Gender Differences in Online Dating: What Do We Know So Far? A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

With millions of users worldwide, online dating platforms strive to assert themselves as powerful tools to find dates and form romantic relationships. However, significant differences exist in male and female use of this mate-matching technology with respect to motivation, preferences, self-presentation, interaction and outcomes. While existing research has routinely reported on gender differences in online dating, these insights remain scattered across multiple studies. To gain a systematic insight into existing findings, in this study we conduct a meta-review of existing research. We find that evolutionary theory generally holds true in online dating: Users still follow natural stereotypes when it comes to choosing a mate online. Physical attractiveness is the key criteria for men; while women, being much more demanding, prioritize socio-economic attributes when choosing a male partner. Together, our structured findings offer a deeper insight into the underlying dynamics of gender differences in online dating.

Full text

Gender Differences in Online Dating: What Do We Know So Far?
A Systematic Literature Review
Olga Abramova
Technische Universität Darmstadt
abramova@is.tu-darmstadt.de
Hanna Krasnova
Universität Bern
hanna.krasnova@iwi.unibe.ch
Annika Baumann
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
annika.baumann@wiwi.hu-berlin.de
Peter Buxmann
Technische Universität Darmstadt
buxmann@is.tu-darmstadt.de
Abstract
With millions of users worldwide, online dating
platforms strive to assert themselves as powerful tools
to find dates and form romantic relationships.
However, significant differences exist in male and
female use of this mate-matching technology with
respect to motivation, preferences, self-presentation,
interaction and outcomes. While existing research has
routinely reported on gender differences in online
dating, these insights remain scattered across multiple
studies. To gain a systematic insight into existing
findings, in this study we conduct a meta-review of
existing research. We find that evolutionary theory
generally holds true in online dating: Users still follow
natural stereotypes when it comes to choosing a mate
online. Physical attractiveness is the key criteria for
men; while women, being much more demanding,
prioritize socio-economic attributes when choosing a
male partner. Together, our structured findings offer a
deeper insight into the underlying dynamics of gender
differences in online dating.
1. Introduction
Online dating industry is enjoying a booming
success: 11% of U.S. adults have already used a dating
platform or an app, and a whopping 23% of users
admit to having met their spouse or a long-term
companion online [61]. As such, online dating
represents a place where connections can be formed
and dissolved quickly at little cost to both sides, offline
social norms are less pronounced, and gender
stereotypes can be mitigated by the initial anonymity
of the dating partners [70]. Making use of these
affordances, both men and women readily embrace
online dating channels in the search for a new
companion, a short flirt, or even a long-term
partnership. While statistics varies from country to
country, and across different age groups, both men and
women readily use popular dating platforms like
Match.com, Yahoo Personals, eHarmony, and
OkCupid, suggesting a strong interest of both parties in
romantic interactions and connections [53].
Nonetheless, their preferences, behaviors and
choices are likely to differ [9]. Indeed, in line with the
evolutionary perspective on mating [15], men and
women exhibit distinct selection criteria when it comes
to choosing their mating partners – differences that
have far-reaching implications for both scholars of
social behavior as well as system designers. However,
while a wave of studies investigating various user-
related aspects of online dating sites have captured a
variety of gender-specific differences, these insights
are scattered and do not provide a coherent picture of
the state-of-the-art research available in this domain.
To fill this gap, in this study we undertake a
comprehensive review of existing empirical
investigations to systematically summarize available
knowledge in the area of gender differences in online
dating.
This research is important for a number of reasons.
On the theoretical side, our study will allow capturing
the current research status quo, thereby helping to
identify existing gaps open for future research.
Furthermore, online-driven transformations in the
mating behavior can be traced on the basis of our
findings, allowing for better comparisons with the
established knowledge from offline domain (e.g., [8]).
From the managerial perspective, our study may
empower platform providers in deciding on the gender-
specific add-on features or special offers for the VIP
platform areas common for such websites. On a more
general level, by advancing knowledge in this domain
this research may also contribute to a greater social
good, since couples who meet via online channels have
been shown be more satisfied and less likely to

divorce, suggesting a favorable impact of online dating
on the society at large [10].
2. Theoretical Foundations
Social role [16], self-construal [14] as well as
evolutionary [9] theories have been often used to
explain the differences in behavior and perceptions
between men and women. In the dating context,
particularly the evolutionary viewpoint is of critical
importance, considering its focus on the choices of
human species in the face of competition and search
for limited reproduction-relevant opportunities.
Originally formulated as a theory of sexual selection
by [15], this perspective suggests that reproductive
success is a key evolutionary aspiration of human
species, with both men and women striving to achieve
the best possible outcome in this domain.
A distinction between intrasexual and intersexual
selection is often made. Intrasexual selection implies
competition among representatives of the same sex for
a desired mating access. Here, competing agents are
expected to produce signals that are viewed as
desirable by the members of the opposite sex. At the
same time, intersexual selection implies preferential
choice exerted by members of one sex group with
regard to the representatives of the other group [9].
