There is a good chance that a majority of these nine users are lying in some aspect of their profile, but is it their fault? Not all dishonesty found in online dating profiles is intentional on the part of the user. According to Catalina L. Toma and Jeffrey T. Hancock online dating sites are communities “where users have distinct self-presentational goals and where the medium of communication shapes the expression of these goals” (336). These online dating communities have been subjects of scrutiny from multiple scholarly sources when it comes to the honesty of the information presented on these sites, and validate that misrepresentations are indeed prevalent in the online dating community. The “medium of communication” places limitations on how users are able to present themselves. Match.com’s profile format tends to control user expression by not providing certain answer options, as well as providing too many choices with different connotations for the same trait and deciding for users what characteristics can be considered “deal breakers.”
The format of Match.com
controls the expression of users through the answer choices that the site
provides during the process of creating a profile In “Self-Presentation in Online Personals the Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self-Disclosure, and Perceived Successin Internet Dating” (2006) Jennifer L.
Gibbs, Nicole B. Ellison and Rebecca D. Heino study the effects of
self-disclosure on online dating, the amount and type of personal information
users disclose, how honest the information is, and how it affects
self-perceived success (154-60). The
study used approximately 350 Match.com users, and 40% of these users
admitted to misrepresenting their marital status (169-70). What the article fails to consider is that in
the profile editor on this online dating site under the “relationships”
category the only response options are “never married,” “divorced,” “widowed,”
or “separated” (Match.com). I found no
option for someone to say they are currently married or in an open marriage. So while 40% of the sample of Match.com users
admitted that the marital status on their profile was inaccurate, it is likely
that some portion of these were due to the fact that there simply was no way
for them to be honest, as “married” was not a response option in this category.
I found in the About Match.com section of the website that site frequently referred to its users as “singles,” indicating that this is the demographic they aim for (Match.com). Perhaps Match.com does not offer “married” as an option because it does not want to be seen, or used, as a site where married people seek additional partners.
I found in the About Match.com section of the website that site frequently referred to its users as “singles,” indicating that this is the demographic they aim for (Match.com). Perhaps Match.com does not offer “married” as an option because it does not want to be seen, or used, as a site where married people seek additional partners.
Match.com controls users’ emphasis on within their profiles by only allowing them to clarify or expand upon their answers in certain categories. For example in the categories ethnicity, faith, and career users have the option to expand upon their answers in a comment box (usually in 250 characters or less). However, other categories such as body type and political views do not have a comment box where users can expand upon their answers (Match.com). The site decides what is important enough to expand upon, not the users. This may create misrepresentation in another way; if users cannot tell from a person’s profile what is actually important to them it may cause them to have trouble connecting with the person, as they may have an inaccurate picture of who they are
Match.com also presents too many options for users in some instances; some of the terms provided may have very similar meanings, but with different connotations. This may cause the different perspectives of the profile creator and the profile user to create a sense of misrepresentation even if it was unintentional. The male response options for “body type” are “no answer,” “slender,” “about average,” “athletic and toned,” “heavy set,” “a few extra pounds,” and “stocky.” For females the response options for “body type” are more numerous: “no answer,” “slender,” “big and beautiful,” “about average,” “curvy,” “athletic and toned,” “full-figured,” “heavyset,” “a few extra pounds,” or “stocky” (Match.com). The difference between many of these descriptors is subject to perspective. In many cases the response would depend on the person’s self-confidence when it comes to their body, not necessarily a realistic portrayal, whether it is done purposefully or not. What one user who creates a profile considers“a few extra pounds” another user who views the profile might consider “heavy-set.”
The options provided by Match.com cause perspective to be an issue in the process of viewer profile analysis; this difference between intention and perception is magnified when multiple descriptors are available with similar meanings. The article “Profile as Promises: A Framework for Conceptualizing Veracity in Online Dating Self-Presentations” (2011) by Nicole B. Ellison, Jeffrey T. Hancock, and Catalina L. Toma conduct research regarding the dishonest disclosure in online dating. One individual in this study admitted to having a bit of a “tummy” but said that he still entered his profile body type description as “athletic.” He explained this saying, “I still have muscles even if they are covered” (54). However, there is a good chance someone who views his profile and sees that he has put his body type as “athletic” would feel he was being dishonest because of his “tummy.” What he considers “athletic” another could consider “stocky,” “average,” or “a few extra pounds.”
