What Lies Beneath: The Linguistic Traces of Deception in Online Dating Profiles

266 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Deception detection for news: Three types of fakes (2015, background): “…& Glance, 2013), fudged online resumes (Guillory & Hancock, 2012), opinion spamming (Jindal & Liu, 2008), fake social network profiles (Kumar & Reddy, 2012), fake dating profiles (Toma & Hancock, 2012), spamming and phishing (Toolan & Carthy, 2010), and forged scientific work (SciGen, Mathgen).”
Linguistic Obfuscation in Fraudulent Science (2016, methodology): “…language can be used as a marker of psychological change (Pennebaker, 2011) has also been applied to deception with several studies using automated methods to analyze word patterns associated with false and truthful statements (Larcker & Zakolyukina, 2012; Pennebaker, 2011; Toma & Hancock, 2012).”
Seeing and being seen: Co-situation and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app (2015, background): “Such studies could more systematically examine the role of specific profile elements and people’s reactions to them as, for example, in work by Toma and Hancock (2012).”
On the differences between Tinder™ versus online dating agencies: Questioning a myth. An exploratory study (2016, unknown): “…of individuals’ attitudes to online dating (e.g. Donn & Sherman, 2002), and also of deception and self-presentation online (e.g. Ellison, Hancock, & Toma, 2012; Guadagno, Okdie, & Kruse, 2012; Hall, Park, Song, & Cody, 2010; Toma & Hancock, 2010, 2012; Toma, Hancock, & Ellison, 2008; Whitty, 2008).”