Abstract
Sex differences in mate preferences are well established. It is also well understood that humans often seek to manipulate their standing on important mate-value traits. Yet, there is a paucity of work examining potential sex differences in response to deception along these important dimensions. In Study 1, a sample of 280 undergraduates (123 females) responded to a hypothetical online dating scenario asking participants to rank how upset they would be if deceived about a date’s attractiveness, occupation, or volunteerism. Women ranked occupation deception as more upsetting than men did, and men ranked attractiveness deception as more upsetting than women did. Given potential measurement differences between forced-choice and continuous response options, Study 2 randomly assigned 364 undergraduates (188 females) to one of the deceptions conditions and asked them to report their level of upset and willingness to go on the date using a continuous response scale. Women were more likely than men to cancel the date if the deception involved volunteerism or occupation. There was no significant sex difference in the attractiveness condition. Neither mate value nor sociosexuality moderated the sex difference in the levels of upset due to the deception. Together, these findings demonstrate that women and men exhibit differences in the degree to which they become upset by opposite sex deceptions in online dating, regardless of self-perceived mate value and sociosexuality, in alignment with evolved sex differences in mate preferences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
29 November 2021
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02218-y
References
Abramova, O., Baumann, A., Krasnova, H., & Buxmann, P. (2016, January). Gender differences in online dating: What do we know so far? A systematic literature review. In 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3858–3867. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.481
Arnocky, S. (2018). Self-perceived mate value, facial attractiveness, and mate preferences: Do desirable men want it all? Evolutionary Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704918763271
Arnocky, S., Pearson, M., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015a). Health, anticipated partner infidelity, and jealousy in men and women. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704915593666
Arnocky, S., Ribout, A., Mirza, R., & Knack, J. M. (2014). Perceived mate availability influences intrasexual competition, jealousy, and mate guarding behaviour. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.12.2014.1.3
Arnocky, S., Sunderani, S., Gomes, W., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015b). Anticipated partner infidelity and men’s intimate partner violence: The mediating role of anxiety. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9(3), 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000021
Bird, B. M., Carré, J. M., Knack, J. M., & Arnocky, S. (2016). Threatening men’s mate value influences aggression towards an intrasexual rival: The moderating role of narcissism. American Journal of Psychology, 129(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.129.2.0169
Brym, R. J., & Lenton, R. L. (2001, 6 February). Love online: A report on digital dating in Canada. MSN.ca.
Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.616
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(10), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600116
Chang, L., Wang, Y., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2011). Chinese mate preferences: Cultural evolution and continuity across a quarter of a century. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 678–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.016
Clarkson, T. R., Sidari, M. J., Sains, R., Alexander, M., Harrison, M., Mefodeva, V., Pearson, S., Lee, A. J., & Dixson, B. J. W. (2020). A multivariate analysis of women’s mating strategies and sexual selection on men’s facial morphology. Royal Society Open Science, 7(1), 191209. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191209
Darwin, C. (1896). The descent of Man and selection in relation to sex (Vol. 1). D. Appleton and Company.
Davis, E. M., & Fingerman, K. L. (2015). Digital dating: Online profile content of older and younger adults. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 71(6), 959–967. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbv042
Docherty, C., Lee, A. J., Hahn, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2020). Do more attractive women show stronger preferences for male facial masculinity? Evolution and Human Behavior, 41, 312–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.05.005
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2014). The Mate Value Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.005
Ellison, N. B., Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2011). Profile as promise: A framework for conceptualizing veracity in online dating self-presentations. New Media and Society, 14, 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811410395
Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x
Farrelly, D. (2013). Altruism as an indicator of good parenting quality in long-term relationships: Further investigations using the mate preferences towards altruistic traits scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 153(4), 395–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.768595
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, 152–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205285368
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.85
Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2009). Putting your best face forward: The accuracy of online dating photographs. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01420.x
Harris, C. R. (2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homosexual adults. Psychological Science, 13(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00402
Haselton, M. G., Buss, D. M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A. (2005). Sex, lies, and strategic interference: The psychology of deception between the sexes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271303
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2005). What makes you click: An empirical analysis of online dating. https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Industrial-Organization/hortacsu-050908.pdf
Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). What makes you click? Mate preferences in online dating. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 8(4), 393–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-010-9088-6
Holler, R. H., Shepard, K., & Welling, L. L. M. (2019). Tinder v eHarmony: A preliminary analysis of sociosexuality across online dating platforms. Poster session presented at the Annual Human Behavior and Evolution Society International Conference, Boston, MA.
