Separating Fact From Fiction: An Examination of Deceptive Self-Presentation in Online Dating Profiles

By Catalina L. Toma, Jeffrey T. Hancock, Nicole B. Ellison. 2008

550 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.

In Social Sciences & Humanities

Citations in the corpus

Measurement and Fairness (2019, background): “[54] found that although men and women both over-report their height on dating websites, men are more likely to over-report and to over-report by a larger amount.”
Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating (2010, unknown): “(Frank, Bay Area) This metaphorical language, comparing dating to picking out the perfect parts for a machine, illustrated the market mentality: the ability to shop and choose exactly what the participants wanted and did not want.”
Theories of Computer-Mediated Communication and Interpersonal Relations (2011, background): “These suggestions are yet to be tested, although the findings reported by Toma, Hancock, and Ellison (2008) and Warkentin, Woodworth, Hancock, and Cormier (2010) are consistent with this notion.”
The truth about lies: What works in detecting high‐stakes deception? (2010, background): “Deception is extremely common in e-mail, instant messaging, chatrooms, and on-line dating sites (Hancock, 2007; Hancock, Thom-Santelli, & Ritchie, 2004; Toma, Hancock, & Ellison, 2008; Whitty, 2002; Whitty & Carville, 2008), and extends to major cyber crime such as fraud and child exploitation on ”
Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The perceived social affordances of communication channels scale (2017, unknown): “Persistence (akin to archiving, Resnick, 2001; durability, Parks, 2008; recordability, Toma, Hancock, & Ellison, 2008; and reviewability, Clark & Brennan, 1991) describes the relative permanence or ephemerality of communication (boyd, 2011; Culnan & Markus, 1987; Treem & Leonardi, 2013).”
Mirror, Mirror on my Facebook Wall: Effects of Exposure to Facebook on Self-Esteem (2011, background): “Evidence of selective self-presentation is found in a variety of Internet spaces, including e-mails,(19) discussion boards,(20) and online dating Web sites.(21,22) In addition to evidence that online self-presentations are especially positive presentations, recent research in computermediated commun”
What Lies Beneath: The Linguistic Traces of Deception in Online Dating Profiles (2012, methodology): “Finally, participants were debriefed, thanked, and paid $30 (for a more detailed description of the full procedure, see Toma et al., 2008).”
Show me your friends and I will tell you what type of person you are: How one's profile, number of friends, and type of friends influence impression formation on social network sites (2010, background): “Moreover, computer-mediated communication allows people to present themselves selectively and to choose a favorable profile picture (Toma et al., 2008; Walther, 1996).”
Putting Your Best Face Forward: The Accuracy of Online Dating Photographs (2009, background): “For instance, male daters typically add a couple of inches to their height, whereas female daters subtract a few pounds from their weight in order to appear more attractive to the opposite sex (Toma et al., 2008).”
Norm evolution and violation on Facebook (2012, background): “Furthermore, research has demonstrated that different types of violations result in a range of attitudinal reactions (Bachman and Guerrero, 2006; Rycyna et al., 2009; Toma et al., 2008).”
Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: The effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits (2010, background): “The current study replicated past research on deception and selfpresentation in online dating (e.g., Ellison et al., 2006; Gibbs et al., 2006; Toma et al., 2008).”
“Catfishing,” cyberbullying, and coercion: An exploration of the risks associated with dating app use among rural sexual minority males (2019, background): “Unfortunately, while many studies have documented and examined contributors to deception in online dating (e.g., Guadagno, Okdie, & Kruse, 2012; Toma et al., 2008; Toma & Hancock, 2010), little research has examined the potential effects of being deceived in an online dating environment.”
Deception as a Derived Function of Language (2016, background): “For example, a study of American dating over the Internet found that approximately 90% of males and 75% of females were dishonest about at least one physical characteristic in their online personal ads; males were inclined to claim greater height, females lesser weight (Toma et al., 2008).”
Impression and Information Management: On the Strategic Self- Regulation of Innocent and Guilty Suspects (2010, background): “Most scholarly definitions of deception emphasize the deliberate nature of the task, such as that it entails purposefully attempting to create false beliefs in another (DePaulo et al., 2003; Ford, 2006; Langleben, Dattilio, & Gutheil, 2006; Toma, Hancock, Ellison, 2008).”