Conceptually representing two sides of the same
phenomenon, the concepts of intra- and intersexual
selection are closely related with the notion of parental
investment [65]. According to this perspective, those
who are expected to bear a higher parental investment
in terms of nurturing and caring for potential offsprings
are likely to be more selective with regard to their
mating targets; at the same time, those who are less
invested in the parental process will be less
discriminative when choosing mating partners, striving
to maximize “copulatory opportunities” ([9], p. 617).
However, they will also face greater competition to
achieve reproductive access, and will have to
correspond to and present selection-relevant attributes
to the “choosing” party.
Since in many species these are the females who
have to overtake the largest share of the parental
investment, they are also more likely to be more
selective with regard to their choice of male mates.
These choices will be dictated by the male ability to
compensate for his lack of parental investment or by
his ability to provide it. Indeed, material resources,
earning potential, social status, psychological support,
protection, and such traits as ambition and
industriousness have been consistently shown to play a
role in the female choice of male partners in offline
settings [8].
Nonetheless, since modern society often equates
reproduction access with monogamy, men also face
costly choices. Hence, they are likely to emphasize
health, “good genes”, physical attractiveness, youth
and other “female” qualities that may appear important
for the fulfillment of the female reproductive function
[8] [9].
So far, past research has provided empirical
evidence for the existence of evolutionary-driven
differences between male and female behaviors and
perceptions in the offline context [8] [9]. At the same
time, little systematic evidence exists on the gender
differences in the modern context of online dating.
Considering a growing independence of women and
the rising emphasis on gender equality in the
developed world [33], it might be possible that
traditionally-assumed differences are no longer salient
or at least undergo some degree of transformation. In
the following, extant literature will be reviewed with
regard to gender differences in online dating.
3. Methodology
Following the advice of Levy and Ellis [41] and
Webster and Watson [67] we conducted a systematic
literature review using the scientific databases
ScienceDirect (154), EBSCOhost (211), Springer
(791), Wiley Online Library (1091), Emerald Insights
(47), JSTOR (205), ACM Digital Library (189), IEEE
(97) and Google Scholar (12600)
1
in combination with
the keywords {online dating OR digital dating OR
dating website OR online mate OR internet dating OR
internet romantic relationship OR online romance OR
cyber flirting OR online love OR Match.com OR
eHarmony} and {gender OR men OR women OR male
OR female OR woman OR man OR sex differences}.
We focused on English language sources, included
only published articles and excluded books from our
review. No other filters were applied. To be relevant,
papers needed to have online dating in the focus of
their research. The evaluation of relevance was based
on the title and abstract. In the next step, all articles
initially evaluated as relevant were checked for the
presence of gender-related empirical results using the
in-text search in combination with the gender-marked
keywords stated above. Additionally, we conducted a
backward and forward search to look for further
relevant articles. This procedure resulted in 69 relevant
articles published between the years 1995 to 2015.
73.19 % of them were published in journals, 23.19 %
in conferences and the remaining two by the Pew
1
Numbers in brackets reflect the overall initial number
of resultant papers.

Research Center [46] [61]. The most popular
publication outlets included such journals as
Computers in Human Behavior (8 studies), followed
by Communication Research (3 studies). In terms of
method, studies in our sample were based on surveys
(27), interviews (7), experiments (7), descriptive
analysis (26) or other types of statistical analyses (9).
Around 40% of articles focused on gender-related
issues; student samples were present in only a small
share of all articles in our sample (10%).
Figure 1. Process Model of Online Dating
In the following step, a total of 345 gender-relevant
insights were derived using the in-text search, and then
reviewed by two authors to identify the presence of the
leading themes. Following this analysis we were able
to elicit 7 different themes (see Table 1), that reflect a
typical online dating process (see Figure 1). Next, two
coders independently classified all insights into one of
these themes: Cohen's Kappa (0.898) revealed a high
level of agreement between the two coders [37].
Table 1. Themes in Gender-Relevant
Discourse on Online Dating
Theme
Description
# of
insights
(share)
Daters’
Characteristics
Characteristics of the user
population.
43
(13.2%)
Motivation
Motivational patterns of
users.
12
(3.7%)
Preferences
Preferences of users with
regard to mating choices.
149
(45.9%)
Disclosure
Information shared on the
profiles of users.
38
(11.7%)
Misreporting
Attributes misrepresented
by users.
35
(10.8%)
Interaction
Dynamics of interaction
between users via private
messaging functionality.
46
(14.2%)
Outcome
Offline consequences
resultant from online
dating.
22
(6.8%)
4. Results
Daters’ Characteristics: Since the experience of
online dating revolves around the people who
participate in it, insights centered on user
characteristics were collected (see Table 2).
Table 2. Characteristics of Online Daters
Sub-
theme
Females
Males
Participa-
tion
…use online
dating more
[44].
…use online dating
more [18] [19] [27]
[31] [32] [35] [43]
[46] [54] [55].
