NESSA NGUYEN BritneyBritney (1:00) Gaga (4:22) Kesha (1:10)GagaKesha

ON TARGET Deception in online dating Overview Evidence of popularity Attitudes toward online dating Strategies in online dating Discussion Online dating

ON TARGET Growth of online dating services - Revenue quadrupled from 2001 to 2002, $72 - $302 million (comScore, Mulrine & Hsu, 2003) - $470 million in 2004 (OPA, Madden & Lenhart, 2006) - 45 million Americans visited an online dating site (comScore, Hamron, 2003) - Match.com’s study (2010): 1 in 5 singles have dated online, 1 in 5 couples met online

ON TARGET Niche markets of online dating Segmentation Religion Race Age Education Interest Websites Jdate, Christian Mingle, Christian Singles Black Singles, Black People Meet, Black Planet Matchmaker vs. Nerve Personal, Plenty Of Fish, OkCupid, Zoosk The Right Stuff Science Connection

ON TARGET RESEARCH ON ONLINE DATING Literature review

ON TARGET SURVEY STATISTICS - 61% of American adults know someone who has dated online - Think it’s a good way to meet people + Adults: 44% + Single & looking: 61% + Online daters: 80% - Do not think it’s “desperate” + Adults: 61% + Single & looking: 80% + Online daters: 80% -Think it poses danger: + Adults: two thirds + Single & looking: two thirds + Online daters: 43% Madden & Lenhart (2006) Pew Internet & American Life Project

ON TARGET Deception in online dating profiles - Compared to identity construction Facebook (nonymity) (Zhao, Grasmuck & Martin, 2008) + More honest & accountable + Project a more desirable self - Deception about age (Epstein, 2007) + Men: Increased distribution at 32, 36 + Women: age spikes at 29, 35, 44 - Lies about physical appearances (Hitsch, Hortacsu & Ariely, 2004) + Women lie more about weight: 6lbs, 18lbs, 20lbs discrepancies in their 20s, 30s, 40s + Men lie more about height + BMIs are lower than national averages (2-4 pts for women, 1 for men)

ON TARGET Strategies in online dating - Toma, Hancock & Ellison (2008): + Lies about weight & height were small in magnitude + Participants who were farther from the mean lied more + Strategically balanced deception with anticipated constraints - Uncertainty reduction techniques (Gibbs, Ellision & Lai, 2010) + Warranting: indirect, e.g. Googling, picking up on cues + Self-disclosure: to prompt reciprocal self-disclosure + Information-seeking strategies - Third-party confirmation/shared social network + Engage.com encourages family members/friends to join + Community approach (Epstein, 2007), word-of-mouth marketing

ON TARGET - Stemmed from people’s needs for meeting suitable, long-term partners - Facilitated by extensive use of the Internet & computer- mediated communication - Does not substitute long- term face-to-face interaction - More sophisticated services & dollars in marketing - Future research: matching techniques, screening users, how to utilize services Discussion: Online dating

ON TARGET Bibliography Epstein, R. (2007, January). The truth about online dating. Scientific American Mind, 3(20), Hamron, A. (2003, June 29). Online dating sheds its stigma as losers.com. New York Times. Hitsch, G. J., Hortacsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2005, January). What makes you click: An empirical analysis of online dating. Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Lai, C. (2010). First comes love, then comes Google: an investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research, 38(1), doi: / Madden, M., & Lenhart, A. (2006). Online dating. Pew Internet & American Life Project, Match.com. (2010). Recent trends: Online dating. Retrieved from Mulrine, A. & Hsu, C. (2003, September 29). Love.com. U.S. News & World Report, 135(10), Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), doi: / Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S. & Martin J. (2008, September). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5),