Impact of self-descriptions and photographs on mediated dating interest

Marriage and Family Review

Volumn 46, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 538-562

  de Vries, Jan M A ^a  

^a TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Attractiveness; Mate choice; Mediated dating; Online dating; Visual and language processing

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955412426     PISSN: 01494929     EISSN: 15409635     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01494929.2010.543038     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. Ahuvia, A. C., & Adelman, A. C. (1992). Formal intermediaries in the marriage market: A typology and review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54(2), 452-463.
2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3. Albright, J. M. (2007). How do I love thee and thee and thee: Self-presentation, deception and multiple relationships online. In M. T. Whitty, A. J. Baker & J. A. Inman (Eds.), Online matchmaking, (pp. 81-93). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
4. Asch, S. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290.
5. Aronson, E. (2004). The social animal (9th ed.). New York, NY: Worth. Barber, N. (1994). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395-424.
6. Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. M. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 173-189.
7. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical Attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 157-215). New York, NY: Academic Press.
8. Blaize, H. R., & Schroeder, J. E. (1995). Personality and mate selection in personal ads: Evolutionary preferences in a public mate selection process. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(3), 517-536.
9. Brase, G. L. (2006). Cues of parental investment as a factor in attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 145-157.
10. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic Press.
11. Buss, D. M. (1985). Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73, 47-51.
12. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate pReferences Evolutionary hypotheses testing in 37 cultures. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
13. Buss, D. M. (1998). The psychology of mate selection: Exploring the complexity of the strategic repertoire. In C. Crawford & D. L. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
15. Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. F. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
16. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
17. Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63(2), 491-503.
18. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.
19. Chapdelaine, A., Levesque, M. J., & Cuadro, R. M. (1999). Playing the dating game: Do we know whom others would like to date? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(2), 139-147.
20. Claypool, H. M., & Carlston, D. E. (2002). The effects of verbal and visual interference on impressions: An associate-systems approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 425-433.
21. Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: Fifty years of a classic theory. London, UK: Sage.
22. Dawson, B. L., & McIntosh, W. D. (2006). Sexual strategies theory and internet personal advertisements. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 9(5), 614-617.
23. De Vries, J. M. A., Swenson, L., & Walsh, R. P. (2007). Hot picture or great self-description: Predicting mediated dating success with parental investment theory. Marriage and Family Review, 42(3), 7-34.
24. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
25. Donn, J. E., & Sherman, R. C. (2002). Attitudes and practices regarding the formation of romantic relationships on the Internet. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5(2), 107-123.
26. Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 415-441.
27. Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 981-993.
28. Ferreia, F., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2007). Introduction to the special issue of language-vision interactions. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(4), 455-459.
29. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
30. Fisher, R. A. (1958). The genetical theory of natural selection (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Dover.
31. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
32. Gaulin, S. J. C., & McBurney, D. H. (2001). Psychology: An evolutionary approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
33. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Towards an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69-96.
34. Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Sexual selection and physical attractiveness: Implications for mating dynamics. Human Nature, 4(3), 205-235.
35. Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). Human sexual selection and developmental stability. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 169-195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Geiselman, R. E., Haight, N. A., & Kimate, L. G. (1984). Context effects on the perceived physical attractiveness of faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20(5), 409-424.
37. Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in internet dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152-177.