No gender differences [53] [66].
User
Behavior
…view more profiles
[20] [31] [32].
…have longer
account lifetimes
[43].
…visit online dating
sites more often [66].
No gender differences in time spent on
website [43].
Attitude
…have more
positive
attitudes
towards their
online dating
agency [27].
…are more likely to
have a positive
attitude towards
online dating in
general [44] [46].
Further
Attributes
…report lower
weight
compared to
the average
[31] [32].
…report
higher height
compared to
the average
[31] [32] [43].
…report higher
weight compared to
the average [31] [32].
…report higher
height compared to
the average [31] [32]
[43].
…are better educated
[23] [24].

It appears that males are more active users of online
dating sites: They use this service more [18] [19] [27]
[31] [32] [35] [43] [46] [54] [55] and interact more on
it [20] [31] [32] [43] [66]. One possible reason for this
gender imbalance is that across numerous IT contexts
men outnumber women [44].
Additionally, male users exhibit a positive attitude
towards online dating, valuing its efficiency to meet
people [44] [46], even though they might see those
who use these service as desperate [46].
Motivation: Initial motives to engage in online
dating are likely to play an important role in the
subsequent process of mate selection. As such, sex
differences in motivation are congruent with typical
strategies of mating theory (see Table 3). When
presented with a variety of opportunities, male users
prefer short-term romantic relationships with low level
of commitment [12] [27] [54]. In contrast, female users
claim to be driven by such a non-romantic reason as
finding friends [12] [27] [54] or a potential marriage
partner [27], which, however, reveals inclination
towards long-term relationships. Interestingly, these
motivations are time-indifferent with studies dating
1995, 2008 and 2015 providing consistent results.
Table 3. Motivation of Online Daters
Preferences: The process of conscious mate-
selection performed via online dating website implies a
series of steps towards narrowing the pool of eligible
candidates from many to one [26]. In line with the
differences in motivational patterns established above,
our review suggests a relatively clear picture regarding
male and female preferences for certain characteristics
sought in a partner (see Table 4).
While females appear to value but be more tolerant
towards the appearance of the potential partner [32]
[62] [68], men do not hesitate to state exact body type
preferences [23] [31] [32] with thin and toned body
types being most desired [23]. Indeed, physical
attractiveness of a female appears to be a decisive
criterion for male online daters [1] [4] [31] [32] [39]
[47] [54] [68], corresponding to their search for female
reproduction advantage.
With respect to age criterion there is a clear pattern
for men to look for a younger [1] [7] [19] [32] [34]
[36] [59] [69] or at least a same-age partner [59].
Moreover, these preferences are invariant to the age of
a man.
Table 4. Patterns of Partner Preferences of
Online Daters
Characte-
ristics of
a partner
Direction of
preference
compared to
the self
Preferences of:
Male
Female
Education
Up
(Higher)
[31] [56]
[69]
Homophily
[31] [32]
[56]
[31] [32]
[56] [60]
Down
(Lower)
[31] [36]
[60]
Importance
[56] [69]
Age
Up (Higher)
[1] [7]
[19] [32]
[34] [36]
[59] [69]
Homophily
[59]
[59]
Down
(Lower)
[1] [7] [19]
[32] [34]
[36] [60]
[69]
[1] [7]
[19] [59]
[69]
Height
Up
(Higher)
[31] [32]
[36] [52]
Down
(Lower)
[31] [32]
[52]
Socio-economic status
(income and
occupation)
Up
(Higher)
[32] [68]
[2] [32]
[50] [54]
[68] [69]
Down or
no strong
preference
[2] [69]
Importance
[2] [31]
[32] [47]
[68] [69]
Physical
attractiveness
Body type
preference
[23] [31]
[32]
Importance
[4] [1] [31]
[32] [39]
[47] [54]
[68]
[32] [62]
[68]
Preference for
profile
features of the
opposite sex
Photos
[4] [18]
[36] [69]
[18] [69]
Description
[18]
[36]
Quite on the contrary, female daters are better
predisposed towards older male candidates [1] [7] [19]
Motivation to use
Source
Male
Short-term (e.g., sex or date)
[12] [27]
[54]
Female
Long-term (e.g., friendship)
[12] [27]
[54]

[32] [34] [36] [59] [69]. A more detailed investigation
suggests that female age preference represents an
inverted U-shape function of her own age. Starting
with a strict preference for older partners, women
broaden their preferred age ranges as they get older and
show higher inclination towards homophily when they
reach 25 years of age. However, aging women
increasingly prefer younger partners [19].
Recent research argues for the derivative nature of
age choice hypothesizing that preferences for
“women’s age are (partially) a function of male
preferences for physical attractiveness, whereas female
preferences for men’s age are (partially) a function of
female preferences for male socio-economic status”
[59, p. 273]. In the modern society that values fitness
and youth, youthful look is one of the key attributes of
physical attractiveness. Coupled with the biological
fact that female fertility is affected by age stronger than
male fertility, this warrants the age choice of men [9]
[15]. At the same time, females strongly prioritize
socio-economic status [2] [31] [32] [47] [68] [69]
when choosing a male partner, and, therefore, are more
likely to prefer older and, hence, more financially
mature male targets.