Iredale, W., Van Vugt, M., & Dunbar, R. (2008). Showing off in humans: Male generosity as a mating signal. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(3), 368–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600302
Li, N. P., Kenrick, D. T., Bailey, J. M., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 947–955. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.947
Markowitz, D. M., & Hancock, J. T. (2018). Deception in mobile dating conversations. Journal of Communication, 68, 547–569. https://doi.org/10.1093/jc/jqy019
Merriam Webster Online. (2019). Deception. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deception
Mucci, M. J., & Mason, S. E. (2015). Preferred mate characteristics in young adults. Journal of Psychology and the Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1–5.
Oda, R., Okuda, A., Takeda, J. M., & Hiraishi, K. (2014). Provision or good genes? Menstrual cycle shifts in women’s preferences for short-term and long-term mates’ altruistic behavior. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(5), 888–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491401200503
Pager, D., & Quillian, L. (2005). Walking the talk? What employers say versus what they do. American Sociological Review, 70(3), 355–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000301
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113
Phillips, T., Barnard, C., Ferguson, E., & Reader, T. (2008). Do humans prefer altruistic mates? Testing a link between sexual selection and altruism towards non-relatives. British Journal of Psychology, 99, 555–572. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X298467
Rowatt, W. C., Cunningham, M. R., & Druen, P. B. (1998). Deception to get a date. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1228–1242. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982411009
Sela, Y., Mogilski, J. K., Shackelford, T. K., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Fink, B. (2016). Mate value discrepancy and mate retention behaviours of self and partner. Journal of Personality, 85, 730–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12281
Sharabi, L. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (2019). Deception in online dating: Significance and implications for the first offline date. New Media and Society, 21, 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818792425
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00264.x
Steiger, S., Eichinger, T., & Honeder, B. (2009). Can mate choice strategies explain sex differences? The deceived persons’ feelings in reaction to revealed online deception of sex, age, and appearance. Social Psychology, 40, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335.40.1.16
Stower, R. E., Lee, A. J., McIntosh, T. L., Sidari, M. J., Sherlock, J. M., & Dixson, B. J. W. (2020). Mating strategies and the masculinity paradox: How relationship context, relationship status, and sociosexuality shape women’s preferences for facial masculinity and beardedness. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(3), 809–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1437-2
Tagler, M. J. (2010). Sex differences in jealousy: Comparing the influence of previous infidelity among college students and adults. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(4), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610374367
Toma, C., Hancock, J., & Ellison, N. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1023–1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318067
Tooke, W., & Camire, L. (1991). Patterns of deception in intersexual and intrasexual mating strategies. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12(5), 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(91)90030-T
Waynforth, D. (2001). Mate choice trade-offs and women’s preference for physically attractive men. Human Nature, 12(3), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-001-1007-9
Wood, D., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2009). Using revealed mate preferences to evaluate market force and differential preference explanations for mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1226–1244. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015300
Zengel, B., Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2013). Sex differences in jealousy in response to infidelity: Evaluation of demographic moderators in a national random sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(1), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.001
Funding
Funding for this research provided by an NSERC Discovery Development Grant awarded to S. Arnocky (file # DDG-2017-00013).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflcit of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures were approved by the university research ethics board.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Desrochers, J., MacKinnon, M., Kelly, B. et al. Sex Differences in Response to Deception Across Mate-Value Traits of Attractiveness, Job Status, and Altruism in Online Dating. Arch Sex Behav 50, 3675–3685 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-01945-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-01945-6