 1A – 2A .

Lincoln , Y. S. , & Guba , E. G . ( 1985 ). Naturalistic Inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage .

Lynn , M. , & Bolig , R . ( 1985 ). Personal advertisements: Source of data for research on interpersonal relations . Journal of Social and Personal Relationship , 2 , 337 – 383 .

MacKenzie , D. A. , & Wajcman , J . ( 1985 ). The Social Shaping of Technology . Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press .

MacKinnon , R. C . ( 1995 ). Searching for the Leviathan in Usenet . In S. Jones (Ed.), CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

McLaughlin , M. , Osbourne , K. , & Ellison , N . ( 1997 ). Virtual community in a telepresence environment . In S. Jones (Ed.), Virtual Culture: Identity and Communication in Cybersociety (pp. 146 – 168 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Miles , M. B. , & Huberman , A. M . ( 1994 ). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

O’Sullivan , P. B . ( 2000 ). What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Impression management functions of communication channels in relationships . Human Communication Research , 26 ( 3 ), 403 – 431 .

Parks , M. R. , & Floyd , K . ( 1996 ). Making friends in cyberspace . Journal of Communication , 46 ( 1 ), 80 – 97 .

Ramirez , A. , Walther , J. B. , Burgoon , J. K. , & Sunnafrank , M . ( 2002 ). Information-seeking strategies, uncertainty, and computer-mediated communication: Toward a conceptual model . Human Communication Research , 28 ( 2 ), 213 – 228 .

Reis , H. T. , & Shaver , P . ( 1988 ). Intimacy as an interpersonal process . In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions (pp. 376 – 389 ). Chichester, England: Wiley .

Resnick , P. , & Zeckhauser , R . ( 2002 ). Trust among strangers in Internet transactions: Empirical analysis of eBay’s reputation system . In M. R . Baye (Ed.), Advances in Applied Microeconomics: The Economics of the Internet and E-commerce . (Vol. 11 , pp. 127 – 157 ). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science .

Roberts , L. D. , & Parks , M. R . ( 1999 ). The social geography of gender-switching in virtual environments on the Internet . Information, Communication & Society , 2 ( 4 ), 521 – 540 .

Rowatt , W. C. , Cunningham , M. R. , & Druen , P. B . ( 1998 ). Deception to get a date . Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 24 ( 11 ), 1228 – 1242 .

Rubin , Z . ( 1975 ). Disclosing oneself to a stranger: Reciprocity and its limits . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 11 ( 3 ), 233 – 260 .

Schaefer , L. J . ( 2003, February 14 ). Looking for love, online or on paper . The New York Times , p. A31 .

Schau , H. J. , & Gilly , M. C . ( 2003 ). We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web space . Journal of Consumer Research , 30 ( 3 ), 385 – 404 .

Schlenker , B. R. , & Pontari , B. A . ( 2000 ). The strategic control of information: Impression management and self-presentation in daily life . In A. Tesser , R. B. Felson , & J. M. Suls (Eds.), Psychological Perspectives on Self and Identity (pp. 199 – 232 ). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .

Shah , R. C. , & Kesan , J. P . ( 2003 ). Manipulating the governance characteristics of code . Info: The Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications, Information and Media , 5 ( 4 ), 3 – 9 .

St. John , W . ( 2002, April 21 ). Young, single and dating at hyperspeed . The New York Times . Retrieved September 2, 2004, from http://www.springstreetnetworks.com/press/pdf/springst_youngandsingle.pdf

Stone , A. R . ( 1996 ). The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

Strauss , A. , & Corbin , J . ( 1998 ). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Taylor , D. , & Altman , I . ( 1987 ). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes . In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research (pp. 257 – 277 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Tidwell , L. C. , & Walther , J. B . ( 2002 ). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time . Human Communication Research , 28 ( 3 ), 317 – 348 .

Turkle , S . ( 1995 ). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet . New York: Simon and Schuster .

Utz , S . ( 2000 ). Social information processing in MUDs: The development of friendships in virtual worlds . Journal of Online Behavior , 1 ( 1 ). Retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n1/utz.html

Van Gelder , L . ( 1996 ). The strange case of the electronic lover: A real-life story of deception, seduction, and technology . In R. Kling (Ed.), Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices (2nd ed., pp. 533 – 546 ). San Diego, CA: Academic Press .