All in all, it is evident that female mating choice is
congruent with the parental investment theory [65].
Women are pickier in specifying the type of partner
they are looking for [17] [19] [23] [39] [63] [69]. The
fact that family’s material well-being may depend on
male income [56] may explain strong preference of
women to date wealthier men [2] [32] [50] [54] [68]
[69]. According to our review, this also holds true for
high earning women [50]. At the same time, men are
more open and are ready to become acquainted with
women with lower income [2] [69]. However, in
general, both men and women prefer high-income
partners over low-income partners [32] [68], which can
be explained as an attempt to avoid dating for
mercenary ends.
Further, a well-established positive relationship
between socio-economic status and academic
achievements [11] explains the fact that educational
preferences follow the same gender patterns as socio-
economic status, and are much more critical for women
[56] [69]. Higher academic degree of a man attracts
women [31] [56] [69], while educational homophily is
considered to be a good choice for both women [31]
[32] [56] [60] and men [31] [32] [56].
All in all, men are much less demanding with
respect to their mate’s education and willingly contact
women with a lower academic degree [31] [36] [60].
However, men are not attracted by women's
intelligence when it surpasses their own [31].
Online daters’ preferences for height follow “male-
taller” norm [31] [32] [36] [52] for both cases, with
preferences from the female side being more
pronounced [52]. Tall men and short women, however,
are more tolerant to the disparity in height, thereby
maximizing their dating pool. This is in contrast to tall
women and short men who try to adhere to socially
recognizable standard [52].
Finally, men and women also have certain
preferences when it comes to the information members
of the opposite sex provide. While all daters who
posted more photos have a greater chance to convince
potential partners in their own attractiveness [18] [69],
posting photos is especially relevant for the dating
success of women. For them, the number of received
messages is positively related to the number of photos
they post [4] [18] [36] [69], once again indirectly
proving the importance of physical attractiveness for
men. In contrast, women prefer men to post longer
self-descriptions [69] and perceive the candidate as
more credible when rich media, such as video or audio,
is used [39].
Disclosure: In order to allow for a match, both men
and women present themselves to other participants of
the online dating community, which implies a certain
degree of disclosure (see Table 5).
It is observed that male daters disclose more than
their female counterparts [22] [27] [43], even though
their profiles are of rather standard, homogenous
character, with a restricted range of information they
choose to provide [35]. In line with the mating theory,
demonstrating resources that are highly desired by
members of the opposite sex, men tend to disclose
status-related information like income and occupation
[1] [2] [19] [24] [43] [47] or cars [35]. In the hope of
moving the interaction to a more personal level, they
are ready to provide photos [35], phone numbers [20]
and sex-related information [35].
At the same time, women are more creative and
multifarious in their self-presentations [35]. They are
more likely to provide information about their children
[35] [43], interests [68] as well as home and sex [19]
[24]. Understanding the importance of their physical
attractiveness for the mating success, women readily
upload more photos than men [68] [69].
Textual analysis of the information provided in the
“About me” section shows typical gender patterns,
with men using more numerals and references to other
people [24] and women using personal pronouns,
positive emotion and spatial words as well as writing
longer self-descriptions in general [19] [24]. However,
no differences are observed in the use of frequent and
tentative words [28]. All in all, the patterns of
disclosure follow predictions of the evolutionary
theory described above [9] [15].

Table 5. Disclosure Patterns of Online Daters
Degree of disclosure
Source
Male
Disclose more information
about themselves
[26] [27]
[43]
Reveal more homogeneous
information
[35]
Female
Provide more
heterogeneous information
and are more creative
[35]
Type of information more likely to
be disclosed
Source
Male
Status-related information
(income and occupation)
[1] [2] [19]
[24] [43]
[47]
Phone numbers
[20]
Photos
[35]
Sex and cars
[35]
Female
Information about kids
[35] [43]
Desired age of a partner
[35]
Photos
[68] [69]
Interests
[68]
Home and sex
[19] [24]
Type of information more likely to
be disclosed
Source
Male
Typically describe
themselves as average or
athletic and fit
[23] [43]
Use more numbers and
social words in texts
[24]
Female
Typically describe
themselves as small or
large and overweight
[23] [43]
Use longer texts for self-
description
[19] [24]
Use more positive emotion
words, spatial words and
personal pronouns in texts
[19] [24]
Both
Use common and tentative
words
[48]
Misrepresentation: To achieve better matches, online
daters are tempted to misrepresent certain desired
attributes [38] (see Table 6). To prevent this,
participants are encouraged to formally report the
presence of falsified information through feedback
mechanisms available on some platforms.
