Too hot to trust: Examining the relationship between attractiveness,trustworthiness,and desire to date in online dating

Abstract

This study expands upon previous research by examining how the enhancement of a dating profile picture might influence perceptions of interpersonal trustworthiness and how this relationship might further influence the perceived attractiveness and desire to date the respective individual. Participants were exposed to one of four online dating profile conditions and were then asked to rate the attractiveness of the person in the profile, as well as their perceived trustworthiness. The results revealed that men in this study perceived a more attractive female profile picture as less trustworthy, while women found a male with a more attractive profile picture to be more trustworthy. An indirect effects model also revealed that perceived trustworthiness mediates the relationship between similarity and attractiveness, though these effects were not moderated by the picture manipulation itself. Finally, this study found that individuals have greater intentions to date individuals whose profile pictures are perceived as more attractive.

Keywords

Attractiveness evolutionary theory online dating profile pictures similarity trustworthiness

For many, online dating is seen as a relatively easy and efficient way to find a potential romantic partner. Yet, despite all of the advantages that online dating services may provide to those seeking companionship, there are also questions that arise regarding the accuracy of profile pictures and the opportunity for misrepresentation in online dating encounters (Hancock and Toma, 2009). Relative to traditional offline dating, online dating provides individuals greater opportunity to manipulate and craft their image using selective self-presentation choices (Hancock and Toma, 2009; Walther, 1996). As a result, profile pictures do not always present the most accurate image of a user, as individuals are most likely to select a profile picture that presents their most ideal self (Hancock and Toma, 2009).

Research on selective self-presentation has focused on the perceived accuracy and authenticity of the individual portrayed in the profile (Ellison et al., 2012; Toma and Hancock, 2010, 2012). For example, using trained coders, Hancock and Toma (2009) found that profile pictures contained significant physical discrepancies when compared to a photo of the same person taken for the study (e.g. appearance of age, incongruities in weight, and changes in hair and skin quality). However, not all discrepancies are perceived as problematic. For example, Ellison et al. (2012) found that online dating users believe that most people “lie a little bit” (p. 58), and therefore rationalize certain discrepancies in their profile as being forgivable if they were considered relatively small in magnitude. More recently, Lo et al. (2013) found that individuals whose profile pictures were rated as physically attractive were also seen as less authentic, and raters were more likely to believe that the profile picture was not an accurate representation of the person’s true physical characteristics.

Therefore, an online dating profile picture provides important information regarding not only a person’s physical appearance, but it also allows users to make inferences about that person’s overall trustworthiness. Yet, previous studies of trustworthiness in online dating (e.g. Toma, 2010) have only explored trustworthiness as a byproduct of profile accuracy. However, such work acknowledges the need for future research to investigate how profile pictures are impacting perceptions of trustworthiness that go beyond accuracy (Toma, 2010) and focus on other aspects of trustworthiness more related to interpersonal trust. Therefore, in the present study, trustworthiness is operationalized beyond an interpretation of the profile picture’s accuracy, and instead focuses on how much interpersonal trust the user can place in the individual that is depicted by the profile picture. Interpersonal trust is conceptualized here as the willingness to be open and vulnerable, which also captures the idea that individuals seek a partner that they trust will reciprocate their communication and disclosure (Feng et al., 2004). This study expands upon previous research by determining whether individuals with more physically beautified online dating profile pictures are perceived as more or less interpersonally trustworthy.

An evolutionary approach to online dating profiles

One of the most important aspects of the profile is the picture, which can be used to make first impressions of another person and provide important details about that individual’s sex, race, and physical appearance. Given the importance of the profile picture, users often put their best face forward by choosing a particularly attractive photo (Hancock and Toma, 2009). Evolutionary theories of attraction have helped to explain why an attractive profile picture is of such importance in the online dating arena (Langlois et al., 2000; Toma and Hancock, 2010). An evolutionary approach to attraction suggests that certain physical characteristics provide clues to one’s physical health and genetic quality, and therefore their ability to reproduce (Thornhill and Gangestad, 1996). An extensive line of research has explored this possibility by investigating such concepts as facial symmetry (i.e. having symmetrical features) and sex-hormone linked features (i.e. testosterone and estrogen linked features such as cheekbones and jawline) and their associations with perceived attraction, physical health, genetic quality, and sexual behavior (Fink and Penton-Voak, 2002; Grammer and Thornhill, 1994; for review, see Thornhill and Gangestad, 1996).

In online dating environments, individuals may attempt to beautify their profile pictures to appear more open and ready for courting, and ultimately, to attract potential partners. The concept of beautification is often associated with work exploring the effects of cosmetics on perceptions of attraction (e.g. Nash et al., 2006; Russell, 2009) and is used here to refer to enhancing perceived physical attractiveness. We conceptualize a beautified profile picture as a picture in which individuals are using cosmetics, have styled their hair, pose at a flattering angle, and use flattering lighting. These types of enhancements often mimic nonverbal courtship behaviors such as courtship readiness (e.g. sitting erect, having bright eyes and glowing skin, preening one’s hair), positioning for courtship (e.g. physically orienting one’s self toward the person of interest), and appeals or invitations (e.g. holding one’s gaze, glancing flirtatiously) (Scheflen, 1965).