Wallace , P . ( 1999 ). The Psychology of the Internet . New York: Cambridge University Press .

Walther , J. B . ( 1992 ). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective . Communication Research , 19 ( 1 ), 52 – 91 .

Walther , J. B . ( 1994 ). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer mediated interaction . Human Communication Research , 20 ( 4 ), 473 – 501 .

Walther , J. B . ( 1996 ). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction . Communication Research , 23 ( 1 ), 3 – 44 .

Walther , J. B. , Anderson , J. F. , & Park , D. D . ( 1994 ). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication . Communication Research , 21 ( 4 ), 460 – 487 .

Walther , J. B. , & Burgoon , J. K . ( 1992 ). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction . Human Communication Research , 19 ( 1 ), 50 – 88 .

Walther , J. B. , Loh , T. , & Granka , L . ( 2005 ). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity . Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 24 ( 1 ), 36 – 65 .

Walther , J. B. , & Parks , M. R . ( 2002 ). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships . In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (3rd ed., pp. 529 – 563 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Walther , J. B. , & Tidwell , L. C . ( 1995 ). Nonverbal cues in computer-mediated communication, and the effect of chronemics on relational communication . Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce , 5 ( 4 ), 355 – 378 .

Woll , S . ( 1986 ). So many to choose from: Decision strategies in videodating . Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 3 ( 1 ), 43 – 52 .

Woll , S. B. , & Cosby , P. C . ( 1987 ). Videodating and other alternatives to traditional methods of relationship initiation . In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in Personal Relationships (Vol. 1 , pp. 69 – 108 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press .

Woll , S. B. , & Young , P . ( 1989 ). Looking for Mr. or Ms. Right: Self-presentation in videodating . Journal of Marriage and the Family , 51 ( 2 ), 483 – 488 .

Woolgar , S . ( 1996 ). Technologies as cultural artifacts . In W. Dutton (Ed.), Information and Communication Technologies: Visions and Realities . Oxford: Oxford University Press .

Sample Codes and Quotes

Most Important Codes with Frequencies *

All codes with more than 100 occurrences.

Nicole Ellison is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Telecommunications, Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University. Her research explores issues of self-presentation, relationship development, and identity in online environments such as weblogs, online dating sites, and social networking services.

Address: Dept. of Telecommunications, Information Studies, and Media, Michigan State University, 403 Communication Arts and Sciences, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA

Rebecca Heino is an Assistant Professor in the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University. She has centered her research on the use of communication technologies—such as intranets and email—in organizations, specifically focusing on organizational adoption, implementation, and privacy.

Address: Georgetown University, McDonough School of Business, 37th & O St. NW, Old North G-04, Washington, DC 20057 USA

Jennifer Gibbs is an Assistant Professor of Communication at Rutgers University. Her research interests center around how individuals connect, collaborate, and negotiate identity and differences in global, multicultural, and mediated contexts.

Address: Department of Communication, SCILS, 4 Huntington Street, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1071 USA

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1083-6101
• Copyright © 2024 International Communication Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Help & FAQ

Revealing the 'real' me, searching for the 'actual' you: presentations of self on an internet dating site

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review

This paper considers the presentation of self on an internet dating site. Thirty men and 30 women were interviewed about their online dating experiences. They were asked about how they constructed their profiles and how they viewed other individuals' profiles. Which types of presentations of self led to more successful offline romantic relationships were also investigated. Additionally, gender differences were examined. In line with previous research on presentation of self online, individuals were quite strategic in their online presentations. However, important differences between initiating a relationship on an internet dating site and other spaces (online and offline) included the type of self disclosed as well as the depth of breadth of information individuals self-disclosed about themselves before any one-on-one conversations took place.

• Internet dating
• Internet relationships
• Online dating
• Possible selves
• Self-presentation

Access to Document

• 10.1016/j.chb.2007.07.002

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus

T1 - Revealing the 'real' me, searching for the 'actual' you

T2 - presentations of self on an internet dating site

AU - Whitty, Monica T.

N1 - Funding Information: The author thank Lisa Lunnon for her assistance with coding, and The University of Western Sydney and the Australian online dating company who funded the project.