Both men and women report that they have faced
instances of misreporting on online dating sites [61]
suggesting that this behavioral tendency is rather
common [45] [64]. However, different information is
misrepresented by female and male daters (see Table
6). Aware of the importance of their physical
attractiveness to men, females are more likely to use
enhanced photographic material [29] [45] [57] [63]
[68], and underreport their weight [13] [28] [30] [64]
and age [13] (even though the latter is also common for
men [28]). This way, female users are trying to
advance themselves in comparison to other female
contenders, rank higher in search listings, and, thereby,
achieve better matches [9].
In contrast, men tend to rather emphasize their
personal interests and assets [28] to gain a better
hierarchical position in the competitive environment of
online dating. This signaling behavior allows them
access to a larger pool of females, who are generally
seeking rather resource-rich males [65].
Since height is an attribute often psychologically
associated with strength and status [9] and both short
and tall women prefer taller men [31] [32]
[36] [52], male users also have the tendency to
overstate this characteristic on their profile [30] [57]
[64] [68]. Furthermore, men have been found to
misrepresent their current relationship status as well as
the goals they want to achieve when using online
dating services [28] [57] [68]. Possibly, they might do
so to adapt their short-term focus to a rather long-term
one of females [51], which is in line with the
evolutionary theory [9] [15], since females have to
invest more resources into the parental process [65].
Table 6. Misrepresentation Patterns of
Online Daters
Information
on:
Females are
more likely to
misrepresent:
Males are more
likely to
misrepresent:
Age
…their age
[13].
…their age [28].
No gender differences [30].
Height
…their height [30]
[57] [64] [68].
Physical
Attractiveness
…their
physical
attractiveness
[29] [45] [57]
[63] [68].
…their physical
attractiveness [20]
Relationship
...their
relationships
status [57] [68]
and goals [28]
[57].
Weight
…their weight
[13] [28] [30]
[64].
…their weight
[64].
General
…themselves
[20].
…themselves
[25].

Interaction: In terms of resulting interaction (see
Table 7), there is a strong agreement in the literature
that females receive more contacts by males who
readily initiate a starting conversation [5] [18] [19]
[20] [32] [36] [42] [54] [69]. Moreover, functionality-
enabled ability to see who visited one’ profile is
particularly encouraging for men (e.g. as offered on
Match.com, eHarmony, Parship, OkCupid, and others),
who are more likely to use this feature to send
messages to females who visited their profile [5]. In
line with the above, males also receive significantly
fewer replies and messages in general [5] [18] [19]
[31] [36] [43], whereas females can expect a lot of
reciprocation [18] [19] [31] [36] [54] [69]. In their
interactions, women tend to send more general
messages [69] as well as are more likely to carry on the
communication [54]. Together, this suggests that males
try to make use of the opportunity to have access to
multiple females and are satisfied with a superficial
character of such contacts. In contrast, women are
rather picky in their decision of who might be their
potential date [3]. Interacting with fewer male users,
women show interest in creating more intimate and
intensive conversations [54].
Table 7. Interaction Patterns of Online
Daters
Types of
interaction
Females are
more likely to:
Males are more
likely to:
Initiation
...receive more
initial messages
[19] [20].
…initiate contact
[5] [18] [19] [32]
[36] [42] [54]
[69].
…receive more
initiations relative
to profile views
[20].
Reciprocation
...receive a reply
[18] [19] [31]
[36] [69].
...not receive a
reply [5] [18] [19]
[31].
General
...receive more
messages [36]
[54] [69].
...send more
messages [69].
...carry on the
interaction [54].
...send more
messages [43].
...receive fewer
messages [36]
[43].
...participate in
more
communications
[18].
Some characteristics, such as, for example,
attractiveness or using only few self-references seem to
increase the likelihood to receive a reply for both men
and women [58]. Additionally, explicitly stated dating
preferences [19] and a sexually-related talk [58]
enhance the chances of reciprocation for female users.
At the same time, lengthy messages enhance the
chances for men to get a reply [58].
Outcome: In the final step of the online dating
process (see Figure 1) a shift to the offline environment
might take place. It appears that females are rather
reluctant to meet other users face-to-face since they
need more computer-mediated interaction compared to
males before an actual meeting offline [20]. This might
be connected to the circumstance that females are more
likely to experience negative interactions on online
dating sites [61], which is also supported by the
evidence that females are more likely to tell others
about their plan to meet with another user in the offline
setting [6]. Even though one study reports higher first
meeting rates for females [21], there is more evidence
that both men and women tend to have a similar
amount of first-date experiences offline using online
dating platforms [27] [61].
The first face-to-face meeting is the point where the
fit with a potential partner is evaluated: Here, females
have higher drop-out rates in terms of their subsequent
evaluation of their dating partner [49]. Again, this
might suggest that men tend to focus on quantity,
whereas females rather emphasize the “quality” of their
dating partners [51] [65]. Overall, studies report
contradictory findings that either more females [40]
[54], more males [10] [27] or both [27] [61] have
experienced a positive outcome in terms of various
dating goals (e.g., long-term relationships or sexual
relationship, with men reporting more sexual
relationships [27]). Together, however, this evidence
suggests that using online dating services can be
beneficial for both, even though more research is
needed to gain a better understanding of this dynamics.