More than meets the eyes: does perceived attraction predict trustworthiness?

Research has suggested that online dating users feel that there is a certain amount of profile picture enhancement that is necessary to be on equal footing with the rest of the competition (Fiore et al., 2008). This concept is referred to by Ellison et al. (2012) as “fudging to get over the hump” (p. 54)—that is, changing the truth slightly to present the most idealized self in an effort to capture other users’ initial interest. An example of this is identified in Toma and Hancock’s (2010) study in which they found that less attractive daters were more likely to post self-enhancing photographs to make themselves look more attractive.

Research surrounding the concept of selective self presentation has supported the belief that individuals will select and portray themselves in the best possible manner and, as a result, most online dating users are aware of this bias and take steps to ensure they represent themselves in a relative manner (Ellison et al., 2012). These findings suggest that users are acting upon the affordances that the online environment provides to ensure they are portraying their most ideal self. However, this also raises a critical question regarding trustworthiness: if most individuals are portraying an enhanced (and perhaps less than accurate) image of themselves and believe others are doing the same, then how do online daters decide who to trust, and ultimately date?

Attraction and trustworthiness have long been positively associated with one another (Dion et al., 1972). A meta-analysis by Langlois et al. (2000) found further support for this link and generally concluded that attractive people are perceived more favorably across a variety of characteristics. Additionally, trust has been found to mediate the associations between various predictors (such as partner liking and “other-profitable traits” such as warmth) on attraction, suggesting that it is an important explanatory mechanism when considering the factors that lead to attraction (Montoya and Insko, 2008; Singh et al., 2009). However, in online dating environments, attractive profile pictures may also call into question issues of authenticity and accuracy. For example, Lo et al. (2013) found that attractive profile pictures were evaluated as less authentic than comparable unattractive profile pictures, and they thus conclude that highly attractive profile pictures cannot be trusted in an online dating setting. Findings such as these challenge previous associations between attraction and interpersonal trust, as they seem to suggest that while online dating users may expect to find more beautified pictures (Ellison et al., 2012), they may also view individuals whose profiles appear more beautified as less trustworthy on an interpersonal level.

Similarity, trustworthiness, and attractiveness in online dating

There is a long history of research exploring the relationship between similarity and attraction/mating (Buss, 1988; Byrne, 1997; Morry, 2007), and the role of similarity is evident in a variety of relationships, as well as across different characteristics (Buss, 1988; McPherson et al., 2001). When people have similar values, beliefs, and characteristics, they have a higher rate of relationship formation than those who are different from one another (McPherson et al., 2001). Therefore, when individuals perceive someone as similar to themselves, they can more easily use their own self-knowledge to draw conclusions about the other person, which in turn increases their knowledge about the target person (Antheunis et al., 2010). Research has also found that “being able to predict and explain others’ behavior makes them more attractive” (Kellerman and Reynolds, 1990: 68). Research has also supported trustworthiness as a key mediator in the association between similarity and attraction, above and beyond previously identified mediators, such as inferred attraction, respect, and experiencing positive affect (Singh et al., 2015). In other words, individuals trust those who seem similar to themselves, which in turn predicts attraction.

Desire to date

In online dating, the profile picture provides an assessment of physical attraction and influences overall assessments of the entire profile (Fiore et al., 2008; Lo et al., 2013). For example, Fiore et al. (2008) found that the attractiveness of the profile picture versus the written description was the strongest predictor of whether the user will be attracted to the entire profile. Therefore, if individuals are not attracted to a user’s profile picture, it follows that they will not be attracted to the person’s profile, as their assessment of the physical person guides their perceptions of other attributes. Evolutionary approaches to attraction similarly posit that, for men in particular, physical appearance is more highly valued over other characteristics, and thus is likely to predict future mating and dating (Feingold, 1991; Lo et al., 2013; Meltzer et al., 2014). Bak and Koln (2010) similarly found that when men were shown pictures of attractive and unattractive females, the more attractive female photo triggered a significant desire to get to know the woman and a more positive evaluation of the woman in general. Therefore, we expect to find a positive relationship between attractiveness and desire to date.

Current study

In this study, we explore the effects of beautified versus unenhanced profile pictures on perceptions of attractiveness, similarity, trustworthiness, and desire to date. A beautified or enhanced profile picture is conceptualized as one in which an individual has attempted to put forth their most attractive self using cosmetics and/or styling their hair, and the picture uses a flattering light and angle. This is in contrast to a non-beautified or unenhanced picture, where the individuals are not wearing cosmetics, have not styled their hair, are in fluorescent lighting, and/or are looking straight at the camera. A growing body of literature finds that women’s cosmetics use enhances perceived attractiveness (e.g. Mulhern et al., 2003). By going through the process of beautifying their appearance in profile pictures, users are likely to be rated as more attractive; therefore, we predict the following:

H1. Profile viewers will perceive an enhanced profile picture as more attractive than an unenhanced profile picture.

