Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.07.002Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper considers the presentation of self on an internet dating site. Thirty men and 30 women were interviewed about their online dating experiences. They were asked about how they constructed their profiles and how they viewed other individuals’ profiles. Which types of presentations of self led to more successful offline romantic relationships were also investigated. Additionally, gender differences were examined. In line with previous research on presentation of self online, individuals were quite strategic in their online presentations. However, important differences between initiating a relationship on an internet dating site and other spaces (online and offline) included the type of self disclosed as well as the depth of breadth of information individuals self-disclosed about themselves before any one-on-one conversations took place.

Introduction

Previous research has demonstrated that individuals can be quite strategic in their presentations of self in cyberspace (e.g., Walther, Slovacek, & Tidwell, 2001). Others have contended that the success of moving an online relationship offline may be dependent on the type of self that is presented in the cyber-world (e.g., Bargh et al., 2002, McKenna et al., 2002). This study was interested in how men and women presented themselves on an online dating site. It does so by considering theories on ‘possible selves’ and Goffman’s ‘performed self’ theory.

It has for some time been recognized that online relationships do initiate online and can move successfully offline (Whitty, 2007, Whitty and Carr, 2006). In more recent times researchers have been interested in how these relationships progress. Some, for example, have been interested in how individuals go about presenting themselves in cyberspace and which presentations of self lead to more successful relationship development.

Theorists have argued that individuals can be quite selective in their self-presentations online (e.g., Bargh et al., 2002, McKenna et al., 2002, Walther et al., 2001). For example, Walther et al. (2001) believe that while of course individuals do tend to be strategic in their presentation of self-offline, in CMC impression management is more controllable and fluid. They claim that “online communicators may exploit the capabilities of text-based, nonvisual interaction to form levels of affinity that would be unexpected in parallel offline interactions” (Walther et al., 2001, p. 110). As a consequence in some situations CMC users idealize their virtual partners. Bargh and colleagues (Bargh et al., 2002, McKenna et al., 2002) have also focused on presentation of self-online. In particular, they have focused on which presentation of self on the internet is more likely to lead to closer relationships. These researchers have drawn from Rogers’ and Higgins’ work on personality to come up with two aspects of self that they believe are important to consider when focusing on the development of relationships online – ‘true’ selves and ‘actual’ selves.

As stated above, Bargh et al., 2002, McKenna et al., 2002 have drawn from Rogers′ and Higgins’ work on personality to arrive at two aspects of the self that they believe are important to consider when focusing on the development of relationships online, these being the ‘true self’ and ‘actual self’. These theorists drew from Rogers’ (1951) work to define the true self (or what they also refer to as the ‘Real Me’) as traits or characteristics that individuals posses and would like to but are not usually able to express. Rogers (1951) developed a humanistic personality theory where the ‘self’ is a central construct. Rogers’ believed that the self-developed through interactions with others, and that the point of therapy was to help people to discover their true selves. He understood the ‘true self’ to represent one’s inner core – who they really are. Theoretically, an individual can do this if they experience ‘unconditional positive regard’. In contrast, drawing from Higgins’ (1987) research, these theorists defined the actual self as traits or characteristics that individuals possess and express to others in social settings. Higgins (1987) made a clear distinction between three aspects of the self: the ‘actual self’, ‘ideal self’, and ‘ought to self’. The ‘actual self’ is the representation of how you or another actually believes you are; the ‘ideal self’ is the representation of how you or another would like to see yourself, including hopes and wishes for you; and the ‘ought to self’ represents the attributes that you believe you should possess. In line with Higgins, these researchers claim that as one develops trust and intimacy with one’s partner they are more likely to disclose aspects of themselves that are not widely known to others. They have argued that individuals who are more likely to express their true self online will consider the relationships they form in this space to be more identity-important compared to those individuals who are more likely to express their true selves in non-internet relationships.