5. Concluding Remarks
In a delicate IT-driven business of online dating,
providers are becoming increasingly attentive to how
users make their choices. Understanding behavioral
patterns enables providers to select relevant offers,
thereby helping to increase the matching rate – one of
the main goals of these platforms. Responding to this
demand, this study provides an exhaustive summary of
gender differences in behavior and perceptions of
online daters. By focusing on heterosexual dating
process, our findings reveal how gender intersects with
daters’ characteristics, motivation, preferences,
disclosure, misrepresentation, interaction and offline
outcomes. We analyze singles’ online dating behavior
in line with the evolutionary approach. We observe that
men are more active on online dating platforms. They

are less choosy about partners and are more likely to be
motivated by short-term romantic pleasure. While male
online daters are attracted by physical appearance of a
potential mate, female daters base their choices on
male breadwinning abilities and give preference to
socio-economic characteristics (income, occupation
and education) over physical attractiveness. Although
men disclose more readily, women lead in creativity
and variety of information provided. However, both
males and females are caught misrepresenting some of
their information when creating their profiles. For
example, digital enhancement of physical
attractiveness is rather characteristic for female daters.
At the same time, male users are more likely to falsify
their relationships status and goals. Interacting on
online dating platforms each party follows its
conventional role: Men initiate more contacts, giving
women a choice to reciprocate the attention and carry
on the interaction. Regarding the outcome of online
dating, gender differences remain unclear and offer an
interesting venue for future research. Our study has
several limitations: race-related and homosexual
preferences were not in the scope of the current
analysis. Moreover, cultural differences [15] were not
considered, thus paving the way for further
investigations.
6. References
[1] Alterovitz, S. S. R. and Mendelsohn, G. A., “Partner
preferences across the life span: online dating by older
adults”, Psychology and aging, 24(2), 2009, p. 513.
[2] Anderson, R. C., and Klofstad, C. A. “For love or money?
The influence of personal resources and environmental
resource pressures on human mate preferences”, Ethology,
118(9), 2012, pp. 841-849.
[3] Arnold, S. J. and Duvall, D. “Animal mating systems: a
synthesis based on selection theory,” American Naturalist,
1994, pp. 317-348.
[4] Bak, P. “Sex differences in the attractiveness halo effect
in the online dating environment”, Journal of Business and
Media Psychology, 1, 2010, pp. 1-7.
[5] Bapna, R., Ramaprasad, J., Shmueli, G. and Umyarov, A.,
“One-way mirrors and weak-signaling in online dating: A
randomized field experiment”, International Conference on
Information Systems (ICIS 2013): Reshaping Society
Through Information Systems Design, 3, 2013, pp. 2748-
2762.
[6] Blackhart, G. C., Fitzpatrick, J., and Williamson, J.,
“Dispositional factors predicting use of online dating sites
and behaviors related to online dating”, Computers in Human
Behavior, 33, 2014, pp. 113-118.
[7] Burrows, K., “Age preferences in dating advertisements
by homosexuals and heterosexuals: From sociobiological to
sociological explanations”, Archives of Sexual Behavior,
42(2), 2013, pp. 203-211.
[8] Buss, D. M., “Sex differences in human mate preferences:
Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures”, Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 12, 1989, pp. 1-49.
[9] Buss, D.M., “The evolution of human intrasexual
competition: Tactics of mate attraction”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 1988, pp. 616–
628.
[10] Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn,
E. L. and VanderWeele, T. J., “Marital satisfaction and
break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues”,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(25),
2013, pp. 10135-10140.
[11] Caro, D. H., McDonald, J. T. and Willms, J. D. “Socio-
economic status and academic achievement trajectories from
childhood to adolescence,” Canadian Journal of Education/
Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 32(3), 2009, pp. 558-590.
[12] Clemens, C., Atkin, D., and Krishnan, A., “The
influence of biological and personality traits on gratifications
obtained through online dating websites”, Computers in
Human Behavior, 49, 2015, pp. 120-129.
[13] Close, A. G., and Zinkhan, G., “Romance and the
Internet: The E-Mergence of Edating”, Advances in
Consumer Research, 31, 2004, pp. 153-157.
[14] Cross, S. E. and Madson, L.,“Models of the Self: Self-
Construals and Gender”, Psychological Bulletin, 122(1),
1997, pp. 5-37.
[15] Darwin, C., The descent of man and selection in relation
to sex, J. Murray, London, 1871.
[16] Eagly, A. H., Sex differences in social behavior: A
social-role interpretation, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, Psychology
Press, 2013.
[17] Feliciano, C., Robnett, B., and Komaie, G., “Gendered
racial exclusion among white internet daters”, Social Science
Research, 38(1), 2009, pp. 39-54.
[18] Fiore, A. T., and Donath, J. S., “Homophily in online
dating: when do you like someone like yourself?”, In CHI'05
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, ACM, 2005, pp. 1371-1374.