Research has consistently identified a relationship between perceived attractiveness and trustworthiness (Dion et al., 1972; Langlois et al., 2000). However, online settings raise concerns about the legitimacy and accuracy of highly attractive profile pictures. For example, findings from Lo et al. (2013) suggest that a more attractive profile picture is likely to yield lower trust (Lo et al., 2013). Taken together, if individuals perceive a profile picture to be beautified or enhanced, they may be less trusting of the person in the profile picture. Therefore, we expect to find the following:

H2. An unenhanced profile picture will generate higher perceptions of trustworthiness for the person featured in the dating profile compared to an enhanced profile picture.

The literature has also identified similarity as an important variable to consider when it comes to attractiveness and dating (Antheunis et al., 2010; Kellerman and Reynolds, 1990; McPherson et al., 2001), and trustworthiness has been pointed to as a key mediator in the similarity–attraction link (Singh et al., 2015). However, these pathways have yet to be tested in online dating environments, where unique trustworthiness concerns may arise. In online dating environments, when individuals perceive another person as similar to themselves based on their online dating profile, the increased sense of knowledge about the other user may result in individuals assessing the profile more positively and believing the person in the profile to be more worthy of interpersonal trust, which should in turn influence perceived attractiveness. Therefore, we predict the following:

H3. Perceived trustworthiness will mediate the relationship between perceived similarity and attractiveness.

Furthermore, given the predicted relationship between picture beautification and perceived trustworthiness, it is also important to consider the potential influence of beautification on the indirect effects model predicted above. Although it was suggested earlier that a beautified profile picture should lead to lower perceptions of trustworthiness, it is also possible that beautification interacts with similarity, as both concepts have been found to influence mating behavior (Buss, 1988; Buss and Schmitt, 1993; Miller, 2009; Mulhern et al., 2003). Therefore, it is possible that individuals who view themselves as similar to individuals with beautified profiles (i.e. people who also use make-up, style their hair, and post pictures with flattering lighting and angles) may rate the individual in the profile picture as more trustworthy, and in turn, more attractive. Therefore, we ask the following:

RQ1. Does profile picture beautification moderate the aforementioned indirect effects model?

Finally, results from previous research suggest that perceived attractiveness of a profile picture is likely to be the best predictor of desire to date the person in the profile (Fiore et al., 2008); therefore, we expect to find the following:

H4. Perceived attractiveness of the profile picture will positively predict an individual’s desire to date the person depicted over and above similarity and perceived trustworthiness.

It is important to note that several studies have revealed sex differences in relation to the variables of interest. For example, men value physical attraction in a potential mate more than women (Feingold, 1991; Li et al., 2013; Meltzer et al., 2014), women are perceived to be more trustworthy than men (Boltz et al., 2010), and women value similarity in a potential mate more than men (Feingold, 1991). Sex differences have also been found specifically in online dating environments. For example, women enhance their online dating profile pictures more than men, and men are more critical than women when judging the attractiveness of profile pictures (Toma and Hancock, 2010). However, other research reveals contradictory findings. For example, Eastwick and Finkel (2008) failed to find sex differences in the association between attraction and romantic interest when investigating real-life (rather than imagined) potential partners. Although research on online dating suggests that potential sex differences may emerge in the present analyses (e.g. Brand et al., 2012; Guadagno et al., 2012; Toma and Hancock, 2010), given contradictory findings regarding the variables of interest, the exact patterns and directions of such relationships are unclear. Therefore, specific predictions regarding sex differences are not put forth, but all analyses will test for possible interaction effects with participant sex.

Methods

Design

This study used an experimental survey design featuring a 2 (sex) × 2 (enhanced/unenhanced profile picture) design. Participants (N = 671) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. In this study, only heterosexual participants who viewed opposite-sex profiles were included in the analyses (n = 305). Of this sample, 76 men viewed the female profile with no enhancement (77 viewed the profile with enhancement) and 84 women viewed the male profile with no enhancement (68 viewed the profile with enhancement).

Stimulus

Four dating profiles were created for the experimental stimuli. The dating profiles were designed to represent the look of a popular dating profile website and included common information typically associated with dating profiles (i.e. body type, faith, and smoking/drinking behavior). The characteristics attributed to the male and female dating profiles were held constant, except for their heights. The male height was listed as 5′11″ and the female height was listed as 5′6″, which are both slightly taller than the average heights for adults in the United States according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics (2012).

