Skip to main content

Sex Differences in Response to Deception Across Mate-Value Traits of Attractiveness, Job Status, and Altruism in Online Dating

A Correction to this article was published on 29 November 2021

This article has been updated

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, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Change history

References

  1. 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

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brym, R. J., & Lenton, R. L. (2001, 6 February). Love online: A report on digital dating in Canada. MSN.ca.

  8. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Darwin, C. (1896). The descent of Man and selection in relation to sex (Vol. 1). D. Appleton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

  19. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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

  28. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

  30. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Merriam Webster Online. (2019). Deception. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deception

  34. Mucci, M. J., & Mason, S. E. (2015). Preferred mate characteristics in young adults. Journal of Psychology and the Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding for this research provided by an NSERC Discovery Development Grant awarded to S. Arnocky (file # DDG-2017-00013).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven Arnocky.

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.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 16 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Online dating
  • Dating deception
  • Sex differences
  • Mate-value
  • Sociosexual orientation
  • Mate preferences