[19] Fiore, A. T., Taylor, L. S., Zhong, X., Mendelsohn, G.
A. and Cheshire, C., “Who's right and who writes: People,
profiles, contacts, and replies in online dating”, In hicss,
IEEE, 2010, pp. 1-10.
[20] Gane, M., “Gender differences in online dating: An
investigation of vulnerability and deception”, Annual
meeting of the American Sociological Association, 2005.

[21] Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B. and Heino, R. D., “Self-
presentation in online personals the role of anticipated future
interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet
dating” Communication Research, 33(2), 2006, pp. 152-177.
[22] Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B. and Lai, C. H., ”First comes
love, then comes Google: An investigation of uncertainty
reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating”
Communication Research, 2011, 0093650210377091.
[23] Glasser, C. L., Robnett, B. and Feliciano, C., “Internet
daters’ body type preferences: Race–ethnic and gender
differences”, Sex roles, 61(1-2), 2009, pp. 14-33.
[24] Groom, C. J. and Pennebaker, J. W., “The language of
love: Sex, sexual orientation, and language use in online
personal advertisements”, Sex Roles, 52(7-8), 2005, pp. 447-
461.
[25] Guadagno, R. E., Okdie, B. M. and Kruse, S. A.,
“Dating deception: Gender, online dating, and exaggerated
self-presentation”, Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2),
2012, pp. 642-647.
[26] Günaydin, G., Selcuk, E., and Hazan, C. “Finding the
one: A process model of human mate selection,” Human
bonding, 2013, pp. 103-131.
[27] Gunter, B., “Internet dating: A British survey”, In Aslib
Proceedings 60(2), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2008,
pp. 88-98.
[28] Hall, J. A., Park, N., Song, H. and Cody, M. J.,
“Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: The effects of
gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits”, Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 27(1), 2010, pp. 117-135.
[29] Hancock, J. T. and Toma, C. L., “Putting your best face
forward: The accuracy of online dating photographs”, Journal
of Communication, 59(2), 2009, pp. 367-386.
[30] Hancock, J. T., Toma, C. and Ellison, N., “The truth
about lying in online dating profiles”, In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems,
ACM, 2007, pp. 449-452.
[31] Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A. and Ariely, D., “Matching
and sorting in online dating” The American Economic
Review, 2010a, pp. 130-163.
[32] Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., and Ariely, D., “What makes
you click? - Mate preferences in online dating”, Quantitative
marketing and Economics, 8(4), 2010b, pp. 393-427.
[33] Inglehart, R. and Norris, P. Rising tide: Gender equality
and cultural change around the world. Cambridge University
Press. 2003
[34] Kaufman, G. and Phua, V. C., “Is ageism alive in date
selection among men? Age requests among gay and straight
men in Internet personal ads”, The Journal of Men's Studies,
11(2), 2003, pp. 225-235.
[35] Kisilevich, S. and Last, M., Exploring gender
differences in member profiles of an online dating site across
35 countries, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg pp. 57–78,
2010.
[36] Kreager, D. A., Cavanagh, S. E., Yen, J. and Yu, M.,
“Where Have All the Good Men Gone?” Gendered
Interactions in Online Dating, Journal of Marriage and
Family, 76(2), 2014, pp. 387-410.
[37] Landis, J. R. and Koch, G. G. “The measurement of
observer agreement for categorical data,” Biometrics 33 (1),
1977, pp. 159-174.
[38] Landolt, M. A., Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L.
(1995). “Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human
mating tactics: An evolutionary approach,” Ethology and
Sociobiology, 16(1), 1995, pp. 3-23.
[39] Lee, L., Loewenstein, G., Ariely, D., Hong, J. and
Young, J., “If I'm not hot, are you hot or not? Physical-
attractiveness evaluations and dating preferences as a
function of one's own attractiveness”, Psychological Science,
19(7), 2008, pp. 669-677.
[40] Lever, J., Grov, C., Royce, T. and Gillespie, B. J.,
“Searching for love in all the “write” places: Exploring
Internet personals use by sexual orientation, gender, and
age”, International Journal of Sexual Health, 20(4), 2008, pp.
233-246.
[41] Levy, Y., and Ellis, T. J. 2006. “A Systems Approach to
Conduct an Effective Literature Review in Support of
Information Systems Research,” Informing Science 9 (1),
2006, pp. 181-212
[42] Lewis, K., “The limits of racial prejudice”, Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(47), 2013, pp.
18814-18819.
[43] Lin, K. H. and Lundquist, J., “Mate Selection in
Cyberspace: The Intersection of Race, Gender, and
Education”, American Journal of Sociology, 119(1), 2013,
pp. 183-215.
[44] Liu, X., "Sociological Examination of People’s Attitude
Towards Online Dating" The annual meeting of the
American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, San
Francisco, 2009.