If
misrepresentation is not due to the format of the profile editor then, then it
would be caused by users lying in order to represent themselves in an
attractive light or their perception of themselves is not completely
accurate. In their article “What Lies Beneath: The Linguistic Traces of Deception in Online Dating” (2012) Catalina L. Toma and Jeffrey T.
Hancock define these two concepts as “desirable responding” and
“self-awareness,” reporting these as the two main problems with self-reporting in
these communities (15).
Even within these user-created misrepresentations, Match.com still manages to influence users through seemingly helpful resources, such as the Dating Articles and Advice page that contain articles written to help users be successful on the website. One article, “Which Profile Caught My Eye” (2011) by Julie Taylor is aimed at cluing users in on what grabs the attention of potential partners; she gives advice on everything from profile pictures, to hobbies, to trendy cultural tidbits that might entice viewers (Match.com). But just because it's attractive on a profile does not mean it is necessarily true; what are the chances that every Match.com user is a fan of pop culture?
Even within these user-created misrepresentations, Match.com still manages to influence users through seemingly helpful resources, such as the Dating Articles and Advice page that contain articles written to help users be successful on the website. One article, “Which Profile Caught My Eye” (2011) by Julie Taylor is aimed at cluing users in on what grabs the attention of potential partners; she gives advice on everything from profile pictures, to hobbies, to trendy cultural tidbits that might entice viewers (Match.com). But just because it's attractive on a profile does not mean it is necessarily true; what are the chances that every Match.com user is a fan of pop culture?
The method Match.com provides for users to represent their physical appearance and weight is qualitative not quantitative, making answers more subjective to opinion. The article “Online Dating: A Critical Analysis from the Perspective of Psychological Science” (2012) by Eli J. Finkel, Paul W. Eastwick, Benjamin R. Karney, Harry T. Reis, and Susan Sprecher say that when Toma, Hancock, and Ellison in 2008 compared the profiles of a sample of online daters with average national characteristics their findings indicated some degree of dishonesty within this type of community. Women reported weighing 5.4 to 22.9 pounds less than the national average weight depending on their age group and 1 inch taller, the older the age the greater the discrepancy (15). If there is a numeric option for entering weight the user can be blamed for blatantly misrepresenting themselves and lying about their weight and physical appearance; however, Match.com uses qualitative responses, descriptors, versus a more quantitative response, such as a numeric weight. The height, on the other hand, is asked for in numeric form, so any misrepresentation of height is the fault of the user.
“Deal
breakers” are traits or habits that a person is not willing to tolerate in a
partner, and for a viewer to be aware of these the site must provide a means
for users to identify these specific characteristics as unacceptable. Being
unable to identify these “deal breakers” could be taken as an inaccurate
representation of self by a viewer who later discovers they possess
unacceptable qualities, which they were unaware of. In the profile editor of
this specific site certain lifestyle aspects have the option to be marked as
“deal breakers”. This includes smoking
and drinking habits, current children, the desire to have children in the future,
and relationships. Preferences are asked of the categories “language,” “faith,”
“ethnicity,” and “education level,” but none of these can be flagged marked as
“deal breakers” as certain lifestyle aspects can be (Match.com). This does not allow users to signify any
other traits, preferences, or lifestyle choices they may not be willing to
tolerate in a relationship; another way in which the format of this website’s
profile may create an inaccurate picture of a user.