The unenhanced female profile picture includes a female actor in average lighting, making her features less distinct and her skin look less even-toned. The female actor in the unenhanced profile picture has her hair pulled back and un-styled and she is not wearing any make-up. The unenhanced female profile picture also does not provide the female character any “glow” due to the average lighting and lack of cosmetics. The enhanced female profile picture features the same female actor in soft lighting, which gives the appearance of an even skin tone and healthy looking hair. The female actor in the enhanced picture is wearing make-up that accentuates her facial features, has her hair down and styled, and appears to have a healthy “glow” in her skin tone and appearance.

The unenhanced male profile picture features a male actor in average lighting and without a shirt, as though he just woke up and took the picture. This profile picture also shows our male actor in an unkempt manner—his hair is not combed, his face has a greasy sheen, and his smile does not show any teeth. The enhanced male profile picture features the same male actor in soft lighting with a full smile. In the enhanced profile picture, our male is wearing a casual outfit, which is well put together and colorful. His hair is styled, his skin looks even in the lighting, and his eyes are bright and clear. The enhanced male profile picture also features the male actor with an approachable posture, leaning toward the camera.

Participants

Participants were recruited from introductory level communication courses at a large public university. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 36 years (M = 19.16, standard deviation [SD] = 1.75). Of the participants included in the present analyses, 153 were males and 152 were females.

Procedure

Participants who agreed to participate in the study were given a web address through which they could access the online experiment and survey. Upon entering the study, participants gave informed consent and were then randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. Participants then answered a set of questions measuring demographics and sexual orientation. After answering these questions, participants were shown one of the four online dating profiles (see Appendix 1 for profiles). Participants viewed the profiles for a minimum of 60 seconds and then were allowed to click to the next page. Following their exposure to the online dating profile, participants completed a second set of measures, which are outlined below. Participants were not allowed to go back and review the profile while completing the instrument.

Physical attractiveness

Perceived physical attractiveness of the person in the online dating profile was measured using six items on a 7-point scale (α = .94, M = 5.07, SD = 1.25). This scale was adopted from an earlier version used in McCroskey and McCain (1974), with additional items being created for this study. Items used in this scale consisted of the following: “I find this person physically attractive,” “I don’t like the way this person looks,” and “This person is not very good looking.”

Similarity

The perceived similarity was measured using three 7-interval bipolar items (α = .89, M = 4.21, SD = 1.07) based on a 7-point scale. This scale was adopted from McCroskey et al. (1975) and modified for this study. The participants were asked to assess the similarity of the person in the online dating profile based on the following items: “is unlike me to is like me,” “does not behave like me to behaves like me,” and “is culturally different than me to is culturally similar to me.”

Trustworthiness

The perceived trustworthiness of the person in the online dating profile was measured using eight items to tap into interpersonal trustworthiness (α = .92, M = 4.16, SD = .77). This scale was adopted from McCroskey and Teven (1999) and modified for the context of this study. The items were assessed on a 7-point scale. The items tapped into various aspects of interpersonal trust, including willing to be vulnerable and disclose information to the individual. The scale included items such as the following: “The person is trustworthy,” “The person is able to keep a secret,” and “I believe this is someone who is honest.”

Desire to date

The participant’s dating intentions towards the person in the online dating profile was measured using ten items (α = .96, M = 4.27, SD = 1.36) on 7-point scale. This scale was created for the purposes of this study and included items such as the following: “If this person asked me out on a date I would say yes” and “I would give this person my phone number in hopes of furthering a relationship.”