[45] Lo, S. K., Hsieh, A. Y. and Chiu, Y. P., “Contradictory
deceptive behavior in online dating” Computers in Human
Behavior, 29(4), 2013, pp. 1755-1762.
[46] Madden, M. and Lenhart, A., “Online dating: Americans
who are seeking romance use the Internet to help them in
their search, but there is still widespread public concern

about the safety of online dating”, Pew Internet & American
Life Project, 2006.
[47] McWilliams, S. and Barrett, A. E., “Online dating in
middle and later life gendered expectations and experiences”,
Journal of Family Issues, 35(3), 2014, pp. 411-436.
[48] Nagarajan, M. and Hearst, M. A., “An Examination of
Language Use in Online Dating Profiles”, In ICWSM, 2009.
[49] Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H. and Ariely, D., “Less is more:
the lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt”,
Journal of personality and social psychology, 92(1), 2007, p.
97.
[50] Ong, D. and Wang, J., “Income attraction: An online
dating field experiment”, Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 111, 2015, pp. 13-22.
[51] Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W. and Peters, M.
“Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness
enhance mating success?. Evolution and human behavior,”
26(2), 2005, pp. 186-201.
[52] Salska, I., Frederick, D. A., Pawlowski, B., Reilly, A.
H., Laird, K. T. and Rudd, N. A., “Conditional mate
preferences: Factors influencing preferences for height”,
Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 2008, pp. 203-
215.
[53] Sautter, J. M., Tippett, R. M. and Morgan, S. P., “The
social demography of internet dating in the United States*”,
Social Science Quarterly, 91(2), 2010, pp. 554-575.
[54] Scharlott, B. W. and Christ, W. G., “Overcoming
relationship-initiation barriers: The impact of a computer-
dating system on sex role, shyness, and appearance
inhibitions”, Computers in Human Behavior, 11(2), 1995, pp.
191-204.
[55] Schmitz, A., Sachse-Thürer, S., Zillmann, D. and
Blossfeld, H. P., “Myths and facts about online mate choice
Contemporary beliefs and empirical findings”, Zeitschrift für
Familienforschung - Journal of Family Research, 23(3),
2011.
[56] Schmitz, A., Skopek, J., Schulz, F., Klein, D. and
Blossfeld, H. P., “Indicating mate preferences by mixing
survey and process-generated data. The case of attitudes and
behaviour in online mate search”, Historical Social
Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 2009, pp. 77-93.
[57] Schmitz, A., Zillmann, D. and Blossfeld, H., “Do
women pick up lies before men? The association between
gender, deception patterns, and detection modes in online
dating”, Online Journal of Communication and Media
Technologies, 3(3), 2013, pp. 52-73
[58] Schoendienst, V. and Dang-Xuan, L., “The Role of
Linguistic Properties in Online Dating Communication-A
Large-Scale Study of Contact Initiation Messages”, In
PACIS, 2011, p. 169.
[59] Skopek, J., Schmitz, A. and Blossfeld, H. P., “The
gendered dynamics of age preferences–Empirical evidence
from online dating”, Zeitschrift für Familienforschung -
Journal of Family Research, 23(3), 2011.
[60] Skopek, J., Schulz, F. and Blossfeld, H. P., “Who
contacts whom? Educational homophily in online mate
selection”, European Sociological Review, 2010, jcp068.
[61] Smith, A. and Duggan, M., “Online dating &
relationships”, Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2013.
[62] Sritharan, R., Heilpern, K., Wilbur, C. J. and Gawronski,
B., ”I think I like you: Spontaneous and deliberate
evaluations of potential romantic partners in an online dating
context”, European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6),
2010, pp. 1062-1077.
[63] Toma, C. L. and Hancock, J. T., “Looks and lies: The
role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-
presentation and deception”, Communication Research,
37(3), 2010, pp. 335-351.
[64] Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T. and Ellison, N. B.,
“Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive
self-presentation in online dating profiles”, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 2008, pp. 1023-1036.
[65] Trivers, R.L., Parental investment and sexual selection.
Sexual selection and the descent of man, Aldine de Gruyter,
New York, pp. 136-179, 1972.
[66] Valkenburg, P. M. and Peter, J., “Who visits online
dating sites? Exploring some characteristics of online daters”,
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 2007, pp. 849-852.
[67] Webster, J., and Watson, R. T. “Analyzing the past to
prepare for the future: Writing a Literature Review,” MIS
Quarterly, 26(2), 2002, pp. 13-23.
[68] Whitty, M. T., “Revealing the ‘real’me, searching for
the ‘actual’you: Presentations of self on an internet dating
site”, Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 2008, pp.1707-
1723.
[69] Xia, P., Jiang, H., Wang, X., Chen, C. and Liu, B.,
“Predicting user replying behavior on a large online dating
site”, In Proceedings of 8th international AAAI conference
on weblogs and social media, 2014.
[70] Žakelj, T., “Internet dating and respectable women:
Gender expectations in an untraditional partnership and
marriage market-the case of Slovenia”, Sociologija, 56(1),
2014, pp. 5-21.