CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 260Personality Traits and PsychologyAttachment and Relationship DynamicsEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: The effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits

Open access
Hall, Jeffrey A., Park, Namkee, Song, Hayeon, Cody, Michael J.·2010·Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
DOI 10.1177/0265407509349633
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study examines factors (including gender, self-monitoring, the big five personality traits, and demographic characteristics) that influence online dating service users’ strategic misrepresentation (i.e., the conscious and intentional misrepresentation of personal characteristics). Using data from a survey of online dating service users (N = 5,020), seven categories of misrepresentation — personal assets, relationship goals, personal interests, personal attributes, past relationships, weight, and age — were examined. The study found that men are more likely to misrepresent personal assets, relationship goals, personal interests, and personal attributes, whereas women are more likely to misrepresent weight. The study further discovered that self-monitoring (specifically other-directedness) was the strongest and most consistent predictor of misrepresentation in online dating. Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness also showed consistent relationships with misrepresentation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0265407509349633

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. de Backer, C., Braeckman, J. & Farinpour, L. ( 2008). Mating intelligence in personal ads. In G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 77-101). New York: LEA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hall, J. A., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Kansas (US)
  • University of Oklahoma (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Hall, Jeffrey A.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-01-27
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
117-135
ISSN
  • 0265-4075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3608
DOI
10.1177/0265407509349633
OpenAlex
W2096699565
Cited by
260
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 10
FWCI
10.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (publishedVersion)
  • SHAREOK (University of Oklahoma; Oklahoma State University; Central Oklahoma University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
online dating, strategic misrepresentation, self-presentation, gender differences, self-monitoring, other-directedness, Big Five personality traits, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience, private wealth, relationship goals, past relationships

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