Results

Data were analyzed using the SPSS v.22 statistical analysis package. Participants with missing data points for input variables were not included in the following analyses.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that profile viewers would perceive an enhanced profile picture as more attractive than an unenhanced profile picture. A univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test this hypothesis in which condition (enhanced vs unenhanced) was entered as a fixed factor. Perceived physical attractiveness of the profile picture was entered as the dependent variable. In order to evaluate a possible interaction effect with the manipulated condition, participant sex was entered as a fixed factor. The results of the ANOVA demonstrate that there was a significant difference between the enhanced (M = 5.55, SD = 1.13) and unenhanced (M = 4.66, SD = 1.22) profile pictures, F(3, 290) = 32.20, p < .001, $η_{partial}^{2} = . 25$ . The interaction between sex and the manipulated condition was not significant (p = .50). Hypothesis 1 was supported. Profile viewers perceived an enhanced profile picture as more attractive than an unenhanced profile picture.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that an unenhanced profile picture would lead to higher perceptions of trustworthiness for the person featured in the dating profile. To test this hypothesis, a 2 (sex of profile) × 2 (condition; enhanced vs unenhanced) ANOVA was computed on participants perceived trustworthiness. Perceived trustworthiness of the person featured in the profile was entered as the dependent variable, with participant condition (enhanced vs unenhanced) and participant sex entered as fixed factors. The results of the ANOVA demonstrate that there was a significant difference between the enhanced and unenhanced profile pictures in terms of perceived trustworthiness, F(3, 295) = 10.37, p < .001, $η_{partial}^{2} = . 10$ . The interaction between sex and the manipulated condition was also significant F(1, 298) = 8.35, p < .001, $η_{partial}^{2} = . 03$ , which suggests that the profile picture manipulation had a different effect on men and women. As predicted, men perceived the woman in the unenhanced profile picture condition as more trustworthy (M = 4.52, SD = .65) than the enhanced profile picture (M = 4.20, SD = .76). However, women perceived the man in the enhanced profile picture to be more trustworthy (M = 4.05, SD = .89) than the unenhanced profile picture (M = 3.87, SD = .65). Therefore, hypothesis 2 was only supported for men, but not women. Men perceived the unenhanced profile picture as more trustworthy, though women perceived the enhanced profile picture as more trustworthy.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that perceived trustworthiness would mediate the relationship between perceived similarity and attractiveness. An indirect effects model was tested using Hayes’ (2013) SPSS PROCESS macro for bootstrap analysis. The analysis was conducted using a 95% bias corrected confidence interval (CI) and 5000 bootstrapped resamples. The model tested the relationship between similarity (independent variable), trustworthiness (mediating variable), and attractiveness (dependent variable). The results and coefficients are presented in Figure 1. As indicated in the figure, the indirect effect was significant (B = .06, standard error [SE] = .03, p < .05, 95% CI = [.002, .136]; total effect: .36, SE = .07, p < .01; direct effect: B = .30, SE = .08, p < .001). Zero was not included in the 95% confidence interval for the model, indicating that the model is significantly different from zero at p < .05 (Preacher and Hayes, 2004). However, the significant direct effect indicates that partial mediation has occurred. Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. Trustworthiness partially mediated the relationship between perceived similarity and attractiveness. For the sake of thoroughness, a moderated mediation model was also tested to investigate whether sex (female/male) moderated the model detailed above. However, the moderated mediation model was not significant.

Figure 1.

Model of effect of similarity on attractiveness through trustworthiness.

Following this, profile picture enhancement was investigated as a potential moderator for these indirect effects as outlined in research question 1. A conditional indirect effects (i.e. moderated mediation) model was tested using Hayes’ (2013) SPSS PROCESS macro for bootstrap analysis, also using a 95% bias corrected confidence interval and 5000 bootstrapped resamples. The model tested the relationship between similarity (independent variable), trustworthiness (mediating variable), and attractiveness (dependent variable), with enhanced/unenhanced picture entered as a moderating variable. The test of equality between the conditional indirect effects of the two groups (i.e. unenhanced, enhanced) indicated that the indirect effects for the two groups were not significantly different from one another (95% CI = [−.07, .03]). In other words, picture enhancement did not moderate the indirect effects model detailed above. The same model was run with sex as a potential moderator, but the model was not significant (95% CI = [−.01, .04]).

Hypothesis 4 predicted that perceived attractiveness of the profile picture would be a positive predictor of an individual’s desire to date the person depicted over and above similarity and perceived trustworthiness. A two-block multiple linear regression was used to test this hypothesis and each of the continuous independent variables was centered prior to analysis. Given the previous importance of sex, perceived similarity, and perceived trustworthiness, each of these variables was entered into block 1. In order to determine whether the effect of perceived physical attractiveness was significantly influential over and above the variables included in block 1, physical attractiveness was entered into the second block. The first block, which included sex, perceived similarity, and perceived trustworthiness returned a significant model (F(3, 271) = 54.45, p < .001) and explained a significant portion of the variance (R² = .37). The second block entered perceived attractiveness as a predictor and also returned a significant model F(4, 270) = 97.03, p < .001) and explained a significant portion of the variance (R² = .59, ΔR² = .21). Participants’ rating of attractiveness of the person in the profile had a significant influence on their desire to date the individual in the profile (b = .53, p < .001). Similarity (b = .08, p = .09) was not significant in the third block, though perceived trustworthiness (b = .32, p < .001) was significant. A summary of the regression results can be found in Table 1. The results of this analysis demonstrate support for hypothesis 4. Perceived attractiveness of the profile picture was a positive predictor of an individual’s desire to date the person depicted over and above similarity and perceived trustworthiness.

Table 1.

Predictors of desire to date.

Variable	Block 1	Block 2
Variable	β	β
Sex^a	−.32*	−.13*
Similarity	.21*	.08
Trustworthiness	.34	.32*
Physical attractiveness		.53*
Adjusted R²	.37	.59
R² change		.22
F value	54.45*	97.20*

All beta coefficients are standardized.

p < .001.

Male = 1, female = 2.

Discussion

Enhancement and attraction

The first goal of this study was to investigate the effect of beautification techniques on ratings of attractiveness in online dating profile pictures. In this study, the beautified profile pictures were created by adding make-up to the individual and styling their hair before the picture was taken, as well as using flattering lighting and angles. The findings revealed a significant difference between the two pictures (i.e. the natural and beautified pictures of the same individual), such that the beautified picture was perceived as more attractive than the natural picture for both the woman’s and man’s profiles. These results reinforce the effectiveness of subtle beautification techniques a means of enhancing one’s attractiveness.

