Putting Your Best Face Forward: The Accuracy of Online Dating Photographs
Abstract
This study examines the accuracy of 54 online dating photographs posted by heterosexual daters. We report data on (a1) online daters' self-reported accuracy, (b) independent judges' perceptions of accuracy, and (c) inconsistencies in the profile photograph identified by trained coders. While online daters rated their photos as relatively accurate, independent judges rated approximately 1/3 of the photographs as not accurate. Female photographs were judged as less accurate than male photographs, and were more likely to be older, to be retouched or taken by a professional photographer, and to contain inconsistencies, including changes in hair style and skin quality. The findings are discussed in terms of the tensions experienced by online daters to (a) enhance their physical attractiveness and (b) present a photograph that would not be judged deceptive in subsequent face-to-face meetings. The paper extends the theoretical concept of selective self-presentation to online photographs, and discusses issues of self-deception and social desirability bias.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In terms of photographic enhancement, women's photographs contain more deviations compared to men's photographs.
“In terms of photographic enhancement, women's photographs contain more deviations compared to men's photographs (Hancock & Toma, 2009).”
From Mobile Sexuality: Presentations of Young Filipinos in Dating Apps (2020) · cites this paper as Hancock & Toma, 2009
Contrary to literature, a majority of user-informants claimed photographic enhancement was no longer blatantly practiced, as photographic deviations caused potential matches to see them negatively.
“Contrary to what the literature said about photographic enhancement (Hancock & Toma, 2009), a majority of the user-informants claimed that this was no longer blatantly practiced, as the photographic deviations caused their potential matches to see them negatively.”
From Mobile Sexuality: Presentations of Young Filipinos in Dating Apps (2020) · cites this paper as Hancock & Toma, 2009
Cites
Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction
WALTHER, J. B. (1996) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365096023001001 · Cited by 4,798 · see citing works
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650205285368 · Cited by 701 · see citing works
Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising
Messaris, P. (1997) · doi:10.4135/9781452233444 · Cited by 684 · cited 5× · see citing works
“…of selective self-presentation to online photographs, and discusses issues of self-deception and social desirability bias. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01420.x Presenting ourselves to the world is a fundamental and complex process (Goffman, 1959), one that has been further complicated by…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Selective Self-Presentation and Social Comparison Through Photographs on Social Networking Sites
Fox, J., & Vendemia, M. A. (2016) · Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2016.0248 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
“Selfie” harm: Effects on mood and body image in young women
Mills, J. S., Musto, S., Williams, L., & Tiggemann, M. (2018) · Body Image · doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.08.007 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
Jiang, L. C., Bazarova, N. N., & Hancock, J. T. (2011) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01393.x · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Self-citationMingoia, J., Hutchinson, A. D., Wilson, C., & Gleaves, D. H. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01351 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
“SNSs center on the use of profile photographs that are malleable, subjective and potentially digitally manipulated (Hancock and Toma, 2009; Toma and 1“Two Billion People Coming Together on Facebook,” Mike Nowak and Guillermo Spiller, accessed July 05, 2017,…”
BackgroundHall, J. A., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M. J. (2010) · Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · doi:10.1177/0265407509349633 · Cited by 260 · see citing works
Chae, J. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.007 · Cited by 239 · see citing works
Social comparison on Facebook: Its antecedents and psychological outcomes
Jang, K., Park, N., & Song, H. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.082 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
The effects of verbal versus photographic self-presentation on impression formation in Facebook
Van Der Heide, B., D’Angelo, J. D., & Schumaker, E. M. (2012) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01617.x · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Kim, J. W., & Chock, T. M. (2017) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.006 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Virtually Perfect: Image Retouching and Adolescent Body Image
Harrison, K., & Hefner, V. (2014) · Media Psychology · doi:10.1080/15213269.2013.770354 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Kim, M., & Park, W. (2016) · The Social Science Journal · doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2016.08.007 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Mobile Sexuality: Presentations of Young Filipinos in Dating Apps
Labor, J. (2020) · Plaridel · doi:10.52518/2020.17.1-09labor · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-06
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 367-386
- ISSN
- 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2466
- OpenAlex
- W2084239016
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 275.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Communication (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Photography and Visual Culture
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Keywords
- online dating, profile photographs, self-presentation, self-deception, social desirability bias, physical attractiveness, image retouching, gender differences, face-to-face meetings
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