38. Gil-Burmann, C., Pelaez, F., & Sanchez, S. (2002). Mate choice differences according to sex and age: An analysis of personal advertisements in Spanish newspapers. Human Nature, 13(4), 493-508.
39. Gladue, B. A., & Delaney, J. J. (1990). Gender differences in perception of attractiveness of men and women in bars. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 278-391.
40. Goode, E. (1996). Gender and courtship entitlements: Responses to personal ads. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 34, 141-169.
41. Goodwin, R. (1990). Sex Differences among partner preferences: Are the sexes really very similar? Sex Roles, 23(9), 501-513.
42. Green, S. K., Buchanan, D. R., & Heuer, S. K. (1984). Winners, losers, and choosers: A field investigation of dating initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(4), 502-511.
43. Greiling, H. (1995). Women's mate preferences across contexts. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society,University of California, July 8, 1995, Santa Barbara, CA.
44. Greiling, H., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Womeńs sexual strategies: The hidden dimension of short term extra-pair mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 929-963.
45. Griskevicius, V., Sundie, J. M., Miller, G. F., Tybur, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 85-102.
46. Hagiwara, S. (1975). Visual versus verbal information in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(4), 692-698.
47. Hahn, J., & Blass, T. (1997). Dating preferences: A function of similarity of love styles. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(3), 695-610.
48. Harrison, A. A., & Saeed, L. (1977). Let's make a deal: An analysis of revelations and stipulations in lonely hearts advertisements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 257-264.
49. Henderson, J. J. A., & Anglin, J. M. (2003). Facial attractiveness predicts longevity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(5), 351-356.
50. Houts, R. M., Robins, E., & Huston, T. L. (1996). Compatibility and the development of premarital relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 7-20.
51. Howard, J. A., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1987). Social or evolutionary theories? Some observations on preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 194-200.
52. Huston, T. L. (1973). Ambiguity of Acceptance, social desirability, and dating choices. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 32-42.
53. Jones, D., & Hill, K. (1993). Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Human Nature, 4(3), 271-296.
54. Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1989). Time to integrate sociobiology and social psychology. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 12, 24-26.
55. Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75-133.
56. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227-244.
57. Lacy, S. (2007). A kiss-off to online dating. Business Week Online. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com
58. Lowry, R. (1998-2003). Vassar stats: Web site for statistical computation. Pough-keepsie, NY: Vassar College. Retrieved from http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/rdiff.html
59. Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 468-489.
60. Luo, S., & Klohnen, E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 304-326.
61. Lykken, D. T., & Tellegen, A. (1993). Is human mating adventitious or the result of lawful choice? A twin study of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 56-68.
62. Mehrabian, A. (1989). Marital choice and compatibility as a function of trait similarity-dissimilarity. Psychological Reports, 65, 1202.
63. Merkle, E. R., & Richardson, R. A. (2000). Digital dating and virtual dating: Conceptualizing computer mediated romantic relationships. Family Relations, 49, 187-192.
64. Miller, G. A. (1994). The magical number seven: Plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 101(2), 343-352.
65. Najman, J. M., Dunne, M. P., Purdie, D. M., Boyle, F. M., & Coxeter, P. D. (2006). Sexual partner preferences: Evolutionary imperative, emotional attachment or hedonism. Marriage and Family Review, 40(1), 5-23.
66. Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less is more: The lure of ambiguity or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 97-105.
67. Oda, R. (2001). Sexually dimorphic mate preference in Japan. Human Nature, 12(3), 191-206.
68. Orenstein, S. (2003). The love algorithm Match.com thinks it has found a formula for ruling the fiercely competitive online dating business: A scientific way to find Mr. or Ms. Right. Business 2.0 Magazine. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2003/08/01/346313/index.htm
69. Palmer, J. A., & Palmer, L. K. (2002). Evolutionary psychology: The ultimate origins of human behavior. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
70. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer.
71. Powers, E. A. (1971). Thirty years of research on ideal mate characteristics: What do we know? International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 21, 109-118.
72. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, Kim-Phuong L. (2006). The cognitive revolution at age 50: Has the promise of the human information-processing approach been fulfilled? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 21(3), 253-284.