Empirically validating such differences in online dating environments using an experimental design is important for several reasons. First, attractiveness is not easily manipulated because it can be a relative concept, and thus finding that relatively minor enhancements to an individuals’ picture can change the perceived attractiveness of that individual is noteworthy. Second, the significant difference found between the two profile pictures carries even greater impact due to the fact that participants were only exposed to one profile and thus did not compare the pictures. Third, although this manipulation is minor in relation to the editing that may take place within the modeling and advertising industries, the significant difference in the ratings of the two profile pictures demonstrates that these techniques are still effective for an online dating user looking for a simple means of enhancing attractiveness. Revealing that subtle beautification techniques can influence physical attractiveness ratings is especially important in online dating environments, as the perceived attractiveness of the profile picture is the strongest predictor of whether the user will be attracted to the entire profile (Fiore et al., 2008).

These findings also provide important context to Ellison et al.’ (2012) concept of “fudging to get over the hump” (i.e. changing the truth slightly to present one’s best self and capture other user’s initial interest). This study reveals that even small alterations to one’s appearance do, in fact, capture other’s attention by increasing perceptions of attractiveness. While Toma and Hancock (2010) found that less attractive daters posted self-enhancing photographs to make themselves look more attractive, the results of this study indicate that even the same person can enhance their picture to increase perceived attractiveness. These findings may not only help individuals create online dating profiles that are perceived as more attractive, but they may also suggest that online users need to be aware of the fact that attractiveness in pictures is highly malleable and online pictures may not represent real-world realities.

Women, men, and trustworthiness

The present findings also expand our understanding of assessments of interpersonal trustworthiness in online dating environments and identify sex differences not previously revealed in online dating research. More specifically, women rated the man with the enhanced profile picture as more trustworthy than the man with the unenhanced picture. This finding can possibly be explained by the halo effect, which states that the first quality we see or feel about another person will affect the way we perceive that person later (Bak and Koln, 2010). In online dating profiles, the profile picture provides the first impression and therefore influences how users perceive other qualities about that person. Previous research by Dion et al. (1972) found that participants rated more attractive targets as more likely to possess socially desirable qualities compared to less attractive individuals, supporting the idea of the attractiveness halo effect. In this study, women may have found the man with the enhanced picture to be more trustworthy because they associated the attractiveness of the individual with positive characteristics.

Interestingly, in this study, the halo effect does not appear to apply to men’s perceptions of women’s trustworthiness. Men perceived the woman with the unenhanced profile picture to be more trustworthy than the beautified profile picture. Although attractiveness in offline settings correlates with credibility and trustworthiness (Dion et al., 1972), the present research found the opposite patterns for men’s perceptions of female online daters, which revealed a negative association between attractiveness and authenticity (Lo et al., 2013).

It is also possible that men found the enhanced picture to be too attractive, which may have led them to believe that the woman had misrepresented her appearance in some way. In other words, seeing an attractive woman in an online dating environment may increase suspicions regarding the accuracy of the picture and the trustworthiness of the individual. Although speculative, it is possible that the use of make-up and styling is perceived more critically in online dating environments than in face-to-face (FtF) interactions. In online environments, perceiving someone as being “too attractive” or overly beautified might become a cue to deception or “catfishing” (i.e. creating a false online profile), but in FtF contexts, where a person’s existence is easier to validate, such techniques may be considered more acceptable.

Relatedly, previous research in this area has suggested that women are more likely to misrepresent their appearances in an effort to obtain the attention of other online daters (Hall et al., 2010; Lo et al., 2013), and men may have picked up on this possibility, thus rating the woman in the enhanced profile picture as less trustworthy. Yet, among those same men, the enhanced profile picture led to higher perceptions of physical attractiveness, which was a significant predictor of their desire to date the person in the profile, creating a unique hypocrisy of sorts. Although speculative, men may be better able to recognize (and perhaps be troubled by) alterations to women’s beauty and appearance (e.g. hair, make-up, and fashion) in online settings, but though this awareness influences perceived trustworthiness, it does not ultimately affect perceived attractiveness or desire to date.