To test the above ideas, Bargh, McKenna and their colleagues conducted a number of experiments. Bargh et al. (2002) measured true and actual selves by asking participants to list a maximum of 10 traits or characteristics that participants believed they actually possessed and expressed to others in social settings, as well as what characteristics individuals possessed and would like to but are typically unable to express to others. Their series of experiments revealed that the individuals’ true selves were more accessible in memory after interacting with a stranger online compared to face-to-face. Moreover, they found that participants tended to like each other more when they meet first online compared to face-to-face.

Taking this work a step further, McKenna et al. (2002) were interested in whether individuals who are better able to disclose their ‘true’ selves online than offline were more equipped to form close relationships online and then take these relationships offline successfully. They randomly selected 20 Usenet newsgroups to include in their study. Over a 3-week period, questionnaires were emailed to every fifth poster in each of the newsgroups (excluding spam). Their first study found that when people convey their ‘true’ self online they develop strong internet relationships and bring these relationships into their ‘real’ lives. Two years after this initial study 354 of the 568 participants were emailed a follow-up survey (the remainder of the sample had email addresses that were no longer valid). In line with these researchers’ prediction, these relationships remained relatively stable and durable over the 2-year period; however, one has to wonder how the 38% of the sample that were not followed up faired. In this same research, McKenna et al. (2002) found that participants who were more socially anxious and lonely were somewhat more likely to believe they could express their true selves with others online than they could with people they knew offline. McKenna et al. (2002) conclude from this research that:

rather than turning to the Internet as a way of hiding from real life and from forming real relationships, individuals use it as a means not only of maintaining ties with existing family and friends but also of forming close and meaningful new relationships in a relatively nonthreatening environment. The Internet may also be helpful for those who have difficulty forging relationships in face-to-face situations because of shyness, social anxiety, or a lack of social skills. (p. 30)

Goffman was very interested in the ways people present themselves in their everyday face-to-face encounters. In his book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Goffman (1959) argued for a dualistic image of the self. He described the self as both a performer and a character. According to Goffman (1959) the ‘self-as-performer’ is not merely a social product, but also has a basic motivational core. In contrast, the ‘self-as-character’ represents an individuals’ unique humanity. It is this part of the self which is a social product; that is, performed outwardly in social life. The ‘self-as-character’ is one’s inner self.

Goffman believed that individuals need to present themselves as an acceptable person to others. He stated that “the impressions that the others give tend to be treated as claims and promises they have implicitly made, and claims and promises tend to have a moral character” (Goffman, 1959/1997, p. 21). He argued that individuals can be strategic in their impression formation. In particular Goffman was interested in distinguishing between expressions ‘given’ (e.g., spoken communication) and expressions ‘given off’ (e.g., nonverbal cues) in a face-to-face interaction.

Researchers have applied Goffman’s theory to online presentations of self. Miller (1995) claims that although depth and richness of self-presentation might not seem immediately apparent online that nonetheless “the problem of establishing and maintaining an acceptable self-remains, and there is a range of expressive resources available for this end”. Miller and Arnold (2001) applied Goffman’s theory to explain how woman academics construct their own webpages. Drawing from his theory they suggest that women academics struggled with establishing a credible presence on the websites.

Of course long before the internet ever existed psychologists were interested in how romantic relationships initiated offline and what types of presentation of self typically leads to budding relationships. One of the most popular theories to explain relationship development is ‘Social Penetration Theory’ (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Social Penetration Theory is an incremental theory which argues that relationships move to greater levels of intimacy over time. According to this theory, how greater intimacy is achieved is typically through depth and breadth of self-disclosure. Breadth of self-disclosure refers to discussing a range of topics, such as information about one’s family, career, and so forth. Depth refers to the more central core of one’s personality; that is, the more unique aspects of one’s self. The timing of how much one self-discloses is crucial to determining whether a relationship will continue to proceed. Rushing self-disclosure in the early stages of a relationship can seem unnatural and desperate and can lead to an abrupt end.