73. R Development Core Team. (2007). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria, R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
74. Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 186-201.
75. Riggio, R. E., Widaman, K. F., Tucker, J. S., & Salinas, C. (1991). Beauty is more than skin deep: Components of attractiveness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(4), 423-439.
76. Roney, J. R. (2003). Effects of visual exposure to the opposite sex: Cognitive aspects of mate attraction in human mates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 393-404.
77. Russell, R. J. H., & Wells, P. A. (1994). Human assortative mating: Questions oncerning genetic similarity theory. Animal Behavior, 47, 463-464.
78. Schmitt, D. P., & International Sexuality Description Project. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 85-104.
79. Shanteau, J., & Nagy, G. (1979). Probability of acceptance in dating choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(4), 522-533.
80. Sharlott, B. W., & Christ, W. G. (1995). Overcoming relationship-initiation barriers: The impact of a computer-dating system system on sex role, shyness, and appearance inhibitions. Computers in Human Behavior, 11(2), 191-204.
81. Singh, D. (1993). Body shape and womeńs attractiveness: The critical role of waist-to-hip-ratio. Human Nature, 4(3), 297-321.
82. Soler, C., Nunez, M., Gutierrez, R., Nunez, J, Medina, P., Sancho, M., Alvarez, A., & Nunez, A. (2003). Facial Attractiveness in men provides clues to semen quality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 199-207.
83. Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1074-1080.
84. Stack, S. (1996). The effect of physical attractiveness on video dating outcomes. Sociological Focus, 29(1), 83-85.
85. Stoddard, C. (2009). Hooking up and connecting lives: Online dating and the economics of marriage search. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 69(8-A), 3263.
86. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
87. Streeter, S. A., & McBurney, D. H. (2003). Waist-Hip Ration and attractiveness: New evidence and a critique of "a critical test". Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(2), 88-98.
88. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial-verbal reaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
89. Swenson, L. C., Walsh, R. P., & Kim, K. (1993). Desire to date similar others in a video dating service. Paper presented at WPA93 conference, Phoenix, AZ.
90. Takeuchi, S. A. (2006). On the matching phenomenon in courtship: A probability matching theory of mate selection. Marriage & Family Review, 40(1), 25-51.
91. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 131-144.
92. Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. (1998). Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment and criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 171-191.
93. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and natural selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
94. Walsh, R. P., Swenson, L. C., Kessler, M., Giese, L., & Nakashima, C. (1993). Assortive mating in a video dating service. Paper presented at WPA93 conference, Phoenix, AZ.
95. Waynforth, D. (2001). Mate choice trade-offs and womeńs preference for physically attractive men. Human Nature, 12(3), 207-219.
96. Wedel, D. H., Parducci, A., & Geiselman, R. E. (1987). A formal analysis of ratings of physical attractiveness: Successive contrast and simultaneous assimilation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23(3), 230-249.
97. Weiderman, M. W. (1994). Evolved gender differences in mate preferences: Evidence from personal advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 331-352.
98. Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (1994). Social prestige and assortive mating: A comparison of students from 1956 and 1988. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 137-145.
99. Whitty, M. T. (2007). The art of selling one's self on an online dating site: The BAR approach. In M. T. Whitty, A. J. Baker & J. A. Inman (Eds.), Online matchmaking (pp. 57-69). Hamphire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
100. Woll, S. B. (1986). So many to choose from: Decision strategies in video dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 43-52.
101. Woll, S. B., & Cozby, P. C. (1987). Videodating and other alternatives to tradition methods of relationship initiation. Advances in Personal Relationships, 1, 69-108.
102. Woll, S. B., & Young, P. (1989). Looking for Mr. or Ms. Right: Self-presentation in Videodating. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 483-488.
103. Yurchisin, J., Watchravespringkan, K., & Brown McCabe, D. (2005). An exploration of identity re-creation in the context of internet dating. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(8), 735-750.
104. Zarate, M. A., Sanders, J. D., & Azenett, A. G. (2000). Neurological dissociations of social perception process. Social Cognition, 18(3), 223-251.
105. Zelinsky, G. J., & Murphy, G. L. (2000). Synchronizing visual and language processing: An effect of object name length on eye movement. Psychological Science, 11(2), 125-131.
106. Zohar, A., & Guttman, R. (1989). Mate reference in not mate selection. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 12, 38-39.