PY - 2008/7

Y1 - 2008/7

N2 - This paper considers the presentation of self on an internet dating site. Thirty men and 30 women were interviewed about their online dating experiences. They were asked about how they constructed their profiles and how they viewed other individuals' profiles. Which types of presentations of self led to more successful offline romantic relationships were also investigated. Additionally, gender differences were examined. In line with previous research on presentation of self online, individuals were quite strategic in their online presentations. However, important differences between initiating a relationship on an internet dating site and other spaces (online and offline) included the type of self disclosed as well as the depth of breadth of information individuals self-disclosed about themselves before any one-on-one conversations took place.

AB - This paper considers the presentation of self on an internet dating site. Thirty men and 30 women were interviewed about their online dating experiences. They were asked about how they constructed their profiles and how they viewed other individuals' profiles. Which types of presentations of self led to more successful offline romantic relationships were also investigated. Additionally, gender differences were examined. In line with previous research on presentation of self online, individuals were quite strategic in their online presentations. However, important differences between initiating a relationship on an internet dating site and other spaces (online and offline) included the type of self disclosed as well as the depth of breadth of information individuals self-disclosed about themselves before any one-on-one conversations took place.

KW - Identity

KW - Internet dating

KW - Internet relationships

KW - Online dating

KW - Possible selves

KW - Self-presentation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=42249098525&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.chb.2007.07.002

DO - 10.1016/j.chb.2007.07.002

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:42249098525

SN - 0747-5632

JO - Computers in Human Behavior

JF - Computers in Human Behavior

Watch CBS News

When her mother went missing, an Illinois woman ventured into the dark corners of America's romance scam epidemic

By Jim Axelrod , Sheena Samu , Andy Bast , Matthew Mosk , Sari Aviv

April 22, 2024 / 7:38 PM EDT / CBS News

When Laura Kowal decided to date again after losing her husband of 24 years, the 57-year-old retired hospital executive from Galena, Illinois, joined an online dating site because that felt safer. 

The relationship she forged with a self-described Swedish investment adviser named Frank Borg began with florid emails and giddy phone calls in October 2018. It was romantic and exciting — but it soon became more furtive. 

On August 7, 2020, Kowal's daughter, Kelly Gowe, received a voicemail from a federal investigator informing her that her mother "may have been involved in a fraud scam" as a victim.

The events that followed not only ended in tragedy for Kowal, they would transform the life of her daughter. Gowe still grapples with all that transpired after receiving that phone call, but she has launched herself at a new cause: to demystify romance scams, a crime that has victimized tens of thousands, many too ashamed to report it. 

"It wasn't until I learned that I was going to have a daughter of my own that I knew that one day she would know the full story," Gowe told CBS News. "But I want her to know that her grandmother's story has the ability to educate people and to promote change, and ultimately her grandmother's story can save someone's life."

"Anybody could be a victim"

Kowal's story is not unique. More than 64,000 Americans were defrauded out of over $1.14 billion by romance scammers last year, according to the Federal Trade Commission — a figure experts say likely vastly underestimates the amount of damage done.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Arun Rao, who oversees the Consumer Protection branch of the Department of Justice, said one of the biggest challenges facing law enforcement is how few victims report the crime. He attributes that to embarrassment and shame.

"They shouldn't feel embarrassed or ashamed," Rao said. "These are sophisticated fraudsters who are preying on the human desire for affection. And they are manipulating them using sophisticated technology."

That technology allows the scammers to establish deeper connections with their victims, like "Sue," a retiree who says lost her home and nearly $2.5 million to someone she met on Match.com.  

"Sue" agreed to speak with CBS under a pseudonym out of fear of still being watched on what she called "the sucker list." She says the "psychological manipulation" that fraudsters put her through was masqueraded as a love story.

"I Skyped with him. I had no idea that you could fake a Skype," Sue said. "People say, how can you give money to a stranger? He wasn't a stranger at that point." 

Rao said law enforcement has tried to counter the faulty assumption that romance scam victims should have known better. There is no single demographic targeted — by some estimates, men make up 40% of victims, and people of all ages and backgrounds have been taken in.

"We have seen very sophisticated individuals become victims," Rao said. "We've had recent examples where physicians, bank analysts who deal with these types of issues in their workplace have been victimized. Anybody could be a victim."

"I've been living a double life"

Kelly Gowe's crusade began just moments after she raced from Chicago to her mother's home, three hours west, only to find it empty. 

"I just knew, had a gut feeling," she said.