Similarity in online dating

Previous research has identified that perceived similarity with another can have a positive influence on whom an individual may choose to date, and who they are initially attracted to (McPherson et al., 2001). However, a quantitative assessment of the relationships between similarity, attractiveness, and intention to date had yet to be tested in the context of online dating. Furthermore, the potential mediating effect of trustworthiness on these relationships in online dating environments had also not been considered. The findings from this study extend this line of research by revealing that similarity is indirectly related to attractiveness through trustworthiness (though the association was only partially mediated). In other words, greater perceptions of similarity predict increased perceptions of trustworthiness, which contributed to individuals being perceived as more attractive. These findings corroborate previous research, which finds that people have more positive perceptions of similar others and are more likely to want to date those who they believe to be similar in terms of interests, values, beliefs, and other characteristics (McPherson et al., 2001). Perceiving an individual as similar reinforces parts of one’s identity and validates one’s worldviews (Reis and Shaver, 1988). Therefore, individuals may be more trusting of similar others because they feel a sense of connection and understanding. It is also possible that individuals perceive similar others as more trusting (and therefore more attractive) because their uncertainty is reduced by a similar other (Antheunis et al., 2010). Interestingly, although picture enhancement was associated with perceptions of trustworthiness earlier, the indirect effects model detailed above did not vary based on whether individuals viewed an enhanced or unenhanced profile picture. These findings suggest that similarity functions independently of picture enhancement, and that similarity is equally important for individuals regardless of the type of picture they are viewing.

Behavioral intentions to date and related implications

A final goal of this study was to investigate behavioral dating intentions. Results revealed that perceived attractiveness of the profile picture is positively associated with an individual’s desire to date the person. The results also showed that perceived trustworthiness of the person in the profile positively influences an individual’s desire to date them; however, this relationship was not as strong. These results are especially interesting when considering the previous finding that men found the woman with the enhanced profile picture to be less trustworthy. Despite these decreased perceptions of trust, men still preferred to date the more attractive woman. These findings suggest that even when a woman is not perceived as trustworthy, this may not stop a man from messaging or asking someone with a very attractive profile picture to go on a date. One possible explanation for these findings is that men may be willing to take greater risks in online dating. Men may take more risks in online dating due to the higher failure rate they experience when attempting to communicate with women online (Hickey, 2013). While women who send messages to men their own age have a 17.5% chance of receiving a response, men who do the same only have a 4% chance (Hickey, 2013). This means that if a woman wants to be 90% sure she will receive a response, then she only has to send 13 messages, but a man will have to send 58 messages to have the same chance (Hickey, 2013).

Limitations and future directions

As a result of the experimental design, the conditions were controlled to ensure that accurate comparisons could be made across conditions. However, as a result of the exerted control across conditions, the external validity of the stimulus itself was limited. The profiles were not interactive as they might be in an externally valid scenario. In addition to this, the profiles only featured one picture, which allowed for a controlled comparison across the conditions; however, a more generalizable profile might have offered multiple pictures of the same person. There was also a unique difference between the unenhanced male and female profile pictures, such that the male is not wearing a shirt. This was an attempt to portray the unenhanced male as being unkempt in the photo, yet it does pose a limitation in the comparison of the male and female condition in regard to their clothing appearance. Finally, a limitation of the study is that participants’ own experiences with online dating were not assessed, and thus it is unclear whether individuals with previous experience with online dating websites assess profile picture enhancement differently than those with less or no experience.

Future research in this area should attempt to create a controlled design that would allow participants to explore a dating profile with multiple pictures, as many individuals choose to present multiple images of themselves in their dating profiles. This would also allow for more complex manipulations involving the types of pictures presented (e.g. a profile with all enhanced pictures, a profile with all natural pictures, a profile with half enhanced, and half natural pictures). Future research should also look to compare profiles with altered pictures and varied descriptive characteristics to determine whether there is a difference in perceived attractiveness based on other profile features such as geographic location, job title, or hobbies. Finally, future research would benefit from investigating the influence of picture enhancement in other social media settings. For example, it would be interesting to explore whether similar differences in trustworthiness arise when individuals enhance their profile pictures on job networking websites such as LinkedIn, and the implications of such perceptions on hiring and employment opportunities.

Finally, a more complex design might attempt to maintain control while also offering multiple profiles for the participants to select from. Individuals have different preferred tastes and types, and therefore some participants may not have considered the two individuals featured in the dating profiles appealing, with or without enhancements. A more elaborate design might increase the generalizability of future findings.

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Rory McGloin’s research is focused on the effects of media interactions. In particular, he is interested in the process by which individuals interact with a mediated environment and the subsequent affect those interactions have on their perceptions of certain outcomes, such as perceived realism, immersion, enjoyment, and trustworthiness.

Amanda Denes’ research focuses on communication in various types of interpersonal relationships such as romantic relationships, parent–child relationships, and friendships. In particular, she is interested in why individuals disclose information about themselves to others, how they disclose that information, and the effects of such disclosures on individuals and their relationships.

References

Antheunis

Valkenburg

Peter

(2010) Getting acquainted through social network sites: testing a model of online uncertainty reduction and social attraction. Computers in Human Behavior 26(1): 100–109.

Bak

Koln

(2010) Sex differences in attractiveness halo effect in online dating environment. Journal of Business and Media Psychology 1: 1–7.

Boltz

Dyer

Miller

(2010) Jo are you lying to me? Temporal cues for deception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29(4): 458–466.