While studies have shown that members of online dating communities have admitted to purposely misrepresenting themselves, not all of what users perceive as dishonest representation on these sites is intentional. The format of the profiles provided by these sites may prevent users from accurately and honestly representing themselves to others within the community. While some of these limitations may have simply been a format error on the part of the website, others may have been intentional; such as the site not allowing for users to identify ethnicity or faith as “deal breakers.” In these cases Match.com may not have wanted to become a community segregated by race or religion so they did not provide the option for users to mark these traits as unacceptable, or “deal breakers.” In the case of not providing answer such as “married” the site may not have wanted to be presented as a place where married people could seek additional partners, as they did not want to be seen as a means for cheating. So while Match.com may prevent users from expressing certain preferences through the construction of their profiles, this may be due to how this particular website wishes to be seen and used within this online community; however, some of these limitations placed on user expression may lead to perceived dishonesty.
Works Cited:
Ellison,
Nicole B., Jeffrey T. Hancock, and Catalina L. Toma. "Profile as Promise:
a Framework for Conceptualizing Veracity in Online Dating
Self-Presentations." New Media & Society 14.1 (2012): 45-62. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 24 Oct. 2012. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=71964406&site=ehost-live
Gibbs,
Jennifer L., Nicole B. Ellison, and Rebecca D. Heino. "Self-Presentation
in Online Personals the Role of Anticipated Future Interaction,
Self-Disclosure, and Perceived Success in Internet Dating." Communication
Research 33.2 (2006): 152-177. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Sept. 2012.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=20492508&site=ehost-live
Match.com
Profile Editor. Match.com. 9 April 2012. Web. 12 Oct. 2012. www.match.com
Susan
Sprecher, et al. "Online Dating: A Critical Analysis from the Perspective
of Psychological Science." Psychological Science in the Public Interest
(Sage Publications Inc.) 13.1 (2012): 3-66. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14
Sept. 2012.
Taylor, Julie. “Which Profile Caught My Eye.” Match.com. 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. http://www.match.com/magazine/article/5353/Which-Profile-Caught-My-Eye/
Taylor, Julie. “Which Profile Caught My Eye.” Match.com. 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. http://www.match.com/magazine/article/5353/Which-Profile-Caught-My-Eye/
Toma,
Catalina L., and Jeffrey T. Hancock. "What Lies Beneath: The Linguistic
Traces of Deception in Online Dating Profiles." Journal of Communication
62.1 (2012): 78-97. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 Oct. 2012. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=71243259&site=ehost-live
Fascinating article. While dishonesty on the internet and dating is not a brand new idea in our culture, it is strange to think that a large amount of users' misportrayal of themselves is not from their own actions but from the manipulations of the websites they use. The idea of the specific (and possibly biased)sample of choices to answer certain questions such as marriage status and body type is very thought provoking; could online dating sites be trying to weed out certain types of users, or are they trying to increase their match-making numbers by hiding their users' possible flaws?
ReplyDeleteI had never thought before that the misrepresentation that goes on in online communities could be the fault of the website itself and not the user. I think that the site's manipulation of answers by providing certain answers is in self-interest to the company- they will only grow in size if they appeal to the 'right' kind of people and show that they're a legitimate form of meeting quality people, and not an online expedient to less-accepted forms of relationships. I wonder what the application of this argument could do to other websites, such as Facebook. Facebook is similar in it's usage of profiles, and could be analysed from this angle in terms of user honesty and manipulation by the site itself.
ReplyDeleteI did not know any of the subtle discriminations against certain demographics, nor did I know about the potential for unconscious lies. I'm wondering what the percentage of people are in a marriage already but put "single" in their relationship status. Also, are certain things not deal-breakers because of potential flak the site might receive for things like religious discrimination? Or were certain things taken off the deal-breaker options because a civil suit was filed because of discrimination? above everything else, I would like to know how often these people find out about these unintentional misrepresentations about the people they are dating and what becomes of them.
ReplyDeleteThis topic is intriguing. It is strange to think that the internet partially determines how we portray ourselves rather than us determining our internet portrayal.I wonder if there is an element of Match.com's portrayal of itself as a company through the questions and answers it writes. This could be part of the reason users are forced to be dishonest. For example, while it may be limiting to exclude "married" or "open marriage" as a relationship option, Match.com may appear to subtly support that type of lifestyle if it were included as an answer choice.