Kowal was supposed to have lunch that day with her neighbor, Kathy, but canceled just 10 minutes before they were supposed to leave. Kathy said she had seen her in the driveway on the phone with someone. 

"We had suspicions of Frank at the beginning," Kathy said. "But you have to know Laura. She was such a strong woman."

Gowe searched her mother's house and found, buried in a filing cabinet, an undated note addressed to her. It said: "I've been living a double life this past year. It has left me broke and broken. Yes, it involves Frank, the man I met through online dating. I tried to stop this, many times, but I knew I would end up dead."

The note left instructions for how to access her mother's emails.

How it started

After her husband's death from cancer, Kowal had moved from Chicago to Galena, a small town in northwest Illinois that boasts stunning views from a state park overlooking the Mississippi River and a 19th century house that belonged to Ulysses S. Grant.

She quickly collected a wide circle of friends, playing golf, working at a boutique and traveling to senior centers with her dog Effie, a white poodle with an easy disposition.

"She had all these buckets full in her life, my mom did. But there was this one bucket that was missing," Gowe said. "And that was this companionship."

In 2018, she joined Match.com. She chose to meet someone online, just as 3 in 10 Americans have, because she told her daughter it felt safer than meeting someone out at a bar. 

Enter "Frank Borg," a self-described businessman who claimed he was born in Sweden but with roots in the U.S., with whom she connected on the dating site. Frank's photo showed a trim man in the outdoors, with an angular face and salty hair, mature and fit. He claimed family ties to Iowa, just like Kowal; the loss of a spouse, just like Kowal; and a single adult child, just like Kowal. After a few days on the site, the pair exchanged emails. 

"I'm also new to this online dating thing," he told Laura in his first email to her. "I am an honest and caring person who is very loyal to those I care about." 

The following day they exchanged numbers. "I hope we can always talk on [sic] phone and cherish each other [sic] voice," he wrote to her.  

Over the next 10 days they exchanged stories and Kowal began opening up to him. "Trusting you blindly here. Trust is really big for me," Kowal wrote. 

In total it took 12 days to get from that first email to Kowal returning his affections. "My heart is ready for you!" she wrote, signing off, "Love you, Frank! Your [sic] in my heart forever!"

"Clearly, my mom felt the emotions of feeling loved," Gowe said. "And I know there's a lot of people out there saying, 'Well, how could that happen?' It could happen to anybody."

A dramatic rise in scam activity

Kowal's venture into an online relationship came just as federal law enforcement officials were seeing a dramatic rise in scam activity on dating sites and social media.

"We see from 2017 to 2023 is when we had a sharp increase in romance frauds," said James C. Barnacle, Jr. who oversees the financial crimes section of the FBI. "Prior to 2017 we didn't have a significant number of romance fraud complaints in the United States."

Experts attribute the rise to better technology in hotspots for fraud, like Nigeria and Ghana, and an easier path to moving money electronically. Romance scams had evolved since the days of "Nigerian prince" letters and money wired through Western Union, Barnacle said.

Mark Solomon, president of the International Association of Financial Crime Investigators, said fraudsters had educated themselves. They began sharing scripts and techniques on the dark web and social media sites and Telegram.

"There's playbooks out there," Solomon said. "How to commit this crime from A to Z."

Solomon said law enforcement was caught flat-footed.

"Law enforcement is a little bit behind," Solomon said. "We have to train more local detectives and investigators, more state, more federal [agents]."

"No other choice"

When local police began investigating Kowal's disappearance, their missing person alert identified her as being suicidal. It was a misunderstanding, Gowe says, forged in the panicked first hours after her mother had vanished.

In fact, Gowe had begun to find evidence that her mother's "relationship" with "Frank" had morphed over time. Hundreds of emails show how "Frank" manipulated her, coaxing her into wiring funds to a fake company called Goose Investments. In total she sent $1.5 million.

Initially, their emails had all the language of love. Him telling her he would "never stop loving you." Her replying: "This is love! Blind trust! Yes, I am the woman who is trusting you."

But over time, their emails lose the sheen of romance and become more transactional. "Frank" sends emotionless instructions for Kowal to make fake dating profiles on apps like Match.com and Christian Mingle, to open multiple new bank accounts, set up false companies, and eventually, as her savings dwindled, to mortgage her home. 

As the nearly two-year relationship went on, Kowal started to express skepticism. In one exchange in May 2019, she emailed him saying she was "struggling."