Brand

Bonatsos

D’Orazio

. (2012) What is beautiful is good, even online: correlations between photo attractiveness and text attractiveness in men’s online dating profiles. Computers in Human Behavior 28: 166–170.

Buss

(1988) The evolution of human intrasexual competition: tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(4): 616–628.

Buss

Schmitt

(1993) Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review 100(2): 204–232.

Byrne

(1997) An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 14(3): 417–431.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics (2012) Body measurements. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm

Dion

Bersheid

Walster

(1972) What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24(3): 285–290.

10.

Eastwick

Finkel

(2008) Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94: 245–264.

11.

Ellison

Hancock

Toma

(2012) Profile as promise: a framework for conceptualizing veracity in online dating self-presentations. New Media & Society 14(1): 45–62.

12.

Feingold

(1991) Sex differences in the effects of similarity and physical attractiveness on opposite-sex attraction. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 12(3): 357–367.

13.

Feng

Lazar

Preece

(2004) Empathic and predictable communication influences online interpersonal trust. Behavior and Information Technology 23: 97–106.

14.

Fink

Penton-Voak

(2002) Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11(5): 154–158.

15.

Fiore

Taylor

Mendelsohn

. (2008) Assessing attractiveness in online dating profiles. In: Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Florence, 5–10 April, pp. 797–806. New York: ACM.

16.

Grammer

Thornhill

(1994) Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology 108(3): 233–242.

17.

Guadagno

Okdie

Kruse

(2012) Dating deception: gender, online dating, and exaggerated self-presentation. Computers in Human Behavior 28(2): 642–647.

18.

Hall

Park

Song

. (2010) Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: the effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(1): 117–135.

19.

Hancock

Toma

(2009) Putting your best face forward: the accuracy of online dating profile photographs. Journal of Communication 59(2): 367–386.

20.

Hayes

(2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

21.

Hickey

(2013) Here’s how many messages men have to send to women on a dating site to be sure of getting a response. Business Insider, 17 July. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/online-dating-message-statistics-2013-7

22.

Kellerman

Reynolds

(1990) When ignorance is bliss: The role of motivation to reduce uncertainty in uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research 17(1): 5–75.

23.

Langlois

Kalakanis

Rubenstein

. (2000) Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin 126: 390–423.

24.

Hsieh

Chiu

(2013) Contradictory deceptive behavior in online dating. Computers in Human Behavior 29(4): 1755–1762.

25.

McCroskey

McCain

(1974) The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs 41(3): 261–266.

26.

McCroskey

Teven

(1999) Goodwill: a reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs 66: 90–103.

27.

McCroskey

Richmond

Daly

(1975) The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research 1(4): 323–332.

28.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Cook

(2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415–444.

29.

Meltzer

McNulty

Jackson

. (2014) Sex differences in the implications of partner physical attractiveness for the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 106(3): 418–428.

30.

Miller

(2009) Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior. New York: Penguin Books.

31.

Montoya

Insko

(2008) Toward a more complete understanding of the reciprocity of liking effect. European Journal of Social Psychology 38: 477–498.

32.

Morry

(2007) The attraction-similarity hypothesis among cross-sex friends: relationship satisfaction, perceived similarities, and self-serving perceptions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 24(1): 117–138.

33.

Mulhern

Fieldman

Hussey

. (2003) Do cosmetics enhance female Caucasian facial attractiveness? International Journal of Cosmetic Science 25(4): 199–205.

34.

Nash

Fieldman

Hussey

. (2006) Cosmetics: they influence more than Caucasian female facial attractiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36(2): 493–504.

35.

Preacher

Hayes

(2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36: 717–731.

36.

Reis

Shaver

(1988) Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In: Duck

Hay

Hobfoll

. (eds) Handbook of Personal Relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 367–389.

37.

Russell

(2009) A sex difference in facial contrast and its exaggeration by cosmetics. Perception 38(8): 1211–1219.

38.

Scheflen

(1965) Quasi-courtship behavior in psychotherapy. Psychiatry 28(3): 245–257.

39.

Singh

Simons

JJP

Young

DPCY

. (2009) Trust and respect as mediators of the other- and self-profitable trait effects on interpersonal attraction. European Journal of Social Psychology 39: 1021–1038.

40.

Singh

Wegener

Sankaran

. (2015) On the importance of trust in interpersonal attraction from attitude similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 32: 829–850.

41.

Thornhill

Gangestad

(1996) The evolution of human sexuality. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11(2): 98–102.

42.

Toma

(2010) Perceptions of trustworthiness online: the role of visual and textual information. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Savannah, GA, 6–10 February, pp. 13–22. New York: ACM.

43.

Toma

Hancock

(2010) Looks and lies: the roles of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication Research 37(3): 335–351.

44.

Toma

Hancock

(2012) What lies beneath: the linguistic traces of deception in online dating profiles. Journal of Communication 62(1): 78–97.

45.

Walther

(1996) Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research 23(1): 1–43.