This present study was interested in how individuals present themselves in cyberspace. Given that cyberspace is not one generic space (Whitty & Carr, 2006) it is important to investigate how individuals present themselves in different spaces online. In particular, this study was interested in how individuals present themselves on an online dating site, as well as their judgments on how others present themselves on this site. Online dating sites have increased in popularity and will no doubt continue to do so (Brym and Lenton, 2003, Whitty, 2007, Whitty and Carr, 2006). However, there is a dearth of research available on how individuals use this space to initiate and develop relationships.

Online dating sites are set-up very differently to other places online, such as newsgroups, chat rooms, and the like. On online dating sites individuals are required to construct a profile. On this profile they can upload photographs and videos of themselves and are given the opportunity to write a description of who they are. The way individuals contact each other on the site varies depending on the way the site is set-up. The online dating site which this study focused on is one of the largest Australian online dating sites. Individuals contact each other on this dating site by firstly sending someone a ‘kiss’. The ‘kiss’ is a sentence sent through the site to an undisclosed email indicating that the individual is interested in the person they contacted. The contacted person can then respond to three options, including (a) they are interested and are requesting that the other person spend money on sending an email through the site, or (b) they are interested and they themselves will spend money on emailing the person through the site, or (c) they were flattered but uninterested. Next, individuals pay for ‘stamps’ which would enable them to send emails through the site. This is how the company makes their money. Individuals can write anything in these emails. It is within this email that individuals can disclose their personal email so that contact can be made off the dating site.

This present study examined the types of selves individuals are more likely to present on an online dating site, and how they view other people’s presentation of self. Additionally, it considered what types of presentations of self will lead to the development of a successful romantic relationships offline. Moreover, because previous research on offline attraction has found that men and women are attracted to different qualities in the opposite sex, gender differences were also taken into account.

Section snippets

Participants

Sixty online daters were interviewed for this study (30 men and 30 women). The ages ranged from 23 to 60 years, with an overall mean age of 43.40 years (SD = 8.70). This is very close to the average mean age for the total number of individuals who use the site (M = 45 years). The mean age for men was 42.63 years (SD = 10.57) and for women was 44.97 (SD = 6.27) years. All participants resided in Australia. Forty-three percent of the sample stated that their relationship status was single, 46% were divorced

Results and discussion

The following analysis details how the participants presented themselves on this internet dating site, what aspects they misrepresented, as well as what features they found attractive in others. Next, participants’ views on how others presented themselves on this dating site is discussed as well as how well these profiles matched with the person when they met them face-to-face. Extracts from the interviews are presented here as illustration of the themes. Pseudonyms are used in place of the

Acknowledgements

The author thank Lisa Lunnon for her assistance with coding, and The University of Western Sydney and the Australian online dating company who funded the project.

References (28)

  • I. Altman et al.

    Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships

    (1973)
  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (November 2001). 2001 Census basic community profile and snapshot. Canberra,...
  • J.A. Bargh et al.

    Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the internet

    Journal of Social Issues

    (2002)
  • Brym, R. J., Lenton, R. L. (2003). Love at first byte: Internet dating in Canada....
  • D.M. Buss et al.

    Preferences in human mate selection

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1986)
  • A. Cooper et al.

    Romance in cyberspace: Understanding online attraction

    Journal of Sex Education and Therapy

    (1997)
  • B. Ellis et al.

    Sex differences in sexual fantasy

    Journal of Sex Research

    (1990)
  • B.G. Glaser et al.

    The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research

    (1967)
  • E. Goffman

    In the presentation of self in everyday life

  • E.T. Higgins

    Self-discrepancy theory

    Psychological Review

    (1987)
  • D.T. Kenrick et al.

    Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model

    Journal of Personality

    (1990)
  • D. Levine

    Virtual attraction: What rocks your boat

    CyberPsychology and Behavior

    (2000)
  • K.Y.A. McKenna et al.

    Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction?

    Journal of Social Issues

    (2002)
  • Miller, H. (1995). The presentation of self in electronic life: Goffman on the internet. Embodied Knowledge and Virtual...
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text