"You, and these strangers, are clearly finding out more about me than I know about you through this process," she wrote, her suspicion rising. 

The longer the scheme went on, Gowe found that the trail became confusing, with more and more conversations taken offline. She believes her mother began receiving threats.

"I believe there were threats behind it, or maybe this was her way of recouping the money that she had given them," Gowe says. "It just really saddens me that it got to that point that ultimately she was participating in illegal behaviors , right? And I believe that she was doing that because she felt like she had to. There was no other choice."

A body in the Mississippi River

On Aug. 9, 2020 , a Missouri State Police marine accident team responded to a report of a body floating in the Mississippi River near Canton, Missouri, hundreds of miles from Galena. Laura Kowal had been found. 

Hours later, Kowal's car was discovered on a boat ramp in a hardscrabble river town in Southern Illinois, more than three hours south of Galena. Police found no glaring sign of foul play..

Lewis County Missouri Sheriff David Parrish told CBS News that investigators at the scene sought to determine, "Did something happen here? Is this more than just a recovery? And based on the investigation we did at the time, primarily through the Marine Division of the Highway Patrol, it appeared that it was a recovery."

A forensic review of Kowal's phone shows that it was turned off in the hours before her death. Her last text message to her friend Kathy was, "All is good."

An autopsy proved inconclusive, ruling Kowal's death to be from drowning, but giving no further indication about how she wound up in the water. Police, Gowe said, made a snap assumption that her mother died by suicide.

Since her mother was found, Gowe has been troubled by the incongruities of the case. Who was she speaking with on the phone as she left home? How did her car wind up parked on a boat ramp hundreds of miles away? Why, if she took her life, would she do it in a manner that would make it unlikely she would ever be found? And what of the cryptic note — not left on the counter but buried in a drawer — predicting she would wind up dead?

"I have never been ashamed if [a finding of suicide] was the outcome," Gowe said. "And it's not because I don't want to believe that. There would be some closure that would come if we were able to prove that my mom committed suicide. … But do I believe that they have been proactively seeking out evidence in an investigation beyond suicide? No."

Law enforcement has been unable to determine if Kowal was in contact with someone during her drive. They found packaging for a burner phone in her home, but no actual phone. Her Honda Pilot was not a recent enough model to allow them to re-trace her drive through on-board computers. Her last cellphone ping was near the river crossing in Sabula, Iowa, 40 minutes south.

Gowe and her mother's close friends have sought answers themselves, re-tracing her mother's likely driving route, collecting surveillance images from that day on the chance of finding evidence Kowal was not alone. So far, she has pursued many leads, but found few answers.

Investigators have been unable to verify the real identity of "Frank" — only that the photos used were stolen from social media of a doctor in Chile, and that the emails actually originated in Ghana.

Match Group said it removed the fraudulent account immediately once it was notified by federal law enforcement, but would not say how long the profile was up on their site, or how many others matched with Frank.

Last year, Gowe left her job and has dedicated herself to share her mother's story as a cautionary tale and advocate for victims. Earlier this year she spoke to a women's group in Iowa, urging financial institutions and law enforcement to do more to protect victims.

"I would not be doing her justice," Gowe said, "if I wasn't sharing this case and her story to help other victims, and to educate people so that nobody else falls victim to the crime of romance scamming."

More from the  CBS News Investigation :

• In one woman's mysterious drowning, signs of a national romance scam epidemic
• Romance scammers turn victims into "money mules," creating a legal minefield for investigators
• As romance scammers turn dating apps into "hunting grounds," critics look to Match Group to do more

CBS News investigative reporters Pat Milton, Clare Hymes and Alyssa Spady contributed to this report.

If you or someone you know has been affected by a romance scam, please share your story with us at [email protected]

Jim Axelrod is the chief correspondent and executive editor for CBS News' "Eye on America" franchise, part of the "CBS Evening News with Norah O'Donnell." He also reports for "CBS Mornings," "CBS News Sunday Morning," and CBS News 24/7.

More from CBS News

Schemes targeting seniors account for $3.4 billion in reported losses, FBI says

Her toddler heard monsters in the wall. The noise was 50,000 bees.

Rep. Elise Stefanik seeks probe of special counsel Jack Smith

Japan Airlines flight canceled after captain got drunk, "disorderly" at hotel