ReplyDeleteAs I gathered while reading and as you concluded, the website is obviously trying to remain proper and socially acceptable for the most part by allowing for participants to only say they are single, not provide controversial topics as religion and politics as deal breakers, and weight which is generally something impolite to ask people. But I would like to know if you think allowing for more options and honesty would make users of the site even more successful. Things such as religion and politics have so much gray area that two people who are different parties may actually be completely left and right and end up not being able to get along at all since that is something they take very seriously. Although this unintended dishonesty could allow for relationships to form where they may not have before, for example my best friend and I have completely opposite political views and we still get along great. So I wonder if the makers of the site believed people could get along if they get to know someone before learning certain aspects about them or have they done it because they were trying to keep a positive image and remain socially acceptable..Very interesting topic! Glad I finally got to learn a little about it.
ReplyDeleteI found your topic so interesting, I spent 15 min making a Match.com profile just to see if I agree with your claims in this article (I deleted it right away though! hahaha). I definitely agree that the questions for myself were difficult to answer, sometimes because there were too many options and sometimes because there weren't enough! I was not sure what body type I am, because I felt like none of the body types listed matched what I am. Also, I find it interesting that you mentioned how the website puts pressure on you to make your profile seem attractive to others, and this may provoke some to lie. I didn't add a picture of myself, and when I chose not to do this, the website told me that my profile will not get as many views if I do not upload one. I found this very interesting! Great job on your project!
ReplyDeleteI definitely think your most interesting claims were about how Match.com decided which categories they could expand upon and which categories they could flag. It seems to me that that could definitely not allow users to express themselves fully, or "truthfully," but doesn't really serve a purpose to Match.com either. On the other hand, the lack of a marriage option allows, or even forces, dishonesty, but the reasons behind doing so are relatively clear. I also feel like even if that was an option, a married person would not choose it because dating while married is not considered socially acceptable. It would certainly be interesting to see if people would use that label though.
ReplyDeleteHi Angela! I agree with everyone else, your topic is really interesting! First of all, you have a great hook into your paper. I find it so interesting that Match.com seems to give you many options, but also has so much control over what your answer could be. It may feel to a user as if the choices are numerous, but the fact that they are all already defined tells me that Match.com wants to keep quite a bit of power in the process. I also was interested to learn that the number of answers for females about body type is much more numerous than the males' possible responses. Could this be because of the amount of focus in the media on women's body type, and not as much for men? I think I may try what Sam did, and make a profile! To me, the comparison is very interesting. Overall, a very good job!
ReplyDeleteI think the site is trying to avoid becoming segregated by certain characteristics, and for this reason does not allow certain things to be flagged as “deal breakers.” I feel like trying to hide user flaws would be counterproductive in trying to increase the number of relationships formed on the site because when users met face to face and discovered the flaws masked by the profile format the relationship would be unsuccessful.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Perry, that the site most likely wants to avoid becoming a place for people to cheat on their spouses and that is why they do not provide a way for users to identify themselves as married because the site wishes to discourage that group of people from participating in Match.com’s online dating community. Though I agree with Jasmine, and wonder how many married people would actually opt to be honest if provided with the choice.
The observation of the more numerous body type choices for women versus less for men was something that I noticed too while conducting my research. I would guess that it probably is due to pressure from society and the media when it comes to women’s physical appearance.
For anyone who didn't make a profile, here's a video that gives you a better idea of the inner workings of a Match.com profile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMqHh9638L0
Thanks for reading!
Angela, it seems like online dating (a very, very common way for people to meet now) is just as challenging as in-person dating in some ways. From your essay, there are many ways in which a profile may not be honest--a site might dictate or influence terms, a person may misrepresent themselves in order to seem more appealing or a person may be fooling her/himself, too!
ReplyDeleteI wonder if sites tend to include more pictures as an attempt of veracity? Though photographs, too, can mislead, too, in ways that an audience may not notice...
--Prof. Bates
Now a days Major comapnies focuson Digital terminolgy. Dhow cruise Dubai
ReplyDelete